Morgan Stanley’s European Head of Research Product Paul Walsh speaks to Betsy Graseck, Global Head of Banks and Diversified Finance, and Bruce Hamilton, European Asset Managers Diversified Financials Analyst, about the implications of increasing life expectancy for the financial industry.----- Transcript -----Paul Walsh: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's European Head of Research Product, and today we dig into a topic that really affects us all. Retirement.Life cycles are extending as people are living longer, healthier lives. Coupled with government pension funds that are increasingly under pressure, this means that consumers will need to build much more robust investment plans to substitute for salaries to carry them through a longer retirement. And to understand more about the changing financial needs and challenges of an aging population, I'm delighted to be joined by my colleagues, Betsy Graseck, Global Head of Banks and Diversified Finance, and Bruce Hamilton, our European Asset Managers Diversified Financials Analyst. It's Thursday, October the 24th at 3pm in London. Betsy Graseck: And it's 10 am in New York. Paul Walsh: Now Bruce, let's start with you. As people live longer, they will likely spend more time in retirement. Managing and ensuring retirement income over a longer duration could have a significant impact on asset management. What are the broad trends you're seeing in the industry right now?Bruce Hamilton: So, the asset management industry in large part has focused on the accumulation phase of investors journey. Whilst this remains critical as people build assets for retirement – and we see growing allocations from affluent investors to private markets as a trend which is likely to be reinforced by the aging theme – there's a significant need for decumulation products and solutions that can offer returns and income over a prolonged retirement.We see a lot of innovation as asset managers look to develop products to meet this need.Paul Walsh: So Betsy, people are living longer. How ready are consumers for retirement? Are most retirement plans or similar financial services ready to handle this challenge?Betsy Graseck: Some are ready. But given how rapidly the global population is aging, there is an increasing need to provide solutions to individuals. Just to put a number on it, the global population that is 65 years old or older in the year 2000 was only 7 per cent. This is set to hit 10 per cent next year in 2025 and 16 per cent in 2050. All groups need service and advice – with the affluent group needing the most increase in services especially if government pension funds come under more pressure. Paul Walsh: So, I think you set the scene really well there, Betsy, and I guess the obvious question is, how can wealth and financial planners best respond, do you think? Is it by creating new products? Or do we need a much deeper transformation?Betsy Graseck: We see individuals today having a wide range of retirement choices. What we feel they really need here is personalized, customized advice, delivering solutions that can address their unique needs. These span from affluent individuals needing salary replacement strategies to high-net-worth individuals looking for philanthropic and wealth transfer strategies. A focus on integrated, personalized advice, innovative products, and high-quality service that meets clients as they wish to connect effectively will be critical. Paul Walsh: It seems to me that it is – but is this a positive for the financial services sector? And if so, what do you think is the size of this revenue opportunity and over what time period do you think?Betsy Graseck: Well, the way we've looked at this is across the global asset manager and global wealth manager industry, as they will be the ones called upon to address these needs. And we do see a roughly 30 per cent uplift in global revenues by 2028, which equates to [$]400 billion in incremental revenues across the global industry.And that is driven by the expansion of individuals looking for advice, in particular from the affluent group, as well as an increase in fee-based products to address the income needs. Paul Walsh: And there's some big numbers that you've quoted there, Betsy. So let's dig into the financial subsector and industries. What are the biggest untapped opportunities there?Betsy Graseck: Well, the number one is the affluent customer base that we do see having the biggest need for advice, relative to advice seeking today. And as that group, reaches out and receives advice from wealth channels, that is one major driver here. The second driver is the increase in fee-based products to service the income replacement needs.Paul Walsh: And what are the biggest challenges do you think? Obviously, we've talked about the opportunity there, but the biggest challenges to financial services that you see along the way. Betsy Graseck: Well, the way I think about this is what is required to be a winner, and the winners need to be able to integrate their entire organizations to deliver for clients. And also leverage technology efficiently and effectively to be able not only to deliver the highest quality service in the way the client wants to be serviced; but also to optimize cost structures, which then can get reinvested – you know, higher pretext getting reinvested into the business. The challenges are the opposite of institutions that remain siloed and institutions that have, you know, maybe a tech strategy that is not set to respond to the needs of this client set. Paul Walsh: Thanks for that, Betsy; and Bruce, I just want to pivot back to you. Some asset managers are partnering with insurance companies to offer guaranteed income streams and wealth transfer solutions. What are some of the successful models that you've seen so far? Bruce Hamilton: So, asset managers are adopting a range of approaches. Some have acquired insurance subsidiaries, some have taken significant minority stakes, while others have looked to deepen partnerships with insurance. Trade offs include the degree of control versus the capital intensity that ownership of insurance brings. So, we see more than one route, but a continued push towards greater collaboration between asset managers and insurers.Given the potential for the asset managers to access stable, permanent capital, that can then be deployed in a range of investment strategies to offer diversified sources of income via private or structured credit to support returns for the end insurance clients. Theoretically, the best place models to deliver retirement solutions will have elements of wealth advice, plus a hybrid asset management insurance product approach. Given the importance of providing investors with regular and variable income, a guaranteed minimum level of income, plus an ability to generate a return to offer potential for legacy to pass to heirs.Paul Walsh: And of course, Bruce, it's very difficult to talk about product innovation, without bringing in the topic of AI. As asset managers are working to create ever more personalized retirement solutions as we've heard, how and to what extent do you think they are leveraging AI?Bruce Hamilton: So, our interviews with a range of management players confirmed that many of the potential use cases being worked on 12 months ago have now been put into production. It's still early days, and so far, most use cases are focused on areas that can drive efficiencies. So, for example, in RFP report writing, synthesis of research, and some of the middle and back-office processes for asset managers. But over time, AI can clearly feed more bespoke client service by wealth and asset managers with areas such as customized investment proposals and financial planning offering potential.Paul Walsh: Fascinating topic. Betsy and Bruce, thank you so much for taking the time to talk. It's clear that increasing lifespans are reshaping the financials sector by driving product innovation, influencing asset allocation strategies, and, of course, creating new market opportunities. And to our listeners, thanks as always for taking the time to listen in. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please do leave us a review wherever you listen to the show and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today. 

Our Chief Europe Economist Jens Eisenschmidt and Europe Equity Strategist Regiane Yamanari discuss the strain of an aging population on the future of Europe’s economy and markets.----- Transcript -----Jens Eisenschmidt: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jens Eisenschmidt, Morgan Stanley's Chief Europe Economist.Regiane Yamanari: And I’m Regiane Yamanari from the European Equity Strategy Team.Jens Eisenschmidt: Today we are discussing one of the most urgent challenges Europe is facing right now, a declining working age population – and its implication for Europe's economy and potential solutions.It’s Wednesday, October 23rd, at 3 pm in Frankfurt.Regiane Yamanari: And 2 pm in London.So Jens, people are getting older around the world, living longer. Although the rate of change is different from country to country, can you tell us what's the situation in Europe right now?Jens Eisenschmidt: Yes, Europe faces a declining working age population, so much is sure. We have just put out a big report, where we come up with numbers around this issue. We think for the large four Euro area countries – Germany, France, Italy, and Spain – we see a decline in Euro area working population by 2040 by 6.4 per cent. People also get older, so that doesn't necessarily mean the overall population is declining by as much. It simply means that working age population, as a sort of most direct, relevant measure for the economy, is declining.Regiane Yamanari: Why does an aging population hamper economic growth?Jens Eisenschmidt: So, think about the economy producing, in a very stylized sense, with two factors. One is capital and the other one is labor. And typically, these two factors are connected. So, you can't really produce just with one factor. Typically, you need at least some labor to produce something or at least some machinery to produce something with labor.So we just; I mean, it's a very simple way of looking at the economy, but typically very powerful in explaining what's going on. So, if we take this approach and look at our economy through the lens of these two factors and we have one factor declining significantly, this will affect the amount the economy can produce.So, we are talking here about so-called potential growth or potential output. And we think the declining working age population will lead to a decline in potential output. For the Euro area economies I was just mentioning, we think it could be around 4 per cent over the period 2000, from now to 2040. And that amounts to on an annual basis around 25 basis points lower growth potential.Regiane Yamanari: Suppose policy makers want to boost Europe's working age population, which they do. What options do they have? Which European countries most benefit from these policies or options?Jens Eisenschmidt: Yeah, the oldest policy measure, or if you want the most discussed one, typically has been birth rates.Now, many of the policies being implemented here – and they have been implemented for decades already – have been found to be not really changing [the] situation in a profound way. So, birth rates have either stopped increasing again or actually continued dropping. So, policy makers’ attention probably for this reason has turned to other measures.Other measures we think of here mostly in the current debate is increasing net migration, so you're basically getting your working age population replenished to some extent from the outside. Changing participation pattern in your own domestic labor market – typically, it's framed around the question, how much or how high is the share of one cohort versus the other.For instance, males versus females. We have countries where there is a large gap between these two groups, just to name an example here. And you know, closing that gap could help you increasing or offset; some of the projected decline in working age population.Another measure that's often discussed is increasing, retirement age. So essentially working age population is defined by those age between 15 and 64. And of course, if you work for longer, so you increase retirement age, that will also help, to stem against some of the projected decline in working age population.Now, if you look around for the countries that we are discussing in the report, um, then there are different ways these policies affect these countries.So, for instance, in Italy, closing the gap between male and female labor force participation would offset a large part of the projected fall in its working age population because that gap is so large. In France, in terms of our numbers, the most effective measure would be increasing the retirement age. And again, in Germany and Spain, it would probably be migration policies that are most effective.Okay now let's consider the alternative, Regiane. Suppose nothing changes. There are fewer and fewer working age people in Europe. How would this affect companies earning growth?Regiane Yamanari: So, if there are no policy action, and here assuming all else equal, I mean, no change in productivity, for example. Due to a lower GDP growth, we estimate the headwinds of European demographics could lower companies long term earnings growth by 90 basis points. So, from 5.1 to 4.2 per cent by the end of the decade. And this compares to an average growth of 6.4 per cent that we had in the past 10 years.Jens Eisenschmidt: And how would this be reflected in the stock market?Regiane Yamanari: Yeah, so potential lower earnings growth is negative for European equities, right? But it's worth highlighting two points here. First, is that European companies have been diversifying their activities and revenues across the globe in the recent decades. And the revenue exposure of European companies to develop Europe, including the UK has reached a 30-year low. So, we estimate that just 38 per cent of European companies’ revenues are generated in develop Europe, on a free flow market cap weighted basis.And second, I think we see this impact being more idiosyncratic at sector at stock level. Just to give an example, so we have this factor analysis that we have done. We found that companies reducing headcount in Europe have been outperforming companies increasing. So in our view, this impact, it will be idiosyncratic, and it will depend by sector and the the stock.Jens Eisenschmidt: What sectors and industries then do you expect to be most affected by an aging population and the declining labor force?Regiane Yamanari: Yeah, so first of all, I think one thing to mention is that it's very clear that the theme of, aging population is gaining traction in European C-suite commentary. So we found using AlphaSense Large Language Model, when we analyze companies transcripts, a notable rise in mentions of aging population – and in particular, if we compare to the US, to the US companies, we know that labor intensive industries like kept goods, construction and materials, business services are among those at the top of the list.And those mentions have been increasing in most cases when we compare to the average of the last five years.Jens Eisenschmidt: So how are companies adjusting their business models to account for these challenging demographic trends? Regiane Yamanari: So we see, for example, industrial automation, robotics, and software adoption accelerating in the face of declining working age population across Europe, which might surprise some people as some people is relatively under-penetrated by technology.Regiane Yamanari: For example, if we look at industrial robot density in Germany, that is less than half of South Korea. And there are some sectors, for example, like hospitality that our analyst has flagged that the companies have been changing and adopting initiatives related to recruitment, technology adoption, portfolio rationalization – just a few examples here – and adjusting their business models as well to navigate a scenario of reduced labor availability and higher costs. And well, not to mention AI, which we have seen a rapid development and pace of adoption as well.Jens Eisenschmidt: I'm glad you mentioned AI. It was on my mind. I was about to ask you. So, what do you think, uh, the role of AI could be in helping with the demographic challenge?Regiane Yamanari: Our view is mainly on productivity gains. So, we them to start materializing, but they are likely to be small and grow consistently over time. An important portion of AI adopter companies cost base are related to R&D, marketing, distribution costs – and these areas we still are to see broad based application of AI, if this is really to be meaningful at the corporate level or even a national level.So the way we see is that the productivity gains being reflected on margins, but still to be small at this level.Jens Eisenschmidt: So, this one remains to be seen. We will surely be watching closely whether AI can deliver what it seems to be promising to generate productivity gains to offset the demographic challenge.Regiane, thanks a lot for taking the time to talk.Regiane Yamanari: Great speaking with you, Jens.Jens Eisenschmidt: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Our Medical Technology expert analyzes the medical potential and market opportunity in technology that allows direct communication between the human brain and an external device.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Kallum Titchmarsh, from Morgan Stanley’s U.S. Medical Technology Team. On today’s episode – a dive into a topic that sounds like it’s straight out of science fiction. Brain Computer Interfaces, or BCIs.It’s Tuesday, October 22, at 10 AM in New York.The latest version of Tony Stark – better known as his alter ego Iron Man – is a good example of a brain computer interface. When the billionaire businessman-inventor is critically wounded, he builds an armor suit that gives him superhuman abilities. Flying through air. Clearing out obstacles with repulsor blasts. Shooting enemies with guided missiles. All controlled by his brain. This, of course, is the stuff of science fiction. Real world examples of brain computer interfaces – or BCIs – aren’t fantastical. But they are fascinating. Translating thoughts into actions like generating text on a screen or moving a robotic limb.BCIs have been in development for more than a century, but recent advances have brought them much closer to becoming a reality. We expect to see BCIs in commercial medical use in about five years, at which point they can help treat a wide range of health disorders, from motor neuron disease – such as ALS – to depression. The market opportunity for BCIs looks enormous – $400 billion of total addressable market – or TAM – in the US alone. This figure includes two types of BCIs: enabling BCIs, which facilitate behaviors like moving a cursor on a screen, and preventive BCIs, which can prevent adverse events like depressive states or epileptic seizures. We divide the BCI healthcare opportunity into two segments: early TAM and intermediate TAM. The early TAM includes individuals with critical upper limb impairment and select variants of neurological conditions like epilepsy and depression. These patients will likely be the first to receive a BCI. The intermediate TAM includes patients with moderate upper limb impairment and severe lower limb impairment. As BCI technology develops, these patients will eventually become eligible for treatment. There are at least 2.8 million patients in the US forming the early TAM and an additional 6.8 million within the intermediate TAM. Together, these groups represent the $400 billion of potential revenue I already mentioned based on a single implant procedure. The opportunity may be significantly larger when factoring for potential replacement cycles and recurring revenues from software upgrades. But while the estimated TAM is indeed vast, we think penetration will remain limited through the first 20 years of launch. By 2035, we expect just under $1.5 billion of revenue to be generated from BCI implant procedures, hitting north of a $500 million annual run rate in 2036, and reaching the $1 billion annual run rate by 2041. It’s exciting to think BCIs will begin their healthcare application in the coming years, but we anticipate a number of regulatory hurdles on the way to widespread adoption in healthcare and beyond. Will BCIs push into fields like neurogaming, warfare, and even biological optimization of humans? The potential is certainly there, and with it the burden of the safe and responsible use of this cutting-edge technology. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist explains his preference for cyclical stocks amid a rise in global money supply and current US election dynamics.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about our recent upgrade of quality cyclicals and how it will be affected by the US election and liquidity.It's Monday, Oct 21st at 11:30am in New York. So let’s get after it. We continue to have conviction in our recent cyclical shift and Financials upgrade. Indeed, cyclicals traded well last week as most economic data came in stronger than expected. It’s worth noting we recommend investors stay up the quality curve within the cyclical space, however. While Financials have been the best performing sector in the S&P 500 since our upgrade, institutional investors remain under-exposed to Financials based on our data suggesting the sector can run further. In addition to better economic data, there are other factors affecting pro-cyclical stocks. We are focused on two, in particular. The election and global liquidity. We believe a Trump win with a split Congress would provide a pro-cyclical bias with small caps keeping pace with large caps. The markets seem to agree, with the recent cyclicals outperformance led by financials. Meanwhile, consumer stocks negatively exposed to tariff risks under a Trump win have underperformed. Interestingly, there is some overlap between this recent leadership and the post Biden debate period in early July as well as the months surrounding the 2016 election. Finally, we've also witnessed higher interest rates and a stronger US Dollar more recently, which is something to watch closely as a possible headwind for liquidity post election and into 2025. While some argue a Trump win would be a headwind for growth and equity markets, due to tariff risks and slower immigration, we think there's an additional element from the 2016 experience that’s worth considering—rising animal spirits. More specifically, in 2016 Trump's pro-business approach led to the largest three-month positive impact on small business confidence in the past 40 years. It also translated into a spike in individual investor sentiment. It appears to me that markets may be trying to front-run a repeat of this outcome as Trump's win in 2016 came as a surprise to pundits and markets alike.This also means a Harris win could lead to some reversion in terms of overall equity market performance and leadership. Most notably, bonds could potentially rally with defensive and quality growth stocks doing better like earlier this year. Secondarily, even with a Trump win, certain areas of the market may be vulnerable to a ‘sell the news’ phenomena if the upside is already priced amid bullish positioning. On this front, we would also point out that the economic set-up today is very different than the 2016 period when the economy had much more slack and could absorb additional pro-cyclical policies like tax cuts or other forms of fiscal stimulus.Turning to liquidity, we note that global money supply in US dollars has surged at an 18 per cent annualized rate since the end of June. I believe this has also had a positive effect on equity prices, not to mention credit spreads, precious metals, cryptocurrencies and real estate. Bottom line, in the absence of a major swing in election probabilities or global liquidity between now and the election, equity markets are likely to trade with a bullish tilt both at the index level and from a style, sector, factor standpoint. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets discusses why uncertainty around the election’s outcome could be detrimental for credit investors.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss the US Election, and how it might matter for Credit. It's Friday, October 18th, at 4pm in London. Morgan Stanley’s positive view on credit this year has been anchored on a simplistic thesis. Credit is an asset class that hates extremes, as it faces losses if a company fails, but doesn’t earn extra if that company’s profits double or even triple. Credit, to an unusual degree, is an asset class that loves moderation. And here at Morgan Stanley, we’ve been forecasting … a lot of moderation. Moderate growth for the U.S. and Europe. Moderating inflation, that continues to fall into next year. And a moderation of central bank interest rates, rather than the type of sharp declines that you tend to see around recessions; as we think Fed funds will settle in a little bit below three-and-a-half per cent by the middle of next year. This moderate economy, coupled with moderate levels of corporate aggressiveness should be music to a credit investor’s ears, and support richer-than-average valuations, in our view. So how does the upcoming U.S. election on November 5th fit into this otherwise benign picture? Who runs a government matters, especially when it’s the government of the world’s largest and strongest economy. This election is also notable for the differences between the two candidates, who are presenting sharply contrasting visions of economic, domestic and foreign policy. Against this backdrop, we suggest credit investors try to keep a few things top of mind. First, and most broadly, the idea that “credit likes moderation” remains our north star. Outcomes that could drive larger changes of economic policy, or larger uncertainty in policy in general, are probably going to be a larger risk for credit.Second, of all the various policies under discussion, tariffs feel especially important as they can be largely implemented without congressional approval, and are thus far easier to see go into effect. Tariff proposals could create significant dispersion at the single-name level in credit, and pose significant risks for sectors like retail, which import a large share of their ultimate goods. For time-limited investors, tariffs are the policy area where we’d spend the most time – and where much of our Credit Research around the election has been focused. Third, it’s notable that as we head into this election, expected volatility, in equities or credit, is elevated even as the stock market sits near all time highs, and credit spreads are historically low. So this begs the question. Do these options markets know something that the rest of the market does not? We’re skeptical. Historically, when you’ve seen high volatility alongside all-time-highs in the market – and it’s not all that common – it’s tended to be a positive short-term indicator, rather than a negative one. And one way we could perhaps explain this is that it suggests that investors are still a little bit nervous, and not as positive as they otherwise could be. The U.S. election is close in time, uncertain in outcome, and has stakes for future policy. That high implied volatility we see at the moment, in our view, could reflect known unknowns, rather than some hidden factor. Tariff policy, being largely independent of congress and thus easier to implement, is probably the most relevant for single-name credit exposures. And most broadly, credit likes moderation, and should do best in outcomes that are more likely to achieve that.  Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our expert panel explains whether the US election will impact energy policy, including how the Inflation Reduction Act’s possible fate and increased tariffs could transform the sector.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research.David Arcaro: I'm Dave Arcaro, Morgan Stanley's US Power and Utilities Analyst.Andrew Percoco: And I'm Andrew Percoco, the North American Clean Tech Analyst here at Morgan Stanley.Michael Zezas: And today we're discussing another key election related topic that generates a lot of political and market debate: Energy policy.It's Thursday, October 17th at 10am in New York.The outcome of the 2024 election will likely determine the direction of U.S. climate policy for years to come. David, what are the key focus areas for investors as they evaluate the various election outcomes on the utilities and clean energy industries?David Arcaro: Yeah, Mike, investors are highly focused on the Inflation Reduction Act, the IRA, especially as it pertains to the election and the clean energy space. This was a law that was passed in 2022, and it really has supportive policies across the entire clean energy spectrum. It's got tax credits and incentives for solar, wind, offshore wind, green, hydrogen, nuclear, you name it. Battery storage. And some of those tax credits go all the way to 2032 and beyond in some cases.So, it's a very supportive policy when it comes to the clean energy industry and the growth outlook. So, the big question is what's going to happen to the Inflation Reduction Act – depending on which administration is in place following the election.Our core view is that the IRA stays in place; that the core wind, solar storage and nuclear tax credits all remain, regardless of the outcome of the election. And then separately, investors are focused on tariff policy as it pertains to clean energy. It is a global industry. A lot of the equipment and materials are imported around the world. And so, any changes to the tariff approach could have an impact on the space as well.Michael Zezas: Got it. And so how does the outlook for renewables change under different election outcomes?David Arcaro: Yeah, really, the outlook for renewables growth is not very different in our view, regardless of the outcome of the election.We think it's a strong growth outlook either way. And part of that is because we've got policies that we expect to stay in place that will be supportive regardless of the outcome, as I mentioned with the Inflation Reduction Act. And then we've also got demand. It's a very strong demand backdrop for the renewable space – and that's because in the electric industry, we're seeing an inflection in electricity usage across the US.It's been stagnant for years and years, but now with data center growth, with industrial production accelerating, and manufacturing and onshoring, we're seeing a big change in the growth outlook for electricity usage. And that means we need more power plants. We need more to be built, and renewables are going to be the predominant new resource for producing electricity in the US.Some of these companies like data centers, they want renewables to power their operations. And most utilities, electric companies that are building power plants, they're going to be using renewables more than anything else. There are impediments to building fossil plants, it's challenging to permit and there's supply chain delays and issues.So, we think there's a very strong growth outlook for renewables based on that demand and the policy support going forward, regardless of the outcome.Michael Zezas: And Andrew, how about corporate tax policy, including renewable energy tax credits?Andrew Percoco: I mean, as Dave mentioned, we think IRA repeal risk is very low, and I think the only scenario where IRA repeal is a relevant conversation is in a Republican sweep scenario. But even under this scenario, we would expect any repeal measures to be targeted in nature and not a wholesale repeal of the bill. So, the question then becomes, you know, what is safe and what's at risk of getting cut.So, to start off with what's safe; maybe three items that I'll highlight. One would be domestic manufacturing tax credits. There's been a lot of bipartisan support for the onshoring of manufacturing. So, the clean energy manufacturing tax credits within the IRA look like they are on solid footing, regardless of the election outcome.Now, why do domestic manufacturing tax credits have bipartisan support? One, there's a general view that we need to reduce our reliance on China for our energy infrastructure and, two, the job creation angle. The IRA has created over 150, 000 new jobs, and a lot of those jobs are in states where there is a large representation of Republican voters. So, the local pushback would be pretty severe if IRA was repealed in full.Number two, area of IRA that we think is safe would be nuclear tax credits. There's a general understanding across both sides of the aisle that nuclear is an important and reliable form of clean energy, and that we need to support the existing fleet of assets.And then third again, as Dave mentioned, solar storage and wind investment tax credits. These have been around for a while, well before the IRA was in place and they've had bipartisan support. They've been extended multiple times, even under past Republican administrations. So, we would not expect any changes to those core tax credits in a Republican sweep.On the flip side, you know what's potentially at risk in a Republican sweep? Number one would be consumer facing tax credits like the EV tax credits. This is something that the Republicans have definitely taken aim at on the campaign trail.Number two would be offshore wind. Former President Trump has definitely had [a] very candid view of offshore wind, and the issues that it poses on local communities. So, this could be another area where, they look for some targeted repeal. And then the third would just be delayed implementation of any unfinalized rules, by the time they take office.Michael Zezas: Makes sense. And finally, what other key election implications should investors focus on at this point when it comes to clean energy?Andrew Percoco: Yeah, I think the biggest would be around tariffs. It's frankly the hardest to predict but could have some pretty meaningful near-term implications for clean energy.Just to zoom out for a second, the clean energy supply chain is global with a heavy concentration in China and Southeast Asia. So, if there is higher tariffs put in place against these regions, it could create some disruption in supply chains and impact the pace at which we deploy renewables in the US. But frankly, at the same time, it should just accelerate a trend that we're already seeing in the US, which is the onshoring of manufacturing, thanks in part due to the IRA.So ultimately could create some near-term disruption but doesn't change the secular growth for the renewable space since developers in the US have already started to make the shift towards domestic supply.Michael Zezas: Yeah, that makes sense, Andrew. And obviously tariffs have been top of mind for investors as we've talked about here. Well, David, Andrew, thanks for taking the time to talk.And as a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Mortgage rates aren’t directly influenced by Federal Reserve policy. However, the Fed’s recent cut likely will have a domino effect on the US housing market, say our Co-Heads of Securitized Products Research Jay Bacow and James Egan.----- Transcript -----Jay Bacow: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jay Bacow, Co-Head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley.James Egan: And I'm Jim Egan, the other Co-Head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley. And on this episode of the podcast, we're going to discuss the impacts of a 50-basis point cut from the Fed on the US housing and mortgage markets.It's Wednesday, October 16th at 1 pm in New York.Now, Jay, the Fed cut 50 basis points at its last meeting. What are your views on the mortgage market in the aftermath of that cut?Jay Bacow: We think that is constructive for mortgages and we recommended a long mortgage basis versus rates. The healthy economy and a Fed that doesn't want to fall behind the curve should be good for risk assets in general. We think there's a likelihood of vol possibly falling and that is constructive for agency mortgages in particular.Now it's a positive narrative. But, the valuations matter, and we have to admit that the valuations are not that compelling with spreads on agency mortgages trading near the tights since the regional bank crisis. However, if you look further back, mortgages start to look attractive, particularly relative to other high quality fixed-income assets.For instance, agency mortgages are basically trading at the average spread they've traded at since the GFC. Corporate credit, on the other hand, is trading within a few basis points of the tights since the GFC. If risk assets are going to do well, and we're certainly seeing that in corporate credit and in the stock market, we think mortgages are particularly priced attractively relative to most of them.James Egan: Alright, so relative value for mortgages makes sense, but can you talk a little bit about the technicals here?Jay Bacow: The technicals are where we feel more confident. One of the reasons why mortgage spreads have been wide for the past two years – it's an environment where the Fed and the domestic banks, the two largest holders of mortgages, have been reducing their holdings.Now, we still expect the Fed to reduce their holdings of mortgages, but we think the bank demand is going to turn positive. That's due to not just clarity around the Basel III Endgame that should be coming soon, but more directly related to this conversation – as the Fed cuts rates that directly impacts the amount of yield that banks earn of the cash sitting at the Fed.Now, that is projected to continue to go down as the Fed cuts rates. What's not projected to continually go down very much is the yield on the securities that they can be buying in mortgages. So, the incentive for them to move out of cash and into securities, and those securities likely to be mortgages, is picking up as the Fed cuts rates. And it's not just the banks that are going to be more active. It's also overseas investors. As the Fed cuts rates and the Bank of Japan hikes, the FX (foreign exchange) hedging costs, which is basically a function of the interest rate differential between the two banks is likely to decrease, which means that overseas investors will be more active.A steeper curve is going to be positive for REIT demand. And then over time, as the Fed cuts rates and money market yields go down, those retail investors are likely to be incentivized to move out of money market funds into core funds with higher yields, which will be supportive of money manager demand – although that's likely a 2025 story.James Egan: All right, Jay, thank you for that. But one of the questions that you and I have received a lot since the Fed's cut is: Okay, the Fed cut 50 basis points. Why haven't mortgage rates come down by 50 basis points on the follow?Jay Bacow: Well, so, mortgage rates, obviously in the US, the vast majority of them are 30-year fixed rate mortgages. And so, if you have one, the Fed actions don't impact that. If you have an adjustable-rate mortgage, it will reset – but typically those resets happen every six months. Although you're probably getting asked about the prevailing mortgage rate; and the prevailing mortgage rate – because it's the 30-year fixed rate, it's not a function of Fed funds – but it's more of a function of the yields further out the curve. Although maybe Jim, you can do a better job explaining this.James Egan: So, when it comes to interest rates and mortgages, Jay, as you mentioned, we're going to be more focused on the five- and 10-year part of the curve than we are on Fed funds.To provide a little bit of an example there, from the fourth quarter of 2023 until the Wednesday morning that the Fed cut, 30-year mortgage rates had decreased by 180 basis points. The Fed had yet to cut a single basis point. But, just taking a step back from that cut specifically, mortgage rates have come down significantly from the fourth quarter of 2023.Jay Bacow: Right, and those mortgage rates coming down significantly has improved affordability. But what's maybe a little surprising is that hasn't really led to a pickup in sales volumes. How should we think about that moving forward?James Egan: So as mortgage rates have come down, we have seen an increase in mortgage applications, but that's been driven almost entirely by refinance applications.Purchase applications, and that's going to be what's behind home sales, those have been more or less treading water for the past 12 months. This relationship makes sense, in our view. As mortgage rates have come down, housing remains unaffordable. It's just more affordable than it was in the second half of 2023.But, if you were one of the people who bought a home over the past 24 months, and, to put that into context, that was the lowest number of home sales over a 24-month period since the second quarter of 2013. But if you were one of those people, there's a good chance that you're in the money to refinance right now.Jay Bacow: And that's something that we're seeing in the data. We've talked about the truly refinance indicators on this podcast in the past, and it measures the share of mortgages that have at least 25 basis points of incentive to refinance after accounting for closing costs.Right now, only about one in six of the outstanding borrowers have incentive to refinance. Now, that's up from pretty close to zero at the end of 2023, but if you just look at borrowers that have taken out their mortgage in the past two years, almost two-thirds of them have incentive to refinance.Now, Jim, does that mean that purchase volumes are doomed to languish around these levels?James Egan: No, but the reaction might not be as strong as some people are hoping for. While affordability has improved, it remains challenged. And the lock in effect has become a very popular phrase in the US housing and mortgage markets. And that's still in play. 75 per cent of the conventional mortgage universe still has a mortgage rate below 5 per cent.Even with the prevailing rate at 6 per cent today, the effective mortgage rate on the outstanding universe is 200 basis points out of the money. That's better than 350 [basis points] out of the money like we saw last year. But that would still be the worst that it's been in 40 years.Jay Bacow: And presumably, that is why we have this continually tight inventory.James Egan: Exactly. Now, as rates come down, we are starting to see listings increase, but it's barely made a dent in the historically low nature of the existing housing supply. The existing home sales typically grow in the 12 to 24 months following affordability improvement, but not necessarily in that initial period while affordability is improving.So relative to history, we're actually not underperforming that much from a sales perspective. And we should be beginning that 12 to 24 months sweet spot in the fourth quarter of [20]24. We just started that two to three weeks ago. While we expect existing home sales to increase, we think the growth is going to be modest relative to history and we're calling for 5 per cent growth in the coming 12 months.On the home price side, a lot of this is in line with our current view. So, we think you're going to continue to see the pace of growth slow. It's already started to slow. We think we get from about 5 per cent today to 2 percent by the end.Jay Bacow: All right, so the Fed cutting rates is not likely to cause mortgage rates to drop materially. We expect a modest pickup in housing activity. We expect home price growth to slow, but still end the year positive; and it should be supportive for mortgage spreads versus treasuries.Jim, always a pleasure talking to you.James Egan: Pleasure talking to you too, Jay.Jay Bacow: Thanks for listening. And if you enjoy this podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Chief Korea and Taiwan Economist discusses the reforms needed to overcome Korea’s urgent demographic crisis.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Kathleen Oh, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Korea and Taiwan Economist. Today I’ll discuss what’s needed to overcome Korea’s aging population crisis.It’s Tuesday, Oct 15th, at 4 PM in Hong Kong. South Korea faces some of the world's most challenging demographics and will officially become a super-aged society next year – that’s more than 20 percent of the population 65 or older. The implications of this are so significant that the Korean government recently declared a national emergency, and we don’t think this is overstating the case. Korea’s low fertility rate is the primary culprit. In 2023 it plummeted to the lowest level globally and currently sits at 0.72. For reference, the total fertility rate of 2.1 children per woman is what’s necessary to maintain a stable population in general. By next year, Korea’s population will start declining and is projected to shrink by a third over the next 40 years as the working population halves. At this pace, the Bank of Korea forecasts that Korea’s potential growth could enter negative territory by 2040, down from 2 per cent in [20]24-25. So why does Korea have such a record-low fertility rate? In the short term, there are two key drivers: First, the declining number of marriages during the pandemic drove a rapid drop in births; having children out of wedlock is taboo in Korea. Once weddings resumed in 2022, Korea saw a slight but insufficient rebound in births. Second, housing prices have gone up 80 per cent in the past decade, which has discouraged young couples from having families. Families with first children feeling extra financial burdens to have [a] second child. Beyond the short term, structural factors have also played a role. After a compressed period of rapid economic growth, Koreans feel uncertain about the employment conditions and housing outlook. Tackling the low fertility rate has been on Korean policymakers’ agenda for the past 20 years. The government has invested more than $320 billion into solving the demographic challenge. And while these efforts have certainly raised awareness, they have yet to overcome the crisis. And why? Because Korea has not addressed the root causes of the problem -- income uncertainty, high childcare and education costs. It’s clear what’s needed here are structural reforms and Korea is clearly taking important steps towards overcoming the issue by tackling the fundamental problems now. Policymakers are working to reshape the pension system for the first time in 15 years. They are focusing on measures around improving work-life balance, reducing the gender wage gap, and increasing support for working parents. They are also considering lowering barriers to immigration, which could help alleviate talent shortages. They are also working on reducing the cost of private education. And finally, the government is also focused on improving the country’s capital market infrastructure. They are aiming to attract foreign investment, as well as to help households secure [a] source of asset accumulation, and lower borrowing costs for domestic players. Of course, it’s impossible to quickly reverse the downtrend and positive change will require multiple years - even decades. Korea’s government has set a medium-term goal of returning the fertility rate to 1.0 by 2030, which would delay working population decline by five years. And if the fertility rate reaches 2.1, that would delay the decline in the workforce by 20 years. Conversely, if Korea’s fertility rate remains at the current rate of 0.72, the population will halve by 2065 and the economy will start contracting in 2040, a worst-case scenario that the government is determined to avoid.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

A slump in tech stocks may explain the market rotation – but it’s the earnings season that investors need to watch, says CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist Mike Wilson.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the recent rotation toward more cyclical parts of the equity market.It's Monday, Oct 14th at 11:30am in New York.So let’s get after it.Last Monday, we upgraded cyclicals relative to defensives after taking profits in our defensive  overweight two weeks prior. These calls come on the back of September's strong jobs report and our economists' expectation for the Fed to still cut interest rates into next year. The resilient labor report effectively reverses the softness we saw in labor markets over the summer which had re-introduced hard landing risks into the markets, driving big outperformance in bonds and defensive stocks. In short, it was a good time to lock in profits after an historically good run. Indeed, cyclical stocks have delivered better performance with these improved macro data.  Importantly, the rates market is confirming this move. Oftentimes, the rates market tends to hold  onto growth risks longer than the equity market. Thus, the recent move higher in yields following resilient data suggests the bond market pricing is shedding some of its growth concerns, and giving us more confidence in our cyclicals upgrade. Furthermore, our cyclical overweights at the sector level in Industrials, Financials and Energy are all exhibiting a positive correlation to rates. Conversely, defensives are exhibiting a negative correlation to yields. In other words, good macro data is still good for many large cap cyclical stocks, while it's bad for defensives. Thus, further stabilization in the economic surprise index should continue to  support quality cyclicals' relative performance even if it comes amid higher yields.Meanwhile, positioning in cyclicals remains light amongst our institutional client base. This is  particularly true for Financials. In our view, this creates opportunity in a sector that we upgraded to overweight last week. This upgrade was based on rebounding capital markets activity, a better loan growth environment in 2025, an acceleration in buybacks post Basel Endgame re-proposal, and attractive relative valuation. Finally, we also factored in the notion that several large cap bank stocks had de-risked in mid-September with lowered guidance ahead of earnings season. Initial results from earnings season last week indicate that large cap banks are clearing that lowered hurdle. On the other side of the coin, positioning in defensives and quality growth remains extended. This is consistent with our conversations with clients who generally remain positioned for a soft macro growth regime.Given the significant influence of the Magnificent 7 stocks on the overall direction of the S&P 500, investors remain focused on how this group of stocks will trade into year-end. It's notable this cohort has underperformed since the second quarter earnings season, and relative performance just took another leg lower.  The breadth among this group has been somewhat narrow with only one of the seven making new highs since the summer in both absolute and relative terms. In our view, this may be one of the reasons for the better performance in other areas of the market and is a potential driver of further broadening into cyclicals. Of course, if the market reverts back to these stocks, it’s a risk to our  cyclical upgrade.Earnings season will be an important factor in terms of these rotations. The fundamental reason for the underperformance of the Magnificent 7 could simply be the deceleration in earnings growth from the very strong pace last year. If this underperformance continues, it could provide further fuel for the quality cyclicals to continue to do better as we expect. Conversely, if earnings revisions show relative strength for the Mag 7, these stocks will likely outperform once again and market leadership may narrow—like it did during [the] second quarter and all of 2023.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Head of Corporate Credit Research and Global Chief Economist explain why they’re watching the consumer savings rate, tariffs and capital expenditures.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist.Andrew Sheets: And today on this special episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing what could cause our optimistic view on the economy and credit to go wrong.Andrew Sheets: It’s Friday, Oct 11th at 4pm in London.Seth Carpenter: And as it turns out, I'm in London with Andrew.Andrew Sheets: So, Seth you and your global economics team have been pretty optimistic on the economy this year. And have been firmly in the soft-landing camp. And I think we’ve seen some oscillation in the market's view around the economy over the course of the year, but more recently, we've started to see some better data and increasing confidence in that view.So, this is actually maybe the perfect opportunity to talk about – well, what could go wrong? And so, what are some of the factors that worry you most that could derail the story?Seth Carpenter: We have been pretty constructive all along the whole hiking cycle. In fact, we've been calling for a soft- landing. And if anything, where we were wrong with our forecast so far is that things have turned out even better than we dare hoped. But it's worth remembering part of the soft-landing call for us, especially for the US is that coming out of COVID; the economy rebounded employment rebounded, but not proportionally. And so, for a long time, up until basically now, US firms had been operating shorthanded. And so, we were pretty optimistic that even if there was something that caused a slowdown, you were not going to see a wave of layoffs. And that's usually what contributes to a recession. A slowdown, then people get laid off, laid off people spend less, the economy slows down more, and it snowballs.So, I have to say, there is gotta be just a little bit more risk because businesses basically backfilled most of their vacancies. And so, if we do get a big slowdown for some reason, maybe there's more risk than there was, say, a year ago. So, what could that something be is a real question. I think the first one is just -- there's just uncertainty.And maybe, just maybe, the restraint that monetary policy has imparted -- takes a little bit longer than we realized. It's a little bit bigger than we realized, and things are slowing down. We just haven't seen the full force of it, and we just slowed down a lot more.Not a whole lot I can do about that. I feel pretty good. Spending data is good. The last jobs report was good. So, I see that as a risk that just hangs over my head, like the sword of Damocles, at all times.Andrew Sheets: And, Seth, another thing I want to talk to you about is this analysis of the economy that we do with the data that's available. And yet we recently got some pretty major revisions to the US economic picture that have changed, you know, kind of our basic understanding of what the savings rate was, you know, what some of these indicators are.How have those revisions changed what you think the picture is?Seth Carpenter: So those benchmark revisions were important. But I will say it's not as though it was just a wholesale change in what we thought we understood. Instead, the key change that happened is we had information on GDP -- gross domestic product -- which comes from a lot of spending data. There's another bit of data that's gross domestic income that in some idealized economic model version of the world, those two things are the same -- but they had been really different. And the measured income had been much lower than the measured gross domestic product, the spending data. And so, it looked like the saving rate was very, very low.But it also raised a bit of a red flag, because if the savings rate is, is really low, and all of a sudden households go back to saving the normal amount, that necessarily means they'd slow their spending a lot, and that's what causes a downturn.So, it didn't change our view, baseline view, about where the economy was, but it helped resolve a sniggling, intellectual tension in the back of the head, and it did take away at least one of the downside risks, i.e. that the savings rate was overdone, and consumers might have to pull back.But I have to say, Andrew, another thing that could go wrong, could come from policy decisions that we don't know the answer to just yet. Let you in on a little secret. Don't tell anybody I told you this; but later this year, in fact, next month, there's an election in the United States.Andrew Sheets: Oh my goodness.Seth Carpenter: One of the policies that we have tried to model is tariffs. Tariffs are a tax. And so, the normal way I think a lot of people think about what tariffs might do is if you put a tax on consumer goods coming into the country, it could make them more expensive, could make people buy less, and so you'd get a little bit less activity, a little bit higher prices.In addition to consumer goods, though, we also import a lot of intermediate goods for production, so physical goods that are used in manufacturing in the United States to produce a final output. And so, if you're putting a tax on that, you'll get less manufacturing in the United States.We also import capital goods. So, things that go into business CapEx spending in the United States. And if you put a tax on that, well, businesses will do less investment spending. So, there's a disruption to actual US production, not just US consumption that goes on. And we actually think that could be material. And we've tried to model some of the policy proposals that are out there. 60 per cent tariff on China, 10 per cent tariff on the rest of the world.None of these answers are going to be exact, none of these are going to be precise, but you get something on the order of an extra nine-tenths of a percentage point of inflation, so a pretty big reversion in inflation. But maybe closing in on one and a half percentage points of a drag on GDP – if they were all implemented at the same time in full force.So that's another place where I think we could be wrong. It could be a big hit to the economy; but that's one place where there's just lots of uncertainty, so we have to flag it as a risk to our clients. But it's not in our baseline view.Seth Carpenter: But I have to say, you've been forcing me to question my optimism, which is entirely unfair. You, sir, have been pretty bullish on the credit market. Credit spreads are, dare I say it, really tight by historical standards.And yet, that doesn't cause you to want to call for mortgage spreads to widen appreciably. It doesn't call for you to want to go really short on credit. Why are you so optimistic? Isn't there really only one direction to go?Andrew Sheets: So, there are kind of a few factors the way that we're thinking about that. So, one is we do think that the fundamental backdrop, the economic forecast that you and your team have laid out are better than average for credit -- are almost kind of ideal for what a credit investor would like.Credit likes moderation. We're forecasting a lot of moderation. And, also kind of the supply and demand dynamics of the market. What we call the technicals are better than average. There's a lot of demand for bonds. And companies, while they're getting a little bit more optimistic, and a little bit more aggressive, they're not borrowing in the kind of hand over fist type of way that usually causes more problems. And so, you should have richer than average valuations. Now, in terms of, I think, what disrupts that story, it could be, well, what if the technicals or the fundamentals are no longer good? And, you know, I think you've highlighted some scenarios where the economic forecasts could change. And if those forecasts do change, we're probably going to need to think about changing our view. And that's also true bottom up. I think if we started to see Corporates get a lot more optimistic, a lot more aggressive. You know, hubris is often the enemy of the bond investor, the credit investor. I don't think we're there yet, but I think if we started to see that, that could present a larger problem. And both, you know, fundamentally it causes companies to take on more debt, but also kind of technically, because it means a lot more supply relative to demand.Seth Carpenter: I see. I see. But I wonder, you said, if our outlook, sort of, doesn't materialize, that's a clear path to a worse outcome for your market. And I think that makes sense.But the market hasn't always agreed with us. If we think back not that long ago to August, the market had real turmoil going on because we got a very weak Non Farm Payrolls print in the United States. And people started asking again. ‘Are you sure, Seth? Doesn't this mean we're heading for a recession?’ And asset markets responded. What happened to credit markets then, and what does it tell you about how credit markets might evolve going forward, even if, at the end of the day, we're still right?Andrew Sheets: Well, so I think there have been some good indications that there were parts of the market where maybe investors were pretty vulnerably positioned. Where there was more leverage, more kind of aggressiveness in how investors were leaning, and the fact that credit, yes, credit weakened, but it didn't weaken nearly as much -- I think does suggest that investors are going to this market eyes wide open. They're aware that spreads are tight. So, I think that's important.The other I think really fundamental tension that I think credit investors are dealing with -- but also I think equity investors are -- is there are certain indicators that suggest a recession is more likely than normal. Things like the yield curve being inverted or purchasing manager indices, these PMIs being below 50.But that also doesn't mean that a recession is assured by any means. And so, I do think what can challenge the market is a starting point where people see indicators that they think mean a recession is more likely, some set of weak data that would seem to confirm that thesis, and a feeling that, well, the writing's on the wall.But I think it's also meant, and I think we've seen this since September, that this is a real, in very simple terms, kind of good is good market. You know, I got asked a lot in the aftermath of some of the September numbers, internally at Morgan Stanley, 'Is it, is it too good? Was the jobs number too good for credit?'And, and my view is, because I think the market is so firmly shifted to ‘we're worried about growth,’ that it's going to take a lot more good data for that fear to really recede in the market to worry about something else.Seth Carpenter: Yeah, it's funny. Some people just won't take yes for an answer. Alright, let me, let me end up with one more question for you.So when we think about the cycle, I hear as I'm sure you do from lots of clients -- aren't we, late cycle, aren't things coming to an end? Have we ever seen a cycle before where the Fed hiked this much and it didn't end in tears? And the answer is actually yes. And so, I have often been pointing people to the 1990s.1994, there was a pretty substantial rate hiking cycle that doesn't look that different from what we just lived through. The Fed stopped hiking, held out at the peak for a while, and then the economy wobbled a little bit. It did slow down, and they cut rates. And some of the wobbles, for a while at least, looked pretty serious. The Fed, as it turns out, only cut 75 basis points and then held rates steady. The economy stabilized and we had another half decade of expansion.So, I'm not saying history is going to repeat itself exactly. But I think it should be, at least from my perspective, a good example for people to have another cycle to look at where things might turn out well with the soft landing.Looking back to that period, what happened in credit markets?Andrew Sheets: So, that mid-90s soft-landing was in the modern history of credit -- call it the last 40 years -- the tightest credit spreads have ever been. That was in 1997. And they were still kind of materially tighter from today's levels.So we do have historical evidence that it can mean the market can trade tighter than here. It's also really fascinating because the 1990s were kind of two bull markets. There was a first stage that, that stage you were suggesting where, you know, the Fed started cutting; but the market wasn't really sure if it was going to stick that landing, if the economy was going to be okay. And so, you saw this period where, as the data did turn out to be okay, credit went tighter, equities went up, the two markets moved in the same direction.But then it shifted. Then, as the cycle had been extending for a while, kind of optimism returned, and even too much optimism maybe returned, and so from '97, mid-97 onwards, equities kept going up, the stock market kept rallying, credit spreads went wider, expected volatility went higher. And so, you saw that relationship diverge.And so, I do think that if we do get the '90s, if we're that lucky, and hopefully we do get that sort of scenario, it was good in a lot of ways. But I think we need to be on the watch for those two stages. We still think we're in stage one. We still think they're that stage that's more benign, but eventually benign conditions can lead to more aggressiveness.Seth Carpenter: I think that's really fair. So, we started off talking about optimism and I would like to keep it that you pointed out that the '90s required a bit of good luck and I would wholeheartedly agree with that.So, I still remain constructive, but I don't remain naive. I think there are ways for things to go wrong. And there is a ton of uncertainty ahead, so it might be a rocky ride. It's always great to get to talk to you, Andrew.Andrew Sheets: Great to talk to you as well, Seth.And thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Mike Canfield, Morgan Stanley’s Head of Europe Sustainability Research, discusses why ensuring safe and responsible artificial intelligence is essential to the AI revolution.----- Transcript -----Mike Canfield: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Canfield, Morgan Stanley's Europe, Middle East and Africa Head of Sustainability Research.Today I'll discuss a critical issue on a hot topic: How safe is AI?It's Thursday 10th of October at 2pm in London.AI is transforming the way that we live, work, and connect. It's really got the potential at every level and aspect of society, from personal decisions to global security. But as these systems become ever more integrated into our critical functions – whether that's healthcare, transportation, finance, or even defense – we do need to develop and deploy safe AI that keeps pace with the velocity of technological advances.Market leaders, academic think tanks, NGOs, industry bodies, intergovernmental organizations have all attempted to codify what safe or responsible AI should look like. But at the most fundamental level, the guidelines and standards we've seen so far share a number of clear similarities. Typically, they focus on fostering innovation in practical terms, as well as supporting economic prosperity – but also asserting the need for AI systems to respect fundamental human rights and values and to demonstrate trustworthiness.So where are we now in terms of regulations around the world?The EU's AI Act leads the way with its detailed risk-based approach. It really focuses on transparency as well as risks to people and fundamental rights. In the USA, while there's no comprehensive federal regulation or legislation, there are some federal laws that offer some sector specific guidance on AI applications. Things like the National Defense Authorization Act of 2019 and the National AI Initiative Act of 2020. Alongside those, President Biden's published an executive order on AI, promoting safety, responsible innovation, and supporting Americans and their rights, including things like privacy. In Asia Pacific, meanwhile, countries are working to establish their own guidelines on consumer protection, privacy, and transparency and accountability.In general, it’s very clear that policymakers and regulators increasingly expect AI systems developers to adopt what we'd call the socio-technical approach, focused on the interaction between people and technology. Having examined numerous existing regulations and foundational standards from around the world, we think a successful policymaking approach requires the combination of four core conceptual pillars.We've called them STEP. That's Safety, Transparency, and Ethics and Privacy. With these core considerations, AI can take a step – pun intended – in the right direction. Within safety, the focus is on reliability of systems, avoiding harm to people and society, and preventing misuse or subversion. Transparency includes a component of explainability and accountability; so, systems allowing for future feedback and audits of outcomes. Ethically, the avoidance of bias, preventing discrimination, inclusion, and the respect for the rule of law are key components. Then finally, privacy considerations include elements like data protection, safeguards during operation, and allowing users consent in data used for training.Of course, policymakers contend with a variety of challenges in developing AI regulations. Issues like bias, like discrimination, implementing guardrails without stifling innovation, the sheer speed at which AI is evolving, legal responsibility, and much more beyond. At its most basic, though, arguably the most critical challenge of regulating AI systems is that the logic behind outcomes is often unknown, even to the creators of AI models, because these systems are intrinsically designed to learn.Ultimately, ensuring safety and responsibility in the use of AI is an essential step before we can really tap into ways AI could positively impact society. Some of these exciting opportunities include things like improving education outcomes, smart electric grid management, enhanced medical diagnostics, precision agriculture, and biodiversity monitoring and protection efforts. AI clearly has enormous potential to accelerate drug development, to advance material science research, to boost manufacturing efficiency, improve weather forecasting, and even deliver better natural disaster predictions.In many ways, we need guardrails around AI to maximize its potential growth.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please do leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research Michael Zezas and Chief Asia Economist Chetan Ahya discuss how the upcoming US elections might impact economic policies in Asia.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research.Chetan Ahya: And I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia Economist.Michael Zezas: Today, we'll talk about what the US election means for Asia's economy.It's Wednesday, October 9th at 10am in New York.Chetan, we're less than a month now from the US election, and when I think about what it means for Asia, perhaps the most immediate and direct impact would be via tariffs.Now, our colleagues have already addressed some of this on the podcast, but I'm eager to hear your thoughts. And in the case of a Trump win and a significant tariff increase on China, how big of an impact do you think this policy would have on China's economy, and what particular areas of the economy might be most affected?Chetan Ahya: Well, Mike, I think firstly the tariff numbers being floated, i.e. that if it is 60 per cent, it would mean an increase in tariff of about 35 percentage points over an existing number, which is at 25 per cent. So, the amount of tariffs that we're talking about this time are larger than what we saw in 2018-19. And in terms of implications, of course, it will depend upon exactly what is the magnitude of tariff that is being imposed, but we definitely think there will be a significant downside to China's growth; and we expect an increase in deflationary pressures.Just to give you a bit of perspective of what happened in 2018-19, tariff resulted into China's growth slowing by a full percentage point from 6.9 per cent to 5.9 per cent; and at the same time, we saw that there was downward pressure on China's inflation dynamic. And the timing of tariffs this time does not seem to be great. China is going through an existing challenge of debt deflation loop. And we've seen that China's GDP deflator, which is a broader measure of prices, has been in deflation already for about seven quarters now. And so, in this context, tariffs will further add to its deflationary pressures and make that macro situation much more complicated.Michael Zezas: Got it. And so, how do you think China might respond if it becomes the target of higher tariffs?Chetan Ahya: So, we think China's policy makers could take up three sets of measures to mitigate the impact of tariffs.Number one, there will be, of course, depreciation in its exchange rate, which will be offsetting some part of the tariff increase effect. And so, for example, the weighted average tariff increase was about 18 percentage points during 2018-19, and the RMB depreciation was about 11 per cent. So, there was a significant offset of that tariff increase by currency depreciation.Number two, China could continue to take its effort to rewire trade flows and supply chain. So, for example, in 2018-19, we've seen a significant rewiring of exports from China to the US via Vietnam and Mexico, and we think this time that could be expanded to some more economies.And number three, China also resorted to focusing on new markets, i.e. some of the other emerging markets other than US. And at the same time, they focused on introducing new export products; like in the last cycle, they focused on solar panels, lithium batteries, EVs, and old generation chips. So, in effect, they will try to expand their market base from US into other emerging markets. And at the same time, they will be focusing on new products to ensure that their market share in global goods exports is maintained.So, Mike, we've been discussing the potential impact of a Trump win. But how would a Harris White House shape trade policy, vis-à-vis China and rest of Asia?Michael Zezas: Yeah, I think a Harris White House would represent a lot of continuity with the Biden White House's approach toward Asia and China, specifically when it comes to trade. That is to say, there's a lot of support for continued use and expansion of non-tariff barriers – things like export controls, and inbound and outbound investment restrictions. And there's less interest in using higher tariffs than what we already have as a tool.So, you can expect that. And I think you could also expect there to be kind of a broader reach out to develop economic relationships with Pan Asia as a means of enabling some of the transition that multinational companies would need to rewire their supply chains.But if we take as a given that that might be Harris's approach to trade policy, Chetan, what's your outlook for Asia if she wins in November?Chetan Ahya: Well, if Harris wins, that would eliminate the key risk to region's outlook in form of significant tariff implementation. And in this case, we expect status quo to our Asia forecast. And we would maintain our constructive outlook for the large economies in the region. And within the group, we think India and Japan are best positioned from a structural standpoint. While China, we were concerned about the debt deflation loop, but with the recent set of policy measures, we think that the risks are now more balanced as far as China macro-outlook is concerned.Michael Zezas: Got it. Well, Chetan, thanks for taking the time to talk. This is obviously a very important topic as we get closer to the US election.Chetan Ahya: Great speaking with you, Mike.Michael Zezas: And as a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen; and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

The rhetoric around the US elections is heating up, and tariffs have become a central theme – to rally for or against. In Part II of our roundtable discussion, our chief economists break down national and global implications of this policy lever.----- Transcript -----Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist.On this special episode of the podcast, we're going to continue our third roundtable discussion with Morgan Stanley's economists from around the world as we enter the fourth quarter of 2024.It's Tuesday, October 8th at 10am in New York.Jens Eisenschmidt: And 3pm in London.Seth Carpenter: All right, so yesterday we covered topics about central banks, inflation, reflation, deflation, China's stimulus policies – a whole set of things. But today I really want to focus on the upcoming US elections and some of the possible implications around the world.As of this recording, the race between Vice President Harris and former President Trump is essentially in a dead heat and it has left policymakers and market participants with few clear signals about what policy is going to be going forward.One key policy lever is tariffs; and so Diego, I’m going to come to you. What has the US team said about tariffs and what it might mean for the economy?Diego Anzoategui: Yes, I think the three key policy levers to consider are tariffs, as you mentioned Seth, immigration policy, and fiscal policy. Tariffs, in particular, are basically a presidential authority, so the outcome of the election is going to be very important there.Fiscal policy will depend not only on the White House, but also on the Congress, which most polls suggest that it will be split between the two parties. So, we don't expect much there. And immigration policy is tricky because if you take a look at the data, immigration flows have been decreasing. And the key question here is whether the new policy is going to affect that already decreasing pathSeth Carpenter: For tariffs, I know that we've published -- that there's both a boost to inflation that can come, but also a hit to economic growth. And that boost to inflation likely comes first.The logic is tariffs are taxes, and so they should be seen as a tax on consumption spending -- but also, on domestic CapEx spending and domestic manufacturing because a lot of the imports that are under tariff are either capital goods or intermediate goods that go into manufacturing here in the US.Diego Anzoategui: Yeah, that's right. Of course, the details will matter a lot. So, suffice it to say, there's a lot of uncertainty.Seth Carpenter: Okay, that's fair. Chetan, let me come back to you on this. This topic is particularly important for China's economy since the Trump campaign has pledged tariffs of up to 60 per cent on China, and then 10 per cent globally -- something that our public policy team believes could be a driver of a broader decoupling.You've written a lot about tariffs, tariff structure, what it means for China, the deflationary path. Could you just elaborate a little bit for us?Chetan Ahya: Yeah, absolutely. I think the timing of this tariff, if they do come up in November or sometime in 2025, couldn't have been coming at a worse time for China. As we've been discussing, China has already been going through this challenge of deflation, and tariffs essentially will mean additional deflationary pressures on China.So that is one source of impact that we would be watching. The other would be what is the impact on global corporate confidence and China's corporate confidence. That can have additional negative impact in form of slowdown in investment. And one other thing to keep in mind is that in 2018-2019, China could respond, in terms of fiscal and monetary easing and offset some of the downside that came from tariffs. But in this cycle, considering the state of the property market, it would be very difficult for China to reflate that property market demand and offset the downside from tariff.So essentially, we think the tariffs, if they come in this time, could be far more challenging for China, particularly for deflation management.Seth Carpenter: Of course, tariffs are global and the Trump campaign has talked about not just tariffs on China. So, Jens, let me come to you. Maybe there are some implications here for Europe as well.During former President Trump's administration, there were targeted tariffs that, met challenges of the WTO and retaliatory tariffs on American exports to Europe. Looking back on what happened in 2018 and 2019, what do you think could be ahead in the event that former President Trump wins the election again?Jens Eisenschmidt: So, the episode in 2018 could be actually a template, even though it's probably limited in scopes because tariffs were much more limited that were applied back then. We've talked about around 1 per cent of total American-EU imports that back then were targeted; while now we are really talking about, at least in terms of proposals, everything.So first to notice that when back then the impact was limited, it will be a little bit bigger now simply because more is targeted. And we think it could be around 30 basis points, shaping around 30 basis points, of European GDP.Again, that's a very crude measure that depends on many things in particular on also the retaliation. And here for instance, we think EU would, of course, like last time, file a complaint with the World Trade Organization, you know, as a basis for then following negotiations around these tariffs.Then, the EU would, of course, be looking into what type of tariffs it could put in terms of retaliation on US products entering the EU. And here we would observe first that a lot of that is actually oil, and it's unlikely that you would want to put tariffs on oil -- or more broadly energy goods. So also, natural gas.Then that means we would look for the next product categories. But here, I think it's not so clear; no single product category stands out. But what stands out is that the US has a surplus in services exports to the EU. And here the EU could, in theory at least, come up with a strategy to retaliate through services regulation. Again, that would need to be seen, once we see these tariffs being implemented. But that certainly would be a road for the EU to take.Seth Carpenter: Thanks Jens. It makes a lot of sense. And gentlemen, I want to thank you all for a terrific discussion today.And thanks to our listeners. If you like Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.

Morgan Stanley’s chief economists take stock of a resilient global economy that has weathered a recent period of market volatility, in Part I of our two-part roundtable.----- Transcript -----Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. And on this special episode of the podcast, we'll hold our third roundtable discussion focusing on Morgan Stanley's global economic outlook as we enter the final quarter of 2024.I am joined today by our economics team from three regions.Chetan Ahya: I’m Chetan Ahya, Chief Asia Economist.Jens Eisenschmidt: I’m Jens Eisenschmidt, Chief Europe Economist.Diego Anzoategui: I’m Diego Anzoategui from the US Economics team.It's Monday, October 7th at 10 am in New York.Jens Eisenschmidt: And 3 pm in London.Seth Carpenter: I have to say, a lot has happened since the last time we held this roundtable. To say the very least, we've had volatility in financial markets. But on balance, I kind of have to say the global economy has more or less performed the way we expected.The US economy is cruising towards a soft landing. The labor market maybe is a touch softer than we expected, but consumer spending has remained resilient. In Asia, Japan's reflation story is largely intact, while China is still confronting that debt deflation cycle that we've talked about. And in Europe, the tepid growth we had envisioned -- well, it's continuing. Inflation is falling, but the ECB seems to be accelerating its rate cuts. So, let's get into the details.Diego, I'm going to start with you and the US. The Fed cut interest rates in September for the first time this cycle, and they cut by 50 basis points instead of the 25 basis points that some people -- including us -- were expecting. So, the big question for you is, where does the Fed go from here?Diego Anzoategui: So, we are looking for a string of 25 basis point cuts from the Fed as long as labor markets hold up. Inflation has come down notably and we expect a normalization of interest rates ahead. But, of course, we might be wrong again. Labor markets might cool too much, and in that case, one or two additional 50 basis point cuts might happen again.Seth Carpenter: So, either the Fed glides into the soft landing or they pick up the pace and they cut faster.So, Jens, let me turn to you and pivot to Europe. You recently changed your forecast for the ECB, and you're now looking for a rate cut in October. And that's following two cuts already that the ECB has done. So, what prompted your change? Is it like what Diego said about a softer outcome prompting a faster pace of cuts. What's likely to happen next for the ECB?Jens Eisenschmidt: That's right. We changed our ECB call. And to understand why we have to go back to September. So already at the September meeting the ECB president, Lagarde, made clear in the press conference that the bank was a little bit less concerned about structurally high services inflation that is forecast to be persistently high still for some time to come -- mainly because there was more conviction that wages would come down eventually.And so, they could really focus a little bit more, give a bit more attention to the growth side of things. Just as a reminder, the Fed has a dual mandate. So, it's growth and inflation. The ECB only has inflation. So basically, if the ECB wants to act on growth, it needs to be sure that inflation is under control. And then since September what happened is that literally every single indicator, leading indicator, for inflation was negative. We had lower oil prices, we had a stronger euro, and of course, also weaker activity in terms of the PMIs pointing to a cooling of the ongoing recovery.So, all of that led us to revise our inflation forecast, and that means that ECB will very likely already be a target mid next year. That should lead to an acceleration of the rate cut cycle. And then it's only a question, will it be already in October or in December? And here comes the September inflation print in, which was softer in particular on the core or on the services component than expected. And we think that has tilted the balance; or will tilt the balance in favor of an October rate cut.So, what we see now is October, December, January, March -- 25 basis points rate cuts by the ECB leading to a rate of 250. Then this being close to neutral, they will slow down again, quarterly rate cut pace. So, June, September, December, 25 basis points each -- leading to a final rate end of next year at 175.Seth Carpenter: Okay, got it. So, inflation has come down in most developed market economies. Central banks are starting to cut. For the Fed, there's an open question about how much strength the labor market still has and whether or not they need to do 50 basis points or 25.But I have to say, Chetan -- and I'm going to come to you because -- in Asia, we saw a lot of market turmoil in August, and that was partly prompted by the rate hike of the BoJ. So, here's a developed market economy central bank that's not cutting. In fact, they're starting to raise interest rates. So, what happened there? And what do you think happens with the BoJ going forward?Chetan Ahya: Well, Seth, in our base case, we do expect BoJ to hike by another 25 basis points in January next year. And as regards to your question on what happened in terms of the volatility that we saw in the month of August? Essentially, as the BoJ took up its first rate hike, there was a lot of concern that BoJ will go in a consecutive manner, taking up successive rate hikes. But at the end of the day, what we saw was, BoJ realizing that there is a clear endogeneity between financial conditions and their reaction function. And as that communication was clearly laid out, we saw markets calming down. And now going forward, what we think BoJ will be watching will be the data on inflation and wages.We think they would be waiting to see what happens to the inflation data in the month of November and October, i.e., whether there is a clear, rise in services inflation, which has been running at around 1.3 per cent. And they would want to see that wage pass through to services inflation is continuing.And then secondly, they will want to see what is happening to the wage expectations from the workers in the next round of spring wage negotiations. The demand from workers will be clear by the end of this year, so sometime in December. And therefore, we think BoJ will look at that information and then take up a rate hike in the month of January next year.Seth Carpenter: Okay, so if I step back for a second, even if there are a few parts of the puzzle that still need to fall into place, it sounds to me like you're saying the Japan reflation story is still intact. Is that fair?Chetan Ahya: That's right. We think that, you know, the comment from the prime minister that came out a few days back; he's very clear that he wants to see a situation where Japan gets rid of deflation. So, we think that the policymakers are fully lined up to ensure that the reflation story remains intact.Seth Carpenter: That's super helpful and it just absolutely contrasts with what we've been saying about China, where they have sort of the opposite story. There's been a debt deflation cycle that you and the Chinese team have really been highlighting for a long time now, talking about the challenges for policy.We did get some news out of Beijing in terms of policy stimulus. Could you and break down for us what happened there and whether or not you think that's enough to really shift China's trajectory away from this debt deflation cycle?Chetan Ahya: Yes, Seth, so essentially, we got three things from Chinese policy makers. Number one, they took up big monetary policy easing. Number two, they announced a package to support the equity markets. And number three, they announced some measures to support the property market.Now we think that these measures are a positive and particularly the property market measures will be helpful. But in terms of real impediment for China's reflation story, we think that the key need of the hour is to take up aggressive fiscal easing to boost consumption. Monetary policy easing is helpful, but it's not really the key impediment to the reflation path.Seth Carpenter: All right, so if I wanted to see the glass as half full, I would say, look at this! Beijing policymakers have turned the corners. They're acknowledging that there's some policy impetus that needs to be put into place. But if I wanted to see the glass as half empty, I could take away from what you just said, that there just needs to be more, maybe fiscal stimulus to directly promote household spending.Is that that fair?Chetan Ahya: That's absolutely right. What's happening in China is that there has been a big structural adjustment in the property sector because now the total population is declining. And so therefore there is a big demand hole that is being left by the weakness in housing sector.Ideally, what they should be doing, as I was mentioning earlier, [is] that they should be taking a big fiscal easing to support consumption spending. But so far what we've been seeing is that they've been trying to fill that demand hole with more supply in form of investment in manufacturing and infrastructure sector.And unfortunately, that's been actually making the deflation challenge more complex. So going forward, we think that, you know, we should be watching out what they do in terms of fiscal stimulus. There was a comment in the Politburo statement that they will take up fiscal easing. We suspect that the timing of that fiscal policy announcement could be by end of this month alongside National People's Congress meeting. And so, what will be the size of fiscal stimulus will be important to watch as well.Currently, we think it could be one to two trillion RMB. But in our work that we did in terms of what is the scale of fiscal stimulus that is needed to boost consumption, we estimate that it should be somewhere around a 10 trillion RMB spread over two years.Seth Carpenter: Got it. Thanks, Chetan. Super helpful.Gentlemen, I have to say, we might have to stop here for the day. But tomorrow, I want to get [to] another topic, which is to say, the upcoming US election. It's got huge implications for the macroeconomy in the US and around the world. And I think we’re going to have to touch on it. But for now, we'll end the conversation here.And thank you, the listeners, for listening. If you enjoy this show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to the podcast and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Following the US Federal Reserve’s September rate cut, labor data may have more impact on markets than further cuts. Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research, explains why.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss why what the Fed does next might not matter all that much. It’s Friday, October 4th, at 2 pm in London. Over recent months the Federal Reserve has been at the center of the global market debate. After keeping policy rates unchanged at the end of July, a decision the markets initially cheered, a string of weak data in early August drove concerns that Fed policy was behind schedule. The Fed then responded with a larger-than-expected half-percent interest rate cut in September. And so, given these swings, a common question for investors is, understandably: What will the Fed do next? But what if the Fed’s next move doesn’t matter all that much? Monetary policy is both powerful and weak. Powerful, because interest rates impact so many decisions across the economy, from buying a home, to financing equipment, to acquiring a competitor. And it’s also weak, because how interest rates impact these decisions can have a long and variable lag. It can be six to twelve months before the full impact of an interest rate cut is felt in the economy. And so that half percentage point cut by the Fed last month might not be fully felt in the US economy until June of 2025. That lag is one reason why the Fed’s next move may matter less. The second reason is what we think the market is worried about. We think a lot of the market’s volatility over the last two months has been driven by concerns that the US economy, particularly the labor market, is weakening right now. If interest rates are too high and the labor market is weakening, then cutting more rapidly in the coming months might not make a difference. Because of that lag, the help from lower rates simply wouldn’t arrive in time.Meanwhile, there’s also a view that interest rates might need to fall quite a long ways to have the sort of impact that would be needed if the economy is really slowing down rapidly: by the Fed’s own Summary of Economic Projections (SEP), the policy rate that neither helps or hinders the economy could still be about 2 per cent lower than the current rate – even after that half a percentage point cut in September. Interest rates are well above what could be neutral. In short, if the data weaken materially over the coming months, more Fed cuts may not necessarily help in time. And if the data remain solid, Fed policy will have lots of time to adjust. It’s the data, not the Fed’s next action, that are most important at the moment. We also see support for this idea in history. It’s notable that some of the most aggressive US interest rate-cutting cycles – 2001, 2008, February of 2020 – overlapped with weak equity and credit markets. And it was smaller rate cutting cycles – in 1995-96, 1998 or 2019 – that overlapped with much better markets. And that makes sense; if one assumes that it’s the data rather than exactly how much the Fed is cutting rates that matter most to the market. All of this especially feels topical today. Today’s better than expected report on the US jobs market should support the case that Fed policy is on schedule, and larger adjustments aren’t needed. It’s good news. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Chief China Economist Robin Xing and Chief China Equity Strategist Laura Wang discuss how markets have responded to rate cuts and commitments to government spending, and what they could mean over the long term.----- Transcript -----Laura Wang: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Laura Wang, Morgan Stanley's Chief China Equity Strategist. Robin Xing: And I'm Robin Xing, Morgan Stanley's Chief China Economist.Laura Wang: All eyes have been on China this past week, and today we'll discuss why recent news from China's policymakers have commanded the attention of global markets.It's Thursday, October the 3rd, at 4pm in Hong Kong.So, Robin, China has been wrestling with the triple macro challenge of debt deflation and demographics -- what we call the three Ds -- for some time now. Last week, China's central bank, PBOC, announced a stimulus package that exceeded market expectations. And then later in the week, top China Communist Party officials, known as the Politburo, focused their monthly meeting on economics, which is not their usual practice.This meeting was a positive surprise to both us and the market. Let's start with the PBOCs easing package. For listeners who haven't been following China's economy closely, what's our current view on China's economy and can you walk us through the policy measures that the central bank introduced?Robin Xing: China's economy has been struggling lately and that's pushed the Beijing to pivot approach. Over the last 18 months, they have tried smaller, reactive measures. But now, they are doing something much bigger. On September 24, the People's Bank of China, PBOC, made a bold move, cutting interest rates and introducing new tools to support the stock market.Now, these cuts might sound small, just 20 basis points, but they are pretty rare in China. They also cut the reserve requirement ratio, which is a fancy way of saying banks can lend more money by 50 basis points. And for the first time, the central bank gave forward guidance, signaling even more cuts could come by year end.On top of that, the PBOC launched two big programs, a 500 billion yuan fund to help investors buy stocks, and a 300 billion yuan program to help companies buy back their own shares. These moves gave a much-needed boost to both the markets and consumer confidence.Laura Wang: And how about the Politburo meeting that came on the heels of the PBOC announcement? What exactly did it focus on?Robin Xing: The Politburo meeting was a rather critical moment. Normally, they don't even talk about the economy in September. But this year was different. It really signaled how urgent things have become.They made it clear they are ready to spend more. The government is pledging to increase public spending because other parts of the economy, like corporates and consumers, are holding back. There is also a big focus on the housing market, which has been in decline since 2021. They are promising to stop that slide, and it's the strongest commitment we have seen so far.Laura Wang: So, given everything we've seen from the PBOC and the Politburo, do you think this is a ‘whatever it takes moment’ to address the macro challenges facing China's economy?Robin Xing: Not quite, but it's close. We are seeing the start of what's going to be a bumpy recovery. The deflation problem, where prices are falling and people are not spending, is complicated.Beijing seems open to trying different approaches, but fixing the deeper issues -- like the struggling housing market and the local government debt -- it’s going to take a lot. In fact, we think China might need to spend about 1-1.5 trillion dollars over the next two years to really turn things around.Right now, the measures they have announced are smaller than that. That's because these are new policies. And they still need to build consensus and work out the details. So, while this isn't a ‘whatever it takes moment’ yet the mindset has definitely shifted in that direction.Laura Wang: In this case, what are the next steps you are monitoring for China's policymaker and how long will the various measures take to implement?Robin Xing: We expect to see a supplementary budget of 1-2 trillion yuan announced at the upcoming NPC Standing Committee meeting in late October. This budget should focus on boosting consumer spending, increasing social welfare, and helping local governments managing their debt. We will likely see more monetary easing too.As well as tweaks to the Housing Inventory Buy Back program. These steps should help the economy grow slightly faster, possibly hitting a 5 per cent quarter on quarter growth over the next two quarters, compared to the 3 per cent we have seen recently.Looking ahead, we will get more clues at the December Central Economic Work Conference. That's when we might see the first signs of plans to use central government funds to tackle housing and local government debt issues. The full details could come in March 2025. If things don't improve quickly, and especially if social unrest starts to rise, Beijing may have to act even more aggressively.We are keeping an eye on our social dynamics indicator, which tracks how people feel about jobs, welfare and income. If that dips further, it could push the government to ramp up stimulus measures.Laura, turning it over to you. How are stock markets reacting to all this policy signaling from China?Laura Wang: I would say to say that the market has responded very enthusiastically is an understatement. I'll give you some numbers.On the first day of the PBOC announcement, the Shanghai Composite Index, as well as the Hong Kong Market Hang Seng Index, were both up by more than 4 per cent in one single day. Then with the further boost from the surprise Politburo meeting -- by now, both the Shanghai Composite Index and the Hang Seng Index have already been up by more than 21 per cent in just one week's time.Robin Xing: Within the China stock market, which sectors and industries do you think will most benefit from the shift in policy?Laura Wang: There are a few ways to position to benefit from this major market condition change. We have a list of companies that we believe will directly benefit from the PBOC market stabilization funding, given the funding's low cost compared to these companies implied re-rating opportunity, just by tapping into the funding and enhancing their shareholder returns.For the potential reflationary fiscal efforts suggested by the Politburo meeting, as more details come out, I think sectors with good exposure to reflation, particularly the private consumption, will benefit the most -- given their still relatively low valuation, large market cap and high liquidity.Robin Xing: Finally, Laura, what are your expectations for the markets in China and outside of China for the next few weeks and months?Laura Wang: Clearly this rally so far is reflecting significant sentiment improvement and capitals that are willing to take a leap of faith and preposition for physical reflationary efforts ramp up. If the government can deliver these measures in a timely fashion, and more importantly, on top of that, communicate their commitment to winning this uphill battle against deflation, I think further valuation re-rating is quite possible for both the Asia market and the Hong Kong market by another 10 to 20 per cent.To go beyond that level, we need to see clear signs of a corporate earnings growth reacceleration, which would require incrementally more easing to come along in the next few months. We should also monitor the housing market inventory level very closely because any earlier completion of this inventory digestion could suggest less drag on demand investment.Obviously, there are still a lot of moving parts and it's still a very much evolving story from here. Robin, thanks for taking the time to talk.Robin Xing: Great speaking with you, Laura.Laura Wang: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Thousands of U.S. dockworkers have gone on strike along the East Coast and Gulf Coast. Our Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research Michael Zezas joins U.S. economist Diego Anzoategui to discuss the potential consequences of a drawn-out work stoppage.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley.Diego Anzoategui: And I'm Diego Anzoategui from the US Economics team.Michael Zezas: And today, we'll be talking about the implications of this week's US dockworker strike on the US economy.It's Wednesday, October 2nd, at 11am in New York.Diego, as most of our listeners likely know, yesterday roughly 45,000 US dockworkers went on strike for the first time in perhaps decades at 36 US ports from Maine to Texas. And so, I wanted to get your initial read on the situation because we're obviously getting a lot of questions from clients concerned about what this could mean for growth and inflation.Diego Anzoategui: Yeah, of course, there's a lot of uncertainty about this situation because we don't know how long the strike is going to last. But the strike can in principle hit economic growth and boost inflation -- but only if it is long lasting, right. Local producers and retailers, they typically have inventories of final and intermediate goods, so the disruption needs to be long enough so that those inventories go down to critical levels in order to see a meaningful macroeconomic impact.But if the strike is long enough, we might see an important impact on economic activity and inflation. If we look at trade flows data, roughly 30 per cent of all goods imports and exports are handled by the East and Gulf ports.Michael Zezas: So then let's drill down on that a bit. If the strike continues long enough and inventories decline, what are the shocks to economic growth that you're considering?Diego Anzoategui: Yeah, I would think that there are two main channels through which the strike might hit economic activity. The first one is a hit to local production because of disruptions in the supply of capital goods and intermediate goods used for domestic production. We not only use the ports to bring final goods, but also intermediate and capital goods like machinery, basic metals, plastic, to name a few.And the second channel is directly through exports. The East Coast and Gulf ports channel 84 per cent of exports by water. Industries producing energy, chemicals, machinery, cars, might be affected by these bottlenecks.Michael Zezas: Right, so fewer potential imports of goods, and fewer potential productive capacity as a consequence. Does that have an impact on inflation from your perspective?Diego Anzoategui: Yes, it can have an impact on inflation. Again, assuming that the strike is long lasting, right? I would expect acceleration in goods prices, in particular key inputs coming from the Eastern Gulf ports. And these are cars, electronics, clothes, furniture and apparel. All these categories roughly represent 13 per cent of the core PCE basket, the price index.Also, you know, a meaningful share of food and beverages imports come through water. So, I would also expect an impact there in those prices. And in terms of what prices might react faster, I think the main candidate is food and beverages -- and especially perishable food that typically have lower inventory to sales ratios.And if we start seeing an increase in those prices, I think that would be a good early signal that the disruptions are starting to bite.Michael Zezas: That makes sense. And last question, what about the impact to the US workforce? What would be the impact, if any, on payroll data and unemployment data, reflecting workforce impact -- the types of data that investors really pay close attention to.Diego Anzoategui: Yeah. So, we will likely see an impact on nonfarm payrolls, NFP, and the unemployment rate if the strike is long lasting. But even if there are not important disruptions, the strike itself can mechanically affect October's nonfarm payrolls print. They want to be released in November. Remember that strikers don't get paid, and they are not on the payroll; so they are not be[ing] counted by the establishment survey.But a necessary condition to see this downward bias in the NFP reading is that the strike needs to continue next week, that is the second week of October, right. But know that The Fed tends to look through these short run fluctuations in NFP due to strikes -- because any drag we see in the October sprint will likely be followed by payback in November if the strike is short lived.Michael Zezas: Got it. That makes a lot of sense. Diego, thanks for making the time to talk with us as this unfolds. Let's hope for a quick resolution here.Diego Anzoategui: Thanks, Michael. Great speaking with you.Michael Zezas: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please be sure to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show. 

Our US public policy and global economics experts discuss how an escalation of US tariffs could have major domestic and international economic implications.----- Transcript -----Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's US Public Policy Strategist. Arunima Sinha: And I’m Arunima Sinha, from the Global Economics team. Ariana Salvatore: Today we're talking tariffs, a major policy issue at stake in the US presidential election. We'll dig into the domestic and international implications of these proposed policies. It's Tuesday, October 1st at 10am in New York. In a little over four weeks, Americans will be going to the polls. And as we've noted on this podcast, it's still a close race between the two presidential candidates. Former president Donald Trump's main pitch to voters has to do with the economy. And tariffs and tax cuts are central to many of his campaign speeches. Arunima Sinha: You're right, Ariana. In fact, I would say that tariffs have been the key theme he keeps on coming back to. You've recently written a note about why we should take the Republicans proposed policies on tariffs seriously. What's your broad outlook in a Trump win scenario? Ariana Salvatore: Well, first and foremost, I think it's important to note that the President has quite a bit of discretion when it comes to trade policy. That's why we recommend that investors should take seriously a number of these proposals. Many of the authorities are already in place and could be easily leveraged if Trump were to win in November and follow through on those campaign promises. He did it with China in 2018 to 2019, leveraging Section 301 Authority, and many of that could be done easily if he were to win again.Arunima Sinha: And could you just walk us through some of the specifics of Trump's tariff proposals? What are the options at the President's disposal? Ariana Salvatore: Sure. So, he's floated a number of tariff proposals -- whether it be 10 per cent tariffs across the board on all of our imports, 60 per cent specifically on China or targeted tariffs on certain goods coming from partners like Mexico, for example. Targeted tariffs are likely the easiest place to start, especially if we see an incrementalist approach like we saw during the first Trump term over the course of 2018 to 2019. Arunima Sinha: And how quickly would these tariffs be implemented if Trump were to win? Ariana Salvatore: The answer to that really depends on the type of authorities being leveraged here. There are a few different procedures associated with each of the tariffs that I mentioned just now. For example, if the president is using Section 301 authorities, that usually requires a period of investigation by the USTR -- or the US Trade Representative --before the formal recommendation for tariffs.However, given that many of these authorities are already in place, to the extent that the former president wants to levy tariffs on China, for example, it can be done pretty seamlessly. Conversely, if you were to ask his cabinet to initiate a new tariff investigation, depending on the authority used, that could take anywhere from weeks to months. Section 232 investigations have a maximum timeline of 270 days. There's also a chance that he uses something called IEEPA, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, to justify quicker tariff imposition, though the legality of that authority hasn't been fully tested yet. Back in 2019, when Trump said he would use IEEPA to impose 5 per cent tariffs on all Mexican imports, he called off those plans before the tariffs actually came into effect. Arunima Sinha: And could you give us a little more specific[s] about which countries would be impacted in this potential next round of tariffs -- and to what extent? Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, in our analysis, which you'll get into in a moment, we focus on the potential for a 10 per cent across the board tariff that I mentioned, in conjunction with the 60 per cent tariff on Chinese goods. Obviously, when you map that to who our largest trading partners are, it's clear that Mexico and China would be impacted most directly, followed by Canada and the EU.Specifically on the EU, we have those section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs coming up for review in early 2025, and the US-MCA or the agreement that replaced NAFTA is set for review later in 2026. So, we see plenty of trade catalysts on the horizon. We also see an underappreciated risk of tariffs on Mexico using precedent from Trump's first term, especially if immigration continues to be such a politically salient issue for voters. Given all of this, it seems that tariffs will create a lot of friction in global trade. What's your outlook, Arunima? Arunima Sinha: Well, Arianna, we do expect a hit to growth, and a near term rise in inflation in the US. In the EU, our economists also expect a negative impact on growth. And in other economies, there are several considerations. How would tariffs impact the ongoing supply chain diversification? The extent of foreign exchange moves? Are bilateral negotiations being pursued by the other countries? And so on.Ariana Salvatore: So, a natural follow up question here is not only the impact to the countries that would be affected by US tariffs, but how they might respond. What do you see happening there? Arunima Sinha: In the note, we talked with our China economists, and they expect that if the US were to impose 60 per cent tariffs on Chinese goods, Beijing may impose retaliatory tariffs and some non-tariff measures like it did back in 2018-19. But they don't expect meaningful sanctions or restrictions on US enterprises that are already well embedded in China's supply chain. On the policy side, Beijing would likely resort less to Chinese currency depreciation but focus more on supply chain diversifications to mitigate the tariff shock this time round. Our economists think that the risk of more entrenched deflationary pressures from potential tariff disruptions may increase the urgency for Beijing to shift its policy framework towards economic rebalancing to consumption.In Europe, our economists expect that targeted tariffs will be met with challenges at the WTO and retaliatory tariffs on American exports to Europe, following the pattern from 2018-19, along with bilateral trade negotiations. In Mexico, our economists think that there could be a response with tariffs on agricultural products, mainly corn and soybeans.Ariana Salvatore: So, bringing it back to the US, what do you see the macro impact from tariffs being in terms of economic growth or inflation? Arunima Sinha: We did a fairly extensive analysis where we both looked at the aggregate impacts on the US as well as sectoral impacts that we'll get into. We think that a pretty reasonable estimate of the effect of both a 60 per cent tariff on China and a 10 per cent blanket tariff on the rest of the world is an increase of 0.9 per cent in the headline PCE prices that takes into effect over 2025, and a decline of 1.4 percentage points in real GDP growth that plays out over a longer period going into 2026. Ariana Salvatore: So, your team is expecting two more Fed cuts this year and four by the first half of 2025. Thinking about how tariffs might play into that dynamic, do you see them influencing Fed policy at all? Arunima Sinha: Well, under the tariff scenario, we think that it's possible that the Fed decides to delay cuts first and then speed up the pace of easing. So, in theory, the effect of a tariff shock is really just a level shift in prices. And in other words, it's a transitory boost to inflation that should fade over time.Because it's a temporary shock. The Fed can, in principle look through it as long as inflation expectations remain anchored. And this is what we saw in the FOMC minutes from the 2018 meetings. In a scenario of increased tariffs, we think that the uncertainty about the length of the inflationary push may slow down the pace of cuts in the first half of 2025. And then once GDP deceleration becomes more pronounced, the Fed might then cut faster in the second half of [20]25 to avoid that big, outsized deceleration and economic activity.Ariana Salvatore: And what about second order effects on things like business investment or employment? We talked about agriculture as a potential target for retaliatory tariffs, but what other US sectors and industries would be most affected by these type of plans? Arunima Sinha: That's something that we have leaned in on, and we do expect some important second round effects. So, if you have lower economic activity, that would lower employment, that lowers income, that lowers consumption further -- so that standard multiplier effect. So overall, in that scenario, with the 60 per cent tariffs on China, 10 per cent on the rest of the world that are imposed fully and swiftly, we model that real consumption would decline by 3 per cent, business investment would fall by 3.1 per cent, and monthly job gains would fall by between 50- and 70, 000. At the sectoral level, this combination of tariffs have potential to increase average tariffs to the 25 to 35 per cent range for almost 50 per cent of the NAICS industries in the United States when first put into place. And we expect the biggest impacts on computers and electronics, apparel, and the furniture sectors; but this does not take into account any potential exclusion lists that might be put into place. Ariana Salvatore: Finally, what does all this boil down to in terms of a direct impact to the US consumer wallet? Arunima Sinha: So, the impact of higher tariffs on consumer spending would depend on many factors, and one of the most important ones is the price elasticity of demand. So how willing would consumers be to take on those higher prices from tariffs, or do we see a pullback in real demand? What we think will happen is that higher prices could reduce real consumption by as much as 2. 5 per cent. The impact on goods consumption is much more meaningful because imported goods are directly affected by tariffs, and we would expect to see a drag on real goods consumption of 5 per cent. But then you have lower labor income and higher production costs and services prices that is also going to bring down services consumption by 1.3 per cent.Ariana Salvatore: So, it's important to keep in mind here that US tariff policy would undoubtedly have far reaching consequences. That means it's something that we're going to continue to follow very closely. Arunima, thanks so much for taking the time to talk.Arunima Sinha: Great speaking with you, Ariana. Thank you, Ariana Salvatore: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.  

Our CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist Mike Wilson takes a closer look at the potential ramifications of the sharp central bank policy shifts in the U.S., Japan and China.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about what to expect from the sharp pivot in global monetary and fiscal policy.  It's Monday, Sept 30th at 11:30am in New York. So let’s get after it. Over the past few months, Fed policy has taken on a more dovish turn. To be fair, bond markets have been telling the Fed that they are too tight and in many respects this pivot was simply the Fed getting more in line with market pricing. However, in addition to the 50 basis point cut from the Fed, budget deficits are providing heavy support; with August’s deficit nearly $90b higher than expected. Meanwhile, financial conditions continue to loosen and are now at some of the most stimulative levels seen over the past 25 years. Other central banks are also cutting interest rates and even the Bank of Japan, which recently raised rates for the first time in years, has backed off that stance – and indicated they are in no hurry to raise rates again. Finally, this past week the People’s Bank of China announced new programs specifically targeting equity and housing prices. After a muted response from markets and commentators, the Chinese government then followed up with an aggressive fiscal policy stimulus. Why now?  Like the US, China is highly indebted but it has entered full blown deflation with both credit and equity markets trading terribly for the past several years. There is an old adage that markets stop panicking when policy makers start panicking. On that score, it makes perfect sense why China equity and credit markets have responded the most favorably to the changes made last week. European equity markets were also stronger than the US given European economies and companies have greater exposure to China demand. On the other hand, Japan and India traded poorly which also makes sense in my view since they were the two largest beneficiaries of investor outflows from China over the past several years. Such trends are likely to continue in the near term.  For US equity investors, the real question is whether China’s pivot on policy will have a material impact on US growth. We think it’s fairly limited to areas like Industrial spending and Materials pricing and it’s unlikely to have any impact on US consumers or corporate investment demand. In fact, if commodities rally due to greater China demand, it may hurt US consumer spending. As usual, oil prices will be the most important commodity to watch in this regard. The good news is that oil prices were down last week due to an unrelated move by Saudi Arabia to no longer cap production in its efforts to get oil prices back to its $100 target. If prices reverse higher again and move toward $80/bbl due to either China stimulus or the escalation of tensions in the Middle East, it would be viewed as a net negative in my view for US equities.  As discussed last week the most important variables for the direction of US equities is the upcoming labor market data and third quarter earnings season. Weaker than expected data is likely to be viewed negatively by stocks at this point and good news will be taken positively. In other words, investors should not be hoping for worse news so the Fed can cut more aggressively. At this point, steady 25 basis point cuts for the next several quarters in the context of growth holding up is the best outcome for stocks broadly. Meanwhile individual stocks will likely trade as much on idiosyncratic earnings and company news rather than macro data in the absence of either a hard landing or a large growth acceleration; both of which look unlikely in the near term. In such a scenario, we think large cap quality growth is likely to perform the best while there could be some pockets of cyclical strength in companies that can benefit from greater China demand. The best areas for cyclical outperformance in that regard remain in the Industrial and materials sectors.  Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. 

Credit likes moderation, and the Fed’s rate cut indicates its belief that the economy is heading for a soft landing. Our Chief Fixed Income Strategist warns that markets still need to keep an eye on incoming data.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the implications of the Fed’s 50 basis points interest rate cut for corporate credit markets. It's Friday, Sep 27th at 10 am in New York. For credit markets, understanding why the Fed is cutting is actually very critical. Unlike typical rate cutting cycles, these cuts are coming when the economic growth is still decelerating but not falling off the cliff. Typically, rate cuts have come in when the economy is already in a recession or approaching recession. Neither is the case this time. So the US expanded by 3 per cent in the second quarter; and the third quarter, it is tracking well over 2 per cent. So, these cuts do not aim to stimulate the economy but really to acknowledge that there’s been significant progress on inflation, and move the policy towards a much more normalized policy stance. In some way, this really reflects the Fed’s confidence in the inflation path. So that means, not cutting now would mean restraining the economy further through high real interest rates. So, this cut really reflects a growing faith by the Fed in achieving a soft landing. Also, the size of the cut, the 50 basis point cut as opposed to 25 basis points, shows the Fed’s willingness to go big in response to weaker data, especially in labor markets. So since the beginning of the year, we have been pretty constructive on spread products across the board, particularly corporate credit and securitized credit, even though valuations have been tightening. Our stance is based on the idea that credit fundamentals will stay reasonably healthy even if economic growth decelerates, as long as it doesn’t fall off the cliff. Further, we also believe that credit fundamentals will improve with rate cuts because stress in this cycle has mainly come from higher interest expenses weighing on both corporations and households. This is in stark contrast to other recent periods of stress in credit markets – such as 2008/09 when we had the financial crisis, 2015/16 we had the challenges in the energy sector and then 2020, of course, we faced COVID. So the best point of illustrating this would be through leveraged loans, which are floating-rate instruments. As the Fed started tightening in 2022, we saw increasing pressures on interest coverage ratios for leveraged loan borrowers. That led to a pick-up in downgrades and defaults in loans. As rate hikes ended, we started seeing stabilization of these coverage ratios, and the pace of downgrades and defaults slowed. And now, with rate cutting ahead of us and the dot plot implying 150 basis points more of cuts for the rest of this year and the next year to come, the pressure on interest coverage ratios are going to be easing, especially if the economy stays in soft landing mode. This suggests that while spreads are today tight, the fundamentals could even improve with rate cuts – that means the spreads could remain around these levels, or even tighten a bit further. After all, if you remember the mid-1990s, which was the the last time that the Fed achieved a soft landing, investment grade corporate credit spreads were about 30 basis points tighter relative to where we are today. That 'if' is a big if. If we are wrong on the soft landing thesis, our conviction about the spread products being valuable will prove to have been misplaced. Really the challenge with any landing is that we can’t be certain of the prospect until we actually land. Till then, we are really looking at incoming data and hypothesizing: are we heading into a soft or hard landing? So this means incoming data pose two-sided risks to the path ahead for credit spreads. If incoming data are weak – particularly employment data are weak – it is likely that faith in this soft landing construct will dim and spreads could widen. But if they are robust, we can see spreads tightening even further from the current tight levels. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our US Consumer Economist Sarah Wolfe lays out the impact of the Federal Reserve’s rate cut on labor market and consumers, including which goods could see a rise in spending over the next year.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Sarah Wolfe, from the Morgan Stanley US Economics Team. Today, a look at what the Fed cut means for US consumers. It’s Thursday, September 26, at 2 PM in Slovenia. Earlier this week, you heard Mike Wilson and Seth Carpenter talk about the Fed cut and its impact on markets and central banks around the world. But what does it actually mean for US consumers and their wallets? Will it make it easier to pay off credit card debt and secure mortgages? We explore these questions in this episode. Looking back to last week, the FOMC cut rates by a larger chunk than many anticipated as risks from inflation have come down significantly while labor market risks have risen. Now, with inflation wrangled in, it’s time to start reducing the restrictiveness of policy to prevent a rise in the unemployment rate and a slump in economic growth. In fact, my colleague Mike Wilson believes the US labor data will be the most important factor driving US equities for the next three to six months. Despite potential risks, the current state of the U.S. labor market is still solid and that’s where the Fed wants it to stay. The health of the labor market, in my opinion, is best reflected in the health of consumer spending. If we look at this quarter, we’re tracking over 3 per cent growth in real consumption, which is a strong run rate for consumption by all measures. And if we look at how the whole year has been tracking, we’ve only seen a very modest slowdown in real consumer spending from 2.7 per cent last year to 2.5 per cent today. For a bit of perspective, if we go back to 2018 and 2019, when rates were much lower than they are today, and we had a tight labor market, consumption was running closer to 2 to 2.3 per cent. So we can definitively say, consumption is pretty solid today. What is most notable, however, is the slowdown in nominal consumption which takes into account unit growth and pricing. This has slowed much more notably this year from 5.6 per cent last year to 4.9 per cent today. It’s reflected by the significant progress we’ve seen in inflation this year across goods and services, despite solid unit growth – as reflected by stronger real consumer spending. Our US Economics team has been stressing that the fundamentals that drive consumption – which are labor income, wealth, and credit – would be cooler this year but still support healthy spending. When it comes to consumption, in my opinion, I think what matters most is labor income. A slowdown in job growth has stoked fears of slower consumer spending, but if you look at aggregate labor income growth and household wealth, across both equities and real estate, those factors remain solid. So, then we ask ourselves, what has driven more of the slowdown in consumer spending this past year?And with that, let’s go back to interest rates. Rates have been high, and credit conditions have been tight – undeniably restraining consumer spending. Elevated interest rates have pushed banks to pull back on lending and have curbed household demand for credit. As a result, if you look at consumer loan growth from banks, it’s fallen from about 12 per cent in 2022 to 7 per cent last year, and just 3 per cent in the first half of this year. Tight credit is dampening consumption. When interest rates are high, people buy less -- especially on credit. And this is a key principle of monetary policy and it's used to lower inflation. But it can have adverse effects. The brunt of the pain has been borne by the lowest-income households which rely heavily on revolving credit for basic spending needs and more easily max out on their credit limits and fall delinquent. As such, as the Fed begins to lower interest rates, the rates charged on consumer loan products have started to moderate. And with a lag, we expect credit conditions to ease up as well, allowing households across the income distribution to begin to access more credit. We should first see a rebound in durable goods spending – like home furnishing, electronics, appliances, and autos. And then that should all be further supported by more activity in the housing market.  While interest rates are on their way down, they are still relatively elevated, which means the rebound in consumption will take time. The good news, however, is that we do think we are moving through the bottom for durable goods consumption – with pricing for goods likely to stabilize next year and unit growth to pick back up.Thank you for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

With the US presidential race being as closely contested as it is, Michael Zezas explains why patience may be a virtue for investors following Election Day. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about why investors should prepare to wait to get clarity on the US election result. It's Wednesday, September 25th at 10:30am in New York. As we all know, markets dislike uncertainty; and one of the biggest potential catalysts between now and the end of the year is the results of the US presidential election. So it’s important for investors to know that the timing of knowing the outcome may not be what you expect. On most U.S. presidential election days, the outcome is known within hours of polls closing in the evening. That’s because while all votes may not yet have been counted, enough have to make a reasonable projection about the winner. But that’s not what happened in 2020. Vote counts were tight across many states. A condition that was compounded by the slowness of counting mail in ballots, which was a style of voting more widely adopted during the pandemic. As a result, news networks didn’t make a formal outcome projection until about four days after election day.Rather than a reversion to the norm of quickly knowing the result for the 2024 election, we expect an outcome similar to 2020. It could be days before we reliably know a result.The same dynamics as 2020 are in play. Polls show a very close race. And while more voters are likely to show up in person this year, voting by mail is still expected to represent a substantial chunk of ballots cast this cycle. That’s because many states' rules automatically send mail-in ballots to those who voted by that method in the last election. And some recent news out of Georgia underscores the potential for a slower result. The state just adopted a rule requiring all its votes to be hand-counted.Now, this may not matter if either candidate has enough votes without Georgia to win the electoral college. But if Georgia is the deciding or tipping point state then a longer wait becomes possible. Per the 538 election forecast model, there’s about an 11 per cent chance that Georgia plays this role.So, bottom line, investors may have to be patient this November. It could take days, or weeks, to reliably project an election outcome, and therefore start seeing its market effects.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

From stock price fluctuations to concerns about deflation, the reactions to the Fed rate cut have been varied. But we still need to keep an eye on labor data, says Mike Wilson, our CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the Fed’s 50 basis point rate cut last week, and the impact on markets.It's Tuesday, Sept 24th at 11:30am in New York.So let’s get after it. As discussed last week, I thought that the best short-term case for equities was that the Fed could deliver a 50 basis point cut without prompting growth concerns. Chair Powell was able to thread the needle in this respect, and equities ultimately responded favorably. However, I also believe the labor data will be the most important factor in terms of how equities trade over the next three to six months. On that score, the next round of data will be forthcoming at the end of next week. In my view, that data will need to surprise on the upside to keep equity valuations at their currently elevated level. More specifically, the unemployment rate will need to decline and the payrolls above 140,000 with no negative revisions to prior months.  Meanwhile, I am also watching several other variables closely to determine the trajectory of growth. Earnings revision breadth, the best proxy for company guidance, continues to trend sideways for the overall S&P 500 and negatively for the Russell 2000 small cap index. Due to seasonal patterns, this variable is likely to face negative headwinds over the next month.Second, the ISM Purchasing Managers Index has yet to reaccelerate after almost two years of languishing. And finally, the Conference Board Leading Economic Indicator and Employment Trends remain in downward trends; this is typical of a later cycle environment.Bottom line, the Fed's larger than expected rate cut can buy more time for high quality stocks to remain expensive and even help lower quality cyclical stocks to find some support. The labor and other data now need to improve in order to justify these conditions though, through year end.It's also important to point out that the August budget deficit came in nearly $90 billion above forecasts, bringing the year-to-date deficit above $1.8 trillion. We think this fiscal policy has been positive for growth but has resulted in a crowding out within the private economy and financial markets. This is another reason why a recession is the worst-case scenario even though some argue a recession is better than high price levels or inflation for 80-90 per cent of Americans. A recession will undoubtedly bring debt deflation concerns to light, and once those begin, they are hard to reverse. The Fed understands this dynamic better than anyone as first illustrated in Ben Bernanke's famous speech in 2002 entitled “Deflation, Making Sure It Doesn’t Happen Here.” In that speech, he highlighted the tools the Fed could use to avoid deflation including coordinated monetary and fiscal policy.We note that gold continues to outperform most stocks including the high-quality S&P 500. Specifically, gold has rallied from just $300 at the time of Bernanke’s speech in 2002 to $2600 today. The purchasing power of US dollars has fallen much more than what conventional measures of inflation would suggest.As a result, gold, high-quality real estate, stocks and other inflation hedges have done very well. In fact, the newest fiat currency hedge, crypto, has done the best over the past decade. Meanwhile, lower quality cyclical assets like commodities, small cap stocks and commercial real estate have done poorly in both absolute and relative terms; and are losing serious value when adjusted for purchasing power.The bottom line, we expect this to continue in the short term until something happens to change investors' view about the sustainability of these policies. In order to reverse these trends, either organic growth in the private economy needs to reaccelerate and we’ll see a rotation back to the lower quality cyclical assets; or recession arrives, and we finish the cycle and reset all asset prices to levels from which a true broadening out can occur.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Chief Economist, Seth Carpenter, explains why, despite last week’s big Fed move, there’s still plenty of uncertainty in global markets and questions about how other central banks will respond. ----- Transcript -----Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist.Today, I'll be talking about the Fed meeting, where they cut rates for the first time in this cycle, and what it means for the economy around the world.It's Monday, September 23rd at 10am in New York.The Fed cut rates by 50 basis points; but we did not see a huge shift in its reaction function. Rather, the 50 basis points was to show a commitment to not falling behind the curve -- to use Chair Powell's words. From here, the most likely path, from my perspective, is a string of 25 basis point cuts. Powell has again demonstrated that the Fed can move gradually, or quickly, depending on perceptions of risk.But for now, judging from Powell, or other policy makers comments, the Fed still sees the economy as healthy in the labor market; as solid. But another payroll print of 100, 000 or softening in consumer spending, well, that would tip the balance. So, the market debate will continue to focus on the pace of rate cuts and the ultimate landing zone.Our baseline is a touch more front loaded than the dot plot would imply; with us expecting the funds rate to reach just below 3.5 per cent in the middle of next year, rather than the end of next year. The Fed's projections have declines in the target rate into 2026 and beyond, but I have to say the dispersion in the dots that they put up shows just how much consensus is yet to be built within the committee. And, as a result, the phrase data dependency, well, that's not a term that we want to drop from the lexicon anytime soon.The magnitudes of the changes differ, but a comparison that we have made often here is to the 1990s, and that cutting cycle eventually it paused as the economy stabilized and continued to grow. So, there are lots of options for where we go next.Globally, central banks will be adapting and reacting both to global financial conditions like this Fed rate cut, as well as their domestic outlook. Among emerging market economies, Brazil and Indonesia make for useful case studies. With an eye on defending its policy credibility and on market expectations, the central bank in Brazil hiked rates to 10-and-three-quarters per cent this week after a cutting cycle and then a long pause. A weaker currency is the external push, but strong domestic growth is the internal consideration and both of those imply some inflation risks.The Bank of Indonesia cut rates after a strong appreciation in the currency, which lowered the risk from inflations, and it really enabled them to change their footing.Now, for DM central banks, the 50 basis point cut really doesn't materially shift our expectations for what's going to happen. If we are right, and ultimately we get a string of 25 basis point cuts, there's little reason for other developed market central banks to really adjust what they're doing. In Europe, we're waiting for inflation data to confirm the slowdown after the softening of wages that we've seen. So, we have high conviction that there's a cut in September, and we expect another cut in December.Now, more cutting by the Fed might lead to a stronger Euro, which would reinforce that inflation trend, but I don't think it would be enough to really change the path and prompt more aggressive cutting from the ECB. After skipping a rate move in September, given all the question marks they still see about inflation in the UK, we think the Bank of England restarts their cuts in November.The split decision at this most recent meeting shows that the MPC is not making frequent adjustments to its plan based on small tweaks to the incoming data. And finally, for the Bank of Japan, we expect them to stay on hold until January. The meeting for the Bank of Japan was primarily about communication, and indeed, Governor Ueda's comments did not prompt the type of reaction that we saw at the July meeting. So, if we're right, and the Fed's path is mostly, like we think it will be, these other developed market central banks don't have to make big changes.So, the Fed didn't really fully recalibrate its outlook. Instead, what it did was signal a willingness, but just a willingness, to make large shifts; with no clear indication that the fundamental strategy has changed.The market implications seem like they could be clear. With the Fed easing, amid economic conditions that remain resilient, that should be positive for risk assets. But the Fed is also trying to prevent complacency, and I have to say, uncertainty is plentiful. If for no other reason, we've got an election coming up, and that makes forecasting what happens in 2025 very difficult.Thanks for listening. And if you enjoy this show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Chief Latin American Equity Strategist explains how potential changes in Mexico’s regulatory approach could have implications for the country’s equity markets.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Nikolaj Lippmann, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Latin American Equity Strategist. Today I’ll talk about Mexico’s recent judicial reform and its potential impact on equities market.It’s Friday, September 20, at 10am in Mexico City.Mexico has made significant changes to its judicial system. After winning two-thirds majority in both houses – enough to allow for constitutional changes – Mexico policymakers have embarked on a robust reform agenda. Their first stop is a comprehensive reform of the judicial branch, which aims at replacing roughly 2,000 senior judges including the entire Supreme Court. New judges will no longer be appointed but will now be elected by popular vote. This is practically unprecedented in a global context, and while the executive branch might still try to filter future candidates, this new system will likely create a real risk to checks and balances on the judicial branch as well as to expertise and procedure. Additional reforms, including the elimination of independent regulatory bodies, would likely compound these risks. The judicial reform could have a material impact on Mexican equities. So much so, that we think Mexico goes from being an investor favorite to a ‘show me’ story where investors are less likely to give the market the benefit of the doubt. This is likely to result in a derailing or lower set of multiples being paid by investors in Mexican equities or higher risk premium required to invest. Essentially, the judicial reforms could add fiscal, labor and concession/regulatory risk for Mexican companies, even though Mexico has deep manufacturing ecosystems, and has been well-positioned from the transition to [a] multipolar world. Just to give you a sense. Mexico has already sailed past China in terms of manufacturing exports to the United States, and are now approaching the levels of the entire European Union in terms of manufacturing export to the US. These new reforms will raise significant investor concerns, so much so that we’ve downgraded Mexican equities to underweight, a second downgrade since June. Mexican equities have sold off roughly 20 per cent in the past three months, in dollar terms. And we think the judicial reform may contribute to further decline. All in, we see significantly greater potential for negative outcomes than positive outcomes going forward.Looking ahead, we see three key challenges for Mexico: First, the new judicial structure would raise concerns about the independence of the judicial branch. Second, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, the USMCA, is up for review in 2026, and Mexico's judicial reform could mean a much deeper revision. Mexico has committed to maintaining independent regulatory bodies for a number of areas, such as telecom, electricity, in competition. The judicial reform could complicate this commitment. Electricity is a key challenge for Mexico, and it requires immediate investments. Our nearshoring investment thesis stands, but the electricity-related challenges are becoming more pronounced, and they won’t be helped by investor concerns around the judicial reform. So all in, some businesses will be at greater risk from these developments. We expect technology, digitalization, real estate companies to be at the least level of risk, or the lowest level of risk. Domestic concessions could be at more risk. We will continue to bring you relevant updates as Mexico reforms unfold. Thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen. It helps more people find the show.

Investors came away from Morgan Stanley’s recent Industrials Conference with a more optimistic outlook than they expected, based on perspectives including freight transportation’s momentum and AI’s impact on the growth of data centers.----- Transcript -----Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley Research's U.S. Thematic Strategist.Ravi Shanker: I'm Ravi Shanker, Morgan Stanley's Freight Transportation and Airlines Analyst.Chris Snyder: And I'm Chris Snyder, the U.S. Industrial Analyst.Michelle Weaver: Today, we'll talk about key themes for Morgan Stanley's recently concluded industrials conference in Laguna Beach.It's Thursday, September 19th at 10am in New York.Last week, we were all out in Laguna Beach at the industrials conference. There were about 500 different industrials investors, along with 156 corporates, which gave us a pretty comprehensive read on what's going on in the industrial sector.Investor sentiment around industrials was pretty poor heading into the conference, and the overall tone of management, though, seemed better than feared in presentations.Chris, your coverage includes companies with exposure to a wide range of end markets. What did you learn about the cycle from your discussions with company management?Chris Snyder: Yeah, I think you categorized it well: consistent, largely unchanged, but better than feared. Morgan Stanley did a poll ahead of the conference. And only 5 percent of investors thought that the conference would be bullish for industrial risk sentiment. Coming out of the conference, 60 percent of industrial investors are bullish on risk sentiment into the end of the year. So, I think it kind of shows that sentiment was in a very bad place and ‘better than feared’ is the right way to categorize it.We've generally been surprised at the lack of optimism around the industrial cycle in the market. The industrial economy has been in contraction for almost two years now, and it seems like we're on the verge of a rate cut cycle, which has historically been a tailwind for the cycle.You know, in our coverage, business is driven by a combination of investments and then production of goods; and the companies we’re seeing real bifurcation on that. On the investment side -- and that's things like data center, new manufacturing facilities with all the US reshoring momentum -- that business remains strong. And on the production side of the house, that business remains soft. And that's generally in line with our call. We prefer CapEx exposure, particularly those that are tied into energy efficiency.Michelle Weaver: Great. That's really positive to hear that the investment side is still doing well. Ravi, your freight coverage is very macro as well -- in that the freight companies move all the stuff that other companies are making. How does demand from shippers look? And what are freight companies saying about the cycle?Ravi Shanker: Yeah, from a freight transportation perspective, I guess, no news was good news out in Laguna; largely because we have already started to see an improvement in the freight cycle, at the end of 1Q going into 2Q. And I think the market was just waiting to see if that would sustain through 3Q. The data has been supportive so far, and the good news was most of the trucking companies did validate the fact that we have seen a continuation of seasonality from 2Q into 3Q.And looking forward, they're also anticipating a fairly decent peak season, probably the most robust peak season we have had in two or three years. And I use the word robust on a relative basis because it's not going to be the greatest peak season ever. But certainly, better than we've had the last couple of years. But that momentum should continue into 2025.So, nobody really was high fiving out there. But certainly, noted the fact that we are seeing a continued improvement in the cycle; and that momentum should continue into next year.Michelle Weaver: One of Morgan Stanley Research's three key themes for the year is technology, diffusion and AI; and this theme came up repeatedly throughout the conference.Chris, some of your companies have significant exposure to data centers, which have seen a huge boost in demand from AI. What does the growth opportunity look like for Multi's names with exposure to data centers?Chris Snyder: Yeah, data center is a growth opportunity for my industrials’ coverage. And they primarily are driven by the investment side. How much data centers are we building? And they sell a lot of the equipment that goes into the data centers. And what we're seeing now is that there's a huge focus on energy efficiency within the data center. You know, obviously it helps improve their cost profile, but also as there's growing concerns around load growth and electricity allotment.And what that's doing is it's driving demand towards the high end of the spectrum, which is where our big public companies compete. You know, they're the ones that are always spending R&D and innovating and driving energy efficiency for the customer. So, we think there's a mix up opportunity behind it.In terms of growth rates, you know, most of the companies are talking to about 15 percent kind of plus as the growth rate going forward or where they are exposed. And the conference brought, you know, really positive updates. There was no talk of slowdown. And generally, it sounds like momentum remains firm and growth will continue.Michelle, what were some of the other ways companies discussed AI or how they're leveraging the technology?Michelle Weaver: Yeah. So, when I think about how companies have been adopting AI so far, not just within industrials, but within the broader market, it's largely been about things that are plug and play solutions; something like taking a chat bot, putting that on your website, and then you don't need as many customer service representatives.So, when I'm at these kind of events, I always like to listen for more unique or differentiated ways of adopting AI. And I heard about a really interesting case from a company that holds about half of the global market for luxury seating. Processing leather is a super important part of manufacturing seats and has typically been really labor intensive and skilled labor at that. But this company is using AI to scan cow hides to determine what the optimal use for them is, and then inventory them.Before that, a worker had to individually mark the leather for imperfections and then determine how to cut around that. So, I thought that was a pretty interesting use of AI.But now I want to turn over to the consumer exposed pockets of industrials. Discretionary spending has been slowing as multiple years of high prices have been weighing on consumers. But overall, I thought the commentary around the consumer at the conference seemed pretty mixed, and we saw a big divide between the high-end and low-end consumers.Ravi, what did you hear from the airlines around travel demand?Ravi Shanker: Unlike the transportation side where what we heard was fairly consistent with expectations, I think things were much better than expected on the airline side largely because the airlines came out and validated the fact that demand continues to remain very robust -- pretty much across the board. But as you mentioned, definitely at the high end, the premium traveler continues to travel.International is rebounding post Olympics. Corporate is normalizing as well, and some of the low-cost carriers did mention that they were seeing some weakness on the low-end consumer side. Although it was unclear to them if that was actual demand weakness or a function of too much capacity in the marketplace.But they did come out and validate that demand continues to remain very robust; and with capacity continuing to come out of the marketplace and be more balanced with demand, you have seen pricing inflect positive for all the airlines for the first time in several quarters. So definitely, a pretty supportive backdrop for airline demand. And that is going to show up in airline numbers in the third and fourth quarters as well, we think.Michelle Weaver: As someone who's been in the airports a lot recently, I can definitely feel that demand has held up well. Chris, some of your companies also sell consumer products. What does consumer demand look like in your space?Chris Snyder: I would say stable, but at soft levels. And I think a lot of the tailwinds that Ravi is seeing on the service side of the house in airlines is actually coming at the expense of my companies who sell consumer goods. You know, if you look at the consumer wallet share, service mix has not gotten back to the levels that we saw in 2019 and we think that will remain a headwind for goods purchasing going forward.Michelle Weaver: Ravi, Chris, thank you for taking the time to talk.Ravi Shanker: Thanks so much for having me.Chris Snyder: Thank you.Michelle Weaver: And to our listeners, thanks for tuning in. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

While the electoral impact of last week’s US presidential debate is unclear, our Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research offers two guiding principles to navigate the markets during the election cycle.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about takeaways from the US presidential campaign debate. It's Wednesday, September 18th at 10:30am in New York. Last week, Vice President Harris and Former President Trump met in Philadelphia for debate. Investor interest was high, and understandably so. As our Chief Economist Seth Carpenter has previously highlighted in his research, visibility remains low when it comes to the outlook for the US in 2025. That’s because the election could put the country on policy paths that take economic growth in different directions. And of course, the last presidential debate in June led to President Biden’s withdrawal, changing the race dramatically. So, any election-related event that could provide new information about the probability of different outcomes and the resulting policies is worth watching. But, as investors well know from tracking data releases, earnings, Fedspeak, and more, potential catalysts often remain just that – potential. For the moment, we’re putting last week’s debate in that category. Take its impact on outcome probabilities. It could move polls, but perhaps not enough for investors to view one candidate as the clear favorite. For weeks, the polls have been signaling an extremely tight race, with only a small pool of undecided voters. While debates in past campaigns have modestly strengthened a candidate’s standing in the polls, in this race any lead would likely remain within the margin of error. On policy, again we don’t think the debate taught us anything new. Candidates typically use these widely watched events to influence voters’ perceptions. The details of policies and their impact tend to take a back seat to assertions of principles and critiques of their opponents. This is what we saw last week. So if the debate provided little new information about the impact of the election on markets, what guidance can we offer? Here again we repeat two of our guiding principles for this election cycle. First, between now and Election Day, expect the economic cycle to drive markets. The high level of uncertainty and the lack of precedent for market behavior in the run-up to past elections suggest sticking to the cross-asset playbook in our mid-year outlook. In general, we prefer bonds to equities. While our economists continue to expect the US to avoid a recession, growth is slowing. That bodes better for bonds, where yields may track lower as the Fed eases, as opposed to equities, where earnings may be challenged as growth slows. Second, lean into market moves that election outcomes could accelerate. For several months, Matt Hornbach and our interest rate strategy team have been calling for a steeper yield curve, driven by lower yields in shorter-maturity bonds. They have been guided by our economists’ steadfast view that the Fed would start cutting rates this year as inflation eases. We doubt that policies in Democratic win scenarios would change this trend, and a Republican win could accelerate it in the near term, as higher tariffs would imply pressure on growth and possibly further Fed dovishness. Pricing that path could steepen the yield curve further. And of course, there’s still several weeks before the election to get smart on the economic and market impacts of a range of election outcomes. We’ll keep you updated here. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our US Public Policy Strategist explains the potential impact of the upcoming presidential election on the healthcare sector, including whether the outcome is likely to drive a major policy shift.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley’s US Public Policy Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll focus on what the US election means for healthcare. It’s Tuesday, September 17th at 10am in New York. Around elections what we tend to see is voters rank healthcare pretty high among their priority list. And for that reason it’s not surprising that it generates significant debate as well as investor concern – about everything from drug pricing to potential sweeping reforms. We think that the 2024 election is unlikely to transform the US healthcare system. But there are still policies to watch that could change depending on the outcome. We outlined these in a recent note led by our equity research colleagues Erin Wright and Terence Flynn. To start, we think bipartisan policies should continue uninterrupted, regardless of the election outcome. Certain regulations requiring drug price and procedural transparency, for example, which affect hospitals and health plans, are unlikely to change if there is a shift of power next year. We’ve seen some regulations from the Trump era kept in place by the Biden administration; and similarly during the former president’s term there were attempts at bipartisan legislation to modify the Pharmacy Benefit Management model. There are some healthcare policies that could be changed through the tax code, including the extension of the COVID-era ACA subsidies. In President Biden’s fiscal year [20]25 budget request, he called for an extension of those enhanced subsidies; and Vice President Kamala Harris has proposed a similar measure. As we’ve said before on this podcast, we think tax policy will feature heavily in the next Congress as lawmakers contend with the expiring Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. So many of these policies could come into the fold in negotiations. Aside from these smaller potential policy changes, we think material differences to the healthcare system as we know it right now are a lower probability outcome. That’s because the creation of a new system - like Medicare for All or a Public Option - would require unified Democratic control of Congress, as well as party unanimity on these topics. Right now we see a dispersion among Democrats in terms of their views on this topic, and the presence of other more motivating issues for voters; mean[ing] that an overhaul of the current system is probably less likely. Similarly, in a Republican sweep scenario, we don't expect a successful repeal of the Affordable Care Act as was attempted in Trump’s first administration. The makeup of Congress certainly is important, but there are some actions that the President can leverage unilaterally to affect policy here. For example, former President Trump issued several executive orders addressing transparency and the PBM model. If we look at some key industries within Healthcare, our equity colleagues think Managed Care is well positioned heading into this relatively more benign election cycle. Businesses and investors are focusing on candidates' approaches to the Medicare Advantage program and the ACA Exchange, which has subsidies set to expire at the end of 2025. Relative to prior elections, Biopharma should see a lower level of uncertainty from a policy perspective given that the Inflation Reduction Act, or the IRA, in 2022 included meaningful drug pricing provisions. We also think a full-scale repeal of the IRA is unlikely, even in a Republican sweep scenario. So, expect some policy continuity there. Within Biotech, the path to rate cuts is likely a more significant driver of near-term Small and Mid-Cap sentiment rather than the 2024 election cycle. Our colleagues think that investors should keep an eye on two election-related factors that could possibly impact Biotech including potential changes to the IRA that may impact the sector and changes at the FTC, or the Federal Trade Commission, that could make the M&A environment more challenging. As always, we will continue to keep you abreast of new developments as the election gets closer. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

With the Federal Reserve poised to make its long-awaited rate cut this week, our CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist tells us why investors have pivoted their concerns from high inflation to slowing growth. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about what to expect as the Fed likely begins its long-awaited rate cutting cycle this week.  It's Monday, Sept 16th at 10:30am in New York.So let’s get after it.After nearly 12 months of great anticipation, the Fed is very likely to start its rate  cutting cycle this week. The old adage that it is often easier to travel than arrive may apply as markets appear to have priced an aggressive Fed cutting cycle into the  middle of next year while assuming a soft-landing outcome for the economy.More specifically, the two-year US Treasury yield is now 180 basis points below the Fed Funds Rate which is in line with the widest spread in 40 years, a level associated with a hard landing. This is the bond market's way of messaging to the Fed that they are late in getting started with rate cuts. This doesn't mean the Fed can't get ahead of it, but they may need to move faster to keep investors' hopes alive.As a result, the odds of a 50 basis point cut have increased over the past week but it’s still well below a certainty. This is unusual going into an FOMC meeting and is setting markets up for a greater surprise either way. How the markets react to what the Fed does this week will have an even greater influence on investor sentiment than usual, in my view. Ideally, rates should rise at both the front and back end if the bond market likes the Fed’s actions because it signals they aren’t as far behind in trying to orchestrate a soft landing. Conversely, a fall in rates will be a vote of lower confidence. On the other side of the ledger, we have the equity market which appears to be highly convicted that the Fed has already secured the soft landing, at least at the index level. Today, the S&P 500 trades at 21x forward earnings, which also assumes a healthy path of 10 percent earnings growth in 2024 and 15 percent growth in 2025.  Under the surface, the market has skewed much more defensively as it worries more about growth and less about high inflation. I have commented extensively in this podcast about this shift that started in April and why we have been persistently recommending defensive quality for months. With the significant outperformance of defensive sectors since April, the internals of the equity market may not be betting on a soft landing and reacceleration in growth as the S&P 500 index suggests.Keep in mind that the S&P 500 is a defensive, high-quality index of stocks and so it typically  holds up better than most stocks as growth slows in a late cycle environment like  today. These growth concerns will likely persist unless the data turn around, irrespective of what the Fed does this week.In the 11 Fed rate cutting cycles since 1973, eight were associated with recessions while only three were not. The performance over the following year was very mixed with half negative and half positive with a very wide but equal skew. Specifically, the average performance over the 12 months following the start of a Fed rate cutting cycle is 3.5 percent – or about half of the longer-term average returns. The best 12-month returns were 33 percent, while the worst was a negative 31 percent.  Bottom line, it’s generally a toss-up at the index level. The analysis around style and sectors is clearer. Value tends to outperform growth into the first cut and underperform growth thereafter. Defensives tend to outperform cyclicals both before and after the cut. Large caps also tend to outperform small caps both before and after the first rate cut. These last two factor dynamics are supportive of our defensive and large cap bias as Fed cuts often come in a later cycle environment. It’s also why we are sticking with it. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

After sending global markets in a brief tailspin in early August, the Bank of Japan is once again the center of attention. Our Global Chief Economist and Chief Asia Economist discuss the central bank’s next steps to help ease volatility and inflation.----- Transcript -----Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist.Chetan Ahya: And I'm Chetan Ahya, Chief Asia Economist.Seth Carpenter: And on today's episode, Chetan and I are going to be discussing the Bank of Japan and the role it has been playing in recent market turmoil.It's Friday, September 13th at 12.30pm in New York.Chetan Ahya: And it's 5.30pm in London.Seth Carpenter: Financial markets have been going back and forth for the past month or so, and a lot of what's been driving the market movements have been evolving expectations of what's going on at central banks. And right at the center of it has been the Bank of Japan, especially going back to their meeting at the very end of July.So, Chetan, maybe you can just level set us about where things stand with the Bank of Japan right now? And how they've been communicating with markets?Chetan Ahya: Well, I think what happened, Seth, is that Bank of Japan (BoJ) saw that there was a significant progress in inflation and wage growth dynamic. And with that they went out and told the markets that they wanted to start now increasing rate hikes. And at the same time, the end was weakening.And to ensure that they kind of convey to the markets that they want to be now taking rates higher, the governor of the central bank came out and indicated that they are far away from neutral.Now while that was having the desired effect of bringing the yen down, i.e. appreciated. But at the same time, it caused a significant volatility in the equity markets and make it more challenging for the BoJ.Seth Carpenter: Okay, so I get that. But I would say the market knew for a long time that the Bank of Japan would be hiking. We've had that in our forecast for a while. So, do you think that Governor Ueda really meant to be quite so aggressive? That meeting and his comments subsequently really were part of the contribution to all of this market turmoil that we saw in August. So, do you think he meant to be so aggressive?Chetan Ahya: Well, not really. I think that's the reason why what we saw is that a few days later, when the deputy governor Uchida was supposed to speak, he tried to walk back that hawkishness of the governor. And what was very interesting is that the deputy governor came out and indicated that they do care for financial conditions. And if the financial conditions move a lot, it will have an impact on growth and inflation; and therefore, conduct of monetary policy.In that sense, they conveyed the endogeneity of financial conditions and their reaction function. So, I think since that point of time, the markets have had a little bit of reprieve that BoJ will not take up successive rate hikes, ignoring what happens to the financial conditions.Seth Carpenter: But this does feel a little bit like some back and forth, and we've seen in the market that the yen is getting a little bit whipsawed; so the Bank of Japan wants to hike, and markets react strongly. And then the Bank of Japan comes out and says, ‘No, no, no, we're not going to hike that much,’ and markets relax a little bit. But maybe that relaxation allows them to hike more.It kind of reminds me, I have to say, of the 2014 to 2015 period when the Federal Reserve was getting ready to raise interest rates for the first time off of the zero lower bound after the financial crisis. And, you know, markets reacted strongly -- when then chair Yellen started talking about hiking and because of the tightening of financial conditions, the Fed backed down.But then because markets relaxed, the Fed started talking about hiking again. Do you think that's an apt comparison for what's going on now?Chetan Ahya: Absolutely, Seth. I think it is exactly something similar that is going on with Bank of Japan.Seth Carpenter: So, I guess the question then becomes, what happens next? We know with the Fed, they eventually did hike rates at the end of 2015. What do you think we're in line for with the Bank of Japan, and is it likely to be a bumpy ride in the future like it has been over the past couple months?Chetan Ahya: Well, so I think as far as the market’s volatility is concerned, we do think that the fact that the BoJ has come out and indicated that their reaction function is such that they do care about financial conditions. Hopefully we should not see the same kind of volatility that we saw at the start of the month of August.But as far as the next steps are concerned, we do see BoJ taking up one more rate hike in January 2025. And there is a risk that they might take up that rate hike in December.But the reason why we think that they will be able to take up one more rate hike is the fact that there is continued progress on wage growth and inflation; and wage growth is the most important variable that BoJ is tracking.We just got the last month's wage growth number. It has risen up to 3 percent. And going forward, we think that as the BoJ gets comfort that next year's wage negotiations are also heading in the right direction, they will be able to take one more rate hike in January 2025.Well, Seth, I think, you know, when we are talking about this volatility that we saw in the financial markets and particularly yen, the other side of this story is what the Fed has to do, and what is Fed indicating in terms of its policy path. And we saw that, after the nonfarm payrolls data, Governor Waller was indicating that the Fed could consider front-loading its rate cuts. What are your thoughts on that?Seth Carpenter: So, we do think the Fed's getting ready to start cutting rates. Our baseline is that they move at 25 increments per meeting, from now through the middle of next year. I would take Governor Waller's comments though about front-loading cuts -- which I took to mean, you know, the possibility of 50 basis point rate moves -- very much in context, and with a grain of salt.When he gave that speech, I think what he was trying to do, and I think the last paragraph of that speech really bears it out. He was saying there's a lot of uncertainty here. He said, if the data suggests that they need to front load rates, then he would advocate for it. But he also said that, if the data implied that they need to cut at consecutive meetings, he'd be in favor of that as well. So, he was saying that the data are going to be the thing that drives the policy decisions.But thanks for asking that question. And thanks to the listeners. If you enjoy this podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.

Our Head of Corporate Credit Research looks at the Fed’s approach to rate cuts, seasonal trends and the US election to explain why the next month represents a crucial window for credit’s future. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss why the next month is a critical window for credit.It's Thursday, September 12th at 9am in New York. We’ve liked corporate credit as an asset class this year and think the outlook over the next 6-12 months remains promising. At a high level, credit likes moderation, and that continues to be exactly what Morgan Stanley’s economists are forecasting; with moderate growth, moderate inflation, and moderating policy in the US and Europe. Meanwhile, at the ground level, corporate balance sheets are in good shape, and demand for fixed income remains strong, dynamics that we think are unlikely to shift quickly. But this good credit story is now facing a critical window. As we’ve discussed recently on this program, the Fed has taken a risk with monetary policy, continuing to keep interest rates elevated despite increasing indications that they should be lower. U.S. inflation has been coming down rapidly, to the point where the market now thinks the rate of inflation over the next two years will be below what the Fed is targeting. The labor market is slowing, and government bond markets are now assuming that the Fed will have to make much more significant adjustments to policy. And so, this becomes a race. If the economic data can hold up for the next few months, while the Fed does make those first gradual rate cuts, it will help reassure markets that monetary policy is reasonable and in-line with the underlying economy. But if the data weakens more now, the market is vulnerable. Monetary policy works with a lag, meaning rate cuts are not going to help anytime soon. And so, it becomes easier for the market to worry that growth is slowing too much, and that the cavalry of rate cuts will be too late to arrive. The second immediate challenge is so-called seasonality. Over almost a century, September has seen significantly weaker performance relative to any other month. Seasonality always has an element of mysticism to it, but in terms of specific reasons why markets tend to struggle around this time of year, we’d point to two factors. First, after a summer lull, you tend to see a lot of issuance, including corporate bonds issuance. And for Equities, September often sees more negative earnings revisions, as companies aim to bring full-year estimates in line with reality. Lots of supply and weaker earnings revisions are often a tough combination. A final element of this critical window is the approaching US election. This appears to be an extremely close race between candidates with very different policy priorities. If investors get more nervous that monetary policy is mis-calibrated, or seasonality is unhelpful, the approaching election provides yet another reason for investors to hold back. All of this is why we think the next month is a critical window for credit, and why we’d exercise a little bit more caution than we have so far this year. But we also think any weakness is going to be temporary. By early November, the US election will be over, and we think growth will be holding up, inflation will keep coming down, and interest rate cuts will be well underway. And while September is historically a bad month for stocks and credit, late-October onward is a different and much better story. Any near-term softness could still give way to a stronger finish to the year. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Office buildings continue to struggle in the post-pandemic era, but our Chief Fixed Income Strategist notes that other properties have turned a corner. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about how the challenges facing the US commercial real estate markets have evolved and talk about where they are headed next.It's Wednesday, Sep 11th at 10 am in New York.Over the last year and half, the challenges of commercial real estate, or CRE in short, have been periodically in the spotlight. The last time we discussed this issue here was in the first quarter of this year. That was in the aftermath of loan losses announced by a regional bank that primarily focused on rent-stabilized multifamily and CRE lending in the New York metropolitan area. At the same time, lenders and investors in Japan, Germany and Canada also reported sizable credit losses and write-down related to US commercial real estate.At that time, we had said that CRE issues should be scrutinized through the lenses of lenders and property types; and that saw meaningful challenges in both – in particular, regional banks as lenders and office as a property type.Rolling the calendar forward, where do things stand now?Focusing on the lenders first, there is some good news. While regional bank challenges from their CRE exposures have not gone away, they are not getting any worse. That means incremental reserves for CRE losses have been below what we had feared. Our economists’ expectations of Fed’s rate cuts on the back of their soft-landing thesis, gives us the conviction that lower rates should be an incremental benefit from a credit quality perspective for banks because it alleviates pressure on debt service coverage ratios for borrowers. Lower rates also give banks more room to work with their borrowers for longer by providing extensions. For banks, this means while CRE net charge-offs could rise in the near term, they are likely to stabilize in 2025.In other words, even though the fundamental deterioration in terms of the level of delinquencies and losses may be ahead, the rate of change seems to have clearly turned. In that sense, as long as the rate cuts that we anticipate materialize, the worst of the CRE issues for regional banks may now be behind us.From the lens of property types, it is important not to paint all property types with the same brushstroke of negativity. Office lots remain the pain point. Looking at the payoff rates in CMBS pools gives us a granular look at the performance across different property types.Overall, 76 per cent of the CRE loans that matured over the past 12 months paid off, which is a pretty healthy rate. However, in office loans, the payoff rate was just 43 per cent. Other property types were clearly much better. For example, 100 per cent of industrial property loans, 96 per cent of multi-family loans, 89 per cent of hotel loans that matured in the last 12 months paid off. The payoff rates in retail property loans were a bit lower but still pretty healthy at 76 per cent, in clear contrast to office properties. Delinquency rates across property types also show a similar trend with office loans driving the lion’s share of the overall increase in delinquencies.In short, the secular headwinds facing the office market have not dissipated. Office property valuations, leasing arrangements and financing structures must adjust to the post-pandemic realities of office work. While this shift has begun, more is needed. So, there is really no quick resolution for these challenges which we think are likely to persist. This is especially true in central business district offices that require significant capex for upgrades or repurposing for use as residential housing.Overall, we stick to our contention that commercial real estate risks present a persistent challenge but are unlikely to become systemic for the economy. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen to this and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

With the generational shift in the US housing market underway, our analysts discuss the impact this trend will have on residential real estate investing.----- Transcript -----Ron Kamdem: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ron Kamdem, head of Commercial Real Estate Research and the US Real Estate Investment Trust team within Morgan Stanley Research.Lauren Hochfelder: And I'm Lauren Hochfelder, Co-Chief Executive Officer of Morgan Stanley Real Estate Investing, the global private real estate investment arm of the firm.Ron Kamdem: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we’ll discuss the tangible impact of shifting demographics on the residential real estate investing space.It's Tuesday, September 10th at 10 am in New York.So, Lauren, for several years now, we've been hearing about millennials overtaking the baby boomers. As a reminder, millennials are people between the age of 28 and 43. So someone like me. And there’s about 72 million millennials right now. Baby boomers are around 59 to 78; and there's about 69 million at the moment. This demographic shift will have a profound impact on all sectors of the economy, including residential housing. So, let's lay the foundation first. What are the current needs of baby boomers and millennials when it comes to their homes?Lauren Hochfelder: Yeah, this is such an interesting moment, Ron, because as you say, their needs are shifting. Over the last 15 years, what have millennials wanted? They have wanted multifamily. They have wanted rental apartment units. And by the way, they've wanted, generally speaking, small ones in cities.Ron Kamdem: Yup.Boomers? They have been disproportionately residing in single family homes that they own, and that they've owned for a long time. But here we are, as millennials reach peak household formation years and boomers approach their 80-year-old mark. There's a real shift.We have millennials growing up and growing out, and boomers growing older. And that means millennials need more space; boomers need more services. Housing with increased care options. And that really leads to three things.One, pockets of oversupply of multifamily. Developers develop to the rearview mirror; and we have way too much of what they wanted yesterday and too little of what they wanted to what they want tomorrow. The second is increased demand for single family rental in more suburban locations to meet the needs of those millennials. And the third is increased demand for senior housing for the boomers.Ron Kamdem: Excellent. So, when we look at the next five to ten years, let's consider each of these generations. Demand for senior housing is increasing significantly. Where are we in this process, and what's your expectation for the next decade?Lauren Hochfelder: Look, we think this is the golden age for senior housing. The demand wave is upon us, supply is way down. And by the way, labor costs, which have been a real headwind, are finally abating. New construction of senior housing has basically fallen off a cliff. It is down 75 per cent from its peak; if you look at the first quarter of this year, it's basically at GFC levels. And third, the senior wealth effect. Not only do seniors need this product, they can afford it.They have been in those homes, they've owned those homes for a very long time, and over that period, home prices have appreciated. So, seniors are in a position where they can really afford to move into these senior living facilities.Ron Kamdem: And what about millennials? As they get older, how are their housing needs evolving?Lauren Hochfelder: I'd say three things. It's they need more space. So single family rental versus multifamily. The second is migratory shifts, right? It's no longer -- I have to live in San Francisco or New York. You're seeing real growth in the southeast and Texas. And the third is this preference to rent. Now, a lot of that's affordability driven.Ron Kamdem: Right.Lauren Hochfelder: But I think there's also mobility. There's just general preference. I mean, this is a generation that doesn't own a landline, right? So, they want to rent. They don't want to buy.Ron Kamdem: So, given these trends as an actual real estate investor, how do you view the supply and demand dynamics within residential investing? And where do you see the biggest opportunities?Lauren Hochfelder: Look, I think housing in general is attractive to invest in. There's simply too little of it. But you really can't paint a broad brush. You need to invest in the type of housing with the best outlook. And you and I can sit here and debate what's going to happen with interest rates. But what is not debatable is that these two large age groups are going to drive demand disproportionately.And so rather than speculating on interest rates, let's calculate the number of people in these generations. And so that means that we want to invest in single family. We want to invest in seniors housing, and we want to invest in the markets where these groups want to live.So, let's turn it around. We've been talking about this growing senior population and, you know, we and my side of the business. We've been investing in a lot of senior housing communities. But how does this affect your world? You cover the entire US public real estate investment trust universe. How are you thinking about these things?Ron Kamdem: So, our investors are really focused on secular trends that they can invest over a long period of time. And there's really two that I would like to call out. So, the first is the rise of senior housing communities.As you mentioned earlier, if you think about the US population, the population that's 65 and over is really the addressable market. And we do expect that number to rise to about 21 per cent of the population or 71 million people.Lauren Hochfelder: So, think about one in four people being eligible or appropriate for senior housing. It's amazing.Ron Kamdem: That’s an incredible demand function.Now, the second piece of it is historically these seniors have actually shied away from senior housing. So, the first sort of trend and inflection point that I want to call out is we do think there's an opportunity for penetration race -- not only to flatten out, but to start increasing. And that's driven exactly by your earlier comment, which is affordability. Remember, about 75 per cent of seniors actually own their own homes, and they've seen a significant amount of price appreciation. Since 2010, their home prices have gone up 80 per cent, which is about two times the rate of inflation.Second investable trend is the move of outpatient services outside of the hospital setting. So, if you go back to the eighties, only about 16 per cent of services were being done outside of the hospital. In 2020, that number was close to 68 per cent and we think that's going to keep rising. The reason being because of surgical advances, there's a lot of projects that can be done outside of the hospital. Whether it's, you know, knee replacements, trigger finger surgery, cataract surgeries, and so forth. In addition to that, the expansion of Medicare coverage has allowed for reimbursement of these services, again, outside of the hospital.So, we think these are trends that are in place that should continue over the next sort of decade and drive more demand to the healthcare real estate space.Lauren Hochfelder: So, what should we be nervous about? What concerns you?Ron Kamdem: Look, I think on the senior housing side, there's always two factors that we focus on. So, the first is labor. This remains a very labor-intensive industry. But in the US, historically, people coming out of college, they're not necessarily going into the health care space. So, there's been moments of labor shortages. This happened exactly after the pandemic. Luckily, today, the labor situation has abated and you're seeing sort of labor costs back to inflationary type levels.The second piece of it is just the age of the facilities. Now, keep in mind, there's still a lot of facilities with the average age of about 41, right. And everybody has in the back of their mind, these older facilities with older carpets and so forth. So, when we're thinking about investing in the space, we're always focused on the newer assets, the better quality that are going to provide a better experience for the tenant.Lauren Hochfelder: So, given these shifts, what segments of your world are poised to benefit the most?Ron Kamdem: The real estate public market, there's about 160 REITs across 16 different subsectors; and the senior housing subsector is by far the most compelling in our minds. If you think about the REIT market, the average sort of earnings growth is 3 to 4 per cent. However, the senior housing sector, we think you can get 10 per cent or more growth over the next three to five years. The reason being when the pandemic hit, this was an industry that saw occupancy go from 90 per cent to 75 per cent.There was a moment in time where people thought you'd never put any seniors in the facility again. Well, the exact opposite has happened, and now we're seeing occupancy gains of about 300 basis points of about 3 per cent every year. On top of some pricing power, call it 5, 6 or 7 per cent. So, we're looking at a sector where we think organically you can grow sort of high single digits. With a little bit of operating leverage, you can get to a total earning growth of double digits, which is very compelling relative to the rest of the REIT market.Lauren Hochfelder: Let's go back to your generation, as you said. Let's go back to the millennials. How do those shifting needs affect which part of the universe you would invest in?Ron Kamdem: One of the things that I think every real estate owner’s thinking about is how to integrate their platform so that they're more millennial friendly. They're going online. They're using their phones, and I think we're seeing a much bigger investment in marketing dollars on a web presence, on a web platform, and on a mobile friendly app, certainly to be able to interface with that millennial and help with customer acquisitions.So, I would say that's probably the biggest difference -- is how you target that population in a different way than you did historically.Lauren Hochfelder: Yeah, I mean we all shop online, shouldn't we get our homes online, right?Ron Kamdem: That's right. All right, Lauren. Well, thanks for taking the time to talk.Lauren Hochfelder: Yeah, this been great, Ron. I always enjoy us catching up.Ron Kamdem: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen. It helps more people to find the show.

Following weaker-than-expected August jobs data, our CIO and Chief U.S Equity Strategist lays out how the Federal Reserve can ease concerns about a possible hard landing.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the labor market’s impact on equity markets.It's Monday, Sept 9th at 11:30am in New York. So let’s get after it.Last week, I wrote a detailed note discussing the importance of the labor data for equity markets. Importantly, I pointed out that since the materially weaker than expected July labor report, the S&P 500 has bounced more than other "macro" markets like rates, currencies and commodities. In the absence of a reacceleration in the labor data, we concluded the S&P 500 was trading out of sync with the fundamentals. Over the past week, we received several labor market data points, which were weaker than expected. First, the Job Openings data for July was softer than expected coming in at 7.7mm versus the consensus expectation of 8.1mm. In addition, June's initial result was revised lower by 274k. This essentially supported the view that the weak payrolls data in July may, in fact, not be related to weather or other temporary issues. Second, the job openings rate fell to 4.6%, which is very close to the 4.5% level Fed Governor Waller has cited as a threshold below which the unemployment rate could rise much faster. Third, the Fed's Beige Book came out last week. It indicated that activity remains sluggish with 9 of the 12 Federal Reserve districts reporting flat or declining activity in August, though commentary on labor markets was more neutral, rather than negative. These data sync nicely with the Conference Board’s Employment Trends Index, which I find to be a very objective aggregate measure of the labor market's direction. This morning, we received the latest release for August Conference Board labor market trends and the trend remains down, but not necessarily recessionary. Of course, the main event last week was Friday's monthly jobs and unemployment reports, where the payroll survey number came in below consensus at 142k. In addition, last month's result was revised lower from 114k to 89k. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate fell by only a couple of basis points leaving investors unconvinced that July’s labor weakness was overstated. Given much of these labor and other growth data have continued to skew to the downside, the macro markets (like rates, currencies, and Commodities) have been trading with more concern about potential hard landing risks. Perhaps nowhere is this more obvious than with 2-year US Treasuries. As of Friday, the spread between the 2-year Treasury yields and the Fed Funds Rate matched the widest levels in the past 40 years. This pricing suggests the bond market believes the Fed is behind the curve from an easing standpoint. On Friday, the equity market started to get in sync with this view and questioned whether a 25bp cut in September would be an adequate policy response to the labor data. In the context of an equity market that is still quite rich and based on well above average earnings growth assumptions, the correction on Friday seems quite appropriate. In my view, until the bond market starts to believe the Fed is no longer behind the curve, labor data reverses course and improves materially or additional policy stimulus is introduced, it will be difficult for equity markets to trade with a more risk on tone. This means valuations are likely to remain challenged for the overall index, while the leadership remains more defensive and in line with our sector and stock recommendations. We see two ways in which the Fed can get ahead of the curve—either faster cutting than expected which is unlikely in the absence of recessionary data; or the labor data starts to improve in a convincing manner and 2-year yields rise. Given the Fed is in the blackout period until next week’s FOMC meeting, and there are not any major labor data reports due for almost a month, volatility will likely remain elevated and valuations under pressure overall. This all brings our previously discussed fair value range for the S&P 500 of 5000-5400 back into view.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Head of Corporate Credit Research, Andrew Sheets, expects a sticky but shallow cycle for defaults on loans, with solid quality overall in high-grade credit.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss some longer-term thoughts on the credit market and the economic cycle.It's Friday, September 6th at 2pm in London.Concerns around US growth have risen, an issue that will probably persist even after today’s US Payrolls report came roughly inline with expectations. At Morgan Stanley, we continue to expect moderate slowing in growth, not a slump. By the middle of next year, our economists see growth slowing to a still respectable 2% growth rate, and a total of seven rate cuts.While growth is set to slow, we think corporate balance sheet metrics are unusually good in the face of this slowing. Indeed, the credit quality of the US investment grade and BB credit markets, which represent the vast majority of corporate credit outstanding, have actually improved since the Fed started hiking rates.Now, looking ahead, there's understandable concern that these currently good credit metrics won't be sustainable as companies will have to refinance the very cheap borrowing that they received immediately after COVID, with the more expensive costs of today's currently higher yields. But we actually think balance sheets will be reasonably robust in light of this reset, and so their ultimate rate sensitivity could be relatively low.One reason is that a wave of refinancing means companies have already tackled a significant portion of their upcoming debt, reducing the so-called rollover or refinancing risk. Interest coverage for floating rate borrowers has stabilized and should actually improve as the Fed starts to lower rates.The debt service costs for higher rated companies will increase as cheaper debt matures and has to be replaced with more expensive borrowing; but we stressed this is a pretty slow process given the long-term nature of a lot of this borrowing. And so, overall, we think the headwinds from higher debt costs are going to be manageable, with the problems largely confined to a smaller cohort of the lowest quality issuers.We think all of that will drive a so-called sticky but shallow default cycle, with defaults driven by higher borrowing costs at select issuers rather than a single problem sector or particularly poor corporate earnings. And there are also some important offsets. Morgan Stanley's forecast suggests that the Fed will be cutting rates, which will reduce overall borrowing costs over the medium term. And another notable theme over the last two years is that more defaults have been becoming so-called restructurings rather than bankruptcies. These restructurings are more likely to leave a company operating -- just under new ownership -- and create less negative feedback into the real economy.Now, against all this, we're mindful that credit spreads are tight, i.e. lower than average. But importantly, we don't think this reflects some sort of euphoria from either the lenders or the borrowers.All-in borrowing costs for corporates remain high, and that's made corporates less likely to be aggressive or increase their leverage. Indeed, since COVID, the overall high yield bond and loan markets have actually shrunk. Leverage buyout activity has been muted and corporate leverage has gone sideways.These are not the types of things you see when corporates are being particularly aggressive and credit unfriendly. Credit markets love moderation and that's very much what Morgan Stanley's economic forecasts over the medium term expect. Spreads may be tight. But we think they're currently supported by strong fundamentals, modest supply, and improving technicals.Today's roughly inline payroll number won’t resolve the uncertainty around growth, but longer term, we think the picture remains encouraging.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our US Public Policy and Global Commodities strategists discuss how the outcome of the election could affect energy markets in the US and around the world.----- Transcript -----Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's US public policy strategist.Martijn Rats: And I'm Martijn Rats, Global Commodity Strategist.Ariana Salvatore: Today we'll be talking about a topic that's coming into sharper focus this fall. How will the US presidential election shape energy policy and global energy markets?It's Thursday, September 5th at 10am in New York.Martijn Rats: And 3pm in London.Ariana Salvatore: As we enter the final leg of the US presidential campaign, Harris and Trump are getting ready to go head-to-head on a number of key topics. Healthcare, housing, the state of the economy, foreign policy; and also high on the agenda -- energy policy.So, Martijn, let's set the stage here. Prices at the gas pump in the US have been falling over recent weeks, which is atypical in the summer. What's happening in energy markets right now? And what's your expectation for the rest of the year?Martijn Rats: Yeah, it's a relevant question. Oil prices have been quite volatile recently. I would say that objectively, if you look at the market for crude oil, the crude oil market is tight right now. We can see that in inventories, for example, they are buying large drawing, which tell[s] you, the demand is outstripping supply.But there are two things to say about the tightness in the crude oil market. First of all, we're not quite seeing that tightness merit in the markets for refined products. So, get the market for gasoline, the market for diesel, et cetera. At the moment, the global refining system is running quite hard.But they're also producing a lot of refined product. A lot of gasoline, a lot of diesel. They're pushing that to their customers. Demand is absorbing that, but not quite in a convincing manner. And you can see that in refining margins. They have been steadily trending down all summer.The second thing to say about the tightness and crude is that it's largely driven by a set of factors that will likely to be somewhat temporary. Seasonally demand is at its strongest -- that helps. The OPEC deal is still in place. And as far as we can see in high frequency data, OPEC is still constraining production.And then thirdly, production has been growing in a number of non-OPEC countries. But that absent flows and the last couple of months have seen somewhat of a flat spot in non-OPEC supply growth.Now, those factors have created the tightness that we're seeing currently in the third quarter. But if you start to think about the oil market rolling into the fourth quarter and eventually 2025, a lot of these things going to reverse. The seasonal demand tailwinds that we are currently enjoying; they turn into seasonal demand headwinds in four q[uarter]and one q[uarter] -- seasonally weaker quarters of the year. Non-OPEC production will likely resume its upward trajectory based on the modeling of projects that we've done. That seems likely. And then OPEC has also said that they will start growing production again with the start of the fourth quarter.Now, when you put that all together, the market is in deficit now. It will return to a broadly balanced state in the fourth quarter, but then into a surplus in 2025. Prices look a little into the future. They discount the future a little bitNow, as the US election approaches, investors are increasingly concerned how a Trump versus Harris win would affect energy policy and markets going forward. Ariana, how much and what kind of authority does the US president actually have in terms of energy policy? Can you run us through that?Ariana Salvatore: Presidential authorities with respect to energy policy are actually relatively limited. But they can be impactful at the margin over time. What we tend to see actually is that production and investment levels are reasonably insulated from federal politics.Only about 25 per cent of oil and 10 per cent of natural gas is produced on federal land and waters in the US. You also have this timing factor. So, a lot of these changes are really only incremental; and while they can affect levels at the margin, there's a lag between when that policy is announced and when it could actually flow through in terms of actual changes to supply levels. For example, when we think of things like permitting reform, deregulation and environmental review periods and leasing of federal lands, these are all policy options that do not have immediate impacts; and many times will span across different presidential administrations.So, you might expect that if a new president comes into office, he or she could reverse many of the executive actions taken by his or her predecessor with respect to this policy area.Martijn Rats: And what have Trump and Harris each said so far about energy policy?Ariana Salvatore: So, I would say this topic has been less prevalent in Harris's campaign, unless we're talking about it in the context of the energy transition overall. She hasn't laid out yet specific policy plans when it comes to energy; but we think it's safe to assume that you could see her maintain a lot of the Biden administration's clean energy goals and the continued rollout of bills like the Inflation Reduction Act, which contained a whole host of energy tax credits toward those ends.Now, conversely, Trump has focused on this a lot because he's been tying energy supply to inflation, making the case that we can lower inflation and everyday costs by drilling more. His policy platform, and that of the GOP has been to increase energy production across the board. Mainly done by streamlining, permitting and loosening restrictions on oil, natural gas, and coal.Now, to what I said before, some of that can be accomplished unilaterally through the executive branch. But other times it might require the consent of Congress, and consent from states -- because sometimes these permitting lines cross state borders.So, Martijn, from your side, how quickly can US policy, whether it's driven by Trump or Harris, affect energy markets and change production levels and therefore supply?Martijn Rats: Yeah, like you just outlined, the answer to that question is only gradually. Regulation is important, but economics are more important. If you roll the clock back to, say, early 2021, when President Biden has just took office; on day one, he famously canceled the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline.But if you now look back, at the last four years, start to finish; American oil production, grew more under Biden, than any other president in the history of the United States. With the exception of Obama, who, of course, enjoyed the start of the shale revolution.Production is close, to record levels, which were set just before COVID, of course. So, in the end, the measures that President Biden put in place, have had only a very limited impact on oil production. The impact that the American president can have is only -- it's only gradual.Ariana Salvatore: So, as we've mentioned, expanding energy development has been a massive plank of Trump's campaign platform. And listeners will also remember that during his term in office, he supported energy development on federal land. If Trump wins in November, what would it mean for oil supply and demand both in the US and globally?Martijn Rats: Admittedly, it's somewhat of a confusing picture. So, if you look at oil supply, you have to split it in perhaps a domestic impact and an international impact. Domestically, Donald Trump has famously said recently that he would return the oil industry to “Drill baby drill,” which is this, this shorthand metaphor for, abundant drilling in an effort to significantly accelerate oil production.But as just mentioned, there is little to be unleashed because during President Biden, the American oil industry hasn't really been constrained in the first place.A lot of American EMP companies are focused on capital discipline. They're focused on returns on free cashflow on shareholder distributions. With that come constraints to capital expenditure budgets that probably were not in place several years ago with those CapEx constraints, production can only grow so fast.That is a matter of shareholder preference. That is a matter of returns. And regulation can change that a little bit, but not so much.If you look at the perspective outside the United States, it is also worth mentioning that in the first Trump presidency, President Trump famously put secondary sanctions on the export of crude oil from Iran. At the time that significantly constrained crude oil supply from Iran, which in 2018 played a key role in driving oil prices higher.Now, it's an open question, whether that policy can be repeated. The flow of oil around the world has changed since then. Iranian oil isn't quite going to the same customers as it did back then. So, whether that policy can be replicated, remains to be seen. But whilst the domestic perspective -- i.e. an attempt to grow production -- could be interpreted as a potential bearish factor for the price of oil, the risk of sanctions outside the United States could be interpreted as a potential bullish risk for oil.And this is, I think, also why the oil market struggles to incorporate the risks around the presidential election so much. At the moment, we're simply confronted with a set of factors. Some of them bearish, some of them bullish, but it remains hard to see exactly which one of them played out. And, at the moment they don't have a particular skew in one direction.So, we're just confronted with options, but little direction.Ariana Salvatore: Makes sense. So, I think that makes this definitely a policy area that we'll be paying very close attention to this fall. I suppose we'll also both be tuning into the upcoming debate, where we might get a better sense of both sides policy plans. If we do learn anything that changes our views, we'll be sure to let you know.Martijn, thanks for taking the time to talkMartijn Rats: Great speaking with you, Ariana.Ariana Salvatore: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Despite a flurry of election news, little may have changed for investors weighing the possible outcomes. Our Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research, Michael Zezas, explains why this is the case as we move closer to Election Day. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about recent developments in the US election.It's Wednesday, September 4th at 10:30am in New York. While news headlines might make it seem a lot has changed in recent weeks around the US election, in our view not much has changed at all. And that’s important for investors to understand as they navigate markets between now and Election Day on November 5th. Let me explain. In recent weeks, we've had the Democratic convention, fresh polls, and a third party candidate withdraw from the race and endorse former President Trump. But all appear to reflect only marginal impacts on the probabilities of different electoral outcomes. Take the withdrawal of independent candidate Robert F Kennedy Junior, which does not appear to be a game changer. Historical precedent is that third party candidates rarely have a path to even winning one state's electoral votes. Further, in polls voters tend to overstate their willingness to support third parties ahead of election day. And it's also not clear that Kennedy withdrawing clearly benefits Democrats or Republicans.  Kennedy originally ran for President as a Democrat, and so was thought to be pulling from likely Democratic voters. However, polls suggest his supporter’s next most likely choice was nearly split between Trump and Harris.  So while it’s possible that Kennedy’s decision to endorse Trump upon dropping out could be meaningful, given how close the race is, we’re unlikely to be able to observe that potentially marginal but meaningful effect until after the election has passed. And such effects could easily be offset by small shifts favoring Democrats, who are showing some polling resiliency in states where just a couple months ago the election was not assumed by experts to be close.  For example, Cook Political Report, a site providing non-partisan election analysis, shifted its assessment of the Presidential election outcome in North Carolina from “lean Republican” to a “toss-up.” Similarly, in recent weeks the site has shifted states like Arizona, Nevada, and Georgia into that same category from “lean Republican.” These shifts are mirrored in several other polls released last week showing a close race in the battleground states. So for all the changes and developments in the last week, we think we’re left with a Presidential race that’s difficult to view as anything other than a tossup. To borrow a term from the world of sport – it’s a game of inches. Small improvements for either side can be decisive, but as observers we may not be able to see them ahead of time.  And so that brings us back to our guidance for investors navigating the run up to the election. Let the democratic process unfold and don’t make any major portfolio shifts until more is known about the outcome. That means the economic cycle will drive markets more than the election cycle in the next couple months. In our view, that favors bonds over stocks. Lower inflation enables easier monetary policy and lower interest rates, good for bond prices; but growth concerns should weigh on equities.  Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

While venture capital is taking a more cautionary approach with crypto startups, the buzz around GenAI is only increasing.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ed Stanley, Morgan Stanley’s Head of Thematic Research in Europe. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss what private markets can tell us about the viability and investability of disruptive technologies. It’s Tuesday, the 3rd of September, at 2pm in London. For the past three years we have been tracking venture capital funding to help stay one step ahead of emerging technologies and the companies that are aiming to disrupt incumbent public leaders. Private growth equity markets are -- by their very definition – long-duration, and therefore highly susceptible to interest rate cycles. The easy-money bubble of 2021 and [20]22 saw venture funding reach nearly $1.2trillion dollars – more than the previous decade of funding combined. However, what goes up often comes down; and since their peak, venture growth equity capital deployment has fallen by over 60 percent, as interest rates have ratcheted ever higher beyond 5 percent. So as interest rates fall back towards 3.5 percent, which our economists expect to happen over the coming 12 months, we expect M&A and IPO exit bottlenecks to ease. And so too the capital deployment and fundraising environment to improve. However, the current funding market and its recovery over the coming months and years looks more imbalanced, in our view, than at any point since the Internet era. Having seen tens- and hundreds of billions of dollars poured into CleanTech and health innovations and battery start-ups when capital was free; that has all but turned to a trickle now. On the other end of the spectrum, AI start-ups are now receiving nearly half of all venture capital funding in 2024 year-to-date. Nowhere is that shift in investment priorities more pronounced than in the divergence between AI and crypto startups. Over the last decade, $79billion has been spent by venture capitalists trying to find the killer app in crypto – from NFTs to gaming; decentralized finance. As little as three years ago, start-ups building blockchain applications could depend on a near 1-for-1 correlation of funding for their projects with crypto prices. Now though, despite leading crypto prices only around 10 percent below their 2021 peak, funding for blockchain start-ups has fallen by 75 percent. Blockchain has a product-market-fit and a repeat-user problem. GenerativeAI, on the other hand, does not. Both consumer and enterprise adoption levels are high and rising. Generative AI has leap-frogged crypto in all user metrics we track and in a fraction of the time. And capital providers are responding accordingly. Investors have pivoted en-masse towards funding AI start-ups – and we see no reason why that would stop. The same effect is also happening in physical assets and in the publicly traded space. Our colleague Stephen Byrd, for example, has been advocating for some time that it makes increasing financial sense for crypto miners to repurpose their infrastructure into AI training facilities. Many of the publicly listed crypto miners are doing similar maths and coming to the same outcome. For now though, just as questions are being asked of the listed companies, and what the return on invested capital is for all this AI infrastructure spend; so too in private markets, one must ask the difficult question of whether this unprecedented concentration around finding and funding AI killer apps will be money well spent or simply a replay of recent crypto euphoria. It is still not clear where most value is likely to accrue to – across the 3000 odd GenerativeAI start-ups vying for funding. But history tells us the application layer should be the winner. For now though, from our work, we see three likely power-law candidates. The first is breakthroughs in semiconductors and data centre efficiency technologies. The second is in funding foundational model builders. And the third, specifically in that application layer, we think the greatest chance is in the healthcare application space. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.*****Digital assets, sometimes known as cryptocurrency, are a digital representation of a value that function as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, or a store of value, but generally do not have legal tender status. Digital assets have no intrinsic value and there is no investment underlying digital assets. The value of digital assets is derived by market forces of supply and demand, and is therefore more volatile than traditional currencies’ value. Investing in digital assets is risky, and transacting in digital assets carries various risks, including but not limited to fraud, theft, market volatility, market manipulation, and cybersecurity failures—such as the risk of hacking, theft, programming bugs, and accidental loss. Additionally, there is no guarantee that any entity that currently accepts digital assets as payment will do so in the future. The volatility and unpredictability of the price of digital assets may lead to significant and immediate losses. It may not be possible to liquidate a digital assets position in a timely manner at a reasonable price.Regulation of digital assets continues to develop globally and, as such, federal, state, or foreign governments may restrict the use and exchange of any or all digital assets, further contributing to their volatility. Digital assets stored online are not insured and do not have the same protections or safeguards of bank deposits in the US or other jurisdictions. Digital assets can be exchanged for US dollars or other currencies, but are not generally backed nor supported by any government or central bank.Before purchasing, investors should note that risks applicable to one digital asset may not be the same risks applicable to other forms of digital assets. Markets and exchanges for digital assets are not currently regulated in the same manner and do not provide the customer protections available in equities, fixed income, options, futures, commodities or foreign exchange markets. Morgan Stanley and its affiliates do business that may relate to some of the digital assets or other related products discussed in Morgan Stanley Research. These could include market making, providing liquidity, fund management, commercial banking, extension of credit, investment services and investment banking.

Original Release Date August 8, 2024: Our Head of Europe Sustainability Research discusses how rising longevity is revolutionizing our fundamental approach from reactive to proactive treatment.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Mike Canfield, Morgan Stanley’s European Head of Sustainability Research. Along with my colleagues, we’re bringing you a variety of perspectives; and today we’re focusing on a topic that affects everyone – how much does poor health cost us? And how are ageing populations and longer life expectancy driving a fundamental shift in healthcare? It’s Thursday, August the 8th, at 4pm in London.   As populations age across the developed world, health systems need to help people live both longer and healthier. The current system is typically built around to focus on acute conditions and it’s more reactive; so it introduces clinical care or drugs to respond to a condition after it’s already arisen, rather than keeping people healthy in the first instance. So increasingly, with the burden of chronic disease becoming by far the greatest health and economic challenge we face, we need to change the structure of the healthcare system. Essentially, the key question is how much is poor health amongst the ageing population really costing society? To get a true sense of that, we need to keep in mind that workers over 50 already earn one out of every three dollars across the G20 regions. By 2035, they're projected to generate nearly 40 per cent of all household income. So with that in mind, preventable conditions amongst those people aged 50-64 at the moment, are already costing G20 economies over $1 trillion annually in productivity loss. And there’s one more key number: 19 per cent. That's how much age-diverse workforces can raise GDP per capita over the next thirty years, according to estimates from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD. So clearly, keeping workers healthier for longer underpins a more productive, more efficient, and a profitable global economy. So it’s clear that [if] the current healthcare system were to shift from sick from care to prevention, the global gains would be substantial.The BioPharma sector is already contributing some targeted novel treatments in areas like smart chemotherapy and in CRISPR – which is a technology that allows for selective DNA modification. While we can credit BioPharma and MedTech for really powerful innovations in diagnostics, in AI deployment for areas like data science and material science, and in sophisticated telemedicine – all these breakthroughs together give a more personalized, targeted health system; which is a big step in the right direction, but honestly they alone can’t solve this much broader longevity challenge we face. Focus on health and prevention, ultimately, could address those underlying causes of ill-health, so that problems don’t arise even in the first instance. Governments around the world are obviously realizing the value of preventive care over sick care. And as a strategy, disease prevention fundamentally aims to promote wellness across the board, whether that’s in things like mental state, nutrition or even in things like sleep and stress. While it might be easy to kind of conflate that with wellness trends – things like green smoothies or meditation – the underlying benefits of boosting health at the cellular level have much broader and deeper implications. Things like Type 2 diabetes and heart disease, supporting better health across populations can significantly reduce the incidence of a wide range of chronic conditions. It can lower the burden on health systems overall, and actually increase healthy lifespan at the end of the day. BioPharma advances are significant, but addressing longevity will require a much broader alignment across a myriad of elements; everything really from the food system to sanitation to training healthcare professionals. And of course, all of that will require consistent policy support. Regulators and policymakers are paying very close attention to their ageing population – and so are we. We’ll continue to bring you updates on this topic, which is so important to all of us.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please do leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

As the US Federal Reserve mulls a forthcoming interest rate cut, our Head of Corporate Credit Research and Global Chief Economist discuss how it is balancing inflationary risks with risks to growth.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley’s Global Chief Economist.Andrew Sheets: And today on the podcast, we'll be discussing the Federal Reserve, whether its policy is behind the curve and what's next.It's Thursday, August 29th at 2pm in London.Seth Carpenter: And it's 9am in New York.Andrew Sheets: Seth, it's always great to talk to you. But that's especially true right now. The Federal Reserve has been front and center in the markets debate over the last month; and I think investors have honestly really gone back and forth about whether interest rates are in line or out of line with the economy. And I was hoping to cover a few big questions about Fed policy that have been coming up with our clients and how you think the Fed thinks about them.And I think this timing is also great because the Federal Reserve has recently had a major policy conference in Jackson Hole, Wyoming where you often see the Fed talking about some of its longer-term views and we can get your latest takeaways from that.Seth Carpenter: Yeah, that sounds great, Andrew. Clearly these are some of the key topics in markets right now.Andrew Sheets: Perfect. So, let's dive right into it. I think one of the debates investors have been having -- one of the uncertainties -- is that the Fed has been describing the risk to their outlook as balanced between the risk to growth and risk to inflation. And yet, I think for investors, the view over the last month or two is these risks aren't balanced; that inflation seems well under control and is coming down rapidly. And yet growth looks kind of weak and might be more of a risk going forward.So why do you think the Fed has had this framing? And do you think this framing is still correct in the aftermath of Jackson Hole?Seth Carpenter: My personal view is that what we got out of Jackson hole was not a watershed moment. It was not a change in view. It was an evolution, a continuation in how the Fed's been thinking about things. But let me unpack a few things here.First, markets tend to look at recent data and try to look forward, try to look around the corner, try to extrapolate what's going on. You know as well as I do that just a couple weeks ago, everyone in markets was wondering are we already in recession or not -- and now that view has come back. The Fed, in contrast, tends to be a bit more inertial in their thinking. Their thoughts evolve more slowly, they wait to collect more data before they have a view. So, part of the difference in mindset between the Fed and markets is that difference in frequency with which updates are made.I'd say the other point that's critical here is the starting point. So, the two risks: risks to inflation, risks to growth. We remember the inflation data we're getting in Q1. That surprised us, surprised the market, and it surprised the Fed to the upside. And the question really did have to come into the Fed's mind -- have we hit a patch where inflation is just stubbornly sticky to the upside, and it's going to take a lot more cost to bring that inflation down. So those risks were clearly much bigger in the Fed’s mind than what was going on with growth.Because coming out of last year and for the first half of this year, not only would the Fed have said that the US economy is doing just fine; they would have said growth is actually too fast to be consistent with the long run, potential growth of the US economy. Or reaching their 2 per cent inflation target on a sustained basis. So, as we got through this year, inflation data got better and better and better, and that risk diminished.Now, as you pointed out, the risk on growth started to rise a little bit. We went from clearly growing too fast by some metrics to now some questions -- are we softened so much that we're now in the sweet spot? Or is there a risk that we're slowing too much and going into recession?But that's the sense in which there's balance. We went from far higher risks on inflation. Those have come down to, you know, much more nuanced risks on inflation and some rising risk from a really strong starting point on growth.Andrew Sheets: So, Seth, that kind of leads to my second question that we've been getting from investors, which is, you know, some form of the following. Even if these risks between inflation and growth are balanced, isn't Fed policy very restrictive? The Fed funds rate is still relatively high, relative to where the Fed thinks the rate will average over the long run. How do you think the Fed thinks about the restrictiveness of current policy? And how does that relate to what you expect going forward?Seth Carpenter: So first, and we've heard this from some of the Fed speakers, there's a range of views on how restrictive policy is. But I think all of them would say policy is at least to some degree restrictive right now. Some thinking it's very restrictive. Some thinking only modestly.But when they talk about the restrictiveness of policy in the context of the balance of these risks, they're thinking about the risks -- not just where we are right now and where policy is right now; but given how they're thinking about the evolution of policy over the next year or two. And remember, they all think they're going to be cutting rates this year and all through next year.Then the question is, over that time horizon with policy easing, do we think the risks are still balanced? And I think that's the sense in which they're using the balance of risks. And so, they do think policy is restrictive.They would also say that if policy weren't restrictive, [there would] probably be higher risks to inflation because that's part of what's bringing inflation out of the system is the restrictive stance of policy. But as they ease policy over time, that is part of what is balancing the risks between the two.Andrew Sheets: And that actually leads nicely to the third question that we've been getting a lot of, which is again related to investor concerns -- that maybe policy is moving out of line with the economy. And that's some form of the following: that by even just staying on hold, by not doing anything, keeping the Fed funds rate constant, as inflation comes down, that rate becomes higher relative to inflation. The real policy rate rises. And so that represents more restrictive monetary policy at the very moment, when some of the growth data seems to be decelerating, which would seem to be suboptimal.So, do you think that's the Fed's intention? Do you think that's a fair framing of kind of the real policy rate and that it's getting more restrictive? And again, how do you think the Fed is thinking about those dynamics as they unfold?Seth Carpenter: I do think that's an important framing to think -- not just about the nominal level of interest rates; you know where the policy rate is itself, but that inflation adjusted rate. As you said, the real rate matters a lot. And inside the Fed as an institution there, that's basically how most of the people there think about it as well. And further, I would say that very framing you put out about -- as inflation falls, will policy become more restrictive if no adjustment is made? We've heard over the past couple of years, Federal Reserve policymakers make exactly that same framing.So, it's clearly a relevant question. It's clearly on point right now. My view though, as an economist, is that what's more important than realized inflation, what prices have done over the past 12 months. What really matters is inflation expectations, right? Because if what we're trying to think about is -- how are businesses thinking about their cost of capital relative to the revenues are going to get in the future; it's not about what policy, it's not about what inflation did in the past. It's what they expect in the future.And I have to say, from my perspective, inflation expectations have already fallen. So, all of this passive tightening that you're describing, it's already baked in. It's already part of why, in my view, you know, the economy is starting to slow down. So, it's a relevant question; but I'm personally less convinced that the fall in inflation we've seen over the past couple of months is really doing that much to tighten the stance of policy.Andrew Sheets: So, Seth, you know, bringing this all together, both your answers to these questions that are at the forefront of investors' minds, what we heard at the Jackson Hole Policy Conference and what we've heard from the latest FOMC minutes -- what does Morgan Stanley Economics think the Fed's policy path going forward is going to be?Seth Carpenter: Yeah. So, you know, it's funny. I always have to separate in my brain what I think should happen with policy -- and that used to be my job. But now we're talking about what I think will happen with policy. And our view is the Fed's about to start cutting interest rates.The market believes that now. The Fed seems from their communication to believe that. We've got written down a path of 25 basis point reduction in the policy rate in September, in November, in December. So, a string of these going all the way through to the middle of next year to really ease the stance of policy, to get away from being extremely restrictive, to being at best only moderately restrictive -- to try to extend this cycle.I will say though, that if we're wrong, and if the economy is a bit slower than we think, a 50 basis point cut has to be possible.And so let me turn the tables on you, Andrew, because we're expecting that string of 25 basis point cuts, but the market is pricing in about 100 basis points of cuts this year with only three meetings left. So that has to imply at least one of those meetings having a 50 basis point cut somewhere.So, is that a good thing? Would the market see a 50 basis point cut as the Fed catching up from being behind the curve? Or would the market worry that a bigger cut implies a greater recession risk that could spook risk assets?Andrew Sheets: Yeah, Seth, I think that's a great question because it's also one where I think views across investors in the market genuinely diverge. So, you know, I'll give you our view and others might have a different take.But I think what you have is a really interesting dynamic where kind of two things can be true. You know, on the one hand, I think if you talk to 50 investors and ask them, you know, would they rather for equities or credit have lower rates or higher rates, all else equal -- I think probably 50 would tell you they would rather have lower rates.And yet I think if you look back at history, and you look at the periods where the Federal Reserve has been cutting rates the most and cutting most aggressively, those have been some of the worst environments for credit and equities in the modern era. Things like 2001, 2008, you know, kind of February of 2020. And I think the reason for that is that the economic backdrop -- while the Fed is cutting -- matters enormously for how the market interprets it.And so, conditions where growth is weakening rapidly, and the Fed is cutting a lot to respond to that, are generally periods that the market does not like. Because they see the weaker data right now. They see the weakness that could affect earnings and credit quality immediately. And the help from those lower rates because policy works with lag may not arrive for six or nine or twelve months. It's a long time to wait for the cavalry.And so, you know, the way that we think about that is that it's really, I think the growth environment that’s going to determine how markets view this rate cutting balance. And I think if we see better growth and somewhat fewer rate cuts, the base case that you and your team at Morgan Stanley Economics have -- which is a bit fewer cuts than the market, but growth holding up -- which we think is a very good combination for credit. A scenario where growth is weaker than expected and the Fed cuts more aggressively, I think history would suggest, that's more unfriendly and something we should be more worried about.So, I do think the growth data remains extremely important here. I think that's what the market will focus most on and I think it's a very much good is good regime that I think is going to determine how the market views cuts. And fewer is fine as long as the data holds up.Seth Carpenter: That make a lot of sense, and thanks for letting me turn the tables on you and ask questions. And for the listeners, thank you for listening. If you enjoy this show, leave us a review wherever you listen to podcast. And share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.

While mortgage rates have come down, our Co-heads of Securitized Products Research say the US housing market still must solve its supply problem.----- Transcript -----Jim Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley.Jay Bacow: And I’m Jay Bacow, the other co-head of Securitize Products Research.Jim Egan: Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today Jay and I are here to talk about the US housing and mortgage markets.It's Wednesday, August 28th, at 10 am in New York.Now, Jay, mortgage rates declined pretty sharply in the beginning of August. And if I take a little bit of a step back here; while rates have been volatile, to say the least, we're about 50 basis points lower than we were at the beginning of July, 80 basis points lower than the 2024 peak in April, and 135 basis points below cycle peaks back in October of 2023.Big picture. Declining mortgage rates -- what does that mean for mortgages?Jay Bacow: It means that more people are going to have the ability to refinance given the rally in mortgage rates that you described. But we have to be careful when we think about how many more people. We track the percentage of homeowners that have at least 25 basis points of incentive to refinance after accounting for things like low level pricing adjustments. That number is still less than 10 percent of the outstanding homeowners. So broadly speaking, most people are not going to refinance.Now, however, because of the rally that we've seen from the highs, if we look at the percentage of borrowers that took out a mortgage between six and 24 months ago -- which is really where the peak refinance activity happens -- over 30 percent of those borrowers have incentive to refinance.So recent homeowners, if you took your mortgage out not that long ago, you should take a look. You might have an opportunity to refinance. But, for most of the universe of homeowners in America that have much lower mortgage rates, they're not going to be refinancing.Jim Egan: Okay, what about convexity hedging? That's a term that tends to get thrown around a lot in periods of quick and sizable rate moves. What is convexity hedging and should we be concerned?Jay Bacow: Sure. So, because the homeowner in America has the option to refinance their mortgage whenever they want, the investor that owns that security is effectively short that option to the homeowner. And so, as rates rally, the homeowner is more likely to refinance. And what that means is that the duration -- the average life of that mortgage is outstanding -- is going to shorten up. And so, what that means is that if the investor wants to have the same amount of duration, as rates rally, they're going to need to add duration -- which isn't necessarily a good thing because they're going to be buying duration at lower yields and higher prices. And often when rates rally a lot, you will get the explanation that this is happening because of mortgage convexity hedging.Now, convexity hedging will happen more into a rally. But because so much of the universe has mortgages that were taken out in 2020 and 2021, we think realistically the real convexity risks are likely 150 basis points or so lower in rates.But Jim, we have had this rally in rates. We do have lower mortgage rates than we saw over the summer. What does that mean for affordability?Jim Egan: So, affordability is improving. Let's put numbers around what we're talking about. Mortgage rates are at approximately 6.5 percent today at the peak in the fourth quarter of last year, they were closer to 8 percent.Now, over the past few years, we've gotten to use the word unprecedented in the housing market, what feels like an unprecedented number of times. Well, the improvement in affordability that we'd experience if mortgage rates were to hold at these current levels has only happened a handful of times over the past 35 to 40 years. This part of it is by no means unprecedented.Jay Bacow: Alright, now we talked about mortgage rates coming down and that means more refi[nance] activity. But what does the improvement in mortgage rates do to purchase activity?Jim Egan: So that's a question that's coming up a lot in our investor discussions recently. And to begin to answer that question, we looked at those past handful of episodes. In the past, existing home sales almost always climb in the subsequent year and the subsequent two years following an improvement in affordability at the scale that we're witnessing right now.Jay Bacow: So, there's precedent for this unprecedented experienceJim Egan: There is. But there are also a number of differences between our current predicament and these historical examples that I'd say warrant examination. The first is inventory. We simply have never had so few homes for sale as we do right now. Especially when we're looking at those other periods of affordability improvement.And on the affordability front itself, despite the improvement that we've seen, affordability remains significantly more challenged than almost every other historical episode of the past 40 years, with the exception of 1985. Both of these facts are apparent in the lock in effect that you and I have discussed several times on this podcast in the past.Jay Bacow: All right. So just like we think we are a 150 basis points away from convexity hedging being an issue, we're still pretty far away from rates unlocking significant inventory. What does that mean for home sales?Jim Egan: So, the US housing market has a supply problem, not a demand problem. I want to caveat that. Everything is related in the US housing market. For instance, high mortgage rates that put pressure on affordability -- but they've also contributed to this lock-in effect that has led to historically low inventory.This lack of supply has kept home prices climbing, despite high mortgage rates, which is keeping affordability under pressure. So, when we say that housing has a supply problem, we're not dismissing the demand side of the equation; just acknowledging that the binding constraint in the current environment is supply.Jay Bacow: Alright, so if supply is the binding constraint, then what does that mean for sales?Jim Egan: As rates come down, inventory has been increasing. When combined with improvements in affordability, this should catalyze increased sales volumes in the coming year. But the confluence of inputs in the housing market today render the current environment unique from anything that we've experienced over the past few decades.Sales volumes should climb, but the path is unlikely to be linear and the total increase should be limited to call it the mid-single digit percentage point of over the coming year.Jay Bacow: Alright, and now lastly, Jim, home prices continue to set an all time high but there's the absolute level of prices and the pace of home price appreciation. What do you think is going to happen?Jim Egan: We're on the record that this increased supply, even if it's only at the margins, and even if we're close to historic lows, should slow down the pace of home price appreciation. We've begun to see that year-over-year home price growth has come down from 6.5 percent to 5.9 percent over the past three months. We think it will continue to come down, finishing the year at +2 percent.Jay Bacow: Alright, Jim, thanks for those thoughts. And to our listeners, thank you for listening.If you enjoy the podcast, please leave a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist explains why there’s pressure for the August jobs report to come in strong -- and what may happen to the market if it doesn’t. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the importance of economic data on asset prices in the near term.It's Tuesday, Aug 27th at 11:30am in New York.So let’s get after it. The stock rally off the August 5th lows has coincided with some better-than-expected economic data led by jobless claims and the ISM services purchasing manager survey. This price action supports the idea that risk assets should continue to trade with the high frequency growth data in the near term. Should the growth data continue to improve, the market can stay above the fair value range we had previously identified of 5,000-5,400 on the S&P 500. In my view, the true test for the market though will be the August jobs report on September 6th. A stronger than expected payroll number and lower unemployment rate will provide confidence to the market that growth risks have subsided for now. Another weak report that leads to a further rise in the unemployment rate would likely lead to growth concerns quickly resurfacing and another correction like last month. On a concerning note, last week we got a larger than expected negative revision to the payroll data for the 12 months ended in March of this year. These revisions put even more pressure on the jobs report to come in stronger. Meanwhile, the Bloomberg Economic Surprise Index has yet to reverse its downturn that began in April and cyclical stocks versus defensive ones remain in a downtrend. We think this supports the idea that until there is more evidence that growth is actually improving, it makes sense to favor defensive sectors in one's portfolio. Finally, while inflation data came in softer last week, we don't view that as a clear positive for lower quality cyclical stocks as it means pricing power is falling. However, the good news on inflation did effectively confirm the Fed is going to begin cutting interest rates in September. At this point, the only debate is how much?Over the last year, market expectations around the Fed's rate path have been volatile. At the beginning of the year, there were seven 25 basis points cuts priced into the curve for 2024 which were then almost completely priced out of the market by April. Currently, we have close to four cuts priced into the curve for the rest of this year followed by another five in 2025. There has been quite a bit of movement in bond market pricing this month as to whether it will be a 25 or 50 basis points cut when the Fed begins. More recently, the rates market has sided with a 25 basis points cut post the better-than-expected growth and inflation data points last week.As we learned a couple of weeks ago, a 50 basis points cut may not be viewed favorably by the equity market if it comes alongside labor market weakness. Under such a scenario, cuts may no longer be viewed as insurance, but necessary to stave off hard landing risks. As a result, a series of 25 basis points cuts from here may be the sweet spot for equity multiples if it comes alongside stable growth.The challenge is that at 21x earnings and consensus already expecting 10 percent earnings growth this year and 15 percent growth next year, a soft-landing outcome with very healthy earnings growth is priced. Furthermore, longer term rates have already been coming down since April in anticipation of this cutting cycle. Yet economic surprises have fallen and interest rate sensitive cyclical equities have underperformed. In my view this calls into question if rate cuts will change anything fundamentally.The other side of the coin is that defensive equities remain in an uptrend on a relative basis, a dynamic that has coincided with normalization in the equity risk premium. In our view, we continue to see more opportunities under the surface of the market. As such, we continue to favor quality and defensive equities until we get more evidence that growth is clearly reaccelerating in a way that earnings forecasts can once again rise and surpass the lofty expectations already priced into valuations.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our US Thematic Strategist discusses surging confidence as the political landscape evolves, back-to-school spending starts strong and travel providers enjoy post-COVID demand. ----- Transcript -----Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley's US thematic strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll give you an update on how recent market volatility and the upcoming US election are affecting the US consumer.It's Monday, August 26th at 10am in New York.A few weeks ago, we saw really sharp volatility. It was partially sparked by the unwind of the yen carry trade. But there are also renewed fears about a growth slowdown for the US or a possible US recession. Our economists do not think we are going into a recession though, and they have reaffirmed their longstanding view of a soft landing for the economy as a base case. And they think there's a slowdown, but not a slump.From the more company side, this earning season showed that the US consumer is softening incrementally; but they're not falling off a cliff. Spending is slowing this year, but it's on the heels of what was really high spending over the last couple of years.We did see some softness during second quarter results around the consumer. Consumer confidence is still intact, and our most recent survey in July showed a pretty strong improvement in sentiment. We think that this is partially a function of the political environment. We ran the survey from July 25th to 29th, shortly after President Joe Biden dropped out of the race and endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris. And we saw the biggest improvement in sentiment was for those who consider themselves middle of the road politically.Their net sentiment toward the economy improved from negative -23 percent to -1 percent. Net expectations are also really positive for those who identify as liberal. Net sentiment for very liberal respondents is +34 percent, while it's +20 percent for more somewhat liberal ones. Expectations for conservatives are still negative though, but they have improved since the prior wave of our survey.So, we do think that some of this increase in excitement and increase in confidence has been around the renewed political environment, renewed interest in the race.As we get close to the end of summer, we note two other key trends. Back to school shopping and travel. So, for back-to-school shopping, we're seeing pretty positive results from our survey. Consumers are reporting they're planning to spend more this back-to-school season versus last year. We saw an increase of 35 percent in spending intentions. And then when we think about the different back to school categories people are spending on, apparel saw the biggest net increase in spending plans versus last year. But we also saw an increase for school supplies and electronics. So, all things very important as the kids go back to school or people go off to college.Travel's been one part of the market that's held up super well post pandemic. People were very excited to get out there and go on vacations. And we saw, frankly, an unexpected positive level of demand for the past few years, and we didn't see that faster catch up in demand that a lot of people were expecting post pandemic. I know myself; I've been very excited to travel the last few summers. But this earning season we're starting to see more of a mixed bag within the travel space.Hotels across the board flag softening demand for leisure stays, but business travel has held up well. We saw a different story among the airlines though; several management teams were really emphasizing continued strong demands for air travel. And our survey is supportive of these comments and show that travel intentions remain stable and strong, and plans to follow through on travel that involve a flight also remain robust.The next three months leading up to the US election will certainly be interesting though, and we'll continue to bring you updates.Thank you for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Although markets have recovered over the last few weeks after a sudden drop, our Head of Corporate Credit Research warns that investors are still skeptical about the growth outlook.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today we’ll discuss the big round trip for markets and why we’re not out of the woods.It's Friday, August 23rd at 2pm in London.The last few weeks have been a rollercoaster. July ended on a high with markets rallying as the Federal Reserve kept interest rates unchanged. Things turned almost immediately thereafter as weak data releases fanned fears that maybe the Fed was being just a little too nonchalant on the economy, making its patience withholding rates high look like a vice, rather than a virtue. A late summer period where many investors were out probably amplified the moves that followed. And so at the morning lows on August 5th, the S&P 500 had fallen more than 8 percent in just 3 trading days, and expected volatility had jumped to one of its highest readings in a decade. But since those volatile lows, markets have come back. Really come back. Stock prices, credit spreads, and those levels of expected volatility are all now more or less where they ended July. It was an almost complete round-trip. We have a colleague who got back from a two-week vacation on Monday. The prices on their screen had barely changed. The reason for that snapback was the data. Just as weak data in the aftermath of the Fed’s meeting drove fears of a policy mistake, better data in the days since have improved confidence. This has been especially true for data related to the US consumer, as both retail sales and the number of new jobless claims have been better than expected. This round-trip in markets has been welcome, especially for those, like ourselves, who are optimistic on credit, and see it well-positioned for the economic soft-landing that Morgan Stanley expects. But it is also a reminder that we’re not out of the woods. The last few weeks couldn’t be clearer about the importance of growth for the market outlook. This is a crucial moment for the economy, where U.S. growth is slowing, the Fed’s rates are still highly restrictive, and any help from cutting those rates may not be felt for several quarters. At Morgan Stanley we think that growth won’t slow too much, and so this will ultimately be fine for the credit market. But incoming data will remain important, and recent events show that the market’s confidence can be quickly shaken. Even with the sharp snapback, for example, cyclical stocks, which tend to be more economically sensitive, have badly lagged more defensive shares – a sign that healthy skepticism around growth from investors still remains. The quick recovery is welcome, but we’re not out of the woods, and investors should continue to hope for solid data. Good is good. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

The Bank of Japan jolted global markets after its recent decision to raise interest rates. Our experts break down the effects the move could have on the country’s economy, currency and stock market.----- Transcript -----Chetan Ahya: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia Economist.Daniel Blake: And I'm Daniel Blake, from the Asia Pacific and Emerging Market Equity Strategy Team.Chetan Ahya: On this episode of the podcast, we will cover a topic that has been a big concern for global investors: Japan's rate hike and its effect on markets.It's Thursday, August 22nd at 6pm in Hong Kong.On July 31st, Japan's central bank made a bold move. For only the second time in 17 years, it raised interest rates. It lifted its benchmark rates to around 0.25 percent from its previous range of 0 to 0.1 percent. And at the press conference, BOJ Governor Ueda struck a more hawkish tone on the BOJ rate path than markets anticipated. Compounded with investors concern about US growth, this move jolted global equity markets and bond markets. The Japan equity market entered the quickest bear market in history. It lost 20 percent over three days.Well, a lot has happened since early August. So, I'm here with Daniel to give you an update.Daniel Blake: Chetan, before I can give you an update on what the market implications are of all this, let's make sense of what the macro-outlook is for Japan and what the Bank of Japan is really looking to achieve.I know that following that July monetary policy meeting, we heard from Deputy Governor Uchida san, who said that the bank would not raise its policy rates while financial and capital markets remain unstable.What is your view on the Bank of Japan policy outlook and the key macro-outlook for Japan more broadly?Chetan Ahya: Well, firstly, I think the governor's comments in the July policy meeting were more hawkish than expected and after the market's volatility, deputy governor did come out and explain the BOJ's thought process more clearly. The most important point explained there was that they will not hike policy rates in an environment where markets are volatile -- and that has given the comfort to market that BOJ will not be taking up successive rate hikes in an early manner.But ultimately when you're thinking about the outlook of BOJ's policy path, it will be determined by what happens to underlying wage growth and inflation trend. And on that front, wage growth has been accelerating. And we also think that inflation will be remaining at a moderate level and that will keep BOJ on the rate hike path, but those rate hikes will be taken up in a measured manner.In our base case, we are expecting the BOJ to hike by 25 basis points in January policy meeting next year, with a risk that they could possibly hike early in December of this year.Daniel Blake: And after an extended period of weakness, the Japanese yen appreciated sharply after the remarks. What drove this and what are the macro repercussions for the broader outlook?Chetan Ahya: We think that the US growth scare from the weaker July nonfarm payroll data, alongside a hawkish BOJ Governor Ueda's comments, led markets to begin pricing in more policy rate convergence between the US and Japan. This resulted in unwinding of the yen carry trade and a rapid appreciation of yen against the dollar.For now, our strategists believe that the near-term risk of further yen carry trade unwinding has lessened. We will closely watch the incoming US growth and labor market data for signs of the US slowdown and its impact on the yen. In the base case, our US Economics team continues to see a soft landing in the US and for the Fed to cut rates by three times this year from September, reaching a terminal of 3.625 by June 2025.Based on our US and BOJ rate path, our macro strategists see USD/JPY at 146 by year end. As it stands, our Japan inflation forecast already incorporates these yen forecasts, but if yen does appreciate beyond these levels on a sustainable basis, this would impart some further downside to our inflation forecast.Daniel Blake: And there's another key event to consider. Prime Minister Kishida san announced on August 14th that he will not seek re-election as President of The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) in late September, and hence will have a new leader of Japan. Will this development have any impact on economic policy or the markets in your view?Chetan Ahya: The number of potential candidates means it's too early to tell. We think a major reversal in macro policies will be unlikely, though the timing of elections will likely have a bearing on BOJ.For example, after the September party leadership election, the new premier could then call for an early election in October; and in this scenario, we think likelihood of a BOJ move at its September and October policy meeting would be further diminished.So, Daniel, keeping in mind the macro backdrop that we just discussed, how are you interpreting the recent equity market volatility? And what do you expect for the rest of 2024 and into 2025?Daniel Blake: We do see that volatility in Japan, as extreme as it was, being primarily technically driven. It does reflect some crowding of various investor types into pockets of the equity market and levered strategies, as we see come through with high frequency trading, as well as carry trades that were exacerbated by dollar yen positions being unwound very quickly.But with the market resetting, and as we look into the rest of 2024 and 2025, we see the two key engines of nominal GDP reflation in Japan and corporate reform still firing. As you lay out, the BOJ is trying to find its way back towards neutral; it's not trying to end the cycle. And corporate governance is driving better capital allocation from the corporate sector.As a result, we see almost 10 percent earnings growth this year and next year, and the market stands cheap versus its historical valuation ranges.So, as we look ahead, we think into 2025, we should see the Japanese equity benchmark, the TOPIX index, setting fresh all-time highs. As a result, we continue to prefer Japan equities versus emerging markets. And we recommend that US dollar-based investors leave their foreign exchange exposure unhedged, which will position them to benefit from further strengthening in the Japanese yen.Chetan Ahya: So, which parts of the market look most attractive following the BOJ's rate hike and market disruptions to you?Daniel Blake: Yes, we do prefer domestic exposures relative to exporters. They'll be better protected from any further strengthening in the Japanese yen, and we also see a broad-based corporate governance reform agenda supporting shareholder returns coming out of these domestic sectors. They'll benefit from that stronger, price and wage outlook with an improved margin outlook.And we also see that capex beneficiaries with a corporate reform angle are likely to do well in this overall agenda of pursuing greater economic security and digitalization. So that includes key sectors like defense, real estate, and construction.And Chetan, what would you say are the key risks to your view?Chetan Ahya: We think the key risk would be if the US faces a deeper slowdown or an outright recession. While Japan is better placed today than in the past cycles, it would nonetheless be a setback for Japan's economy. In this scenario, Japan’s export growth would face downward pressures given weakening external demand.The Japanese corporate sector has also around 17 percent of its revenue coming from North America. Besides a deeper Fed rate cut cycle, will mean that the policy rate differentials between the US and Japan will narrow significantly. This will pose further appreciation pressures on the yen, which will weigh on inflation, corporate profits, and the growth outlook.And from your perspective, Daniel, what should investors watch closely?Daniel Blake: We would agree that the first order risk for Japan equities is if the US slips into a hard landing, and we do see that the dollar yen in that outlook is likely to fall even further. Now we shouldn't see any FX (foreign exchange) driven downgrades until we start bringing the yen down below 140, but we would also see the operating environment turning negative for Japan in that outlook.So, putting that aside, given our house view of the soft landing in the US economy, we think the second thing investors should watch is certainly the LDP leadership election contest, and the reform agenda of the incoming cabinet.Prime Minister Kishida san's tenure has been focused on economic security and has fostered further corporate governance reform alongside the Japan Stock Exchange. And this emphasis on getting household savings into investment has been another key pillar of the new capitalism strategy. So, these focus areas have been very positive for Japan equities, and we should trust -- but verify -- the commitment of a new leadership team to these policy initiatives.Chetan Ahya: Daniel, it was great to hear your perspective. This is an evolving story. We'll keep our eye on it. Thanks for taking the time to talk.Daniel Blake: Great speaking with you, Chetan.Chetan Ahya: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or a colleague today.

This week’s Democratic National Convention in the US may be light on policy details, but our Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research explains that the party’s economic agenda is fairly clear as the elections draw closer.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about what investors need to know about U.S. political party conventions.It's Wednesday, Aug 21st at 10:30am in New York. This week, the Democratic Party is meeting in Chicago for its National Convention. Conventions for major political parties typically feature speeches from key policymakers, both past and present. So it would seem to be a forum where someone could learn what policies the party plans to implement if it takes control of the government following the November election. But you should expect more political messaging than policy signal.That’s because the focus of these conventions tends to be more about persuading voters – and that means key policy details typically take a back seat to statements of political values widely shared by the party in order to send a consistent public message. In that sense, an observer may not learn much new about where there’s party consensus on key policy details that markets care about, including specific new taxes that might be implemented, which tax breaks might be extended, how these choices might affect the deficit, and more. That in turn means we may not learn much about what policies could plausibly be implemented if Democrats win the White House and Congress in the November election. The good news is that we don’t think a convention is required to have a good sense about this. We’ve previously done the work on the plausible policy path resulting from a Democratic victory by examining statements of elected officials and filtering for areas of consensus among Democratic lawmakers. And we’ve also looked at expected legislative catalysts in 2025 and 2026, such as the expiry of key provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. In short, we think the plausible policy path resulting from Democrats sweeping the election would mean relative stability on trade and energy policy; and some deficit expansion driven by tax cut extensions only partially offset by new taxes on corporations and high income earners. Net-net, our economists think this outcome would create less uncertainty for the U.S. growth outlook than a Republican sweep, where potential for substantial new tariffs would interact with greater tax cut extensions and deficit expansion. And while we don’t expect the convention will challenge our thinking here, we’ll of course be tracking it and report back if it does. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

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

Our Global Chief Economist explains what stricter immigration policy in key markets around the world could mean for economic growth and inflation.----- Transcript -----Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss a key driver of the global economy, migration.It's Monday, August 19th at 10am in New York.Migration has always been an important feature of the global economy.Not surprisingly, migrants typically move from lower income countries to higher income countries and for more than 50 years, it has added something like three-tenths of a percent per year to the growth of high-income economies. But in recent years, migration trends have been hit by a couple of major events.One was COVID. International travel restrictions during the pandemic slowed, or stopped, migration for a while. Despite a strong rebound over the past two years, many economies still have not fully recovered to pre-COVID migration trends. Another is geopolitical unrest. The Ukrainian refugee crisis, for example, is the largest population displacement in Europe since WWII with increasingly global repercussions.But how does immigration affect economies? One way that I frame the discussion is that immigration can boost both aggregate supply and aggregate demand. It's likely some of each -- and the relative importance of those two affects how inflationary or disinflationary the phenomenon is.In 2023, with a very large influx of immigrants into the US labor market, the economy was able to grow rapidly while still seeing inflation fall. The supply effect dominated the demand effect. In Australia, by contrast, with more of the immigrants in school or otherwise not in the labor market, prices -- especially for housing -- have gone up because demand was relatively more important.But some of the effects will only play out over time. Across many developed market economies, economic activity has risen less than population, meaning that measured productivity is lower. But we think that is just a lagged effect of the response of capital investment to the rise in labor. Over a longer time horizon, immigration can also offset demographic declines. Since 2021 population growth in many high-income economies has turned negative, if you exclude immigrants. Sustaining economic growth and managing government debt loads are made much more difficult with an aging, and then declining population, as a baseline.We assume that immigration will revert to pre-COVID trends in 2024 and [20]25 for most economies. This delta is largest for the economies with the highest immigration rates, like Canada or Australia; but for other economies, policies, cultural norms, those will determine the path for immigration.The key, however, is that immigration can be a critical component of demographic trends. In the US, the best estimate of net immigration was about 3.3 million people in 2023, and we assume it will taper from there to something closer to 2.5 million in 2025. That addition to the labor market created what Fed Chair Powell called “a bigger, but not tighter economy.”For people following the economy in real time, the extra availability of labor is also why we have argued that the rise in the unemployment rate over the past year or so is not the harbinger of recession that it has been in past cycles.Now, looking ahead, one key risk to our forecasts -- well everywhere around the world -- would be an abrupt tightening in immigration policy that causes the flow of workers to fall quickly or even end. Such a scenario would imply a much sharper economic slowdown and possibly higher inflation in the economies where the supply boost has dominated. That's yet another reason why elections and government policy remain key to the economic outlook.Well, thanks for listening. And if you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.

Our Head of Corporate Credit Research explains how corporate balance sheets have remained resilient post-COVID, and why that could continue in the face of a potential economic slowdown.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss how corporate balance sheets are in a better place to handle a potential growth slowdown. It's Friday, August 16th at 2pm in London. Much of the volatility over the last several weeks has been centered around fears that excessively high interest rates from the Federal Reserve will now cause the US economy to slow too quickly. Morgan Stanley’s economists are more optimistic and believe that the data will hold up, leading the Fed to start a gradual rate cutting cycle in September, rather than a more radical course-correction. Against this backdrop, good economic data is good for markets and vice versa. But even though we remain optimistic at Morgan Stanley about a soft landing in the US economy, our economists still expect growth to slow. How prepared are corporate balance sheets for that slowing, and how worried should we be that this could lead to higher rates of default? A good place to start is thinking about how optimistic companies were heading into any slowdown of the economy. Overconfidence is often the enemy of credit investors, as rose-tinted glasses can lead companies to make too many unwise acquisitions or investments, funded with too much debt. Yet across a variety of metrics, this isn’t what we see. Despite some of the lowest interest rates in human history, the level of debt to cash-flow for US and European companies has been pretty stable over the last five years. Excess capital held by banks remains historically high. And Merger and Acquisition activity, another key measure of corporate confidence, remains well below the long run trend – even after a pick up this year, as my colleague Ariana Salvatore discussed on this program earlier in the week. So, despite the strong recovery in the US economy and the stock market over the last four years, many corporate boardrooms have remained cautious, a good thing when considering their financial risk. Where Corporate debt did increase, it was often in places that we think could withstand it. Large-cap Technology and Pharmaceuticals issuers have taken out more debt over the last several years, relative to history, but it's been a pretty modest amount from a pretty low historical starting point. The Utility sector has also taken on more debt recently, but the stable nature of its business may make this easier to handle. While companies across the ratings spectrum generally didn’t increase their leverage over the last several years, they did take advantage of refinancing the debt they already had at historically low rates. And this is important for thinking about the stress that higher interest rates could eventually produce. The average maturity in the US Investment Grade index is about 11 years, and that means that, for many companies, potentially less than one-tenth of their overall debt resets to the current interest rate every year. That means companies may still have many years of enjoying the low interest rates of the past, and that helps smooth the adjustment to higher interest rates in the future. The lack of corporate confidence since COVID means that corporate balance sheets are generally in a better place if the economy potentially slows. But while this is helpful overall, it’s important to note that it doesn’t apply in all cases. We still see plenty of dispersion between winners and losers, driving divergence under the hood of the credit market. Even if balance sheets are stronger overall, there is plenty of opportunity to pick your spots. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our US Public Policy and Currency experts discuss how different outcomes in the upcoming U.S. elections could have varying effects on the strength of the dollar.----- Transcript -----Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore from Morgan Stanley's U.S. Public Policy Research Team. And I'mAndrew Watrous: And I'm Andrew Watrous, G10 Currency Strategist.Ariana Salvatore: On this episode of the podcast, we'll discuss an issue that's drawing increasing attention from investors leading up to the U.S. election -- and that is the U.S. dollar and how a Harris or Trump administration could impact it.It's Thursday, August 15th at 10am in New York.Earlier this year, Morgan Stanley experts came on this show to discuss the current strength of the US dollar, which has had quite a historic run.Now we all know there are numerous ways in which politics could affect the currency. But before we get into the details there, Andrew, can you just set the stage here a little bit and give some context to listeners on where the dollar is right now and what's been driving that performance?Andrew Watrous: Yeah, the dollar's been rising this year. So, if you look at a trade weighted gauge of the US dollar, it's up about 3 percent, so far. And part of that US dollar strength is because growth expectations for the US have risen since January. There's a survey of Wall Street economists, and if you look at their median forecast for the US growth, it's moved up about one percentage point since January.And as a result of that strong US growth, we've seen Fed policy expectations move higher. We started this year with the market pricing the Fed to be below 4 percent by December. And that expectation for where the Fed is going to be in December has moved up about 1 percentage point since January.So, robust US growth and a higher near-term Fed policy rate expectation have made the US more attractive as an investment destination. And that's boosted the US dollar broadly as capital flows to the US.Ariana Salvatore: That makes sense. Now, thinking about the balance of the year, it's impossible to look ahead and not consider how the US election could impact or change this trend that you've been talking about. As we get closer to November, investors are also starting to question just what will happen to the dollar in a Republican or Democratic win. What's been our approach to thinking through that question?Andrew Watrous: So, if you look at policies proposed by the Republican presidential campaign, a number of those policies, if implemented, would probably boost the US dollar.First, higher tariffs on goods imported from our trading partners could weigh on expectations for growth abroad. That would make the US more attractive in comparison, maybe send capital to the US as a safe haven due to policy uncertainty. And of all the scenarios we look at, we think that one where the Republicans control both Congress and the White House would be the scenario in which the federal government spends the most and issues the most debt.More spending would likely make US growth expectations and bond yields higher in comparison to what we'd see in the rest of the world. So, a Republican presidential administration could attempt to offset some of that US dollar strength; but in the near term we think that the US dollar should go up if a Republican White House looks increasingly likely. And on the other side, the dollar could go down if the likelihood of a Democratic White House looks increasingly likely -- as some positive risk premium around trade and fiscal policy is reduced.Ariana Salvatore: Okay, so you mentioned quite a few policy variables there. Let's take those issue areas one by one. On trade policy and geopolitical risk, it wouldn't surprise us from the policy side to see a potential Trump administration introduce tariffs, just given the rhetoric we've seen on the campaign trail. We've talked about the potential impact from 10 per cent universal -- targeted or one-for-one tariffs -- which all come with varying degrees of economic impacts.On the currency side, Andrew, walk us through your thought process on how the risks to growth expectations from tariffs could factor into dollar positive or negative outcomes.Andrew Watrous: So, a lot of our thinking on this is shaped by what we saw in 2018 and 2019, when there were trade tensions. During that period, the dollar moved higher, starting in spring 2018 until the end of 2019, and a big part of that dollar strength was probably due to trade tensions between the US and China. Those tensions meant that investors were probably more hesitant to take on risk outside the US than they otherwise may have been. That's why the US dollar kept rising during that period, despite the Fed cutting rates three times in 2019. And in 2018 and 2019, we saw expectations for growth in countries outside the US moving lower -- in part because of trade tensions during that period.So, from speaking to my colleagues in the economics department here at Morgan Stanley, it seems pretty plausible that something similar happens to expectations for growth outside the US, again, if another trade war looks increasingly likely. And that drop in what people expect for growth outside the US would probably boost the US dollar as the US looks more attractive in comparison.Ariana Salvatore: Got it. Now, shifting gears slightly to the fiscal policy outlook. We've said that the Republican sweep outcome is the most likely to lead to the greatest degree of fiscal expansion, and that's because we think lawmakers are going to have to contend with the expiring Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. We think that in a divided government outcome, or a Democratic sweep, some of those tax measures are still on the table, but it'll probably be a narrower extension from a deficit standpoint.So, Andrew, what would a fiscally expansionary regime mean for the dollar?Andrew Watrous: So, as you mentioned, the most fiscally expansionary scenario would be a Republican sweep scenario. And we did some research into capital flows; and the Treasury data show that historically, higher US spending is associated with net inflows of private capital into the US. And if you look at the pace of US spending versus the pace of spending in Europe, if you look at that differential -- that differential is positively correlated to movements in Euro. So faster US spending means lower Euro relative to spending in Europe.Ariana Salvatore: So, we expect that a Republican administration's policies might strengthen the dollar in summary. But it's possible that they don't like that dollar strength. We've heard Trump talk about the benefits of a weaker currency for exports, for example. So, what might a Republican presidential administration try to do to maybe offset some of the strength?Andrew Watrous: Yeah, so if we’re right and the Republican policies do strengthen the dollar, that Republican administration could try to offset that dollar strength with a number of policy tools. And those might be effective in weakening the US dollar against one or more of our trading partners. But we don't think that the market expectation of those dollar negative policy options would fully offset the effect of other Republican policies, which would boost the dollar.There are legal, logistical, and political challenges associated with a lot of those dollar negative policy options. So, for example, former US Trade Representative Lighthizer has reportedly expressed doubt about the viability of broad international coordinated intervention against the US dollar. He said that no policy advisor that he knows of is working on a plan to weaken the dollar. And former President Trump reportedly rejected a 2019 proposal to intervene against the dollar from former White House Trade Advisor Peter Navarro.Ariana Salvatore: Got it. So, sounds like we have a lot of moving pieces here and we will keep refining our views as we get some more policy clarity in the coming months. Andrew, thanks for taking the time to talk.Andrew Watrous: Great speaking with you Ariana.Ariana Salvatore: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy thoughts on the market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

The rise in unused office space has triggered suggestions about converting commercial real estate into residential buildings. But our US Real Estate Research analyst lists three major challenges.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Adam Kramer, from the Morgan Stanley U.S. Real Estate Research team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss a hot real estate topic. Whether the surplus of vacant office space offers a logical solution to the national housing shortage.It’s Wednesday, August 14, at 10am in New York.Sitting here in Morgan Stanley’s office at 1585 Broadway, Times Square is bustling and New York seems to have recovered from COVID and then some. But the reality inside buildings is a little bit different. On the one hand, 14 percent of U.S. office space is sitting unused. Our analysis shows a permanent impairment in office demand of roughly 25 percent compared to pre-COVID. And on the other hand, we have a national housing shortage of up to 6 million units. So why not simply remove obsolete lower-quality office stock and replace it with much-needed housing? On the surface, the idea of office-to-residential conversion sounds compelling. It could revitalize struggling downtown areas, creating a virtuous cycle that can lead to increased local tax revenues, foot traffic, retail demand and tourism.But is it feasible?We think conversions face at least three significant challenges. First, are the economics of conversion. In order for conversions to make sense, we would need to see office rents decline or apartment rents rise materially – which is unlikely in the next 1-2 years given the supply dynamics — and office values and conversion costs would need to decline materially. Investors can acquire or develop a multifamily property at roughly $600 per square foot. Alternatively, they can acquire and convert an existing office building for a total cost of nearly $700 per square foot, on average. The bottom line is that total conversion costs are higher than acquisition or ground-up development, with more complexity involved as well. The second big challenge is the quality of the buildings themselves. Numerous elements of the physical building impact conversion feasibility. For example, location relative to transit and amenities. Buildings in suboptimal locations are unlikely to be considered. Whether the office asset is vacant or not is also a factor. Office leases are typically longer duration, and a building needs to be close to or fully vacant for a full conversion. And lastly, physical attributes such as architecture, floor-plate depth, windows placement, among others. And finally, regulation presents a third major hurdle. Zoning and building code requirements differ from city to city and can add substantive time, cost, complexity, and limitations to any conversion project. That said, governments are in a unique position to encourage conversions — for example, via tax incentives – and literally remake cities short on affordable housing but with excess, underutilized office space.We have looked at conversion opportunities in three key markets: New York, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. In Manhattan, active office to residential conversions have been concentrated in the Financial District, and we think this trend will continue. We also see the East Side of Manhattan as a uniquely untapped opportunity for future conversions, given higher vacancy today. This would shift existing East Side office tenants to other locations, boosting demand in higher-quality office neighborhoods like Park Avenue and Grand Central.In San Francisco, we are concerned about other types of real estate properties beyond just office. Retail, multifamily, and lodging in the downtown area are taking longer to recover post-COVID, and we think this will limit conversions in the market. And finally, in Washington, D.C. we think conversion would work best for older, Class B/C office buildings on the edges of pre-existing residential areas. In these three markets, and others, conversions could work in specific instances, with specific buildings in specific sub-markets. But on a national basis, the economic and logistic challenges of wide-scale conversions make this an unlikely solution.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our US Public Policy Strategist expects a robust M&A cycle, regardless of the outcome of the US election. But rising antitrust concerns could create additional scrutiny on possible future deals. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ariana Salvatore, from Morgan Stanley’s US Public Policy Research Team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll talk about the impact of the US election on M&A. It’s Tuesday, August 13th, at 10am in New York.2023 saw the lowest level of global mergers and acquisitions – or M&A – in more than 30 years, relative to the overall size of the economy. But we believe that the cycle is currently reversing in a significant way and that politics won't halt the "Return of M&A." Why? Because M&A cycles are primarily driven by broader factors. Those include macroeconomics, the business cycle, CEO confidence and financing conditions. More specifically, unusually depressed volumes, open new issue markets, incoming rate cuts and the bottom-up industry trends are powerful tailwinds to an M&A recovery and can offset the political headwinds. So far this year we’ve seen an increase in deal activity. Announced M&A volume was up 20 per cent year-over-year in the first half of [20]24 versus [20]23, and we continue to expect M&A volumes to rise in 2024 as part of this broader, multi-year recovery. That being said, one factor that can impact M&A is antitrust regulation. Investors are reasonably concerned about the ways in which the election outcome could impact antitrust enforcement – and whether or not it would even be a tailwind or a headwind. If you think about traditional Republican attitudes toward deregulation, you might think that antitrust enforcement could be weaker in a potential Trump win scenario; but when we look back at the first Trump administration, we did see various antitrust cases pursued across a number of sectors. Further, we’ve seen this convergence between Republicans and Democrats on antitrust enforcement, specifically the vice presidential pick JD Vance has praised Lina Khan, the current FTC chair, for some of her efforts on antitrust in the Biden administration. In that vein, we do think there are certain circumstances that could cause a deal to come under scrutiny regardless of who wins the election. First, on a sector basis, we think both parties share a similar approach toward antitrust for tech companies. Voters across the ideological spectrum seem to want their representatives to focus on objectives like 'breaking up big tech' and targeting companies that are perceived to have outsized control. We also think geopolitics is really important here. National security concerns are increasingly being invoked as a consideration for M&A involving foreign actors, in particular if the deal involves a geopolitical adversary like China. We’ve seen lawmakers invoke these kind of concerns when justifying increased scrutiny for proposed deals. Finally, key constituencies' positions on proposed deals could also matter. The way that a deal might impact key voter cohorts – think labor unions, for example – could also play a role in determining whether or not that deal comes under extra scrutiny. We will of course keep you updated on any changes to our M&A outlook. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Recent market volatility has made headlines, but our Global Chief Economist explains why the numbers aren’t as dire as they seem.----- Transcript -----Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about central banks, the Bank of Japan, Federal Reserve, data and how it drove market volatility.It's Monday, August 12th at 10am in New York.You know, if life were a Greek tragedy, we might call it foreshadowing. But in reality, it was probably just an unfortunate coincidence. The BOJ's website temporarily went down when the policy announcement came out. As it turns out, expectations for the BOJ and the Fed drove the market last week. Going into the BOJ meeting consensus was for a September hike, but July was clearly in play.The market's initial reaction to the decision itself was relatively calm; but in the press conference following the decision, Governor Ueda surprised the markets by talking about future hikes. Some hiking was already priced in, and Ueda san's comments pushed the amount priced in up by another, call it 8 basis points, and it increased volatility.In the aftermath of that market volatility, Deputy Governor Yoshida shifted the narrative again, by stressing that the BOJ was attuned to market conditions and that there was no fundamental change in the BOJ's strategy. But this heightened attention on the BOJ's hiking cycle was a critical backdrop for the US non farm payrolls two days later.The market knew the BOJ would hike, and knew the Fed would cut, but Ueda san's tone and the downside surprise to payrolls ignited two separate but related market risks: A US growth slowdown and the yen carry trade.The Fed's July meeting was the same day as the BOJ decision, and Chair Powell guided markets to a September rate cut. Prior to July, the FOMC was much more focused on inflation after the upside surprises in the first quarter. But as inflation softened, the dual mandate came into a finer balance. The shift in focus to both growth and inflation was not missed by markets; and then payrolls at about 114, 000 in July. Well, that was far from disastrous; but because the print was a miss relative to expectations on the heel of a shift in that focus, the market reaction was outsized.Our baseline view remains a soft landing in the United States; and those details we discussed extensively in our monthly periodical. Now, markets usually trade inflections, but with this cycle, we have tried to stress that you have to look at not just changes, but also the level of the economy. Q2 GDP was at 2.6 per cent. Consumer spending grew at 2.3 per cent. And the three-month average for payrolls was at 170, 000 -- even after the disappointing July print.Those are not terribly frightening numbers. The unemployment rate at 4.3 per cent is still low for the United States. And 17 basis points of that two-tenths rise last month; well, that was an increase in labor force participation. That's hardly the stuff of a failing labor market.So, while these data are backward looking, they are far from recessionary. Markets will always be forward looking, of course; but the recent hard data cannot be ignored. We think the economy is on its way to a soft landing, but the market is on alert for any and all signs for more dramatic weakness.The data just don't indicate any accelerated deterioration in the economy, though. Our FX Strategy colleagues have long said that Fed cuts and BOJ hikes would lead to yen appreciation. But this recent move? It was rapid, to say the least. But if we think about it, the pair really has only come into rough alignment with the Morgan Stanley targets based on just interest rate differentials alone.We also want to stress the fundamentals here for the Bank of Japan as well. We retain our view for cautious rate hikes by the BOJ with the next one coming in January. That's not anything dramatic because over the whole forecast that means that real rates will stay negative all the way through the end of 2025.These themes -- the deterioration in the US growth situation and the appreciation of the yen -- they're not going away anytime soon. We're entering a few weeks of sparse US data, though, where second tier indicators like unemployment insurance claims, which are subject to lots of seasonality, and retail sales data, which tend to be volatile month to month and have had less correlation recently with aggregate spending, well, they're going to take center stage in the absence of other harder indicators.The normalization of inflation and rates in Japan will probably take years, not just months, to sort out. The pace of convergence between the Fed and the BOJ? It's going to continue to ebb and flow. But for now, and despite all the market volatility, we retain our outlook for both economies and both central banks. We see the economic fundamentals still in line with our baseline views.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy this show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

As markets adjust to global volatility, our Head of Corporate Credit Research considers when the Fed might choose to cut interest rates and how long the impacts may take to play out.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss the market’s expectation for much larger rate cuts from the Federal Reserve, and how much that actually matters.It's Friday, August 9th at 2pm in London.Markets have been volatile of late. One of the drivers has been rising concern that the Fed may have left interest rates too high for too long, and now needs to more dramatically course-correct. From July 1st through August 2nd, the market’s expectation for where the Fed’s target interest rate will be in one year’s time has fallen by more than 1 percent. But…wait a second. We’re talking about interest rates here. Isn’t a shift towards expecting lower interest rates, you know, a good thing? And that seems especially relevant in the recent era, where strong markets often overlapped with fairly low interest rates. Zoom out over a longer span of history, however, and that’s not always the case.Interest rates, especially the rates from the Federal Reserve, are often a reflection of economic strength. And so high interest rates often overlap with strong growth, while a weak economy needs the support that lower rates provide. And so if interest rates are falling based on concern that the economy is weakening, which we think describes much of the last two weeks, it’s easier to argue why credit or equity markets wouldn’t like that outcome at all.That’s especially true because of the so-called lag in monetary policy. If the Fed lowered interest rates tomorrow, the full impact of that cut may not be felt in the economy for 6 to 12 months. And so if people are worried that conditions are weakening right now, they’re going to worry that the help from lower rates won’t arrive in time.The upshot is that for Credit, and I would say for other asset classes as well, rate cuts have only tended to be helpful if growth remained solid. Rate cuts and weaker growth were bad, and that was more true the larger those rate cuts were. In 2001, 2008 and February of 2020, large rate cuts as the economy weakened led to significant credit losses. Concern about what those lower rates signalled outweighed the direct benefit that a lower rate provided.We think that dynamic remains in play today, with the market over the last two weeks suggesting that a combination of weaker growth and lower rates may be taken poorly, not taken well.But there’s also some good news: Our economists think that the market's views on growth, and interest rates, may both be a little overstated. They think the US economy is still on track for a soft-landing, and that last week’s jobs report wasn’t quite as weak as it was made out to be.Because of all that, they also don’t think that the Fed will reduce interest rates as quickly as the market now expects. And so, if that’s now right, we think a stronger economy and somewhat higher rates is going to be a trade-off that credit is happy to take.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Head of Europe Sustainability Research discusses how rising longevity is revolutionizing our fundamental approach from reactive to proactive treatment.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Mike Canfield, Morgan Stanley’s European Head of Sustainability Research. Along with my colleagues, we’re bringing you a variety of perspectives; and today we’re focusing on a topic that affects everyone – how much does poor health cost us? And how are ageing populations and longer life expectancy driving a fundamental shift in healthcare? It’s Thursday, August the 8th, at 4pm in London.   As populations age across the developed world, health systems need to help people live both longer and healthier. The current system is typically built around to focus on acute conditions and it’s more reactive; so it introduces clinical care or drugs to respond to a condition after it’s already arisen, rather than keeping people healthy in the first instance. So increasingly, with the burden of chronic disease becoming by far the greatest health and economic challenge we face, we need to change the structure of the healthcare system. Essentially, the key question is how much is poor health amongst the ageing population really costing society? To get a true sense of that, we need to keep in mind that workers over 50 already earn one out of every three dollars across the G20 regions. By 2035, they're projected to generate nearly 40 per cent of all household income. So with that in mind, preventable conditions amongst those people aged 50-64 at the moment, are already costing G20 economies over $1 trillion annually in productivity loss. And there’s one more key number: 19 per cent. That's how much age-diverse workforces can raise GDP per capita over the next thirty years, according to estimates from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD. So clearly, keeping workers healthier for longer underpins a more productive, more efficient, and a profitable global economy. So it’s clear that [if] the current healthcare system were to shift from sick from care to prevention, the global gains would be substantial.The BioPharma sector is already contributing some targeted novel treatments in areas like smart chemotherapy and in CRISPR – which is a technology that allows for selective DNA modification. While we can credit BioPharma and MedTech for really powerful innovations in diagnostics, in AI deployment for areas like data science and material science, and in sophisticated telemedicine – all these breakthroughs together give a more personalized, targeted health system; which is a big step in the right direction, but honestly they alone can’t solve this much broader longevity challenge we face. Focus on health and prevention, ultimately, could address those underlying causes of ill-health, so that problems don’t arise even in the first instance. Governments around the world are obviously realizing the value of preventive care over sick care. And as a strategy, disease prevention fundamentally aims to promote wellness across the board, whether that’s in things like mental state, nutrition or even in things like sleep and stress. While it might be easy to kind of conflate that with wellness trends – things like green smoothies or meditation – the underlying benefits of boosting health at the cellular level have much broader and deeper implications. Things like Type 2 diabetes and heart disease, supporting better health across populations can significantly reduce the incidence of a wide range of chronic conditions. It can lower the burden on health systems overall, and actually increase healthy lifespan at the end of the day. BioPharma advances are significant, but addressing longevity will require a much broader alignment across a myriad of elements; everything really from the food system to sanitation to training healthcare professionals. And of course, all of that will require consistent policy support. Regulators and policymakers are paying very close attention to their ageing population – and so are we. We’ll continue to bring you updates on this topic, which is so important to all of us.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please do leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Head of Thematic and Fixed Income Research joins our Chief Fixed Income Strategist to discuss the recent market volatility and how it impacts investor positioning within fixed income. ----- Transcript -----Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research.Vishy: And I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist.Zezas: And on this episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll talk about the recent market volatility and what it means for fixed income investors.It's Wednesday, August 7th at 10am in New York.Vishy, on yesterday's show, you discussed the recent growth of money market funds. But today I want to talk about a topic that's top of mind for investors trying to make sense of recent market volatility. For starters, what do you think tipped off these big moves across global markets?Vishy: Mike, a confluence of factors contributed to the volatility that we've seen in the last six or seven trading sessions. To be clear, in the last few weeks, there have been some downside surprises in incoming data. They were capped off by last Friday's US employment report that came in soft across the board. In combination, that raised questions on the soft-landing thesis that had been baked into market prices, where valuations were already pretty stretched. And this one came after a hawkish hike by Bank of Japan just two days prior.While Morgan Stanley economists were expecting it, this hike was far from consensus going in. So, what this means is that this could lead to a greater divergence of monetary policy between the Fed and the Bank of Japan. That is, investors perceiving that the Fed may need to cut more and sooner, and that Bank of Japan may need to hike more; in both cases, more than expected.As you know, when negative surprises show up together, volatility follows.Zezas: Got it. And so last week's soft US employment data raises the question of whether the Fed's overtightened and the US economy might be weaker than expected. So, from where you sit, how does this concern impact fixed income assets?Vishy: To be clear, this is really not our base case. Our economists expect US economy to slow, but not fall off the cliff. Last Friday's data do point to some slowing, on the margin more slowing than market consensus as well as our economists expected. And really what this means is the markets are likely to challenge our soft-landing hypothesis until some good data emerge. And that could take some time. This means recent weakness in spread products is warranted, and especially given tight starting levels.Zezas: So, it seems in the coming days and maybe even weeks, the path for total fixed income market returns is likely to be lower as the market adjusts to a weaker growth outlook. What areas of fixed income do you think are best positioned to weather this transition and why?Vishy: We really need more data to confirm or push back on the soft-landing hypothesis. That said, fears of growth challenges will likely build in expectations for more Fed cuts. And that is good for duration through government bonds.Zezas: And conversely, what segments of fixed income are most exposed to risk?Vishy: In one way or the other, all spread products are exposed. In my mind, the US corporate credit market recession risks are least priced into high yield single B bonds, where valuations are rich, and positioning is stretched.Zezas: So clearly the recent market volatility has affected global markets, not just the US and Japan. So, what are you seeing in other markets? And are there any surprises there?Vishy: Emerging market credit. In emerging market credit, investment grade sovereign bonds will likely outperform high yield bonds, causing us to close our preference for high yield versus investment grade. It is too soon to completely flip our view and turn bearish on the overall emerging market credit index.We do see a combination of emerging market single name CDSs as an attractive hedge. South Africa, Colombia, Mexico, for example.Zezas: So finally, where do we go from here? Do you think it's worth buying the dip?Vishy: Our message overall is that while there have been significant moves, it is not yet the time to buy on dips.Zezas: Well, Vishy, thanks for taking the time to talk.Vishy: Great speaking with you, Mike.Zezas: And as a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen. And share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Risk-averse investors have poured trillions into money-market funds since 2019. Our Chief Fixed Income Strategist explains why investors shouldn’t expect this money to pivot to equities and other risk assets as rates fall. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about money market funds. It's Tuesday, August 6th at 3pm in New York. Well over $6.5 trillion sit in US money market funds. A popular view in the financial media is that the assets under management in money market funds represent money on sidelines, waiting to be allocated to risk assets, especially stocks. The underlying thesis is that the current level of interest rates and the consequent high money market yields have resulted in accumulation of assets in money market funds; and, when policy easing gets under way and money market yields decline, these funds will be allocated towards risk assets, especially stocks. To that I would say, curb your enthusiasm. Recent history provides helpful context. Since the end of 2019, money market funds have seen net inflows of about $2.6 trillion, occurring broadly in three phases. The first phase followed the outbreak of COVID, as the global economy suddenly faced a wide array of uncertainties. The second leg mainly comprised retail inflows, starting when the Fed began raising rates in 2022.The third stage came during the regional bank crisis in March-April 2023, with both retail and institutional flows fleeing regional bank deposits into money market funds. Where do we go from here? We think money market funds are unlikely to return to their pre-COVID levels of about $4 trillion, even if policy easing begins in September as our economists expect. They see three 25 basis point rate cuts in 2024 and four in 2025 as the economy achieves a soft landing; and they anticipate a shallow rate-cutting cycle, with the Fed stopping around 3.75 per cent. This means money market yields will likely stabilize around that level, albeit with a lag – but still be attractive versus cash alternatives. In a hard landing scenario, the Fed will likely deliver significantly more cuts over a shorter period of time, but we think investors would be more inclined to seek liquidity and safety, allocating more assets to money market funds than to alternative assets. Further, money market funds can delay the decline in their yields by simply extending the weighted average maturities of their portfolios and locking in current yields in the run-up to the cutting cycle. This makes money market funds more attractive than both short-term CDs and Treasury bills, whose yields reprice lower in sync with rate cuts. This relative appeal explains much of the lag between rate cuts and the peak in assets under management in money market funds. These have lagged historically, but average lag is around 12 months. Finally, it is important to distinguish between institutional and retail flows into and out of money market funds, as their motivations are likely to be very different. Institutional funds account for 61 per cent of money market funds, while funds from retail sources amount to about 37 per cent. When they reallocate from money market funds, we think institutional investors are more likely to allocate to high-quality, short-duration fixed income assets rather than riskier assets such as stocks, motivated by safety rather than level of yield. Retail investors, the smaller segment, may have greater inclination to reallocate towards risk assets such as stocks. The bottom line: While money market fund assets under management have grown meaningfully in the last few years, it is likely to stay high even as policy easing takes hold. Allocation toward risk assets looks to be both lagged and limited. Thus, this 'money on the sidelines' may not be as positive and as imminent a technical for risk assets as some people expect. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Although Monday’s correction springs from multiple causes, the real questions may be what’s next and when will the correction become a buying opportunity?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the recent equity market correction and whether it’s time to step in.It's Monday, Aug 5th at 11:30am in New York.So let’s get after it.Over the past several weeks, global equity markets have taken on a completely different tone with most major averages definitively breaking strong uptrends from last fall. Many are blaming the Fed’s decision last week to hold interest rates steady in the face of weaker jobs data while others have highlighted the technical unwind of the Japanese yen carry trade.However, if we take a step back, this topping process began in April with the first meaningful sell off since last October’s lows. Even as many stocks and indices rallied back to new highs this summer, the leadership took on a more defensive posture with sectors like Utilities, Staples and even Real Estate doing better than they have in years. As I have been discussing on this podcast this shift in leadership has coincided with softer economic data during the second quarter. This softness has continued into the summer with the all-important labor market data joining in as already noted.This rotation was an early warning sign that stocks were likely vulnerable to a correction as we highlighted in early July. After all, the third quarter is when such corrections tend to happen seasonally for several reasons. This year has turned out to be no different. The real question now is what’s next and when will this correction become a buying opportunity?Lost in the blame game is the simple fact that valuations reached very rich levels this year, something we have consistently discussed in our research. In fact, this is the main reason we have no upside to our US major averages over the next year even assuming our economists’ soft landing base case outcome for the economy. In other words, stocks were priced for perfection.Now, with the deterioration in the growth data, and a Fed that is in no rush to cut rates proactively, markets have started to get nervous. Furthermore, the Fed tends to follow 2-year yields and over the last month 2-year treasury yields have fallen by 100 basis points and is almost 170 basis points below the Fed Funds rate. What this means is that the market is telling the Fed they are way too tight and they need to cut much more aggressively than what they have guided.The dilemma for the Fed is that the next meeting is six weeks away and that’s a lifetime when markets are trading like they are today. Markets tend to be impatient and so I expect they will continue to trade with high volatility until the Fed appeases the market’s wishes. The flip side, of course, is that the Fed does an intra meeting rate cut; but that may make the markets even more nervous about growth in my view.Bottom line, markets are likely to remain vulnerable in the near term until we get better growth data or more comfort from Fed on policy support, neither of which we think is forthcoming soon.Finally, support can also come from cheap valuations, but we don’t have that yet at current prices. As of this recording the S&P 500 is still trading 20x forward 12-month earnings estimates. Our fair value multiple assuming a soft-landing outcome on the economy is closer to 19x, which means things aren’t actually cheap until we reach 17-18x, which is more than 10 per cent away from where we are trading.In the meantime, we continue to recommend more defensive stocks in sectors like Utilities, Healthcare, Consumer Staples and some Real Estate. Conversely, we continue to dislike smaller cap cyclical stocks that are most vulnerable to the current growth slowdown and tight rate policy.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

After a dizzying week of economic and market activity, our Head of Corporate Credit Research breaks down the three top stories.----- Transcript -----It’s been a whirlwind week of economic activity in the markets as we enter the dog days of summer. Our Head of Corporate Credits Research breaks down three top stories.Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be discussing what we’ve taken away from this eventful week.It's Friday, August 2nd at 2pm in London.For all its sophistication, financial activity is still seasonal. This is a business driven by people, and people like to take time off in the summer to rest and recharge. There’s a reason that volumes in August tend to be low.And so this week felt like that pre-vacation rush to pack, find your keys, and remember your ticket before running out the door. Important earnings releases, central bank meetings and employment numbers all hit with quick succession. Some thoughts on all that whirlwind.The first story was earnings and continued equity rotation. Equity markets are seeing big shifts between which stocks are doing well and poorly, particularly in larger technology names. These shifts are a big deal for equity investors, but we think they remain much less material for credit.Technology is a much smaller sector of the bond market than the stock market, as these tech companies have generally issued relatively little debt – relative to their size. Credit actually tends to overlap much more with the average stock, which at the moment continues to do well. And while the Technology sector has been volatile, stocks in the US financial sector – the largest segment for credit – have been seeing much better, steadier gains.Next up this week was the Bank of Japan, which raised policy rates, a notable shift from many other central banks, which are starting to lower them. For credit, the worry from such a move was somewhat roundabout: that higher rates in Japan would strengthen its currency, the yen. That such strength would be painful for foreign exchange investors, who had positioned themselves the other way around – for yen weakness. And that losses from these investors in foreign exchange could lead them to lower exposure in other areas, potentially credit. But so far, things look manageable. While the yen did strengthen this week, it hasn’t had the sort of knock-on impact to other markets that some had feared. We think that might be evidence that investor positioning in credit was not nearly as concentrated, or as large, as in certain foreign exchange strategies, and we think that remains the case.But the biggest story this week was the Federal Reserve on Wednesday, followed by the US Jobs number today. These two events need to be taken together.On Wednesday, the Fed chose to maintain its high current policy rate, while also hinting it’s open to a cut. But with inflation falling rapidly in recent months, and already at the Fed’s target on market-based measures, the question is whether the Fed should already be cutting rates to even out that policy. After all, lowering rates too late has often been a problem for the Fed in the past.Today’s weak jobs report brings these fears front-and-center, as highly restrictive monetary policy may start to look out-of-line with labor market weakness. And not cutting this week makes it more awkward for the Fed to now adjust. If they move at the next meeting, later in September; well, that means waiting more than a month and a half. But acting before that time, in an unusual intra-bank meeting cut; well, that could look reactive. The market will understandably worry that the Fed, once again, may be reacting too late. That is a bad outcome for the balance of economic risks and for credit.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Chief Global Cross-Asset Strategist, Serena Tang, explains where funds are moving across global markets currently, and why it matters to investors.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Cross-Asset Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll dig into the concept of fund flows, how they shape global markets and why they matter to investors. It’s Thursday, August 1, at 10am in New York. Finance industry professionals often use the term “flows” when looking at where investors are, in the aggregate, moving their money. It refers to net movements of cash in and out of investment vehicles such as mutual funds and exchange-traded funds, or in and out of whole markets. By looking at flows, investors can get a good sense of where market winds are blowing and, essentially, where demand is at any given moment. Now, whether you’re a retail or institutional investor, having a perspective on market sentiment and demand are powerful tools. So today I’m going to give you a snapshot of some key flows, which should give a sense of demand and the mood right now; and what it means for investors.First of all, despite the recent rally in global equities year-to-date, we've yet to see an investor rotation, or portfolio realignment, from bonds to stocks. Flows into bonds are still leading flows into stocks by a pretty large margin. And unless stocks cheapen materially, we don’t expect this trend to reverse anytime soon. In addition, fund flows into large-cap equities still dwarf those into small-caps year-to-date. Although we saw a brief reversal of this trend in June, large caps flows have swung back to prominence. We do see hints of sector rotation within equities, as investors shift to what they see as more promising stocks; but it’s not a clean or entirely unambiguous story. The Science & Tech sectors – which saw a notable drop-off in flows from the first to the second quarter of this year – still lead year-to-date; and flows represent nearly a third into all flows into equities. More cyclical sectors like Basic Materials and Financials attracted more capital than in the first and second quarter, while defensive sectors such as Consumer Goods saw a softening of outflows compared to the same period. From a global perspective, we also look at flows in and out of particular regions or markets. So, year-to-date, US stocks received about US$43 billion in net inflows while rest-of-world stocks saw about US$15 billion in net outflows. Now, there were some exceptions – with India, Korea, and Taiwan leading – seeing significant inflows year-to-date. We look at flows within categories too, so within fixed income, for example, we are seeing flows toward less risky assets; revealing what we call a risk-off preference. Higher quality, Investment Grade funds – raked in about US$92 billion in net inflows year-to-date, while US treasuries saw only at US$25 billion. That Treasury number is actually significantly higher than what we saw from the first quarter to the second quarter, while inflows to High Yield and low-quality Investment Grade corporates have slowed compared to the start of the year. Finally, money market funds – that is mutual funds that invest in short-term higher quality securities – have not yet really seen sustained outflows, as one would expect when investors believe shorter term yields would come down, as central banks start to ease. Rather there’s been some $70 billion in net inflows through the first half of this year. Although we’re sympathetic to the view that money market outflows should begin when the Fed starts cutting rates, there’s actually a considerable lag between first cut and those outflows, as we have seen in the last two rate cutting cycles. But what does all of this mean for investors? Well, it suggests they still have a defensive tilt, and they shouldn’t really be jumping on the rotational story. The current yield environment means rotation from fixed income and money market funds into riskier assets is still some way away. Investors also shouldn’t look at the dry powder/cash on the sidelines narrative as the big tailwind for riskier assets -- because it’s not coming any time soon. That said, we still like non-government bonds because this is where cash would go first if and when those flows begin. We also like global equities, but more so because the benign macro backdrop we are forecasting supports this. We’ll keep you up to date if there’s any change in the direction of market winds and fund flows.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

As Generative AI continues to accelerate, some agencies will be better positioned than others to reap the benefits. Our Europe Media & Entertainment analyst, Laura Metayer, explains.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Laura Metayer, from the Morgan Stanley Europe Media & Entertainment team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss what the future may hold for advertising agencies amid fast-paced Generative AI developments.It’s Wednesday, July 31, at 2 PM in London. Right now we’re still in the early stages of GenAI’s impact on ad agency offerings; although the debate around technology removing the need for ad agencies is not new. Soon after the release of ChatGPT in early 2023, my colleagues in North America started mapping out the potential impact of GenAI on the ad agencies. They concluded that GenAI should represent an opportunity for the ad agencies, at least near-term. First, Gen AI would lead to productivity improvements from automatable tasks in creative, media, digital transformation consulting and central functions like HR and Finance. Second, GenAI would boost client demand for advice from agencies to help navigate the coming evolution in digital advertising.   Fast-forward to now and the impact of GenAI on the ad agencies has become an active investor debate, with concerns centering around the Creative business. Many eyes are on the Gen AI-powered text to image/video tools, which could disrupt the ad agencies' Creative & Production business. We this has weighed on agency stock prices recently.  Essentially, the bear case has been – and is – that technology would devalue agencies’ offerings and agency clients may rely more on tech platforms and in-house services. That bear case – twenty years into online advertising – has not played out. We think that in these early days of AI’s impact on marketing, there may be more upside to agency equities than risk over the next 12 to 18 months.  On the one hand, the introduction of Gen AI tools may mean reduced pricing power and challenged top-line growth. At the same time, replacing creative personnel with software may increase earnings power, even with less revenue. We think it's likely that a key value-add of the ad agencies' Creative business would be campaign personalization at scale, powered by data and technology. Looking back, technology has been commoditizing certain areas of creative and production for years, well ahead of AI; and yet creativity and creative services remain core value propositions by agencies to brands. Overall, there is as much – if not more – opportunity than risk for ad agencies over time. So let me leave you with two key takeaways:  First, we see the larger ad agencies as better positioned to remain relevant to customers in the GenAI era. However, we would caution that their large scale may also lower their ability to adapt quickly to evolving customer requirements when it comes to GenAI. Second, we expect GenAI to drive more consolidation in the industry. We think it’s likely that some of the large ad agencies take market share from other large ad agencies. As these trends play out over time, we’ll continue to keep you updated. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

A later cycle economy and continued uncertainty means that investors should be remain wary of cyclicals such as small caps, explains Mike Wilson, our CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about slowing growth in the context of high valuations.It's Tuesday, July 30th at 3pm in New York.So, let’s get after it.Over the past few weeks, the equity markets have taken on a different complexion with the mega cap stocks lagging and lower quality small caps doing better. What does this mean for investor portfolios? And is the market telling us something about future fundamentals? In our view, we think most of this rotation is due to the de-grossing that is occurring within portfolios that are overweight large cap quality growth and underweight lower quality and smaller cap names.We have long been in the camp that large cap quality has been the place to be – for equity investors – as opposed to diving down the quality and cap curves. That continues to be the case; though we are watching the fundamental and technical backdrop for small caps closely, and we’re respectful of the pace of the recent move in the space.For now, however, we continue to think the better risk/reward is to stay up the quality curve and avoid the more cyclical parts in the market like small caps. Our rationale for such positioning is simple — in a later cycle economy where growth is softening or not translating into earnings growth for most companies, large cap quality outperforms. Exacerbating the many imbalances across the economy is a bloated fiscal budget deficit. In our view, there are diminishing returns to fiscal spending when it starts to crowd out private companies and consumers. As I have been discussing for the past year, this crowding out has contributed to the bifurcation of performance in both the economy and equity markets, while potentially keeping the Fed's Interest rate policy tighter than it would have been otherwise.While the macro data has been mixed, there is a growing debate around the actual strength of the labor market with the household survey painting a weaker picture than the non-farm payroll data which is based on employer surveys. The bottom line is that we are in a stable, but decelerating late cycle economy from a macro data standpoint. However, on the micro front, the data has not been as stable and is showing a more meaningful deterioration in growth; particularly as it relates to the consumer.More specifically, earnings revision breadth has broken down recently for many of the cyclical parts of the market. Financials has been a bright spot here but that may be short-lived if the consumer continues to weaken. We continue to favor quality but with a greater focus on defensive sectors like utilities, staples and REITs as opposed to growthier ones like technology. The issue with the growth stocks is valuations and the quality of the earnings for some of the mega cap tech stocks.The other variable weighing on stocks at the moment is valuations which remain in the top decile of the past 20 years. It’s worth noting that valuations are very sensitive to earnings revisions breadth. The last time revision breadth rolled over into negative territory was last fall. Between July and October 2023, the market multiple declined from 20x to 17x. Two weeks ago, this multiple was 22x and is now 21x. If earnings revisions continue to fade as we expect, it’s likely these valuations have further to fall. With our 12-month base case target multiple at 19x, the risk reward for equities broadly remains quite unfavorable at the moment.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our sustainability experts Stephen Byrd and Tim Chan discuss what’s driving new opportunities across the global nuclear power sector and some risks investors should keep in mind.----- Transcript -----Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Steven Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Sustainability Research.Tim Chan: And I'm Tim Chan, Asia Pacific Head of Sustainability Research.Stephen Byrd: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll discuss some significant developments in the nuclear power generation space with long term implications for global markets.It’s Monday, July 29th at 8am in New York.Tim Chan: And 8 pm in Hong Kong.Stephen Byrd: Nuclear power remains divisive, but it is making a comeback.So, Tim, let's set the scene here. What's really driving this resurgence of interest in nuclear power generation?Tim Chan: One key moment was the COP28 conference last year. Over 20 countries, including the US, Canada, and France, signed a joint declaration to triple nuclear capacity by 2050. Right now, the world has about 390 gigawatts of nuclear capacity providing 10 per cent of global electricity. It took 70 years to bring global nuclear capacity to 390 gigawatts. And now the COP28 target promises to build another 740 gigawatts in less than 30 years.And if this remarkable nuclear journey is going to be achieved, that will require financing and also shorter construction time.Stephen Byrd: So, Tim, how do you size the market opportunity on a global scale over the next five to ten years?Tim Chan: We estimate that nuclear renaissance will be worth $ 1.5 trillion (USD) through 2050, in the form of capital investment in new global nuclear capacity. And the growth globally will be led by China and the US. China will also lead in the investment in nuclear, followed by the US and the EU. In addition, this new capacity will need $128 billion (USD) annually to maintain.Stephen Byrd: Well, Tim, those are some gigantic numbers, $1.5 trillion (USD) and essentially a doubling of nuclear capacity by 2050. I want to dig into China a bit and if you could just speak to how big of a role China is going to play in this.Tim Chan: In China, by 2060, nuclear is likely to account for roughly 80 per cent of the total power generation, according to the China Nuclear Association. This figure represents half of the global nuclear capacity in similar stages, which amounts to 520 gigawatts.And Stephen, can you tell us more about the US?Stephen Byrd: Sure, during COP 28, the US joined a multinational declaration to triple nuclear power capacity by 2050. In this past year, the US has seen the completion of a new nuclear power plant in Georgia, which is the first new reactor built in the United States in over 30 years.Now, beyond this, we have not seen a strong pipeline in the US on large scale nuclear plants, according to the World Nuclear Association. And for the US to triple its nuclear capacity from about 100 gigawatts currently, the nation would need to build about 200 gigawatts more capacity to meet the target.In our nuclear renaissance scenario, we assume only 50 gigawatts will be built, considering a couple of factors. So, first, clean energy options, such as wind and solar are becoming more viable; they're dropping in cost. And also, for new nuclear in the United States, we've seen significant construction delays and cost overruns for the large-scale nuclear plants. Now that said, there is still upside if we're able to meet the target in the US.And I think that's going to depend heavily on the development of small modular reactors or SMRs. I am optimistic about SMRs in the longer term. They're modular, as the name says. They're easier to design, easier to construct, and easier to install. So, I do think we could see some upside surprises later this decade and into the next decade.Tim Chan: And nuclear offers a unique opportunity to power Generative AI, which is accounting for a growing share of energy needs.Stephen Byrd: So, Tim, I was wondering how long it was going to take before we began to talk about AI.Nuclear power generators do have a unique opportunity to provide power to data centers that are located on site, and those plants can provide consistent, uninterrupted power, potentially without external connections to the grid. In the US, we believe supercomputers, which are essentially extremely large data centers used primarily for GenAI training, will be built behind the fence at one or more nuclear power plants in the US. Now these supercomputers are absolutely massive. They could use the power, potentially, of multiple nuclear power plants.Now just let that sink in. These supercomputers could cost tens of billions of dollars, possibly even $100 billion plus. And they will bring to bear unprecedented compute power in developing future Large Language Models.So, Tim, where does regulation factor into the resurgence of nuclear power or the lack of resurgence?Tim Chan: So, for the regulation, we focus a lot on the framework to provide financing: subsidies, sustainable finance taxonomies and also from the bond investor; although we note that taxonomies are still developing to offer dedicated support to nuclear. We expect nuclear financing under green bonds will become increasingly common and accepted. However, exclusion on nuclear still exists.Stephen Byrd: So finally, Tim, what are some of the key risks and constraints for nuclear development?Tim Chan: I would highlight three risks. Construction time, shortage of labor, and uranium constraint. These remain the key risks for nuclear projects to bring value creation.US and Europe had high profile delay in the past, which led to massive cost overrun. We are also watching the impacts of shortage of skilled labor, which is more likely in the developed markets versus emerging markets. And the supply of enriched uranium, which is mainly dominated by Russia.Stephen Byrd: Well, that's interesting, Tim. There are clearly some risks that could derail or slow down this nuclear renaissance. Tim, thanks for taking the time to talk.Tim Chan: Great speaking with you, Stephen.Stephen Byrd: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Our head of Corporate Credit Research, Andrew Sheets, notes areas of uncertainty in the credit, equity and macro landscapes that are worth tracking as we move into the fall.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about three risks we’re focused on for the third quarter.It's Friday, July 26th at 2pm in London.We’re like credit. But there are certainly risks we’re watching. I’d like to discuss three that are top of mind. The first is probably the mildest. Looking back over the last 35 years, August and September have historically been tougher months for riskier assets like stocks and corporate bonds. US High Yield bonds, for example, lose about 1 per cent relative to safer government bonds over August-September. That’s hardly a cataclysm, but it still represents the worst two-month stretch of any point of the year. And so all-else-equal, treading a little more cautiously in credit over the next two months has, from a seasonal perspective, made sense. The second risk is probably the most topical. Equity markets, especially US equity markets, are seeing major shifts in which stocks are doing well. Since July 8th, the Nasdaq 100, an index dominated by larger high-quality, often Technology companies, is down over 7 per cent. The Russell 2000, a different index representing smaller, often lower quality companies, is up over 11 per cent. So ask somebody – ‘How is the market?’ – and their answer is probably going to differ based on which market they’re currently in. This so-called rotation in what’s outperforming in the equity market is a risk, as Technology and large-cap equities have outperformed for more than a decade, meaning that they tend to be more widely held. But for credit, we think this risk is pretty modest. The weakness in these Large, Technology companies is having such a large impact because they make up so much of the market – roughly 40 per cent of the S&P 500 index. But those same sectors are only 6 per cent of the Investment grade credit market, which is weighted differently by the amount of debt somebody is issued. Meanwhile, Banks have been one of the best performing sectors of the stock market. And would you believe it? They are one of the largest sectors of credit, representing over 20 per cent of the US Investment Grade index. Put a slightly different way, when thinking about the Credit market, the average stock is going to map much more closely to what’s in our indices than, say, a market-weighted index. The third risk on our minds is the most serious: that economic data ends up being much weaker than we at Morgan Stanley expect. Yes, weaker data could lead the Fed and the ECB to make more interest rate cuts. But history suggests this is usually a bad bargain. When the Fed needs to cut a lot as growth weakens, it is often acting too late. And Credit consistently underperforms.We do worry that the Fed is a bit too confident that it will be able to see softness coming, given the lag that exists between when it cuts rates and the impact on the economy. We also think interest rates are probably higher than they need to be, given that inflation is rapidly falling toward the Fed’s target. But for now, the US Economy is holding up, growing at an impressive 2.8 per cent rate in the second quarter in data announced this week. Good data is good news for credit, in our view. Weaker data would make us worried. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Markets are contending with greater uncertainty around the US presidential election following President Biden’s withdrawal. Our Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research breaks down what we know as the campaign enters a new phase.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the latest development in the US presidential race.It's Thursday, July 25th at 2:30 pm in New York. Last weekend, when President Biden decided not to seek re-election, it begged some questions from investors. First, with a new candidate at the top of the ticket, are there new policy impacts, and potential market effects, resulting from Democrats winning that we haven’t previously considered? For the moment, we think the answer is no. Consider Vice President Harris. Her policy positions are similar to Biden’s on key issues of importance to markets. And even if they weren’t, the details of key legislative policies in a Democratic win scenario will likely be shaped by the party’s elected officials overall. So, our guidance for market impacts that investors should watch for in the event that Democrats win the White House is unchanged. Second, what does it mean for the state of the race? After all, markets in the past couple of weeks began anticipating a stronger possibility of Republican victory. It was visible in stronger performance in small cap stocks, which our equity strategy team credited to investors seeing greater benefits in that sector from more aggressive tax cuts under possible Republican governance. It was also visible in steeper yield curves, which could reflect both weaker growth prospects due to tariff risks, pushing shorter maturity yields lower, and greater long-term uncertainty on economic growth, inflation, and bond supply from higher US deficits – something that could push longer-maturity Treasury yields relatively higher. So, it's understandable that investors could question the durability of these market moves if the race appeared more competitive. But the honest answer here is that it's too early to know how the race has changed. As imperfect as they are, polls are still our best tool to gauge public sentiment. And there’s scant polling on Democratic candidates not named Biden. So, on the question of which candidate more likely enjoys sufficient voter support to win the election, it could be days or weeks before we have reliable information. That said, prediction markets are communicating that they expect the race to tighten – pricing President Trump’s probability of regaining the White House at about 60-65 per cent, down from a recent high of 75-80 per cent. So bottom line, a change in the Democratic ticket hasn’t changed the very real policy stakes in this election. We’ll keep you informed here of how it's impacting our outlook for markets. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Chief Asia Economist explains how the region’s economies and markets would be affected by higher tariffs, and other possible scenarios in the US elections.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Asia Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss a question that’s drawing increasing attention – just how the U.S. presidential election would affect Asian economies and markets. It’s Wednesday, July 24th, at 8 PM in Hong Kong. As the US presidential race progresses, global markets are beginning to evaluate the possibility of a Trump win and maybe even a Republican sweep. Investors are wondering what this would   mean for Asia in particular. We believe there are three channels through which the US election outcome will matter for Asia. First, financial conditions – how the US dollar and rates will move ahead of and after the US elections. Second, tariffs. And third, US growth outcomes, which will affect global growth and end demand for Asian exports. Well, out of the three our top concern is the growth downside from higher tariffs. The 2018 experience suggests that the direct effect of tariffs is not what plays the most dominant role in affecting the macro outcomes; but rather the transmission through corporate confidence, capital expenditure, global demand and financial conditions. Let’s consider two scenarios. First, in a potential Trump win with divided government, China would likely be more affected from tariffs than Asia ex China. We see potentially two outcomes in this scenario – one where the US imposes tariffs only on China, and another where it also imposes 10 percent tariffs on the rest of the world. In the case of 60 percent tariffs on imports from China, there would be meaningful adverse effect on Asia's growth and it will be deflationary. China would remain most exposed compared to the rest of the region, which has reduced its export exposure to China over time and could see a positive offset from diversification of the supply chain away from China. In the case where the US also imposes 10 percent tariffs on imports from the rest of the world, we expect a bigger downside for China and the region. We believe that in this instance – in addition to the direct effect of tariffs on exports – the growth downside will be amplified by significant negative impact on corporate confidence, capex and trade. Corporate confidence will see bigger damage in this instance as compared to the one where tariffs are imposed only on China as corporate sector will have to think about on-shoring rather than continuing with friend-shoring. In the second scenario, in a potential Trump win with Republican sweep, in addition to the implications from tariffs, we would also be watching the possible fiscal policy outcomes and how they would shift the US yields and the dollar. This means that the tightening of financial conditions would pose further growth downside to Asia, over and above the effects of tariffs. How would Asia’s policymakers respond to these scenarios? As tariffs are imposed, we would expect Asian currencies to most likely come under depreciation pressure in the near term. While this helps to partly offset the negative implications of tariffs, it will constraint the ability of the central banks to cut rates. In this context, we expect fiscal easing to lead the first part of the policy response before rate cuts follow once currencies stabilize. It’s worth noting that in this cycle, the monetary policy space in Asia is much more limited than in the previous cycles because nominal rates in Asia for the most part are lower than in the US at the starting point. Of course, this is an evolving situation in the remaining months before the US elections, and we’ll continue to keep you updated on any significant developments. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

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

Our CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist explains that in the event of a Republican sweep in this fall’s U.S. elections, investors should not expect a repeat of 2016 given the different business environment.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity  Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about  why investors should fade the recent rally in small caps and other pro cyclical trades. It's Monday, July 22nd at 11:30am in New York.  So let’s get after it.With Donald Trump’s odds of winning a second Presidency rising substantially over the past few weeks, we’ve fielded many questions on how to position for this outcome. In general, there is an increasing view that growth and interest rates could be higher given Trump's focus on business-friendly policies, de-regulation, higher tariffs, less immigration and additional tax cuts.  While the S&P 500 has risen alongside Trump's presidential odds this year, several of the perceived  industry outperformers under this political scenario have only just recently started to show relative outperformance. One could argue a Trump win in conjunction with a Republican sweep could be  particularly beneficial for Banks, Small Caps, Energy Infrastructure and perhaps Industrials. Although, the  Democrats' heavy fiscal spending and subsidies for the Inflation Reduction Act, Chips Act and other infrastructure projects suggest Industrial stocks may not see as much of an incremental benefit relative to the past four years. The  perceived industry underperformers are alternative energy stocks and companies likely to be affected  the most by increased tariffs. Consumer stocks stand out in terms of this latter point, and they have underperformed recently. However, macro factors are likely affecting this dynamic as well. For example, concerns around slowing services demand and an increasingly value-focused consumer have risen, too. It's interesting to note that while these cyclical areas that are perceived to outperform under a Trump Presidency did work in 2016 and through part of 2017, they did even better during Biden's first year. Our rationale on this front is that the cycle plays a larger role in how stocks trade broadly and at the sector level than who is in the White House. As a comparison, we laid out a bullish case at the end of 2016 and in early 2017 when many were less constructive on pro cyclical risk assets than we were post the 2016 election. It’s worth pointing out that the global economy was coming out of a commodity and  manufacturing recession at that time, and growth was just starting to reaccelerate, led by another China boom. Today, we face a much different macro landscape. More specifically, several of the cyclical trades mentioned above typically show their best performance in the early cycle phase of an economic  expansion like 2020-2021. They show strong, but often not quite as strong performance in mid cycle  periods like 2016-17. They tend to show less strong returns later in the cycle like today. Our late cycle view is further supported by the persistent fall in long term interest rates and inverted yield curve.  We believe the recent outperformance of lower quality, small cap stocks has been driven mainly by a combination of softer inflation data and hopes for an earlier Fed cut combined with dealer demand and short covering from investors on the back of Trump’s improved odds. For those looking to the 2016 playbook, we would point out that relative earnings revisions for small cap cyclicals are much weaker today than they were during that period.   Back in December when small caps saw a similar squeeze higher, we explored the combination of factors  that would likely need to be in place for small cap equities to see a durable, multi-month period of  outperformance. Our view was that the introduction of rate cuts in and of itself was not enough of a factor to drive small cap outperformance versus large caps. In fact, history suggests large cap growth tends to be the best performing style once the Fed begins cutting as nominal growth is often slowing at  this point in the cycle, which enables the Fed to begin cutting. We concluded that to see durable small cap  outperformance, we would need to see a much more aggressive Fed cutting cycle that revived animal spirits in a significant enough way for growth and pricing power to inflect higher, not lower like recent trends.  We are monitoring small cap earnings expectations and small business sentiment for signs that animal  spirits are building in this way. Rates and pricing power are still headwinds; while small businesses are not all that sanguine about expanding operations, they are increasingly viewing the economy more  positively — an incremental positive and something worth watching. We will continue to monitor the  data in assessing the feasibility of this small cap rally continuing. Based on the evidence to date, we  would resist the urge to chase this cohort and lean back into large cap quality and defensives. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen, and share  Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. 

Our Head of Corporate Credit Research shares four reasons that he believes credit spreads are likely to stay near their current lows.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about why being negative credit isn’t as obvious as it looks, despite historically low spreads.It's Friday, July 19th at 2pm in London.We’re constructive on credit. We think the asset class likes moderation, and that’s exactly what Morgan Stanley forecasts expect: moderate growth, moderating inflation and moderating policy rates. Corporate activity is also modest; and even though it’s picking up, we haven’t yet seen the really aggressive types of corporate behavior that tend to make bondholders unhappy. Meanwhile, demand for the asset class is strong, and we think the start of Fed rate cuts in September could make it even stronger as money comes out of money market funds, looking to lock in current interest rates for longer in all sorts of bonds – including corporate bonds. And so while spreads are low by historical standards, our call is that helpful fundamentals and demand will keep them low, at least for the time being. But the question of credit’s valuation is important. Indeed, one of the most compelling bearish arguments in credit is pretty straightforward: current spreads are near some of their lowest levels of several prior cycles. They’ve repeatedly struggled to go lower. And if they can’t go lower, positioning for spreads to go wider and for the market to go weaker, well, it would seem like pretty good risk/reward. This is an extremely fair question! But there are four reasons why we think the case to be negative isn’t as straightforward as this logic might otherwise imply.First, a historical quirk of credit valuations is that spreads rarely trade at long-run average. They are often either much wider, in times of stress, or much tighter, in periods of calm. In statistical terms, spreads are bi-modal – and in the mid 1990s or mid 2000’s, they were able to stay near historically tight levels for a pretty extended period of time. Second, work by my colleague Vishwas Patkar and our US Credit Strategy team notes that, if you make some important adjustments to current credit spreads, for things like quality, bond price, and duration, current spreads don’t look quite as rich relative to prior lows. Current investment grade spreads in the US, for example, may still be 20 basis points wider than levels of January 2020, right before the start of COVID. Third, a number of the key buyers of corporate bonds at the moment are being driven by the level of yields, which are still high rather than spread, which are admittedly low. That could mean that demand holds up better even in the face of lower spreads. And fourth, credit is what we’d call a positive carry asset class: sellers lose money if nothing in the market changes. That’s not the case for US Treasuries, or US Equities, where those who are negative – or short – will profit if the market simply moves sideways. It’s one more factor that means that, while spreads are low, we’re mindful that being negative too early can still be costly. It’s not as simple as it looks. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our experts discuss how high prices for auto insurance have been driving inflation, and the implications for consumers and the Fed now that price increases are due to slow.----- Transcript -----Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist.Diego Anzoategui: I'm Diego Anzoategui from the US Economics team.Bob Huang: And I'm Bob Huang, the US Life and Property Casualty Insurance Analyst.Seth Carpenter: And on this episode, we're going to talk about a topic that -- I would have guessed -- historically we weren't going to think about too often in a macro setting; but over the past couple of years it's been a critical part of the whole story on inflation, and probably affects most of our listeners.It's auto insurance and why we think we're reaching a turning point.It's Thursday, July 18th at 10am in New York.All right, let's get started.If you drive a car in the United States, you almost surely have been hit by a big increase in your auto insurance prices. Over the past couple of years, everyone has been talking about inflation, how much consumer prices have been going up. But one of the components that lots of people see that's really gone up dramatically recently has been auto insurance.So that's why I wanted to come in and sit down with my colleagues, Diego and Bob, and talk through just what's going on here with auto insurance and how does it matter.Diego, I'm going to start with you.One thing that is remarkable is that the inflation that we're seeing now and that we've seen over the past several months is not related to the current state of the economy.But we know in markets that everyone's looking at the Fed, and the Fed is looking at the CPI data that's coming out. We just got the June CPI data for the US recently. How does this phenomenon of auto insurance fit into that reading on the data?Diego Anzoategui: Auto insurance is a relatively small component of CPI. It only represents just below 3 per cent of the CPI basket. But it has become a key driver because of the very high inflation rates has been showing. You know, the key aggregate the Fed watches carefully is core services ex-housing inflation. And the general perception is that inflation in these services is a lagged reflection of labor market tightness. But the main component driving this aggregate, at least in CPI, since 2022 has been auto insurance.So the main story behind core services ex-housing inflation in CPI is just the lagged effect of a cost shock to insurance companies.Seth Carpenter: Wait, let me stop you there. Did I understand you right? That if we're thinking about core services inflation, if you exclude housing; that is, I think, what a lot of people think is inflation that comes from a tight labor market, inflation that comes from an overheated economy. And you're saying that a lot of the movement in the past year or two is really coming from this auto insurance phenomenon.Diego Anzoategui: Yes, that's exactly true. It is the main component explaining core services ex-housing inflation.Seth: What's caused this big acceleration in auto insurance over the past few years? And just how big a deal is it for an economist like us?Diego Anzoategui: Yeah, so believe it or not, today's auto insurance inflation is related to COVID and the supply chain issues we faced in 2021 and 2022. Key cost components such as used cars, parts and equipment, and repair cost increased significantly, creating cost pressures to insurance companies. But the reaction in terms of pricing was sluggish. Some companies reacted slowly; but perhaps more importantly, regulators in key states didn't approve price increases quickly.Remember that this is a regulated industry, and insurance companies need approvals from regulators to update premiums. And, of course, losses increased as a result of this sluggish response in pricing, and several insurance started to scale back businesses, creating supply demand imbalances.And it is when these imbalances became evident that regulators started to approve large rate increases, boosting car insurance inflation rapidly from the second half of 2022 until today.Seth Carpenter: Okay, so if that's the case, what should we think about as key predictors, then, of auto insurance prices going forward? What should investors be aware of? What should consumers be aware of? Diego Anzoategui: So in terms of predictors, it is always a good idea to keep track of cost related variables. And these are leading indicators that we both Bob and I would follow closely.Used car prices, repair costs, which are also CPI components, are leading indicators of auto insurance inflation. And both of them are decelerating. Used car prices are actually falling. So there is deflation in that component. But I think rate filings are a key indicator to identify the turning point we are expecting this cycle.Seth Carpenter: Can you walk through what that means -- rate filings? Just for our listeners who might not be familiar?Diego Anzoategui: So, rate filings basically summarize how much insurers are asking to regulators to increase their premiums. And we actually have access to this data at a monthly frequency. Filings from January to May this year -- they are broadly running in line with what happened in 2023. But we are expecting deceleration in the coming months.If filings start to come down, that will be a confirmation of our view of a turning point coming and a strong sign of future deceleration in car insurance inflation.Seth Carpenter: So Bob, let me turn to you. Diego outlines with the macro considerations here. You're an analyst, you cover insurers, you cover the equity prices for those insurance, you're very much in the weeds. Are we reaching a turning point? Walk us through what actually has happened.Bob Huang: Yeah, so we certainly are reaching a turning point. And then, similar to what Diego said before, right, losses have been very high; and then that consequently resulted in ultimately regulators allowing insurance companies to increase price, and then that price increase really is what's impacting this.Now, going forward, as insurers are slowly achieving profitability in the personal auto space, personal auto insurers are aiming to grow their business. And then, if we believe that the personal auto insurance is more or less a somewhat commoditized product, and then the biggest lever that the insurance companies have really is on the pricing side. And as insurers achieve profitability, aim for growth, and that will consequently cost some more increased pricing competition.So, yes, we'll see pricing deceleration, and that's what I'm expecting for the second half of the year. And then perhaps even further out, and that could even intensify further. But we'll have to see down the road.Seth Carpenter: Is there any chance that we actually see decreases in those premiums? Or is the best we can hope for is that they just stopped rising as rapidly as they have been?Bob Huang: I think the most likely scenario is that the pricing will stabilize. For price to decrease to before COVID level, that losses have to really come down and stabilize as well. There are only a handful of insurers right now that are making what we call an underwriting profit. Some other folks are still trying to make up for the losses from before.So, from that perspective, I think, when we think about competition, when we think about pricing, stabilization of pricing will be the first point. Can price slightly decrease from here? It's possible depending on how intensive the competition is. But is it going to go back to pre-COVID level? I think that's a hard ask for the entire industry.Seth Carpenter: You were talking a lot about competition and how competition might drive pricing, but Diego reminded all of us at the beginning that this industry is a regulated industry. So can you walk us through a little bit about how we should think about this going forward?What's the interaction between competition on the one hand and regulation on the other? How big a deal is regulation? And, is any of that up for grabs given that we've got an election in November?Bob Huang: Usually what an insurer will have to do in general is that for some states -- well actually, in most cases they would have to ask for rate filings, depending on how severe those rate filings are. Regulators may have to step in and approve those rate filings.Now, as we believe that competition will gradually intensify, especially with some of the more successful carriers, what they can do is simply just not ask for price increase. And in that case, regulators don't really need to be involved. And then also implies that if you're not asking for a rate increase, then that also means that you're not really getting that pricing -- like upward pricing pressure on the variety of components that we're looking at.Seth Carpenter: To summarize, what I'm hearing from Bob at the micro level is those rate increases are probably slowing down and probably come to a halt and we'll have a stabilization. But don't get too excited, consumers. It's not clear that car insurance premiums are actually going to fall, at least not by a sizable margin.And Diego, from you, what I'm hearing is this component of inflation has really mattered when it comes to the aggregate measure of inflation, especially for services. It's been coming down. We expect it to come down further. And so, your team's forecast, the US economics team forecast, for the Fed to cut three times this year on the back of continued falls of inflation -- this is just another reason to be in that situation.So, thanks to both of you being on this. It was great for me to be able to talk to you, and hopefully our listeners enjoyed it too.Bob Huang: Thank you for having me here.Diego Anzoategui: Always a pleasure.Seth Carpenter: To the listeners, thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen; and share this podcast with a friend or a colleague today.

Financial markets can be sensitive to news cycles, but our Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research offers a word of caution about reacting to recent headlines about the US presidential election.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about development in the upcoming US elections.It's Wednesday, July 17th at 10:30am in New York. Financial markets are starting to reflect the possibility of a Trump presidency. Investors may be taking cues from a few current developments. There’s the recent weakening of President Biden’s polling numbers in key swing states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. There’s also the ongoing discussion about whether he will remain the Democratic nominee. And there's also former President Trump’s increased win probabilities in prediction markets, as well as the perception that Democrats will have more trouble pursuing their agenda in the wake of the assassination attempt against him. To that end we’ve seen moves in key areas of markets sensitive to what we have argued will be the policy impacts of a Trump presidency, including a steepening of the US Treasury yield curve. But – a word of caution. These market reactions to recent political events may be rational, but it's not clear they’re sustainable.  First, there are plausible ways investors’ perceptions of the likely outcomes of this election could shift. Voters can have very short memories, resulting in polls shifting to partisan priors. This happened with popular opinion on elected officials following notable incidents in recent years – such as the events of January 6th, 2021, the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, and more. Also, if President Biden were to withdraw as a candidate, it’s possible investors could perceive that a different candidate could tighten the race. For example, there have been recent surveys showing alternate Democratic candidates polling better than President Biden. Second, there’s also room for investors to misunderstand the policy path that could follow an election outcome as well as the impact of that path. For example, we’ve seen some recent press articles linking the broadening out of positive performance in the equity market to the likelihood of a Trump win on perceived benefits of friendlier tax policies that might result from this outcome. But if investors only focus on that policy, they’re not incorporating the potential offsetting effects that could come from policies that could challenge the economic growth outlook, such as higher tariffs – something former President Trump has advocated for. So bottom line, it makes sense to interrogate what seems like clear links between the upcoming election and markets.Some linkages are strong, and it’s possible that will make for a good investment strategy; others are weak and may break under scrutiny. We’ll help you sort it out here. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Chief Global Cross-Asset Strategist explains why she sees a future for the 60/40 portfolio strategy, which worked well for over half a century and may continue to perform well – with some modifications.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Cross-Asset Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss the future of the 60/40 equity/bond portfolio. It’s Tuesday, July 16th, at 10am in New York.Now investors have been asking: Is the 60/40 portfolio -- which allocates 60 percent to stocks and 40 percent to bonds -- dead? After all, the last two years saw some of the worst returns of this strategy in decades. Now, we think the concerns about this widely used strategy are not unfounded, but definitely a bit exaggerated. Exactly how one thinks about the right mix of equities and bonds within this type of portfolio though will need to change.The strategy of investing 60 percent of a portfolio in equities and 40 percent in bonds to lower portfolio risk evolved from modern portfolio theory in the 1950s. To succeed, bonds must be less volatile than stocks and the correlation between stock and bond returns can't be 1 -- because that would mean a perfect positive correlation between stocks and bonds. And this correlation has been below 1 and low for a long time because growth and inflation have moved up and down in tandem for a long time. Now what does this have to do with anything, you may ask. Well, typically in an environment where equities are rallying on the back of strong growth, inflation is also increasing – which in turn means that nominal yields stay high, dampening bond returns; and vice-versa in a recessionary scenario. Now, in both of those cases, the negative stock-bond return correlations is related to the positive growth inflation correlation. Which explains why the strategy of the 60/40 equity/bond portfolio worked so well for decades, particularly in the low-vol, high-growth inflation correlation, low stock-bond returns correlation environment of the late aughts to 2010s. Unfortunately for investors though, this has not been the backdrop for the last few years. The highly unusual macro environment coming out of pandemic broke that relationship between growth and inflation, which in turn broke the relationship between stocks and bonds, led to a spike in fixed income volatility, and dragged bond returns to lowest levels in decades over the last couple of years. But we believe these factors will slowly normalize, which means 60/40-like strategies should work again. While the levels of correlation and bond volatility going forward may look different from history, and definitely different from the QE period, as long as bonds have lower risks than stocks – and there’s little to suggest they won’t – bonds will continue to be good diversifiers. But it’s important for investors to ask themselves: what could drive correlation between stocks and bonds going forward? Well, longer term, the path of correlation between the two assets depends in part on the relationship between economic growth and inflation, as I touched on earlier. And this is where AI can come in. Positive productivity shocks from GenAI tech diffusion and the energy transition may change that dynamic between growth and inflation. And at the same time, decoupling in the world’s key economic regions as a result of the transition to a multipolar world can alter the correlation between regional equities and rates. So, will the 60/40 portfolio be the strategy of the future? Or is it going to be more like 70/30 or even 50/50? Slower normalization of volatility and correlation means that a portfolio with more equity could yield better risk/reward than a 60/40 mix. On the other hand, as the world’s 65+ year-old population continues to grow over the next decades, this aging demographic may demand higher allocations to less volatile assets, even at the expense of lower returns. Or maybe, just maybe, there is another solution. Instead of a simple 60/40 like strategy, investors can look beyond government bonds to other diversifiers, and building a multi-asset portfolio with more flexibility. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Retail analyst and U.S. Internet analyst connect the dots on how technology is helping the retail industry to cash in on the future.----- Transcript -----Simeon Gutman: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Simeon Gutman, Morgan Stanley's Hardlines, Broadlines, and Food Retail Analyst.Brian Nowak: And I'm Brian Nowak, Morgan Stanley's US Internet Analyst.Simeon Gutman: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll hear how retailers are using technology to make a comeback and set themselves up for the future.It's Monday, July 15th at 6pm in London.Brian Nowak: And it's 1pm in New York.Simeon Gutman: Retail has taken a big hit over the last few years. The long tail of the pandemic, outbreaks of war and inflation have had a big impact on the landscape. However, our research suggests retail is finding its feet, and technology is playing a significant role.Automation, AI, and retail media are the game changers here. And we're seeing retailers of larger scale and larger size disproportionately invest in these technologies -- which means it will not benefit all retailers equally.My colleague Brian is here to help explain the technology and how these are manifesting themselves across the internet and technology landscapes. Brian, can you talk about how these things are materializing across your coverage universe?Brian Nowak: Thanks, Simeon. Across the US internet space, we're seeing early emerging use cases for Generative AI of many types. We are seeing improved targeting on the advertising side. We are seeing new diffusion and creative models being built where advertisers can create new types of advertising copy using large language models. We are seeing new forms of customer service using large language models and Generative AI. And in effect, we are seeing companies across the entire internet space better analyze their first party data to drive more new people and customers to their platforms -- to drive higher conversion and share of wallets from those customers. And ultimately more durable multiyear top-line growth, which in some cases is also leading to higher free cash flow growth over the long term as well. It's early, but it's very encouraging with what we're seeing for Generative AI and retail media across the space.Simeon Gutman: Can you talk about in more detail how retail media is influencing the success and the prospects for some of your companies?Brian Nowak: Retail media is a emerging, rapidly growing, new high margin revenue stream that is moving across the internet space. Large companies are analyzing more of their data and essentially creating new advertising units that users and consumers can click on to drive transactions. And they're finding ways to better link these advertising dollars to transactions and ultimately creating a new revenue stream that we think is going to drive more durable top-line growth -- and because of its high margin nature, also more durable, multiyear free cash flow growth. It is benefiting the commerce players. It is benefiting the online advertising players. And it's also benefiting the advertising technology players.So with that as a backdrop, Simeon, where are you seeing Generative AI, retail media, and maybe even automation, start to manifest itself throughout the retail landscape?Simeon Gutman: Those are the three pillars of technology that are influencing retailers. Taking a quick step back, what's changing is that market share in retail is concentrating and consolidating among the largest players. And if you think about the investments required for some of these new capabilities, the companies that have the greatest ability to invest should see the greatest benefits. That means that the big could get bigger at an even faster rate. And this is why the stakes in retail are growing even faster.Now with, respect to these technologies. Let's start with AI. AI is helping retailers analyze big pieces of data that they never had an ability to do in such a quick way. That could help them refine their search criteria to consumers scanning a website. That could help them improve the algorithms in a distribution center with robots creating orders.Second, speaking of robots, bringing automation to distribution centers, supply chains for retailers can cost anywhere between 2 to 6 per cent of sales. There's a significant opportunity to reduce the amount of labor -- human labor -- in these distribution centers by automating them; whether it's dry goods, whether it's grocery items, as tricky as frozen and perishable items.And then lastly, retail media, the way that you mentioned, Brian, the benefit to your companies is very similar to retailers. There are now advertising dollars that are moving into new channels, whether it's closed loop advertising in store or retail media that's appearing on websites -- where some of the larger and more successful companies have a lot of traffic and advertisers are intrigued to show them offers and deals to try to change their perception or behaviors.So those three pieces of technology are slowly transforming the retailer. So next time you step into a retail store, there may be more technology that meets the eyes.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Our Head of Corporate Credit Research explains why he expects the US Federal Reserve to make three rate cuts before the end of the year, starting in September.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about why it's looking more likely that the Fed should, and will, cut interests rates several times this year.It's Friday, July 12th at 2pm in London.Last week, we discussed why the case for Fed rate cuts this year was strengthening. Credit markets generally don’t care too much about the exact timing or pace of policy rates, but they do care if a central bank is behind the curve. That’s because over the last 40 years, the worst returns for credit have repeatedly overlapped with periods where the Fed was too late in reversing tight monetary policy. After all, interest rates impact the economy with a pretty long and variable lag; and a interest rate cut today may not be fully felt in the economy for 12 months – or even longer. It’s therefore important for a central bank to be proactive. And so, with the recent US economic data softer, and the Fed appearing in little rush to act, the concern was straightforward: if the Fed is waiting for signs of economic weakness to be obvious, it will take too long to lower interest rates to blunt this. The Fed will be behind the curve. This risk of acting too late hasn’t gone away, and it’s a key reason why we think credit investors should be rooting for economic data in the second half of this year to remain solid, in line with Morgan Stanley’s base case. But this week did bring some events that suggest the Fed may start to adjust rates soon. First, in testimony before the US Congress, Chair Powell repeatedly emphasized that the risks for the US economy are becoming more balanced. Previously, the Fed had appeared to be much more focused on an upside scenario where conditions are hotter rather than a scenario where growth slowed unexpectedly. Second, in data released yesterday, US Consumer Price Inflation – or CPI – came in lower than expected. Overall, prices actually fell month-over-month, something that hasn’t happened since May of 2020, a time when the pandemic was raging, and Fed rates were near zero percent. Morgan Stanley’s base case is that moderating inflation will lead the Fed to cut interest rates by 25 basis points in September, November and December of this year. For credit, the question of “what do these rate cuts” mean is an ‘and’ statement. If the Fed is lowering rates and growth is holding up, you are potentially looking at a mid-1990s scenario, the best period for credit in the modern era. But if the Fed is cutting and growth is weak … well, over and over again, that has not been good. We remain constructive on credit, expecting three Fed rate cuts this year to coexist with moderate growth. But weaker data remains the risk. For credit, good data is good. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Freight Transportation & Airlines Analyst discusses the key takeaways from his mid-year corporate travel survey, which includes a number of positive trends for the second half of 2024.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ravi Shanker, Morgan Stanley’s Freight Transportation and Airlines analyst. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss my expectations for corporate travel in the second half of this year. It’s Thursday, July 11th, at 10am in New York. More and more business travelers are packing their bags and taking a flight for business meetings. In fact, our corporate travel survey suggests that a record 50 percent of respondents marked their travel itineraries as returning to pre-COVID levels. As well, corporate travel budgets are expected to be up five to seven percent year-over-year in 2024, and about six percent in 2025. This means significantly more flights, hotels and car bookings for corporate travel.Interestingly, this is the first survey since 2021 that larger enterprises were more optimistic on corporate travel demand compared to smaller enterprises.The shift to virtual meetings over the next two years will likely be stable. Companies continue to predict that 12-13 percent of travel volume will be replaced by virtual meetings in 2024 and 2025. Looking ahead, respondents expect this level to hold through 2025, supporting some level of permanent shift we think.For US airlines specifically, we have started to see more signs of life within the corporate space. Several US airlines are pointing to noticeable improvement in the first quarter after fairly stagnant volumes at the end of 2023. We also saw a reversal from prior surveys with larger corporations recovering faster than smaller enterprises, which had initially led the post-COVID recovery.This positive trend in airline demand is supportive of our attractive view on US aerospace, as well. Even though global air traffic has already reached pre-COVID-19 levels, it is still about 32 percent below where the trendline would have been if COVID-19 had not happened, which leaves more room for growth.For business aviation, private jet use should remain strong and stable as a large majority of survey participants are not planning to change their business jet travel. Higher interest rates and a potentially slowing economy could lead to a potential slowdown in business jet demand, but this hasn’t happened so far as there continues to be limited excess capacity in the industry as well as continued strong demand for aircraft.Our colleagues in Europe note that although near-term indicators are positive, 40 percent of European respondents now do not expect corporate travel volumes to return to 2019 levels. This is concerning for the longer-term prospects of European corporate demand growth, which appears to be weaker than US growth.Whether you're flying private jets or commercial, or choosing to keep your team meetings virtual, we'll continue to monitor corporate travel trends, and let you know of any updates to those flight manifests. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

U.S., French and Indian elections may have a minimal effect on equity markets, particularly in the short term, according to our Global Head of Fixed Income and our Chief Global Cross Asset Strategist.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research.Serena Tang: And I'm Serena Tang, chief Global Cross Asset Strategist,Michael Zezas: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll discuss what the elections in the US and Europe mean for global markets.It's Wednesday, July 9th at 10am in New York.As investors digest the results of the French election and anticipate the upcoming US presidential election, there's some key debates that are surfacing. And so I wanted to sit down with Serena to dig into these issues that are top of mind for investors.Serena, do you expect the upcoming US elections will impact markets in the run up to November?Serena Tang: Significantly, not likely -- because if we look at history, for stocks for example, in any election year, returns don't look significantly different from any other year.Serena Tang: My team ran some cross asset analysis on market behavior in and out of prior US elections using as much data as we have. And what has been very interesting is that whether a Democrat or Republican candidate eventually takes the White House, that doesn't change the trend of returns into an election.The form of the future elected government, whether it is divided or unified, that has also never really bothered stock markets before the vote. And you can see very, very similar patterns in bond yields, the dollar and gold. Now, what this means is that even if an investor has perfect foresight and know the results of the elections now, it won't necessarily give them an edge over the next few months.Serena Tang: Now, beyond the election is really when you see performance in various election outcome scenarios really diverge. So, whether the election was tight or not seemed to have led US rates to see very different levels of returns 12 months out from an election. Whether the outcome means a unified or divided government saw very large swings in gold prices.Now there are a lot of caveats. Every election is different. The economic conditions in every election is different. And as much as we talk about other historical periods, the truth is there aren't a lot of data points to work with. Data for S&P 500 going back to 1927 reaches the most far back among the major markets, but even then it only covers 23 presidential elections.So what I'm trying to say is there have been a lot of presidents, but there aren't a lot of precedents, at least for markets.Michael Zezas: The US election isn't the only election making headlines this year. For example, we just had an election in France that had a surprising result. How does the outcome there affect your outlook on the market?Serena Tang: It doesn't, in short. It doesn't change our bullish view on European equities at all. As you know, we have been constructive on that market since January and added significant exposure in our asset allocation then -- very much on the back of our European equity strategist Marina Zavolok coming out with an out of consensus bullish call for European stocks.Serena Tang: We like the market because of its cheap optionality and convexity. It has about 20 per cent revenue exposure to US but at much cheaper valuation. And it has about 20 per cent revenue exposure to EM, meaning should we get a growth surprise to the upside; you're geared to that but at much lower volatility than owning EM equities outright.Now, none of this has changed post French elections, and we also don't see significant increase in bearish tail risks. If you look at other markets like Euro IG corporate credit or the euro, those markets are suggesting risks in France are idiosyncratic, not systemic. So we maintain our overweight in European stocks.Serena Tang: Everything that I just said is also true for our bullish view on Indian equities, even after elections a month ago. Ridham Desai, head of India research, argued the election outcome there is likely to usher in more structural reforms and really reinforces our forecast of 20 per cent annual earnings growth over next five years, sustaining India's longest and strongest bull market ever. Bullish secular factors for Indian equities have not changed and therefore our bullish view on Indian equities have not changed.Michael Zezas: And elections have consequences for how countries interact with one another. And how their policies differ from one another. And one area of the markets that tend to be sensitive to this is the foreign exchange markets. So are there any impacts you're looking for around foreign currencies?Serena Tang: Yes, in particular, the dollar. But let me start with the euro first. Because I talked earlier about our bullish view on European equities; and in fact, in our asset allocation, we actually have a higher allocation to Europe versus US for stocks, bonds, and corporate credit bonds. The one European market we're more cautious on is the euro. And this actually has nothing to do with the French election results, per se -- because what matters now really is dollar strength. Now, part of this is a rates differential issue. Our US economics team are expecting the Fed to start cutting in September, while the ECB, of course, has already started easing policy. So yield differentials really favor the dollar here.But we also need to factor in the election, which seems to be the theme for today. Our FX [foreign exchange] strategy team thinks markets really need to start pricing in material likelihoods of dollar positive changes in US fiscal, foreign and trade policy as the election approaches. Meaning the dollar will continue its modest uptrend into the second half. And geopolitical uncertainty, of course, will also be dollar positive.Michael Zezas: So bottom line then. Elections clearly have consequences for markets but in the run-up to an election, there might not be a reliable pattern.Serena Tang: Exactly.Michael Zezas: Great. Well Serena, thanks for taking the time to talk.Serena Tang: Great speaking with you, Mike.Michael Zezas: And as a reminder, if you enjoy the podcast, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Record-high prices remain a key concern for buyers in the U.S. housing market. Our Co-Heads of Securitized Product Research dig into the data, explaining why they still believe a deceleration in home price growth will come.----- Transcript -----Jay Bacow: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jay Bacow, co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley.James Egan: And I'm Jim Egan, the other co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley. It's Tuesday, July 9th, at 1pm in New York. Jay Bacow: Jim, housing headlines just keep coming. Home prices are at record highs. What does that mean? How should we be thinking about that? James Egan: So, that has been a fun headline, and according to several measures of home prices, we are at record highs. But, let's put that into context. We've actually set a new record high for home prices every month for the past ten months. In fact, prior to a 12-month hiatus from July of ’22 to June of ’23, home prices had actually hit a new record high every month for 68 consecutive months. Jay Bacow: Alright, so if we're just talking about levels, it's important. But given that I'm a physicist by training, so are rates of change; and for that matter, changes to the rate of change, or acceleration, if you will. If there's something different about the current record of US home prices that is worth discussing, that would be interesting. James Egan: We think there is. Actually two months ago, home prices set a new record high. But it was also the first time in ten months that the pace of year-over-year home price appreciation did not accelerate. This month the pace of appreciation actually started to decelerate. As listeners of this podcast might remember, we've been calling for the pace of year-over-year home price appreciation to slow from above 6.5 per cent to just two percent by December. We are still above six percent today, but this could be the beginning of that deceleration. Jay Bacow: Right. And if there's going to be deceleration, Newton would say there needs to be some force that causes it. And my understanding is you thought that that force that causes it would be sale inventories increasing. Has that been the case? James Egan: Indeed, it has been actually. Total for sale inventory has increased for six consecutive months. And the pace of that growth is accelerating. Now, we do want to highlight that overall supply remains very tight. That part of the housing narrative hasn't changed. If we take a step back and look at the whole market, total months of supply are at just 4.5 per cent. Anything below six is really considered a seller's market there. On the other hand, this is the highest level that the market has experienced since the first half of 2020, which is another argument in our minds for the pace of home price appreciation to decelerate. But once we remove these pandemic era lows, four and a half months is close to the lowest level of the past 30 plus years. Jay Bacow: Alright, now sticking on the level context. Home prices weren't just the only thing that set a record level these days. Pending home sales just set a new record low in May. James Egan: Right, that's also the case. Now, we do want to put the record into context here. The pending home sales index that we're referring to only goes back to 2001. But over that 23 plus years, the May print was the lowest number that we've seen. Jay Bacow: Alright, so given all of that, how are you thinking about demand for housing amidst increasing supply? James Egan: Right. So this is a pretty important question. When it comes to demand at these levels, affordability remains very challenged. One of the primary questions for the US housing market moving forward is going to be the interplay between the absolute level of affordability and the direction and rate of change. Now, we are far from being able to declare a winner here. Sales volumes have increased off of 12 year lows from the fourth quarter of 2023; but at the same time, there are several demand indicators that are having trouble achieving liftoff, if you will. Pending home sales, for instance. They're not falling as fast as they have been, over the past two plus years; but they're also having a hard time achieving some sort of escape velocity as they continue to fall on a year-over year-basis. Mortgage applications for purchase -- another one of our leading indicators -- they're experiencing a similar dynamic. The first half of 2024 has been a noticeable second derivative improvement versus 2023, but that improvement has slowed and applications are still falling on a year-over-year basis. Now, part of this is going to be a function of mortgage rates going forward. Jay, what are we thinking there? Jay Bacow: Now, the biggest driver of mortgage rates is going to be the level of treasury rates. And our rate strategists are forecasting treasury rates to fall over the end of this year and into the middle of next year. If that happens, we would expect mortgage rates to get towards 6.25 to 6.5 per cent by next summer -- clearly materially lower than they are right now. But once again, the biggest driver of this is treasury rates. Not what's going on with the mortgage market. James Egan: And we continue to expect with that decrease affordability to improve, and that to drive year-over-year growth and sales in the second half of 2024 versus 2023. But it doesn't have to be a straight line to that outcome. And how are you thinking Jay, from a mortgage market perspective about sales volumes? Jay Bacow: So, the mortgage market is in a pretty interesting spot because there's almost two sides of it. There's the existing mortgage market, which is mostly made up of homeowners that have very low mortgage rates, and thus the coupon to the investor is relatively low; and they're trading at a discount. If turnover is low, then those bonds are outstanding for longer, which is bad for those investors. But, if that turnover is low, that means the supply to the market in the new higher coupon mortgages is relatively low, which is good for those investors in the new higher coupon mortgages. In effect, if turnover is lower, it's good for higher coupon mortgages, not so good for lower coupon mortgages. James Egan: And that's why all of this is so critical. If I were to, to summarize, we're paying attention to increasing inventory volumes in the housing market. We're paying attention to some of these demand statistics that are coming in a little softer than at least consensus estimates expected them to. We do think that home price growth is going to decelerate as a result. We also think it will remain positive. There continues to be very little overall supply in the US housing market. Jay, it was nice speaking with you. Jay Bacow: Jim, nice talking physics in the housing market with you. James Egan: Thanks for listening. And if you enjoyed this podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Inflation continues to be a key issue for voters in elections around the world. Our CIO and Chief US Equity strategist explains its potential influence on the upcoming US presidential election, and how investors may react to potential outcomes of this race.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the consequences of elections on policy and markets. It's Monday, July 8th at 2:30pm in New York.  So let’s get after it.  Several important elections around the world have taken place with important implications for policy and markets. Most notably, elections in India, Mexico, the UK and France have all garnered the attention of investors.While these elections are unique to each country, there does appear to be a growing focus on the issue of economic inequalities and immigration. While these inequalities have been building for decades, the COVID pandemic and policies implemented to deal with it have ushered in a higher focus on these disparities and a general level of uncertainty about the future on the part of many citizens.Of all the changes affecting the average person most adversely, inflation stands out as the most challenging. While the rate of change on inflation has been steadily falling since 2022, the price level of a number of goods and services remains challenging for many. Prices for basic items like food, shelter, healthcare, insurance and utilities are 30 to 50 per cent higher than they were pre-pandemic. Offsetting some of this increase has been the rise in home equity and financial asset prices, but this only helps those who are asset owners. Fixed rate mortgages have also been a notable positive offset to rising prices and interest rates. For many, there is a natural arbitrage between these pre-existing, historically low mortgage rates and money market rates. Once again, such an arbitrage is only available to those who have large piles of cash.In our view, these dynamics further the case that inflation is going to play a major role in this year's upcoming U.S. election much like it is having an impact globally.  The recent US Presidential debate prompted inquiries from investors on what a potential Trump win or a potential Republican sweep could mean for markets. Based on initial market reactions and our conversations with clients, there is a consistent view that both growth and longer-term interest rates could move higher under this outcome. This has led to a greater appetite to rotate one’s equity portfolio toward value and cyclical stocks, which also worked leading into the 2016 election. Market expectations for fiscal expansion, reflation and less regulation under a Trump Presidency support such moves.   However, we think there’s also a couple of important dynamics to consider. First, we would argue that the cycle is more mature today than it was in 2016 as evidenced by the two-and-a-half-year decline in the Conference Board Leading Economic Indicator and the nearly 2-year inversion of the yield curve. Given a later cycle environment is historically a backdrop where the market pays up for quality and liquidity, we advise staying up the quality curve and away from small cap cyclicals, which worked in 2016. In short, the state of the business cycle right now is more important than the election outcome. As such, we think investors should stay selective within cyclicals.   Second, the market welcomed a reflationary playbook in 2016. Inflation was not a headwind to consumers in the way it is now, and the US economy was recovering from a global manufacturing recession, the recovery of which was aided by the prospects of a pro-fiscal/reflationary policy regime. Today, inflation is a notable headwind to consumers as discussed previously and fiscal sustainability dynamics remain top of mind for the bond market. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Markets are suggesting that spirits consumption will return to historical growth levels post-pandemic, but our Head of European Consumer Staples Research disagrees.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Sarah Simon, Head of the European Consumer Staples team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll talk about a surprising trend in the global spirits market.It's Monday, April 15, at 2pm in London. We all remember vividly the COVID-19 period when we spent much more on goods than services, particularly on goods that could be delivered to our homes. Not surprisingly, spirits consumption experienced a super-cycle during the pandemic. But as the world returned to normal, the demand for spirits has dropped off. The market believes that after a period of normalization, the US spirits market will return to mid-single-digit growth in line with history; but we think that’s too optimistic.Changes in demographics and consumer behavior make it much more likely that the US market will grow only modestly from here. There are several key challenges to the volume of US alcohol consumption in the coming years. Sobriety and moderation of alcohol intake are two rising trends. In addition, there’s the increased use of GLP-1 anti-obesity drugs, which appear to quell users' appetite for alcoholic beverages. And finally, there’s stiffer regulation, including the lowering of alcohol limits for driving.A slew of recent survey data points to consumer intention to reduce alcohol intake. A February 2023 IWSR survey reported that 50 per cent of US drinkers are moderating their consumption. Meanwhile, a January 2024 NCSolutions survey reported that 41 per cent of respondents are trying to drink less, an increase of 7 percentage points from the prior year. And importantly, this intention was most concentrated among younger drinkers, with 61 per cent of Gen Z planning to drink less in 2024, up from 40 per cent in the prior year's survey. Meanwhile, 49 per cent of Millennials had a similar intention, up 26 per cent year on year.Why is all this happening? And why now? Perhaps the increasingly vocal commentary by public bodies linking alcohol to cancer is really hitting home. Last November, the World Health Organization stated that "the higher the amount of alcohol consumed, the higher the risk of developing cancer" but also that "half of all alcohol-attributable cancers in the WHO European Region are caused by ‘light’ and ‘moderate’ alcohol consumption. A recent Gallup survey of Americans indicated that young adults are particularly concerned that moderate drinking is unhealthy, with 52 per cent holding this view, up from 34 per cent five years ago. Another explanation for the increased prevalence of non-drinking among the youngest group of drinkers may be demographic makeup: the proportion of non-White 18- to 34-year-olds has nearly doubled over the past two decades.And equally, the cost of alcohol, which saw steep price increases in the last couple of years, seems to be a reason for increased moderation. Spending on alcohol stepped up materially over the COVID-19 period when there were more limited opportunities for spending. With life returning to normal post pandemic, consumers have other – more attractive or more pressing – opportunities for expenditure.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen to podcasts. It helps more people to find the show.

Central banks play a crucial role in monetary policy and moderating the business cycle. Our Head of Corporate Credit Research explains why, despite their power, these financial institutions can’t quickly steer through choppy economic waters.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about why credit may start to get more concerned that the Fed will make the same mistake it often does.It's Wednesday, July 3rd at 2pm in London.Central banks are among the most powerful actors in financial markets, and investors everywhere hang on their every word, and potential next move. If possible, that seemed even more true recently, as central banks first intervened aggressively in bond markets during the height of COVID, and then raised interest rates at the fastest pace in over 40 years. Indeed, you could even take this a step further: many investors you speak to will argue central banks are the most important force in markets. All else comes second. But this view of Fed supremacy over the market and economy has an important caveat. For all of their power, the Federal Reserve did not prevent the recession of 1990. It did not prevent the dotcom bust or recession of 2001. It did not prevent the Great Financial Crisis or Great Recession of 2007-2009. These periods have represented the vast majority of credit losses over the last 35 years. And so, for all of the power of central banks, these recessions, and their associated default cycles in credit, have kept happening. The reasons for this are varied and debatable. But the central issue is that the economy is a bit like a supertanker; it’s hard to turn quickly. You need to make adjustments well in advance, and often well before the signs of danger are clear. Currently, the Fed is still pressing the economic brakes. Interest rates from the Federal Reserve are well above so-called neutral; that is, where the Fed thinks interest rates neither boost, nor hold back, the economy. The justification for riding the break, so to speak, is that inflation earlier this year has still been higher than expected. But in the last two months, this inflation has rapidly cooled. Our economists think this trend will accelerate in the second half of the year, and ultimately allow the Fed to cut interest rates in September, November, and December. Still-high rates and cooling inflation isn’t a problem when the economic data is strong. But more recently, this data has cooled. If that weaker data continues, credit investors may worry that central banks are too focused on the high inflation that’s now behind us, and not focused enough on the potential slowing ahead. They’ll worry that once again, it may be too late to turn the proverbial economic ship. We’d stress that the risks of this scenario are still low; but late-reacting central banks have – historically, repeatedly – been credit’s biggest vulnerability. It makes it all the more important, that as we head into summer, that the data holds up. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. And for those in the US, a very happy Fourth of July.

Our Global Head of Fixed Income recaps the aftermath of the first U.S. presidential debate, and how markets may react if forthcoming poll data shows a meaningful shift in the race.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the US elections and its impact on markets.It's Tuesday, July 2nd at 10:30am in New York. For months, investors have been asking us when markets will start paying attention to the US presidential election. Well, we think that time arrived with last week’s Presidential debate. The media coverage that followed revealed that many Democratic party officials became concerned about President Biden’s ability to win the November election. This understandably led many to ask if the race for the White House had meaningfully changed; If it was no longer a close one – and if so, what would that mean for markets that might have to start pricing in the impacts of a Trump Presidency. On the first question: While we think it's too early to conclude that the race is no longer a close one, we expect some data in the next week or two that could clarify this. The few polls that have been released following the debate show that voters are increasingly concerned about Biden’s ability to win; but they also show a level of support for Biden similar to what he enjoyed before the debates. What we haven’t seen yet is a set of high-quality polls gauging swing state voter preferences. And even modest deterioration in Biden’s support there could meaningfully boost Trump’s prospects. That’s because, going into the debate, polls showed former President Trump with a small but consistent lead in national and key swing state polls. Nothing outside the polling margin of error. But it still suggested that for President Biden to improve his odds of winning, he’d be served well by having a strong debate performance that moved the polls more in his favor.  It doesn’t appear that this has happened, and if polls show movement in the other direction for Biden, it would be fair to think of Trump as something of a favorite. But only for the time being. There’d still be time and catalysts for the race to change – including another scheduled debate in September. If we do end up with a race where Former President Trump is a more clear favorite, even if just for a short time, there could be reflections in the market. As we’ve previously discussed, a Trump win increases the chances of more of the expiring tax cuts being extended. The benefits of those cuts most clearly accrue to key sectors like energy and telecom, so there’s potential outperformance there.  In fixed-income – a steeper US Treasury yield curve is an outcome our macro strategy team is particularly attuned to. That’s because a Trump presidency brings greater uncertainty about future fiscal policy, which could be reflected in relatively higher yields for longer maturity bonds. But it also increases the chances of policy choices that create near term pressure on economic growth that could push shorter maturity yields lower. This includes higher tariffs and tighter immigration policies. So bottom line, the markets are paying attention. And the race is sure to have many more twists and turns. We’ll keep you updated on how we’re navigating it. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Rising rents and mortgage payments have been at the center of the inflation discussion. Our Global Chief Economist assesses whether monetary policy can effectively blunt those figures. ----- Transcript -----Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the housing market, inflation, growth and monetary policy. It's Monday, July 1st, at 11am in New York. Housing is at the center of many macro debates from growth to inflation. And when you put those two together – monetary policy. House prices have continued to rise despite high interest rates, which gives the impression to some of stalled deflation and forces consumers at times to make some really difficult choices. And in some economies, there's a seeming lack of responsiveness of housing to higher interest rates. All of which tends to prompt questions about the efficacy of monetary policy. So where are we? We think monetary policy is still working through housing as it usually does, but supply shortages, or in some places just idiosyncratic factors like buildable lands or permitting, that's supported home prices. And as has been the case across several sectors in this business cycle, there really are some factors about housing that's just different in this cycle than in previous ones. For the U.S., a key part of the housing story has been the mortgage lock in for homeowners. Our strategists have noted that the gap between the current new mortgage rate and the average effective mortgage rate is at historical highs. And the share of 30 year fixed rate mortgages is at its highest in a decade. Consequently, the inventory of existing houses has remained low because homeowners who have those really low mortgages are reluctant to move unless they have to. The market has become thinner with less available supply; and then if we think more broadly for the economy, there's a risk of labor market frictions if that mortgage lock in also reduces labor mobility. Now, there will be a decline in mortgage rates if we get the modest easing cycle from the Fed that we expect. But that decline will be similarly modest so that gap in rates will not be fully closed even if it narrows. And so there might be some uplift to supply of housing, but it might not be huge. That decline in mortgage rates can also supply demand, so then we have to think about the net of this shift in demand and the shift in supply. And ultimately what we think is going to happen is that there'll be a moderation in home price appreciation, but not an outright decline in home prices.First, the choice of housing for a lot of households is do you buy or do you rent? If you've got high home prices and high mortgages, buying is much less affordable and so it pushes people into renting, which could push up rents. That phenomenon is partly responsible for the surge in rents that we've seen over the past few years. In the longer run, there should be a sort of arbitrage condition between home prices and rents. And while rising home prices can impinge the spending power for first time homebuyers, rising house prices can actually boost sentiment and consumption for existing homeowners. And that mortgage lock in that I talked about before? Well, that can actually support aggregate consumption to some degree because now there's predictability of cash flows and the monthly payment is pretty low. So what do we do when we take all of this together? The housing market might be telling us that monetary policy is working a bit less effectively than historically, but not that monetary policy is not working. Home price appreciation is moderating. Housing starts have slowed, as usual, following those big rate increases. But that slowing? It's actually been a bit inconsistent because mortgage lock has meant that new supply is the only supply. Existing home sales, by contrast, are just plain weak. They're about as weak as they were around the financial crisis. We do not think the housing market overall is at risk of collapse, but monetary policy is restraining activity in a very familiar way. Thanks for listening, and if you enjoy this podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Head of Corporate Credit Research makes the case against the popular notion that solid economic data would be bad for markets, and instead offers a rationale for why now, more than ever, is the time for investors to root for positive economic developments.  ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about why good data … is good.It's Friday, June 28th at 2pm in London. One of the bigger investor debates of 2024 is whether stronger or weaker economic data is the preferred outcome for the market. This isn’t a trick question.  Post-COVID, a large spike of inflation led to the fastest pace of interest rate hikes by central banks in over forty years. And so there’s been an idea that weaker economic data, which would reduce that inflationary pressure and make central banks more likely to cut interest rates, is actually the better outcome for the market. Those lower interest rates after all might be helpful for moving the market higher or tighter. And stronger economic data, in contrast, could lead to more inflationary pressure, and even more rate increases. And so by this logic, bad data is good … and good data, well, would be bad. This “bad is good” mindset was prominent in the Autumn of 2022 and again in September of 2023, as markets weakened on stronger data and fears that it could drive further rate hikes. We saw the idea return this year, amidst higher-than-expected inflation readings in the first quarter. But we currently think this logic is misplaced. For markets, and certainly for credit, we think those who are constructive, like ourselves, are very much rooting for solid economic data. For now, good is good. Our first argument here is general. Over a long swath of available data, the worst returns for credit have consistently overlapped with the worst economic growth. Hoping for weaker data is, historically speaking, playing with fire, raising the odds that such weakness isn’t just a blip, and opens the door for much worse outcomes for both the economy and credit. But our second reason is more specific to right now. Central to this idea that bad data would be better for the market is the assumption that central banks would look at any poor data, change their tune and come to the market’s aid by lowering interest rates quickly. I think recent events really challenge that sort of thinking. While the European central bank did lower interest rates earlier this month, it struck a pretty cautious tone about any further easing. And the Federal Reserve actually raised its expected level of inflation and projected rate path on the same day that consumer price inflation in the US came in much lower than expected. Both increased the risk that these central banks are being more backward looking, and will be slow to react to weaker economic data if it materialises. And so, we think, credit investors should be hoping for good data, which would avoid a scenario where backward-looking central banks are too slow to change their tune. I’d note that this is what Morgan Stanley’s economists are forecasting, with expectations that growth is a little over 2 percent this year in the US and a little over 1 percent in the Euro Area for this year. We expect the economic data to hold up, and for that to be the better scenario for credit. If the data turns down, we may need to change our tune. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

If you're a listener to Thoughts on the Market you may be interested in Season 2 of our podcast: What Should I Do With My Money? ----------------Money is emotional and that can make it difficult to know if we’re making the right decisions. This season, the stakes are high. From prenups to passing a legacy to their children, from affording a dream home to literally wanting to save the planet, our guests get to the heart of what matters to them most and you get answers to some of the questions you might have yourself. No matter where you are with your finances, you don’t have to navigate them alone. Our Financial Advisors show once again that a little guidance can go a long way. Join us to hear how a conversation can turn concern into confidence, hosted by Morgan Stanley Wealth Management’s Jamie Roô.-----This material has been prepared for educational purposes only. It does not provide individually tailored investment advice. It has been prepared without regard to the individual financial circumstances and objectives of persons who receive it. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC (“Morgan Stanley”) recommends that investors independently evaluate particular investments and strategies, and encourages investors to seek the advice of a Morgan Stanley Financial Advisor. The appropriateness of a particular investment or strategy will depend on an investor’s individual circumstances and objectives.Important information about your relationship with your Financial Advisor and Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC when using a Financial Planning tool. When your Financial Advisor prepares a Financial Plan, they will be acting in an investment advisory capacity with respect to the delivery of your Financial Plan. To understand the differences between brokerage and advisory relationships, you should consult your Financial Advisor, or review our Understanding Your Brokerage and Investment Advisory Relationships brochure available at https://www.morganstanley.com/wealth-relationshipwithms/pdfs/understandingyourrelationship.pdfYou have sole responsibility for making all investment decisions with respect to the implementation of a Financial Plan. You may implement the Financial Plan at Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC or at another firm. If you engage or have engaged Morgan Stanley, it will act as your broker, unless you ask it, in writing, to act as your investment adviser on any particular account.Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC (“Morgan Stanley”), its affiliates and Morgan Stanley Financial Advisors and Private Wealth Advisors do not provide tax or legal advice. Clients should consult their tax advisor for matters involving taxation and tax planning and their attorney for matters involving trust and estate planning and other legal matters.Environmental, Social and Governance (“ESG”) investments in a portfolio may experience performance that is lower or higher than a portfolio not employing such practices. Portfolios with ESG restrictions and strategies as well as ESG investments may not be able to take advantage of the same opportunities or market trends as portfolios where ESG criteria is not applied. There are inconsistent ESG definitions and criteria within the industry, as well as multiple ESG ratings providers that provide ESG ratings of the same subject companies and/or securities that vary among the providers. Certain issuers of investments may have differing and inconsistent views concerning ESG criteria where the ESG claims made in offering documents or other literature may overstate ESG impact. ESG designations are as of the date of this material, and no assurance is provided that the underlying assets have maintained or will maintain and such designation or any stated ESG compliance. As a result, it is difficult to compare ESG investment products or to evaluate an ESG investment product in comparison to one that does not focus on ESG. Investors should also independently consider whether the ESG investment product meets their own ESG objectives or criteria.There is no assurance that an ESG investing strategy or techniques employed will be successful. Past performance is not a guarantee or a dependable measure of future results.Insurance products are offered in conjunction with Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC’s licensed insurance agency affiliates.Signal Awards 2023 – Bronze WinnerSource: Signal Award Winners (October 2023) 2023 Signal Awards receive votes from the public voting stage, podcast fans cast over 130,000 votes for the Signal Listener’s Choice award. Signal Award Winners were selected by the Signal Academy. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC is not affiliated with Signal Awards. For more information, see www.signalawards.com. ©2024 Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC. Member SIPC.FCS Portfolio Awards 2024 – BronzeSource: Financial Community Society Portfolio Awards (May 2024) 2024 FCS Portfolio Awards. The Portfolio Awards competition recognizes creative excellence in marketing communications work from financial companies, with Gold, Silver and Bronze trophies awarded for Branded Content. This year’s panel comprised 49 senior executives from financial firms and communications agencies. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC is not affiliated with Financial Communications Society. For more information, see https://thefcs.org/portfolio-awards. ©2024 Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC. Member SIPC.Shorty Awards Finalist 2024Source: Shorty Impact Awards (May 2024) 2024 Annual Shorty Impact Awards. The Shorty Awards winners and honorees, including Finalists, Gold, Silver, and Bronze Honorees; are chosen by the Real Time Academy. The decision is made based on three main criteria: purpose/impact, creativity, strategy & execution, and engagement. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC is not affiliated with the Shorty Impact Awards. For more information, see https://shortyawards.com/impact-awards/rules/. ©2024 Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC. Member SIPC.Webby Award Nominee 2024Source: 2024 Webby Awards (May 2024) The Webby Awards is the Internet’s most respected symbol of success. The 28th Annual Webby Awards received nearly 13,000 entries from all 50 states and over 70 countries worldwide. Podcasts: News & Politics, Best Host, Best Series, Best Live Podcast Recording & more. Associate Academy members are former Webby winners and nominees and other invited industry professionals who are leaders in their peer groups because of their creative and technical accomplishments. Associate members are invited to take part in Round 1 Judging, the initial phase of the Webby evaluation process. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC is not affiliated with The Webby Awards. For more information, see https://www.webbyawards.com/. ©2024 Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC. Member SIPC.© 2024 Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC. Member SIPC.CRC# (3566982 05/2024)

As the infrastructure needs for artificial intelligence soar, so does the need for financing. Our Chief Fixed Income Strategist talks about the role credit markets can play in providing capital to power the sector.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the role of credit markets in the artificial intelligence (AI) revolution.  It's Thursday, June 27th at 1 pm in New York. Technology diffusion driven by artificial intelligence has been a defining theme for investors over the last few years. Recent developments in generative AI, or GenAI powered by large language models, have the potential to bring transformational changes across the economy. Today, I want to talk about the role of credit markets in this AI revolution. The infrastructure requirements of AI – semi fabs, data centers and the energy resources to power the Gen AI models – are enormous. Our analysts estimate that GenAI power demand will rise rapidly, reaching 224 Trillion Watt hours by 2027 in their base case which is roughly close to Spain's total 2022 power consumption. So, it goes without saying that AI infrastructure will need substantial capex. Early on, much of the AI capex has been funded by a combination of venture capital and retained earnings from cash-rich technology companies; in other words funded by equity capital. As the focus shifts from early innovators and enablers of AI to adopters of AI, these needs are bound to grow and will require more efficient forms of capital. We think that credit markets in various forms – unsecured, secured, securitized and asset-backed – will have a major role to play in this transformation. So far, debt financing has played a relatively small part in funding technology companies, especially AI beneficiaries. The sector has significant capacity to add debt without a material deterioration in their credit metrics. This capacity is also complemented by an investor base with a significant dry powder to absorb incremental issuance, thereby avoiding a demand-supply mismatch. Of course, the story is not that simple. Cash-rich companies may not have a compelling need to access credit markets if the equity market continues to reward redirection of these free cash flows. But then the path of the interest rate markets will also matter, as monetary policy eases, the cost of debt becomes incrementally even more attractive. It’s clearly early innings, but credit markets holistically should play a bigger role as the cycle matures. In addition, as the capex cycle broadens out from enablers to adopters, we note that most sectors are nearly not as cash-rich as the technology sectors. For example, the median cash to debt ratio for the technology sector is over 50 percent, but then for the remaining sectors, it is just 15 percent. So as capital needs driven by these infrastructure needs increase, we expect the reliance on credit markets also to increase. In some ways, this has already begun to happen. The first data center asset backed security was issued in 2018. The market has now grown to over 20 billion outstanding and it is poised for a rapid growth. The bottom line is simply this: As AI driven technology diffusion takes center stage, credit markets, broadly defined, will likely play a growing role. As always, there will be winners and there will be losers. But AI as a theme for credit investors is here to stay. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Chief Economist explains why markets are concerned about uncertainty around the French and US elections, and how their outcomes may affect each economy’s debt load.---- Transcript -----Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about elections, and what they might mean for fiscal sustainability.It's Wednesday, June 26th at 10am in New York.Elections have unexpectedly become a key risk in an otherwise positive growth narrative for France this year. And there are a wide range of possible outcomes for the next government.Fiscal sustainability is one key market narrative we have been flagging. And in France, the fiscal position is expected to deteriorate. Our strategists note that the 10-year OAT boon spreads have widened more than 20 basis points. And in their view, further discounts on OATs are likely due to the deficit trajectories in the different political scenarios and heightened political and economic uncertainty.In recent work we've done on developed market government sustainability, we flagged that across DMs, even if fiscal deficits remain steady, interest expense on the debt will continue to rise, pushing up the debt to GDP ratios. Larger deficits would necessarily exacerbate the situation. Austerity is necessary to stabilize or lower the debt to GDP ratios.For France in particular, the maturity profile and forward rates had meant there could be relatively more time for the repricing to happen; but the market reaction to the election has meant higher yields, effectively pulling forward that repricing. Relative to our analysis in the first quarter of 2024, the debt surfacing costs are already higher.The election results have now led to expectations of higher deficits, implying faster rising debt to GDP ratios as well. This combination of higher rates and higher deficits is self-reinforcing. The market will pay close attention to specific policy proposals -- and the coalitions that result from the election.For the US elections, debt sustainability has so far been lower on the list of topics that clients bring up. The elections are expected to be close. In a recent joint note with our US public policy colleagues, we noted four basic scenarios: a Republican sweep; a Democratic sweep; or divided governments with either a Republican or a Democratic president.Our public policy colleagues see very different outcomes across a 10-year time horizon for the deficit, ranging from an increase of [$]1.6 trillion under the Republican sweep scenario to an increase of about $600 billion in the Democratic sweep scenario, and the split government scenario is somewhere in between.Of course, fiscal policy is not the only consideration for debt sustainability. Tariffs could generate some higher revenues, but the adverse hit to GDP means that the denominator of the debt to GDP ratio will fall and push the ratio higher.Our policy colleagues have also flagged a big range of possible immigration policy outcomes. The current positive supply shock to the labor force has allowed for faster GDP growth and consequently, higher revenues. Under the strictest immigration policies, the so-called break-even monthly payrolls flow could fall from a baseline now of just over 200,000 per month to as low as 45,000 per month.Such an outcome would imply lower revenues and lower GDP, meaning both the numerator and the denominator of the debt to GDP ratio would be pushing upward.Thanks for listening. And if you enjoy this podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist explains how to make sense of the equity market’s narrow performance, and why stock picking takes on greater importance for investors.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the narrowness in breadth and why that supports our preference for high quality and defensive stocks.It's Tuesday, June 25th at 11:30am in New York.So let’s get after it. I am fond of the saying that the economy is not the stock market, and the stock market is not the economy. Often, a strong economy is not good for stocks, while a soft one can lead to higher equity prices. This latter case is the classic late cycle period in which we find ourselves. More specifically, when the economy is slowing from previous tightening by the Federal Reserve, the equity market starts to get excited about the Fed reversing course, and it looks forward to loosening policy and valuations rise in anticipation. With price/earnings multiples and other valuation metrics now in the top decile, the question is when will valuations matter and begin to fall faster than earnings growth and lead to a meaningful correction?At the stock level, this is already happening as illustrated by the weakest breadth since 1965. In other words, most stocks are seeing valuations fall more than earnings are rising. This is exactly why stock picking has become so important for equity investors to outperform the S&P 500. While this creates a great long and short opportunity, the list of longs has become harder to find and why the momentum in a few stocks continues unabated. This also syncs with our view for the past year that large cap quality is likely to continue to outperform until something material changes in the macro environment. I see three potential candidates to change this seemingly very stable and benign outcome for equity markets.First, inflation and growth reaccelerate in a way that forces the Fed to reconsider rate hikes. Right now, that does not appear likely and why there is virtually no risk of such an outcome priced into either bond or stock markets. Such an outcome would likely lead to a broadening out of the equity rally to areas that have lagged persistently over the past 2 years—areas like small caps, lower quality consumer cyclicals, regional banks and transports. The S&P 500 would likely trade poorly under this scenario as higher rates would potentially weigh on valuations for the big winners. Second, the liquidity picture deteriorates and money flows out of equities. A key risk in this regard relates to the funding of the extraordinary government deficit. A good way to monitor this risk is the term premium in the bond market which remains near zero. Should this change and the term premium rise like last fall, the decline in equities would likely be broad with few stocks doing well. This does not appear to be a concern at the moment given the liquidity provisions still in place.The third possible risk is a growth scare that is substantial enough to turn bad economic data into bad news for equity multiples across the board. This is the most likely risk to upset the apple cart in our view. Under this outcome, large cap quality should continue to do ok on a relative basis, but defensives are likely to do better. The economic growth surprises have been trending lower all year. So far, the S&P 500 has taken these weaker data in stride assuming bad economic data is still good for large cap quality stocks as the market looks forward to rate cuts from the Fed. Meanwhile, weaker indices and stocks have broken down with many now down on the year. The bottom line is that the ongoing policy mix of heavy fiscal spending and tight interest rate policy is crowding out many companies and consumers in a waythat is unsustainable in our view. Investors have correctly recognized this outcome by bidding up the few stocks of the companies that are doing well in this environment. Until the bond market pushes back via higher term premium or growth slows down in a more meaningful way, we expect this narrow market performance to persist. As such, we continue to recommend a barbell of large cap quality growth with defensives while fading cyclicals and avoiding the temptation to play for a true broadening out until the macro regime makes a meaningful shift.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Halfway through a historic year for elections around the world, Morgan Stanley’s chief economists assess the impact of recent results on the global economy, and weigh potential effects from key elections to come.----- Transcript -----Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market, and welcome back to the second part of a special two-part episode of the podcast. We've been covering Morgan Stanley's global economic outlook as we look into the third quarter of 2024. In the first part, we covered the twin themes of inflation in central banks. In this part, we're going to look at elections, with my colleagues Ellen Zentner, our Chief US Economist, Jens Eisenschmidt, our Chief Europe Economist, and Chetan Ahya, who is our Chief Asia Economist.It's Monday, June 24th at 10 am in New York.It is astounding if we look around the world just how many elections there have already been this year and how many more there are going to be. We will get to the US, but before we do, Chetan, in Asia, India is one of the most important economies; and in India they recently had elections. Can you just let our listeners know basically what happened and what do you think are the implications for that election for the Indian economy?Chetan Ahya: Yeah Seth. So Definitely there was a big change in India in terms of the political outcome. So the ruling party did not get the full majority and they have had to form a government under a coalition structure. There is a question though, as a result of that, whether the policy shift will happen in India and the government will go back to redistribution instead of focusing on boosting investment and jobs. Well, we think that, you know, there is no change. There is policy continuity. We think that this government is very much aligned in thinking that they want to keep inflation in check and current account deficit in check, i.e. macro stability should be in control. And they still believe that job creation is the way to ensure that the general masses and the bottom 20 per cent see the benefit and then vote for them back again.So, for us, we are not changing our view that this is India's decade. We are still maintaining our growth forecast that India will be achieving 6.5 per cent until 2030, and at the same time as India continues to build this growth rates on a high base, India will be at $8 trillion by 2032. Back to you, Seth.Seth Carpenter: Thanks, Chetan. super interesting. And EM elections have had a lot of surprises. We had South Africa. We had a surprise -- in terms of the margin in the opposite direction of what you said for India -- when it comes to the case of Mexico, where Scheinbaum won, but the majority was even bigger than I think most people were expected.But there are other elections that had some big surprises. Jens, let me come to you. In Europe, we had the European elections, and there were some big surprises there, to say the very least. First, can you just walk us through, what do the European level elections mean, in terms of our outlook? And then, part of the fallout from those surprises was that President Macron in France called for snap elections. What do you think we need to take away from that fact?Jens Eisenschmidt: We have had a look at the manifestos, what is known so far from those that are competing for government in France, say, and I think one of our key takeaways is that might be more fiscal spending. And of course, short run this might get you more growth. But of course, the question is always, what's the price for us to pay? There might be higher interest rates and that in the longer term may be detrimental. So, I think overall we have to wait until we see really and observe the full election outcome.Now, more generally, we had the European elections and we get a lot of questions by clients -- what the implications are here. Now, if you, sort of just look again from very high up, far away, then we see that the coalition that has last time, voted and elected, Ursula von der Leyen, the currently sitting, President of the European Commission. That coalition still stands or commands a majority in the European Parliament post the elections. Just that that majority, of course, is a little bit smaller than before.It's very likely that von der Leyen will have to reach out to either the Greens that were not in the past part of her coalition, voting for her; or the bloc around the Italian Prime Minister Meloni. The implication of it is that we have to see which side the reach out is for – for the consequences for the commission priorities. But I would say from today's perspective, and again giving that there is some logic of averaging here, it's very unlikely to be dramatic changes that we are going to see at the European level.Seth Carpenter: Staying on, on your side of the Atlantic, of course the UK is going to have elections as well. And notably on July 4th, the anniversary of the US independence from Great Britain. I love that timing. What's the story with the UK elections and are they going to change at all, your team's outlook for what goes on in the UK?Jens Eisenschmidt: So on current polls, they were remarkably stable. There seems to be a change in government in the making, say. The Tories, the Conservative Party in the UK, it's very likely to have to give away power to a new labor government. That's essentially what polls currently suggest.Now, we've had a look at both manifestos, and there are differences here and there. Typically, you would think, there's a bit more fiscal spending coming out of one government and the other. But, you know, if you really sort of compare notes and if you also see the constraints that both contenders -- conservative or labor -- would have to work with, it's hard to see a material difference, at least for the growth outlook, from their policies.Again, it's early days. We will have to see what exactly then will be implemented after July 4th. But from today's perspective, it's hardly a game changer.Seth Carpenter: Okay, great, thanks. I want to bring it back to this side of the Atlantic, back to the United States. Ellen, Morgan Stanley Research put out a big piece last week about the US election scenarios. Can you just run us through the key points there, because I will say, everyone around the world looks at the US election and has to take some notice.Ellen Zentner: Ah yes. I love elections. I thought you'd never ask. So, in the US it's not just about Biden versus Trump. The outcome for the Congress matters critically for fiscal outcomes as well. So, broadly for deficits, we see a rank ordering of a Republican sweep leading to the biggest deficit expansion. Then a smaller deficit with a split government because there will not be unity to get things done. And then the smallest deficit comes with a Dem sweep because we do think that tax increases could be meaningful.Seth Carpenter: Okay, whoa. Let me stop you there because it sounds like if we've got this rank ordering of how much the deficit expands, can we just take that and then translate it into a forecast for economic growth? So bigger deficit, more fiscal boost; smaller deficit, less fiscal boost; smallest deficit, sort of weakest growth. Is that the way we should think about this fiscal plan translates into projections of growth?Ellen Zentner: Okay, I wish it were that easy and I know you're asking that because it would definitely poke me a bit. So, there are other policies that are going to matter. So tariffs, for example, and they're likely to differ substantially. So, you know, former President Trump has talked about 60 per cent tariffs on Chinese imports and 10 per cent tariffs broadly on global imports. And there are specifics that are hard to forecast now. Some of the broader plans might require congressional action; but what we learned from 2018 is that there is some inflationary impulse. But you can have a meaningful adverse hit to the economy from tariffs, and then that tends to have a pull on inflation thereafter. So, you can't just take the fiscal deficit, as a direction for growth.And as I noted earlier, immigration has been a key part of the macro story in the US for the past year. I promised I would come back to that. You know, you've got, wildly different scenarios for immigration, depending on the congressional makeup and depending on who's president, as well. So, if I just take you to the most extreme example. So if you could see, immigration scenario under former president Trump, where he's talked about shutting down the border, and also deporting unauthorized immigrants that are already here. You know, you could damage the potential growth rate of the economy that would be slower.To put it into numbers, the extreme version we published would result in a break even for non-farm payrolls going to 45, 000 from our current estimate of around 250, 000. So that would be a big shift. And I think immigration, rather than just the size of the deficit, is probably going to be one of the bigger things to watch out of the election.Seth Carpenter: So as the saying goes, elections have consequences, not just in the United States, but around the world.All right. Ellen, Chetan, Jens, thank you so much for joining today. And to our listeners, thank you for listening.If you enjoy the show, please leave a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Morgan Stanley’s chief economists examine the varied responses of global central banks to noisy inflation data in their quarterly roundtable discussion.----- Transcript -----Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's global chief economist. We have a special two-part episode of the podcast where we'll cover Morgan Stanley's global economic outlook as we look into the third quarter of 2024.It's Friday, June 21st at 10am in New York.Jens Eisenschmidt: And 4pm in Frankfurt.Chetan Ahya: And 10pm in Hong Kong.Seth Carpenter: Alright, so a lot's happened since our last economics roundtable on this podcast back in March and since we published our mid-year outlook in May. My travels have taken me to many corners of the globe, including Tokyo, Sao Paulo, Sydney, Washington D. C., Chicago.Two themes have dominated every one of my meetings. Inflation in central banks on the one hand, and then on the other hand, elections.In the first part of this special episode, I wanted to discuss these key topics with the leaders of Morgan Stanley Economics in key regions. Ellen Zentner is our Chief US Economist, Jens Eisenschmidt is our Chief Europe Economist, and Chetan Ahya is our Chief Asia Economist.Ellen, I'm going to start with you. You've also been traveling. You were in London recently, for example. In your conversations with folks, what are you explaining to people? Where do things stand now for the Fed and inflation in the US?Ellen Zentner: Thanks, Seth. So, we told people that the inflation boost that we saw in the first quarter was really noise, not signal, and it would be temporary; and certainly, the past three months of data have supported that view. But the Fed got spooked by that re-acceleration in inflation, and it was quite volatile. And so, they did shift their dot plot from a median of three cuts to a median of just one cut this year. Now, we're not moved by the dot plot. And Chair Powell told everyone to take the projections with a grain of salt. And we still see three cuts starting in September.Jens Eisenschmidt: If you don't mind me jumping in here, on this side of the Atlantic, inflation has also been noisy and the key driver behind repricing in rate expectations. The ECB delivered its cut in June as expected, but it didn't commit to much more than that. And we had, in fact, anticipated that cautious outcome simply because we have seen surprises to the upside in the April, and in particular in the May numbers. And here, again, the upside surprise was all in services inflation.If you look at inflation and compare between the US experience and euro area experience, what stands out at that on both sides of the Atlantic, services inflation appears to be the sticky part. So, the upside surprises in May in particular probably have left the feeling in the governing council that the process -- by which they got more and more confidence in their ability to forecast inflation developments and hence put more weight on their forecast and on their medium-term projections – that confidence and that ability has suffered a slight setback. Which means there is more focus now for the next month on current inflation and how it basically compares to their forecast.So, by implication, we think upside surprises or continued upside surprises relative to the ECB's path, which coincides in the short term with our path, will be a problem; will mean that the September rate cut is put into question.For now, our baseline is a cut in September and another one in December. So, two more this year. And another four next year.Seth Carpenter: Okay, I get it. So, from my perspective, then, listening to you, Jens, listening to Ellen, we're in similar areas; the timing of it a little bit different with the upside surprise to inflation, but downward trend in inflation in both places. ECB already cutting once. Fed set to start cutting in September, so it feels similar.Chetan, the Bank of Japan is going in exactly the opposite direction. So, our view on the reflation in Japan, from my conversations with clients, is now becoming more or less consensus. Can you just walk us through where things stand? What do you expect coming out of Japan for the rest of this year?Chetan Ahya: Thanks, Seth. So, Japan's reflation story is very much on track. We think a generational shift from low-flation to new equilibrium of sustainable moderate inflation is taking hold. And we see two key factors sustaining this story going forward. First is, we expect Japan's policymakers to continue to keep macro policies accommodative. And second, we think a virtuous cycle of higher prices and wages is underway.The strong spring wage negotiation results this year will mean wage growth will rise to 3 percent by third quarter and crucially the pass through of wages to prices is now much stronger than in the past -- and will keep inflation sustainably higher at 1.5 to 2 per cent. This is why we expect BOJ to hike by 15 basis points in July and then again in January of next year by 25 basis points, bringing policy rates to 0.5 per cent.We don't expect further rate hikes beyond that, as we don't see inflation overshooting the 2 percent target sustainably. We think Governor Ueda would want to keep monetary policy accommodative in order for reflation to become embedded. The main risk to our outlook is if inflation surprises to the downside. This could materialize if the wage to price pass through turns out to be weaker than our estimates.Seth Carpenter: All of that was a great place to start. Inflation, central banking, like I said before, literally every single meeting I've had with clients has had a start there. Equity clients want to know if interest rates are coming down. Rates clients want to know where interest rates are going and what's going on with inflation.But we can't forget about the overall economy: economic activity, economic growth. I will say, as a house, collectively for the whole globe, we've got a pretty benign outlook on growth, with global growth running about the same pace this year as last year. But that top level view masks some heterogeneity across the globe.And Chetan I'm going to come right back to you, staying with topics in Asia. Because as far as I can remember, every conversation about global economic activity has to have China as part of it. China's been a key part of the global story. What's our current thinking there in China? What's going on this year and into next year?Chetan Ahya: So, Seth, in China, cyclically improving exports trend has helped to stabilize growth, but the structural challenges are still persisting. The biggest structural challenge that China faces is deflation. The key source of deflationary pressure is the housing sector. While there is policy action being taken to address this issue, we are of the view that housing will still be a drag on aggregate demand. To contextualize, the inventory of new homes is around 20 million units, as compared to the sales of about 7 to 8 million units annually. Moreover, there is another 23 million units of existing home inventory.So, we think it would take multiple years for this huge inventory overhang tobe digested to a more reasonable level. And as downturn in the property sector is resulting in downward pressures on aggregate demand, policy makers are supporting growth by boosting supply.Consider the shifts in flow of credit. Over the past few years, new loans to property sector have declined by about $700 billion, but this has been more than offset by a rise of about $500 billion in new loans for industrial sector, i.e. manufacturing investment, and $200 billion loans for infrastructure. This supply -centric policy response has led to a buildup of excess capacities in a number of key manufacturing sectors, and that is keeping deflationary pressures alive for longer. Indeed, we continue to see the diversions of real GDP growth and normal GDP growth outcomes. While real GDP growth will stabilize at 4.8 per cent this year, normal GDP growth will still be somewhat subdued at 4.5 per cent.Seth Carpenter: Thanks, Chetan. That's super helpful.Jens, let's think about the euro area, where there had, been a lot of slower growth relative to the US. I will say, when I'm in Europe, I get that question, why is the US outperforming Europe? You know, I think, my read on it, and you should tell me if I'm right or not -- recent data suggests that things, in terms of growth at least have bottomed out in Europe and might be starting to look up. So, what are you thinking about the outlook for European growth for the rest of the year? Should we expect just a real bounce back in Europe or what's it going to look like?Jens Eisenschmidt: Indeed, growth has bottomed. In fact, we are emerging from a period of stagnation last year; and as expected in our NTIA Outlook in November we had outlined the script -- that based on a recovery in consumption, which in turn is based on real wage gains. And fading restrictiveness of monetary policy, we would get a growth rebound this year. And the signs are there that we are exactly getting this, as expected.So, we had a very strong first quarter, which actually led us to upgrade still our growth that we had before at 0.5 to 0.7. And we have the PMIs, the survey indicators indicating indeed that the growth rebound is set to continue. And we have also upgraded the growth outlook for 2025 from 1 to 1.2 per cent here on the back of stronger external demand assumptions. So, all in all, the picture looks pretty consistent with that rebound.At the same time, one word of caution is that it won't get very fast. We will see growth very likely peaking below the levels that were previous peaks simply because potential growth is lower; we think is lower than it has been before the pandemic. So just as a measure, we think, for instance, that potential growth in Europe could be here lie between one, maybe one, 1 per cent, whereas before it would be rather 1.5 per cent.Seth Carpenter: Okay, that makes a lot of sense. So, some acceleration, maybe not booming, maybe not catching the US, but getting a little bit of convergence. So, Ellen, bring it back to the US for us. What are you thinking about growth for the US? Are we going to slump and slow down and start to look like Europe? Are things going to take off from here?Things have been pretty good. What do you think is going to happen for the rest of this year and into next year?Ellen Zentner: Yes, I think for the year overall, you know, growth is still going to be solid in the US, but it has been slowing compared with last year. And if I put a ‘the big picture view’ around it, you've got a fiscal impulse, where it's fading, right? So, we had big fiscal stimulus around COVID, which continues to fade. You had big infrastructure packages around the CHIPS Act and the IRA, where the bulk of that spending has been absorbed. And so that fiscal impulse is fading. But you've still got the monetary policy drag, which continues to build.Now, within that, the immigration story is a very big offset. What does it mean, you know, for the mid-year outlook? We had upgraded growth for this year and next quite meaningfully. And we completely changed how we were thinking about sort of the normal run rate of job growth that would keep the unemployment rate steady.So, whereas just six months ago, we thought it was around 100,000 to 120,000 a month, now we think that we can grow the labor market at about 250,000 a month, without being inflationary. And so that allows for that bigger but not tighter economy, which has been a big theme of ours since the mid-year outlook.And so, I'm throwing in the importance of immigration in here because I know you want to talk about elections later on. So, I want to flag that as not just a positive for the economy, but a risk to the outlook as well.Now, finally, key upcoming data is going to inform our view for this year. So, I'm looking for: Do households slow their spending because labor income growth is slowing? Does inflation continue to come down? And do job gains hold up?Seth Carpenter: Alright, thanks Ellen. That helps a lot, and it puts things into perspective. And you're right, I do want to move on to elections, but that will be for the second part of this special episode. Catch that in your podcast feeds on Monday.For now, thank you for listening. And if you enjoy the podcast, please leave a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts On the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our head of corporate credit research dives into the question of correlation and market volatility, and explains why stock indices can remain stable despite a certain level of turmoil, as we have seen recently in Europe.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about correlations, and why they are currently so important to markets being calmer than they would otherwise be. It’s Thursday, June 20th at 2pm in London.Imagine you’re on a boat, maybe looking for sea life. People are milling around the deck, watching the vessel ripple through the waves. Suddenly someone spotsa whale, and everybody runs to port. The whale swims under the boat, and everybody now runs to starboard. The boat rocks significantly. But imagine the same scenario where marine life is popping up on both sides of the vessel. You and your fellow passengers are all now running past each other in both directions. The movements balance out. The boat is pretty stable. Believe it or not, this is how the volatility in the stock indices work. The individual passengers can be thought of as individual stocks, and how much they’re each moving around can be thought of as each stock’s volatility. The boat is the overall index – say, the S&P 500, the EuroStoxx 50, or an index of corporate bonds. When everybody on the boat moves together, what we’d call a high correlation environment, you’d get a lot of rocking, or volatility, at the index level. But when people are moving in opposite directions, moving past each other; you can still have a lot of running, or individual vol – but the market, or the boat, will appear much more calm. That is exactly what’s been happening, especially last week. Stocks within the S&P 500 are moving with unusual independence from each other, running to opposite sides of the boat, with the lowest such correlation in almost 20 years. That is a big reason why, despite all the volatile headlines out of Europe, and more stocks falling than rising in the US, the overall market has been surprisingly calm – and going up. Even in Europe, this phenomenon of low correlation has really helped. That volatility I mentioned relates to upcoming elections in France, which led the difference between French and German bond yields to jump to their highest level in more than a decade. But because this spread of France to Germany moved in the opposite direction as overall French yields, the overall result for French government bonds was not much. Last week, despite all the apparent ruckus, the yield on French government bonds was basically unchanged. Markets have been calmer than you would usually expect them to be. These correlations are a big reason why. We think they suggest a still healthy dynamic where markets are differentiating between different types of risks. To go back to our original analogy, there is still plenty of sea life out there for the market to look at. But these correlations are also worth watching, were they to rise significantly. If one thing were to dominate the focus and lead everybody to run to the same side of the boat, overall market volatility could rise surprisingly fast. It's something, you could say, that we're on the lookout for. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review, wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Investors watching for market reactions would do well to stick to their existing plans in an environment where the economic impacts of any particular US election outcome remains unclear. Our Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research explains.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the US elections and its impacts on markets.It's Tuesday, June 18th at 10:30am in New York. We first started covering the 2024 US election in December of last year. With about five months to go until the event, it’s a good time to take stock of what we’ve learned that might be useful for investors. In short, there’s a lot of noise around this election, and recognizing that noise is a first step toward not making mistakes around the event. First, don’t make the mistake of confidently predicting an outcome. All indicators suggest it’s very unlikely that we’ll have a good sense about which candidate will win the election in the run up to the Election Day, and perhaps even in the days that follow. Neither candidate has a lead beyond a polling margin of error in sufficient states to suggest that if the election were held today that they would win the electoral college.Prediction markets and polling models also point to a race that’s a toss-up. It all suggests a tight race going into Election Day. And with the sustained popularity of voting by mail, vote counts could move slowly, as they did in 2020; meaning we may have to dig in for another election week.Second, don’t make the mistake of making big strategic changes in your portfolio just because it’s an election year. We recently studied this and there’s little pattern for how markets behave in the run up to an election, even when filtering for factors like similar outcomes and closeness of the race. Markets in the aggregate don’t seem to consistently price in US election outcomes ahead of time. There’s more evidence that they price in expected policy impacts once the outcome is known, which brings me to my third point.Don’t make the mistake of overconfidence when it comes to how post-election policies will impact the economy. Sure, if we knew one outcome was bad for growth and the other good, it might be advisable to buy risk assets on the news of the latter outcome occurring. But especially in this election it’s not that simple.For example, in scenarios where Republicans win the White House, you can expect greater tariffs, immigration curbs, and – if they also control congress – bigger deficits driven by tax cuts relative to alternative outcomes. According to our economists, these policies have different effects on growth, inflation and monetary policy depending on how they are constructed and timed; and so it defies simple conclusions of growth positive or growth negative, at least at this point.So bottom line, don’t mistake noise for signal when it comes to the election. Stick to the plan, such as the cross-asset framework recently put forward in our mid-year outlook. And maybe focus on some equity sectors, such as industrials and defense, which are well placed currently but have upside in certain election scenarios.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

The AI revolution has helped fuel the tech IPO sector’s resurgence following a two-year lull. Our Co-Heads of Technology Equity Capital Markets join our Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research to discuss the sustainability of this trend. ----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley.Diana Doyle: I am Diana Doyle, Managing Director and Co-Head of Technology Equity Capital Markets in the Americas.Lauren Garcia Belmonte: And I'm Lauren Garcia Belmonte, Managing Director, Co-Head of Technology Equity Capital Markets Americas.Michael Zezas: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll dive into what's ahead for the tech IPO market this year.It's Monday, June 17th, at 11 am in New York.Diana Doyle: And 8 am in San Francisco.Michael Zezas: Since 2023 only nine technology companies completed an initial public offering, which is one of the longest periods of reduced IPO activity in history. For context, compare that with the all-time record of 124 technology IPOs in 2021. But with the first quarter of 2024 behind us, we're starting to see that picture improve. With tech and AI in focus right now, on today's episode, I want to speak with Diana and Lauren from our global capital markets team to get their take on where the tech IPO environment might be headed and what investors may want to watch for.Lauren, maybe to start -- what's contributing to this resurgence in IPO activity this year?Lauren Garcia Belmonte: Well, the market backdrop has been constructive. We've had the SMP and NASDAQ trading up 10 -- 11 per cent this year and multiples have been stable for technology businesses. And against this backdrop, we've seen some IPO issuers recognize that this is a good environment in which to move forward with their IPO event. There are several benefits to becoming a public company, not just the opportunity to raise capital -- but to give liquidity to employees and to early investors in the business, and to set the company up to be a real industry leader as a public company.So, issuers are seeing the opportunity; and meanwhile, the demand side from investors has been encouraging as well. Investors in the public equities recognize that there's limited opportunity, in some instances, to underwrite growth. Right now, 55 per cent of publicly traded technology businesses are growing top line 10 per cent or less. So, the IPO opportunity, where companies generally have an attractive growth profile, is a way for these investors to get access to an opportunity to underwrite exciting growth profiles -- even when that opportunity isn't so prevalent in the public markets right now.Michael Zezas: And Diana, do you see the rebound in IPO activity as a durable trend? Maybe take us into 2025.Diana Doyle: Well, 2024 is definitely going to be better than 2022 and 2023. Now, it'll be a long time before we get back to that 124 tech IPOs in 2021 that you mentioned, Michael. But in an average year, we have about 35 to 40 IPOs, and we expect 2025 to approach more of an average. So, as Lauren said, we're encouraged by the breadth of investor demand for IPOs that we've done this year, and investors’ appetite to take risk. And all that lays the foundation for a healthy IPO market in 12 to 18 months.But it will be a slow build because IPOs are not a quick turnaround financing. It takes about six months on average to get through an IPO process. So, if you're not already underway, you're likely looking at 2025. In the meantime, we're seeing many late-stage private companies. They have plenty of cash. They're doing secondary raises to provide liquidity to employees and early investors, and they're waiting for growth rates to be more predictable -- for profitability to improve and to get more scale.So, we're excited for 2025, and the IPO market is wide open for companies that have growth and scale, profitability and that offer investors something different than what's available in the public market today.Michael Zezas: Got it. And what about macro conditions, Lauren? So perhaps the Fed's pivoting to cutting rates, the overall economic backdrop, geopolitical considerations. How do those things impact the tech IPO market?Lauren Garcia Belmonte: Yeah, absolutely. The tech IPO market is influenced by these macro considerations -- and it's in a few different ways.First, of course, and importantly, the valuation impact is real for technology businesses that have a lot of their growth on the come and a higher rate environment. Of course, that future growth needs to be discounted more significantly. The second key impact is around just how these management teams are able to manage, predict, and model out their business.In a more uncertain environment, it can be more challenging to articulate and defend the forward model that is a part of all IPO processes where you're explaining to the research analysts and investors how your business will perform, as a public company. And, of course, management teams want to set their companies up for success as public companies -- and set up for a beat and raise cadence -- which can be difficult to do when you're dealing with an uncertain macro backdrop.I think one encouraging signal -- as much as we haven't seen the Fed cut as much as people had anticipated as would have happened at the start of this year -- is that the rate of change has slowed.So, the rate increase environment was one of the quickest that we've seen; and although we haven't seen the cuts as people had anticipated, I think it's encouraging that that rate of change has adjusted and that will allow for, hopefully, more predictability in businesses going forwardMichael Zezas: Got it. That connection between predictability and rates makes a lot of sense. And it seems that the market's particularly hungry for AI names. Diana, what AI related trends are you seeing?Diana Doyle: Well, AI is this black hole right now that's drawing all the energy and attention in the private markets. There's this huge enthusiasm because the technology is improving so quickly, and there's an uncertainty how long that rapid pace of advancement will continue. This cycle, in fact, is an exaggerated version of what we've seen in prior cycles, where the monetization typically accrues first to the semiconductors and hardware, then eventually to software. So right now, a lot of the investment is going into the semiconductors and hardware, the picks and shovels, and the fundamental model of research.But in software, there's still a lot to play out in private companies to create the type of profitable, proven business models that public market investors are looking for. There are big unknowns in how enterprises are going to reallocate spend in a world of AI, what happens with all the efficiency these new tools create, how a lower barrier to entry for software creation impacts margins.Michael Zezas: And aside from AI, Lauren, what other areas within tech are seeing more activity?Lauren Garcia Belmonte: I would say that these businesses aren't in a particular spot within the tech landscape, but rather have certain characteristics in that they share -- namely that they are in attractive markets.Additionally, being a market leader is of critical importance today. No longer do people want to back the third, fourth, fifth player in a market. I think people are really focused on market leadership. So that one or two spot is going to be really important. And investors are looking for businesses that are already scaled. That market leadership typically comes along with a certain scale qualifier. But that is absolutely going to be an important feature of the businesses that are successful transitioning from the private to public markets.These companies are in the software space and the internet side. So, there's a diversity of companies that have this in common, and that could be great IPO candidates on that timeline that Diana was mentioning.Michael Zezas: And finally, I'm curious how the political election cycle might have an impact on IPO activity during the rest of this year. Diana, what's your read?Diana Doyle: Well, we do expect to see some volatility in the pre-election window in the fall, like we do in every presidential election cycle. But what's different this time is that we have a pretty good sense, not only of who the candidates will be -- but also what their presidency is likely to look like and what policies they're likely to prioritize.So that de-risks the election as a market event materially versus prior cycles. And for the IPO market, any company that's been looking at an IPO in the second half of 2024 has already evaluated pulling it forward to hit the September-October time frame and get ahead of that likely market event.But there's a narrow window for anyone who hasn't yet pulled the trigger to accelerate. Before the holidays, post-election -- where some IPOs will be able to squeeze in. In practice, most of the companies that aren't already in the pipeline now -- have their eye on 2025.Michael Zezas: Okay, so, putting it all together, seems you're both pretty confident that there's going to be a durable pickup in IPO activity.Lauren Garcia Belmonte: That's right.Diana Doyle: Yes.Michael Zezas: Okay, great. So, our audience should stay tuned. Well, Diana, Lauren, thanks for taking the time to talk.Diana Doyle: Great speaking with you, Michael.Lauren Garcia Belmonte: Yes. Thank you for having us.Michael Zezas: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen, and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Our Head of India Research and Chief India Equity Strategist lays out his bullish post-election view on India, explaining why the market is likely to drive a fifth of global growth in the coming decade.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ridham Desai, Morgan Stanley’s Head of India Research and Chief India Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss our take on India’s election results and why we still believe this is India’s decade.  It’s Friday, June 14th, at 2pm in Mumbai.India’s general election results are in, and the world is paying close attention. The most important aspect of the BJP led NDA retaining its majority is policy predictability – something equities tend to thrive on. We believe the market can look forward to further structural reforms. This gives us more confidence in our forecast of a 20 per cent annual earnings growth over the next five years. Macro stability with rising GDP growth relative to real rates should extend India's outperformance over Emerging Market equities. We’ve been bullish on India since April 2020, and we still believe that India is likely to drive a fifth of global growth in the coming decade. This will be underpinned by increased offshoring of both services and manufacturing, as well as the energy transition and the country's advanced digital infrastructure. India's stock market has been making new highs. The big investor debate now is what could take the India market even higher from here. We believe share prices have yet to bake in a number of positives, such as India's newfound macro stability, a likely fall in its primary deficit moving into a primary balance, and a fast-evolving deep tech sector, to name just a few.We expect critical reforms to be made in Modi’s third term. Here are three more important ones. Number one, further consolidation of India’s fiscal deficit. From a market perspective this lends itself to sustained credit growth, which we think is going to be good for India’s private banks. Number two, a continuing buildout of both physical and social infrastructure. The physical infrastructure will likely focus on railways. Social infrastructure may include more low-income housing as well as water and electricity security. These reforms make us bullish on industrial stocks. Number three, further growth in India’s manufacturing prowess. The government will likely focus on improving competitiveness via fiscal incentives and by building infrastructure within such industries as defense, electronics, aerospace, food processing and renewables. We expect India’s energy consumption to rise by around 50 per cent over the next five years with increasing contribution from renewables. From an equities perspective, we think consumer stocks are well-positioned as nearly 100 million families could move into the middle-income bracket in the next decade. At the top end of the income pyramid, India’s affluent households could quintuple to 25 million over the coming decade, which should support a surge in luxury consumption. Of course, there are plenty of risks, even with the elections behind us – from various capacity constraints to geopolitics, the impact of AI and climate change. But even with all these in mind, we still believe this is set to be India's longest and strongest bull market ever. Stay invested. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

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

Our US Thematic Strategist explains the premium that consumers will pay for convenience, and what that means for sectors including online retail, dining and package delivery.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley’s US Thematic Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll talk about convenience and why it’s such an important factor for a number of industries.  It’s Wednesday, June 12, at 11am in New York. The consumer has been weakening around the edges, and this is flowing through to companies' bottom line. Our Consumer Economist thinks that consumption is likely to continue to slow this year and even into 2025 as the labor market cools and that weighs on real disposable income, elevated rates continue to pressure debt service costs, and tighter lending standards limit credit availability.   And given this setup, companies have been focusing on their value offerings, and we saw a lot of commentary around this during first quarter earnings calls. Mentions of just the word value itself were elevated. But value isn't the whole story, and consumers aren’t always just choosing the cheapest option.  You and I are consumers. We are all consumers. Think about the last time you bought something. Did you pick one retailer over another because buying the item was easier? Did the company have a better website or a better mobile app? Did they offer faster shipping options or free shipping? Would the product itself save you time? And how much more were you willing to pay to make the more convenient choice?  Convenience is a valuable product and a key factor in consumer choice. In fact, our survey shows that 77 percent of US consumers rate it as important and base purchasing decisions on it. Our work suggests three key conclusions. On average, consumers would be willing to pay about a 5 percent price premium for convenience. And there are two groups that place a particular emphasis on it - those who are younger and those who are more affluent. Second, consumers are willing to choose one company's product or service over another's because of convenience. Staples products and food away from home are the industries where consumers are especially likely to pick one option over another. And third, shipping features like free shipping or fast shipping are the most important convenience-related criteria when shopping online. Several industries stand to benefit from providing convenience. And convenience has been a long-term, persistent driver of eCommerce. Consumers love the combination of an ever-expanding assortment of goods and services and shrinking delivery times – and this is convenience really at its best. Convenience is easier to deliver for categories with standardized, durable products with lower purchase frequency that are easier to deliver like electronics or travel. But even within an already winning industry there is still a lot of opportunity, especially within the least penetrated categories, grocery and household and personal care. In Restaurants, fast casual is likely to continue to take share given the combination of quality and convenience. Restaurants that have led digital access -- like mobile and online orders as well as online reservations – have posted impressive growth over time. Some fast-food chains have also invested in a digital approach and will likely to continue to build on this in the future. Now unlike internet and restaurants, the parcels industry is facing a large threat from convenience, specifically fast and free shipping and easy returns. Their networks were not built to handle the quick delivery required of ecommerce volumes today, and the business-to-consumer shipping that is offered by the largest online vendors. We think convenience is an important factor for companies and one they can use to differentiate themselves in customers minds. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Chief Economist takes stock of recent elections in India, Mexico and South Africa -- and what they suggest about the market implications of the upcoming UK and US elections.----- Transcript -----Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about recent elections and upcoming elections and what they mean for the economy.It's Tuesday, June 11th at 10am in New York.Markets usually prefer simple narratives, but this week it's shown us that simplicity can be elusive. In particular, for elections, legislative outcomes can be more complicated but are consequential. Here in the US, clients often ask about the economic implications of a Trump vs. Biden presidency -- but we immediately have to flag that the congressional outcome has to be a big part of the conversation.Indeed, three important elections in the past weeks have emphasized the importance of a legislative focus. But the surprise was not in who won -- rather, in how big the legislative decisions were. In India, Prime Minister Modi was re-elected, but his BJP party lost its outright majority. Exit polls on June 1st had predicted a resounding victory for the BJP, prompting a rally in the lead up to the final results.The results surprised markets and caused a reversal. Markets have since recovered to roughly where they were before the exit polls,We expect policy predictability with the continued focus on macro stability. This focus implies moderate inflation, smaller primary deficits, along with support for domestic manufacturing and infrastructure in upcoming years. Those have been the core of our view that the Indian economy is set for continued expansion.The Mexican election was almost the reverse, where the winning candidate's party won far more votes than was expected. In response to the news, equity markets sold off and the Mexican peso depreciated. Scheinbaum was largely expected to win after the endorsement of Obrador; but by winning a supermajority, the market focus turned to Mexican fiscal discipline based on a view that there may be less restraint on government spending.Fiscal policy has been in focus for us because for the first time in recent years the government there ran a fiscal deficit. While the party has sought to reassure markets, concern has mounted regarding the risks of fiscal slippage without a more balanced legislature.Compared to India and Mexico, The South African market reaction to the election was modest, though not for a lack of surprise in the legislature. The ANC lost more of its majority than polls had predicted, which narrows the options for a coalition. The market now expects a more reform-oriented coalition to take power and support a continued improvement in the economy. For example, frequent power outages had impeded the economy for a long time, but the energy sector now appears to be more stable, and those sorts of reforms can help catalyze an improved economic outlook.Examples of India, Mexico, and South Africa have reinforced why we've remained focused on the upcoming general elections in the UK, and also the congressional outcomes in the US. In the UK, a change in government is predicted by the polls, and fiscal considerations will be in focus.So back here in the US, the fiscal outcome will largely be determined by the congressional results. To meaningfully change federal tax or spending requires legislation. And our colleagues in public policy research have flagged that under a Republican sweep, they expect lower taxes and higher spending; contrasted with a Democratic sweep that might bring somewhat higher spending, but also higher taxes leading to a narrower deficit.A split government, where the party in the White House not the same as the party controlling each of the Houses of Congress, however, probably implies more muted outcomes. While we should focus on the legislative outcomes, there are important authorities, of course, that the President can exercise independently of the Congress.So, when we highlight the importance of the legislative outcomes, we are not denying the criticality of the presidency.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague.

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist explains why economic fluctuations have made it more difficult to project a possible soft or no landing outcome, and how investors can navigate this continuing market volatility.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the continued uncertainty in economic data and its impact on markets.  It's Monday, June 10th at 11:30am in New York.  So let’s get after it.  Over the past few months, the economic growth data has surprised to the downside with more data releases coming in below expectations than usual. Meanwhile, inflation surprises have skewed more to the upside. This is a challenging combination because it means the Fed can't cut rates yet even though it may make sense to keep the economic expansion going.  As we have been discussing for months, aggressive fiscal spending is keeping the headline economy looking good on the surface. The bad news is that inflation remains too high for the Fed which has to keep interest rate policy too tight for many economic participants. Some may disagree with that statement, but we think it's hard to argue with the yield curve which remains significantly inverted and a valid indicator of interest rate policy. When combined with high price levels for many goods and services, the end result is a crowding out of many parts of the economy and consumers. From our perspective, this is most evident in the persistent underperformance of small cap stocks. In fact, this past week, small cap equities relative performance fell to new cycle lows. Even more concerning is that while small caps are showing greater interest rate sensitivity than large caps, it’s also asymmetric. While higher rates are an obvious headwind for small caps, we're skeptical that lower rates offer a comparable benefit. Last week was a good example of this dynamic when small caps underperformed early in the week when rates rose and later in the week when rates fell.   All of this argues for what we have been recommending — in an uncertain macro world, we think investors should stay up the quality curve with a barbell of both growth and cyclicals to participate in both the soft and no landing outcomes. We also think it makes sense to have some defensive exposure as a hedge against the above average risk of a recession that still looms. Given the more negative skew in the economic surprise data as noted, we think the defensive part of the portfolio should outweigh cyclicals at this point. We favor staples and utilities specifically in this regard.  With markets sensitive to unpredictable inflation and labor data, it's very difficult to have an edge going into these releases, particularly on the labor front where the data itself has been subject to significant and ongoing revisions. While many market participants focus on the non-farm payroll data, these data have been subject to some of the larger revisions we’ve seen in recent history. Meanwhile, the household survey has been weaker than the non-farm payroll data and job openings have fallen persistently over the last 18 months. These diverging labor dynamics are classic late cycle phenomena based on our experience. For investors, it's just another reason to stay up the quality curve and to avoid positioning for a broadening out to lower quality areas. In our view, such a broadening is unlikely in any kind of sustainable way until the Fed cuts meaningfully — and by that we mean several hundred basis points rather than the one-to-two cuts that are now priced into the markets for this year. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today. 

Our Global Head of Emerging Markets Sovereign Credit reviews key insights and strategies for investors following the recent elections in Mexico, South Africa and India.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Simon Waever, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of EM Sovereign Credit and Latin America Fixed Income Strategy. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss the far-reaching impact of emerging market elections on global markets. It’s Friday, June 7, at 10am in New York.Elections in 2024 will impact roughly 4 billion people around the globe – that’s the most in history. And within emerging markets, elections this year will impact nearly half the market cap of both hard and local currency debt indices and 60 percent of equities. With a dozen elections in the emerging markets sovereign credit universe already behind us, there are still almost another twenty more to go.We find that elections in emerging markets matter for both credit spreads and fiscal balances. And a frequent investor question is how to trade positive and negative election outcomes. This can be defined in many ways, of course, but we focus on whether credit spreads widen – which is a negative – or tighten – which is a positive – in the week post-elections. And history suggests that buying into negative election surprises has been a profitable strategy. But on the other hand, positive elections, they’re priced in beforehand and should not be chased post-outcome.So why is that, exactly? Well, for positive elections, markets tend to rally nearly continuously into the elections; but after the initial week of tightening, spreads then revert and end up trading only slightly tight to the levels prior to the elections. And then for negative elections, there’s actually no real trend ahead of the elections, with spreads largely flat. But then, after the initial sell-off, credit spreads end up reversing the initial move wider, and three months out the spreads are tighter than immediately post-elections. So, with this in mind, let’s consider the three most recent election outcomes in Mexico, India, and South Africa. And actually, all three had an element of surprise.In Mexico, they elected their first female president, Claudia Sheinbaum. That was expected – but the surprise was that she got a much larger majority than polls suggested, which means that it becomes easier to push through constitutional changes. So, I think it’s fair to say that uncertainty has increased, and markets are now in a wait-and-see mode looking for what policy she will prioritize.And from my side, I’m paying particularly close attention to the many reforms submitted by the executive to the Congress back in February, and then any signs of fiscal consolidation, which is needed.South Africa saw the ANC fall below 50 per cent for the first time, and they now need to form a coalition or at least agree on a confidence and supply model. Well, I would say that at this point, markets are already pricing a lot of that uncertainty.Finally, in India, the BJP led New Democratic Alliance is set to form a government for the third term, and we think the most important aspect of this is policy predictability. And in particular we see a number of critical structural reforms made in this third term; and then importantly for fixed income, we see a reduction in the primary budget deficit.We will continue to monitor closely the remaining emerging markets elections in this landmark election year, and we’ll come back with more investment updates.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our four-person panel explains Japan’s economic boom, from growing GDP to corporate sector vibrancy, and which upward trends will sustain.----- Transcript -----Chetan Ahya: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia Economist.Japan is undergoing a once in a generation transformation. A country once associated with its lost decades is now seeing multi-decade highs for nominal GDP growth and equity indices.On this special episode of the podcast, we will discuss why we are so optimistic on Japan's trajectory from here. I'm joined by our Chief Japan Economist Takeshi Yamaguchi, our Chief Asia and EM Strategist Jonathan Garner, and our Japan Equity Strategist Sho Nakazawa.This episode was recorded last Friday, May 31st at 9 am in Hong Kong.Jonathan Garner: And 9 am in Singapore. Takeshi Yamaguchi: And 10 am in Tokyo. Chetan Ahya: Japan's nominal GDP growth reached a 32 year high in 2023. Equity markets have reached multi decade highs, and ROE and productivity growth have been on an improving trend. Corporate sector vibrancy is returning, and animal spirits are reviving. A new, stronger equilibrium is one of robust nominal GDP growth and a sustainable moderate inflation.This new equilibrium of stronger normal GDP growth and low real interest rates will also be supportive of Japan's capex trends. With that backdrop, let me now turn to Yamaguchi san. Yamaguchi-san, what makes us confident that this virtuous cycle of rising wages and prices will continue to play out?Takeshi Yamaguchi: We think Japan's social norm of no price hike, no wage hike is changing, and a good feedback loop between wages and prices is emerging. Workers demand higher wages with higher inflation expectations and the corporate management accept their demand, as they also expect higher inflation. Japan's labor market remains structurally tight and aggregated corporate profits are now at a record high level. In addition to the pass-through from prices to wages, we are beginning to see the pass-through in the other direction from wages to prices, especially in service prices. The average wage hike in these spring wage negotiations was the highest in the last 33 years. So, we expect to see a gradual rise in service inflation going ahead with a rise in wages. Chetan Ahya: Could you elaborate a bit on the details of the capex outlook? Takeshi Yamaguchi: Yes. We expect Japan's private capex to exceed its previous 1991 peak this year. In the previous deflationary period, domestic nominal GDP remained in a flat range, and Japanese firms mainly invested abroad. That said, the trend of Japanese nominal GDP growth has shifted up, which will likely positively affect Japanese firms’ decision to increase domestic investment.Also, there are various other factors supporting domestic capex, such as real interest rates remaining low, the weak yen, the government's new industrial policy supporting onshoring and semiconductor investment, and the need for digitalization and labor-saving investment on the back of structural labor shortage driven by demographic shifts.Chetan Ahya: Thank you, Yamaguchi-san. And, you know, I can't let you go without answering this question, which is much of the focus of the markets right now. If yen depreciates to 160 again, how much upside risk to your rate path do you see?Takeshi Yamaguchi: Our FX team expects the yen to gradually appreciate to 146 by the end of 2024, and under the assumption, we expect one hike this year in July and another one in January next year. However, if sustained yen depreciation raises domestic underlying inflation trend, we think the BOJ will respond by raising the policy rate further to 0.75 per cent in 2025.Chetan Ahya: Thank you, Yamaguchi-san. Jonathan, let me come over to you now. You have led the debate on Japan's ROE improvement and have been bullish since 2018. How are we thinking about Japan equities from a broader Asia market allocation perspective now?Jonathan Garner: Back in 2018, we highlighted Japan equities as what we called the most underappreciated turnaround story in global equities. And at the heart of our thesis was the idea that monetary and fiscal policy dials were now set to exit deflation, driving an improved top-down environment for corporations from an asset utilization perspective.It's worth recalling that during the deflation era, Japan listed equities ROE averaged just 4.2 per cent for two decades, by far the lowest in global markets. That's now reached almost 10 per cent, and we're confident that by the end of next year we can be approaching 12 per cent, which would put Japan back in the middle of the pack in global equity markets.And we think further re-rating in line with the improved ROE is likely, over the medium term.Chetan Ahya: And how much upside do we see from here?Jonathan Garner: Well, in terms of the target price that we published in our midyear outlook, that now stands at 3,200 for June 2025 for TOPIX. And the way that we derive that is through an earnings forecast for TOPIX, which is around 5 per cent above current consensus levels.And in addition, a forward PE multiple assumption of 15 times, which is close to where the market is currently trading, and around about a 4 PE point discount to our target multiple for the S&P 500. So that gives us around 16 per cent upside versus current spot levels.Chetan Ahya: Thank you, Jonathan. And you mentioned about corporate governance changes helping Japan equity markets. Sho, let me bring you in here. How will corporate governance changes drive further improvement in Japan's ROE?Sho Nakazawa: I would say corporate governance reform, which is Tokyo Stock Exchange initiative will help fuel OE gains going forward. From the last year below 1x P/B has been a buzz word in the market, growing sense of shame and peer pressure to enhance capital efficiency for the corporate executives. And this is not just a psychological change. If we look at cumulative share buybacks amount, last fiscal year it hit a record high of ¥10 trillion, and we are seeing further record growth into this fiscal year as well.Chetan Ahya: And what are the key alpha generation themes still to pay for within Japan equities space?Sho Nakazawa: In terms of alpha generation, we explored three key themes within the Japanese equity landscape. So one, identifying companies with labor productivity and pricing power that can pay and absorb higher real wages; and two, finding the next cohort of corporate reform beneficiaries. Three, assessing the impact of NISA, Nippon Individual Saving Account, inflows.I think this will drive large cap, high-liquidity value and high dividend stock. Still plenty to play for in Japan.Chetan Ahya: Yamaguchi-san, Jonathan, Nakazawa-san, thank you all for taking the time to talk. And thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.

Original Release on April 29, 2024: Our analysts find that despite the obvious differences between retail fashion and airlines, struggling brands in both industries can use a similar playbook for a turnaround.----- Transcript -----Ravi Shanker: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ravi Shanker, Morgan Stanley's North American Freight Transportation and Airlines Analyst.Alex Straton: And I'm Alex Straton, Morgan Stanley's North America Softlines, Retail and Brands Analyst.Ravi Shanker: On this episode of the podcast, we'll discuss some really surprising parallels between fashion, retail, and airlines.It's Monday, April 29th at 10am in New York.Now, you're probably wondering why we're talking about airlines and fashion retail in the same sentence. And that's because even though they may seem worlds apart, they actually have a lot in common. They're both highly cyclical industries driven by consumer spending, inventory pressure, and brand attrition over time.And so, we would argue that what applies to one industry actually has relevance to the other industry as well. So, Alex, you've been observing some remarkable turnaround stories in your space recently. Can you paint a picture of what some fashion retail businesses have done to engineer a successful turnaround? Maybe go over some of the fundamentals first?Alex Straton: What I'll lead with here is that in my North America apparel retail coverage, turnarounds are incredibly hard to come by, to the point where I'd argue I'm skeptical when any business tries to architect one. And part of that difficulty directly pertains to your question, Ravi -- the fundamental backdrop of the industry.So, what are we working with here? Apparel is a low single digit growing category here in North America, where the average retailer operates at a mid single digit plus margin level. This is super meager compared to other more profitable industries that Ravi and I don't necessarily have the joy of covering. But part of why my industry is characterized by such low operating performance is the fact that there are incredibly low barriers to entry in the space. And you can really see that in two dynamics.The first being how fragmented the competitive landscape is. That means that there are many players as opposed to consolidation across a select few. Just think of how many options you have out there as you shop for clothing and then how much that has changed over time. And then second, and somewhat due to that fragmentation, the category has historically been deflationary, meaning prices have actually fallen over time as retailers compete mostly on price to garner consumer attention and market share.So put differently, historically, retailers’ key tool for drawing in the consumer and driving sales has been based on being price competitive, often through promotions and discounting, which, along with other structural headwinds, like declining mall traffic, e-commerce growth and then rising wages, rent and product input costs has actually meant the average retailers’ margin was in a steady and unfortunately structural decline prior to the pandemic.So, this reliance on promotions and discounting in tandem with those other pressures I just mentioned, not only hurt many retailers’ earnings power but in many cases also degraded consumer brand perception, creating a super tough cycle to break out of and thus turnarounds very tough to come by -- bringing it full circle.So, in a nutshell, what you should hear is apparel is a low barrier to entry, fragmented market with subsequently thin margins and little to no precedent for successful turnarounds. That's not to say a retail turnaround isn't possible, though, Ravi.Ravi Shanker: Got it. So that's great background. And you've identified some very specific key levers that these fashion retail companies can pull in order to boost their profitability. What are some of these levers?Alex Straton: We do have a recent example in the space of a company that was able to break free of that rather vicious cycle I just went through, and it actually lifted its sales growth and profitability levels above industry average. From our standpoint, this super rare retail turnaround relied on five key levers, and the first was targeting a different customer demographic. Think going from a teens focused customer with limited brand loyalty to an older, wealthier and less fickle shopper; more reliable, but differently.Second, you know, evolving the product assortment. So, think mixing the assortment into higher priced, less seasonal items that come with better margins. To bring this to life, imagine a jeans and tees business widening its offering to include things like tailored pants and dresses that are often higher margin.Third, we saw that changing the pricing strategy was also key. You can retrain or reposition a brand as not only higher priced through the two levers I just mentioned, but also try and be less promotional overall. This is arguably, from my experience, one of the hardest things for a retailer to execute over time. So, this is the thing I would typically, you know, red flag if you hear it.Fourth, and this is very, very key, reducing the store footprint, re-examining your costs. So, as I mentioned in my coverage, cost inflation across the P&L (profit and loss) historically, consumers moving online over time, and what it means is retailers are sitting on a cost base that might not necessarily be right for the new demand or the new structure of the business. So, finding cost savings on that front can really do wonders for the margins.Fifth, and I list this last because it's a little bit more of a qualitative type of lever -- is that you can focus on digital. That really matters in this modern era. What we saw was a retailer use digital driven data to inform decision making across the business, aligning consumer experience across channels and doing this in a profitable way, which is no easy feat, to say the least.So, look, we identified five broad enablers of a turnaround. But there were, of course, little changes along the way that were also done.Ravi Shanker: Right.Alex Straton: So, Ravi, given what we've discussed, how do you think this turnaround model from fashion retail can apply to airlines?Ravi Shanker: Look, I mean, as we discussed, at the top here, we think there are significant similarities between the world of fashion retail and airlines; even though it may not seem obvious, at first glance. I mean, they're both very consumer discretionary type, demand environments. The vicious circle that you described, the price deflation, the competition, the brand attrition, all of that applies to retail and to airlines as well.And so, I think when you look at the five enablers of the turnaround or levers that you pull to make it happen, I think those can apply from retail to airlines as well. For instance, you target a different customer, one that likes to travel, one that is a premium customer and, and wants to sit in the front of the plane and spend more money.Second, you have a different product out there. Kind of you make your product better, and it's a better experience in the sky, and you give the customer an opportunity to subscribe to credit cards and loyalty program and have a full-service experience when they travel.Third, you change your distribution method. You kind of go more digital, as you said. We don't have inventory here, so it'd be more of -- you don't fly everywhere all the time and be everything to everyone. You are a more focused airline and give your customer a better experience. So, all of those things can drive better outcomes and better financial performance, both in the world of fashion retail as well as in the world of airlines.Alex Straton: So, Ravi, we've definitely identified some pretty startling similarities between fashion retail and airlines. Definitely more so than I appreciated when you called me a couple months ago to explore this topic. So, with that in mind, what are some of the differences and challenges to applying to airlines, a playbook taken from the world of fashion retail?Ravi Shanker: Right, so, look, I mean, they are obviously very different industries, right? For instance, clothing is a basic human staple; air travel and going on vacations is not. It's a lot more discretionary. The industry is a lot more consolidated in the airline space compared to the world of retail. Air travel is also a lot more premium compared to the entire retail industry. But when you look at premium retail and what some of those brands have done where brands really make a difference, the product really makes a difference. I think there are a lot more similarities than differences between those premium retail brands on the airline industry.So, Alex, going back to you, given the success of the turnaround model that you've discussed, do you think more retail businesses will adopt it? And are there any risks if that becomes a norm?Alex Straton: The reality is Ravi, I breezed through those five key enablers in a super clear manner. But, first, you know, the enablers of a turnaround in my view are only super clear in hindsight. And then secondly, one thing I want to just re-emphasize again is that a turnaround of the nature I described isn't something that happens overnight. Shifting something like your consumer base or changing investor perception of discounting activity is a multi year, incredibly difficult task; meaning turnarounds are also often multi year affairs, if ever successful at all.So, looking ahead, given how rare retail turnarounds have proven to be historically, I think while many businesses in my coverage area are super intrigued by some of this recent success; at the same time, I think they're eyes wide open that it's much easier said than done, with execution far from certain in any given turnaround.Ravi Shanker: Got it. I think the good news from my perspective is that hindsight and time both the best teachers, especially when put together. And so, I think the learnings of some of the success stories in your sector can not only be lessons for other companies in your space; they can also be lessons in my space. And like I said, I think some airlines have already started embarking on this turnaround, others are looking to see what they can do here. And I'm sure again, best practices and lessons can be shared from one sector to another. So, Alex, thanks so much for taking the time to talk to us today.Alex Straton: It was great to speak with you, Ravi.Ravi Shanker: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen to the show and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Our Chief Fixed Income Strategist takes listeners behind the curtain on Morgan Stanley’s expectations for markets over the next 12 months.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupathur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the key debates we engaged in during the mid-year outlook process.It's Tuesday, June 4th at 1pm in New York.Over the last few episodes, you've been hearing a lot about Morgan Stanley's midyear outlook, where our economists have forecasted a sunny macro environment of decelerating growth and inflation, and policy easing in most developed market economies, leading to a positive backdrop for risk assets in the base case, especially in the second half of the year.But beyond the year end, many uncertainties -- uncertainties of outcomes and uncertainties of the consequences of those outcomes -- point to a wider range of outcomes, driving a wider than normal bull versus bear skew in our expectations for markets over the next 12 months.As always, these outlooks are the culmination of a process involving much deliberation and spirited debate among economists and strategists across all the regions and asset classes we cover. I thought it might be useful to detail some of these debates that we've had during the process to shed a better light on the forecast in our outlook.First, given the many changes to market pricing of Fed's rate cuts year to date, driven by higher-than-expected inflation, the path ahead for US inflation was heavily debated. Our economists argued that the acceleration in goods and financial services prices, which explains a substantial portion of the upside in the first quarter inflation data should decelerate from here. And also that leading indicators point to a weaker shelter inflation ahead. Their analysis also showed that residual seasonality contributed to the unexpected strength in first quarter [20]24 inflation data, suggesting a payback has to happen in the second half of 2024.The outlook for China economy and our cautious stance on the market was another point of debate, mainly because China's growth has surprised to the upside relative to our 2024 year ahead outlook. Our economists argued that while there are a few policy positives on housing and green products mitigating the debt deflation spiral, growth remains unbalanced and subpar. So, we discussed our cautious stance on China equity markets against this backdrop and concluded that the equity market recovery is still very challenging in China.Third, given the combination of favorable technicals, solid fundamentals, and a relatively benign economic outlook, we debated whether corporate credit, on which we are constructive, should we be even more constructive in our forecasts. After all, the setup for corporate credit has many elements similar to those during the mid 1990s, when, for example, US IG index spreads were about 30 basis points tighter versus the current spread targets. Our strategist highlighted the significant differences in the market structure, the composition of the index, and the duration of the underlying bonds that make up this index today, versus 1990s -- all of which put a higher floor on spreads, which explains our spread targets.The debates notwithstanding, we cannot argue with the benign macro backdrop and what that means for the second half of 2024. We turn overweight in global equities and overweight in a range of spread products within fixed income, most notably agency MBS, EM Sovereign credit, leveraged loans, securitized credit, especially CLO equity tranches.Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Chief Cross-Asset Strategist explains why the high correlation between stocks and bonds could work in investors’ favor throughout the second half of this year.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Cross-Asset Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss why we believe bonds and equities can both rally this year, with the still-elevated correlations between the two assets a boon rather than a bane to investors. It’s Monday, June 3rd at 10am in New York. In our mid-year outlook two weeks ago, we expressed our bullish view on both global equities and parts of fixed income space like agency mortgage-backed securities and leveraged loans, on the back of the benign economic backdrop our economists are forecasting for in the second half of 2024. Now, this may be surprising to some. Received wisdom is that in an environment of rate cuts and falling yields, equities can't perform well because the former usually maps to growth slowdowns. When equities see double-digit upside – which is what we’re projecting for European equities – it’s unusual for bonds to also see strong and positive returns, which is what we’re projecting for German government bonds. And I want to push back on this received wisdom that we can’t have an ‘everything rally’. When we look at the annual performance of global stocks and 10-year US Treasuries every year going back to 1988, in the 13 times when the Fed cut rates over the course of the year, bond yields were lower and equities were up 43 per cent of the time. And in those periods, stock returns averaged 18 per cent while yields fell over 1 percentage points. ‘Everything rallies’ happen often in this very macro backdrop of benign growth and Fed cuts we’re expecting, And when they do happen, everything indeed rallies – strongly. Or to frame it another way – our expectations for both global equities and fixed income to see strong total returns this year is the flipside of what markets had experienced in 2022. Now back then, unlike in most other prior cycles, stock-bond return correlations were high because inflation was elevated even as growth was sluggish, meaning that bonds sold off on higher rates expectations, and equities on bad earnings. Today, with our view that global growth can be robust while disinflation continues, the opposite will likely be true; bonds should rally on lower rates expectations, and equities on strong earnings revisions. Stock-bond return correlations are still elevated, but it should work in an investor’s favor this year. Lean into it. Good macro, fair fundamentals, pockets of attractive valuations all make for a strong environment for risk assets, a reason for us to get more bullish on European and Japanese equities, but also in fixed income products like leveraged loans and Collateralized Loan Obligations. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

In a generally positive environment for corporate credit, the recent performance of high-yield bonds in the telecom, media and technology (TMT) sector offers a market contrast. Our Lead Analyst for High-Yield TMT joins our Head of Corporate Credit Research to explain the divergence.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research for Morgan Stanley.David Hamburger: And I'm David Hamburger, Head of US Sector Corporate Credit Research and Lead Analyst for the high yield telecom, media, and technology sectors.Andrew Sheets: And today on the podcast we'll be discussing the contrast between strong overall markets in credit and a whole lot of volatility in the high yield TMT space.It's Friday, May 31st at 10am in New York.So, David, it's great to talk to you. You know, listeners have probably been hearing about our views on overall markets and credit markets for the 12 months ahead.We have US growth at 2 percent. We have inflation coming down. We had the Fed lowering interest rates. But there’s needless to say; there's some pretty notable contrast between that sort of backdrop and the backdrop we've had for credit year to date, which has been pretty calm, pretty strong -- and what's been going on in your sector.So maybe before we get into the why -- let's talk about the what and bring people up to speed on the saga that's been high yield TMT year.David Hamburger: Yeah. I'm here today to disavow you of any notion that everything is fine and dandy in the market today. So, if you look at the high yield communications sector, it's trading about 325 basis points wide of the overall high yield index. And just to give you that magnitude of that -- the high yield index trading around 300 basis points -- we're talking about 625 basis points over. Now, the high yield communication sector as well is trading about 275 basis points, wider than the next widest sector in the index.And so, it's pretty astounding today, given the market backdrop, how much underperformance we've seen in this sector.Andrew Sheets: What's been causing this just large divergence between high yield TMT and what seems like a lot of other things?David Hamburger: Yeah, I think there are two forces at work here. One's kind of a broader set of issues that I can outline for you. Really, I think it's a combination of one, the maturation of the communications marketplace. Coming out of COVID, we certainly had accelerated adoption of broadband and wireless services. That in and of itself has created a lot of intense competition.And as such, we've seen a lot of technological advances that have created some secular pressures on the space. As well, when you pair that up with elevated financial leverage, all coming together at a time when the marginal cost of capital for companies has increased due to higher interest rates. Those are really some of the underlying forces at work that have driven underperformance in this sector.But some companies have managed to navigate this environment. And I would say by and large, it's those with really strong balance sheets. But that has really cast a shadow on this sector -- is the fundamental and financing issues.When you think about the bloated balance sheets that some of the other companies have had, they've been exploring a whole new set of transactions and, evaluating different options for their balance sheets. And that's probably the more sinister thing that we've seen in the market of late.Andrew Sheets: So, so tell me a little bit more about this. You know, what are some of the types of things that companies can do that often leave the bond holder unhappy?David Hamburger:  We all became all too aware of what private equity sponsors might do back in the heyday of LBOs, and we still live in that world today, and it's really fairly well known.You know, I've been in the credit markets for more than 20 years, but I can't recall a time we've seen so many management teams and controlling shareholders now that are at odds with their creditors because of elevated leverage and the business risks they face. So really, the prospect of real and expected liability management has created a lot of dislocation across companies’ capital structures.So, what have they done? We look and see companies that have been exploring liability manage, taking advantage of weak protections in certain credit documentation in their structure at the expense of other creditors in the same capital structure. So, we have one company where you see this dislocation in their term loans. They have the same pool of collateral between two different term loans with two different maturities. The later dated maturity is trading higher than the nearer dated maturity, strictly or solely because of the better protections in that documentation. And the premise being, you can negotiate with that class of creditors, give them an advantaged position in the capital structure at the expense of other creditors -- in order to somehow manage the balance sheet and manage those liabilities.Andrew Sheets: And David, is it fair to say that this is a direct outcrop of, you know -- a term some people might have heard of -- of covenant light debt, where, you know, usually debt has certain legal protections that mean that the bondholder is more assured of getting paid back or not being made a less well off than other lenders. But you know, we did see some of that change during different, stronger market conditions. Is that a partial explanation of what's going on?David Hamburger: That's exactly right, Andrew. We are seeing the result, if I might say, the hangover from some of these covenant light deals that came to market over the last few years; almost to the point of speak to some clients and they will just want to know what is the vintage of that secured debt issue that you're talking about because there were certain years where they were far more flexible documentation and protections. And now, given where the equity markets are trading and the financing environment, you see a lot of those securities trading at severe discounts to par, which is unusual because, again, in my 20-year career, I've not often seen companies with billion-dollar equity market caps and bonds trading in the 20, 30, or 40 cents on the dollar.You would think that if a company had a substantial market cap, that their bonds would be trading closer to par and would have value. But what really the market's, I think, pricing in is this transference of value from creditors to shareholders; and the opportunity cost associated with these shareholders; or controlling shareholders or management teams looking to capture those discounts that they now see in their bonds; or in their loans to the benefit of equity shareholders -- really puts all constituents in the company's balance sheet, if you will, at odds with one another.Andrew Sheets: So, David, this is so interesting because again, I think, you know, for a lot of listeners, you can read the newspaper, you see the headlines, the market looks very strong and stable. And yet, there's definitely a tempest that's been brewing, you know, in your sector. For people who are investing in high yield TMT, what are you think the most important things that you're looking out for in your credit coverage?David Hamburger: Well, look, we're forced to really dig in and scrutinize these credit docs and really understand what protections are there, understanding how companies might navigate through those protections in order to prolong or preserve their equity value or the equity options in their companies.It's not like we're trying to be alarmists in saying this is a canary in the coal mine, but it is certainly a cautionary tale for any high yield investor to be well versed in those credit documentation, understanding the protections in those debt securities.And we have seen bondholders and creditors, largely even in loans, you know, get together in co-op agreements to push back on some of these aggressive liability management transactions. And that, I think, is really important in an environment where yields have come back in and, you know, where people look at opportunities and maybe we could, once again, see two things. One, a reach for yield, where you're looking at sectors that have underperformed. And secondly, should we get back into an environment of covenant light docks once again? So, I don't want to be talking about this again in a few years’ time. And it's not something that the market has helped resolve rather than just perpetuate.Andrew Sheets: David, it's fascinating as always. Thanks for taking the time to talk.David Hamburger: Thank you Andrew. Glad to be here.Andrew Sheets: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you get your podcast and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Chief Europe Economist explains why the region’s outlook over the next year is trending upward, including how higher growth will lead to lower interest rates this cycle.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Jens Eisenschmidt, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Europe Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I will discuss our outlook for Europe’s economy in the second half of 2024 and into next year. It’s Thursday, May 30 at 10am in Frankfurt.So, over the last year, we have had a relatively downbeat outlook for Europe's economy, but as we head into the second half of this year our view is decidedly more optimistic. After bottoming last year, euro area growth should reach 0.7 per cent annualized terms in 2024 and 1.2 per cent in 2025 on the back of stronger consumption and exports. Inflation is on its way to the European Central Bank’s target, paving the way for the ECB to start cutting rates in June with three cuts in 2024, for a total of 75 basis points, and four more cuts in 2025, for a total of 100 basis points.What’s particularly notable, though, is the set-up of this growth rebound is highly unusual for several reasons.Let's start with inflation. In a normal environment, higher growth leads to higher inflation and vice versa. This time is different. The euro area needs to grow faster to get inflation down. The reason is that faster growth should lead to better resource utilization in sectors characterized by labor hoarding or keeping a surplus of employees. This should keep unit labor costs – or how much a business pays its workers to produce one unit of output – in check. We’re expecting further wage increases, mostly driven by the catch-up with past inflation, and so higher productivity is a way to cushion the pass-through to prices.So again, just to repeat, we are in a cycle where we need higher growth to get inflation down and not as usual, we have higher growth and that gets us more inflation. Of course, there is a limit to that. If we get too much growth, that would be an issue potentially for the ECB. And if you get too little growth, that is another issue because then we won't get the productivity rebound.In some sense, you could think of the growth we need as a landing strip and we need to come in at that landing strip precisely; and so far, the signs are there that is exactly the picture we are getting in 2024 and 2025 in Europe.Now the monetary and fiscal policy mix is another area where this cycle stands out. So normally, monetary policy would tighten into an upswing and ease into a downturn, while fiscal policy would be expansionary in a downturn and contractionary in an upswing. Euro area monetary policy is currently restrictive – but it’s set to get less restrictive over time. The likelihood of rates coming down is hardly bad news for growth. But policymakers will need to take care to not reignite inflation in the process. So all of that gives rise to the gradualism that the European Central Bank has been signaling it will use in its policy easing approach. And again, think about the landing strip metaphor. If we are not gradual enough and we reignite a growth too much, and with it inflation, we might be exiting the landing strip in one way or the other.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research reflects on Japanese investors’ interest in the outcome of the upcoming presidential vote in the US.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the upcoming US elections.It's Wednesday, May 29th at 10:30am in New York.I recently returned from Tokyo, having attended and presented at Morgan Stanley's inaugural Japan summit. And while I was asked to present on topics ranging from our fixed income markets outlook to the role of Japan in an increasingly multipolar world, my one-on-one conversations always tracked back to the same client question: who will win the US election.Of course this is a matter of great importance globally. But the investor in Japan is particularly interested in whether possible election outcomes could disrupt their rosy economic outlook – either through new tariffs or increased geopolitical tensions between the US and China, and also North Korea. To that end, many were focused on polls showing former President Trump with sufficient support to win the election, asking how predictive this would be of the ultimate outcome. Here our view remains, for all investors, that polls aren't giving a reliable signal yet. The election is still several months away. And Trump doesn't have leads beyond a normal polling error in sufficient states to win the presidency. So, investors still need to consider the potential impacts of a variety of US electoral outcomes. That's perhaps not the most settling answer for investors, who strive to limit uncertainties. But we think it's the most honest one. And as we've been doing in this space all year, we'll continue to walk you through the outcomes, policy impacts, and resulting market effects you need to be aware of. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Chief Europe Equity Strategist explains why she is forecasting a 23 percent total return for European equities over the next year.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Marina Zavolock, Morgan Stanley’s Chief European Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss why our mid-year outlook extends our bullish view on European equities. It’s Tuesday, May 28, at 10am in London. We have recently updated our outlook for the year ahead, maintaining our bullish view on European equities as we fully incorporate and roll forward our mid-1990s “soft landing” playbook. Like today, the mid-1990's was a period where markets focused on rates, inflation, and related data above anything else. The US and Europe saw soft and “softish” landings, the Fed’s cutting cycle was slower than investors initially expected, and there was an undercurrent of technological innovation. European equities, in particular, are following the mid-1990s path closely, and that means both a mid-cycle extension and a strong market set-up. We have high conviction in our constructive European equities view and have recently raised our one year forward MSCI Europe Index target to 2,500 – 18 percent potential upside. This brings potential total return upside – if we incorporate dividends and buybacks – to 23 percent. So why do we remain bullish? Over the second half of this year in particular we anticipate European equities ongoing re-rating is likely to combine with an emerging European equities earnings recovery. We’ve just come out of one of the strongest earnings seasons Europe has had in several quarters and we anticipate this is only the beginning. Our earnings model projects 7.5 percent earnings growth by year end for MSCI Europe, which is almost double consensus estimates. On top of this, we think the market underappreciates a number of significant thematic tailwinds that benefit European equities. These include rising corporate confidence, an M&A cycle recovery that is leading the global trend, an imminent start to rate cuts, high and rising capital distributions including buybacks, and underappreciated AI diffusion. In terms of our sector preferences, structurally, we continue to prefer Europe’s quality growth sectors. These include Software, Aerospace & Defense, Pharma, and Semiconductors, along with the Banks sector. Shorter-term, we also believe a recovery in bond yield-sensitive stocks has begun, which is expected at this stage in our mid-1990s playbook. We expect this rally to be tactical and bumpy but ultimately more powerful than a similar rotation that occurred around the Fed pivot late last year. We recently upgraded Building & Construction to overweight to play this rotation. Although we believe European equities are in the sweet spot over the second half of 2024, we expect the bar for continued performance to become tougher by the time we get into first half of 2025. Also, our bear case incorporates rising geopolitical risks and lower-than-expected economic growth – the latter in line with our economists' bear case. A US election scenario that would bring a change in the status quo is also a risk for European equities, albeit it’s far more idiosyncratic than broad-based according to our in-depth analysis. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Head of Corporate Credit Research explains why moderate economic growth offers opportunities in credit markets – if investors choose carefully.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley, along with my colleagues, bring you a variety of perspectives Today, I'll be talking about our outlook for credit markets over the next 12 months.It's Friday, May 24th, at 9 a. m. in New York. Morgan Stanley's global economic and strategy teams have recently published our mid year outlook. Twice a year, all of us get together to take a step back, debating what we think the outlook could look like over the 12 months ahead. For credit, we think that backdrop still looks pretty good.Corporate credit, in representing lending to companies, is an asset class that loves moderation and hates extremes. An economy that's too weak raises the risk that companies fail, and has been consistently bad for returns. But an economy that's too strong also causes challenges, as companies take more risks, the rewards of which often go to stockholders, not their lenders.The good news for credit is that Morgan Stanley's latest economic forecasts are absolutely full of moderation for economic growth. We see the U.S. growing at about 2 percent this year and next and Europe growing at about 1%. Right in that temperate zone, the credit usually finds optimal.We see inflation falling, with core inflation back to 2 percent in the U. S. and Europe over the next 12 months. And monetary policy should also moderate, with the Federal Reserve, European Central Bank, and the Bank of England All lowering interest rates as this inflation comes down.For credit, forecasts that expect moderate growth, moderating inflation, and moderating interest rates are exactly that down the fairway outcome that we think markets generally like. The challenge, of course, is that spreads have narrowed and lower risk premiums are discounting a lot of good news. So how do investors navigate richer valuations within what we think is still a very supportive economic backdrop?One thing we continue to like is leveraged loans, where yields and spreads we think are more attractive. In the U. S., yields on loans are still north of 9%. We like short dated investment grade bonds, which we think offer a good mix of income and stability, and also happen to correspond to the maturity range that our interest rate colleagues expect yields to see the largest decline.That should help total returns. And in Europe, we don't think spreads are particularly tight. And that should be further supported by relatively upbeat views on the European stock market from our equity strategies. Morgan Stanley's macroeconomic backdrop, which is full of moderation, is supportive for credit.Tighter valuations are a challenge, but given this moderate backdrop, we think they can stay expensive. We still think there are good opportunities within credit, but investors will have to pick their spots. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen, and share thoughts on the market with a friend or colleague today.

With cooling inflation and an expected drop for mortgage rates, will more affordable housing lead to a big spike in sales? Our Co-Heads of Securitized Product Research take stock of the US housing market. ----- Transcript -----Jay Bacow: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jay Bacow, co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley.James Egan: And I'm Jim Egan, the other co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley.Jay Bacow: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll discuss our outlook for mortgage rates and the housing market over the next 12 months.It's Thursday, May 23rd, at 1pm in New York.James Egan: Jay, I want to talk about mortgage rates. From November through January, mortgage rates decreased over 120 basis points. But then from February to May, they've given back more than half of that decline. Where are mortgage rates headed from here?Jay Bacow: So, day to day, week to week, it's hard to have a lot of conviction, a lot of things can happen. But, over the next 12 months, we think mortgage rates are coming down. We estimate that by summer 2025, the 30-year fixed rate mortgage will be roughly 6.25 per cent.James Egan: Alright, that is a significant amount lower than about 7 per cent where we are right now. And that's good news for affordability in the US housing market. What gets us there?Jay Bacow: We think inflation is going to cool, and our economists are forecasting that the Fed is going to cut their policy rate by 75 basis points this year and 100 basis points next year. In fact, our economists are forecasting eight of the G10 central banks to cut rates next year.Now, mortgage rates are 30 year fixed rate products, so they're based more on where the longer end of the treasury curve is than the front end. But our rate strategists think ten year notes are going to rally to 375 by next summer.When you combine all of that with our expectation for secondary mortgage rates to tighten versus treasuries, that's how we end up with that forecast for the primary rate to rally.James Egan: All right, I want to dig in there. I really like how you highlighted the secondary mortgage rates tightening versus treasuries. One thing I know that we've both gotten a lot of questions on over the course of the past year plus is how wide mortgages are trading versus treasuries right now. So, what do you think drives that tightening basis?Jay Bacow: There’s a lot of factors -- but in end, two of them that are always going to drive things are supply and demand. One of the interesting things is that while housing activity has picked up, we're near the decade high in the percentage of homes that are bought with all cash, which means that the supply of mortgages to the market is actually not that high.On the demand front, we think you're going to get demand from a broad spread of investors. We think there's been some money manager supported inflows into the mortgage market. We think that as the Fed cuts rates and you get the Basel III endgame resolution, domestic banks are going to come back to the market as they get more regulatory clarity.And then also as the Fed cuts rates, that means that FX (foreign exchange) hedging costs for overseas investors will be improved and so you think Japanese life insurance companies can go back to the market and we think there's going to be continued demand from Chinese commercial banks. But, if you get all of this support, then as mortgage rates come down, that should be good news on the affordability front in the housing market, right Jim?James Egan: Exactly. When we combine that decrease in mortgage rates with what our US economics team is saying will be about mid-single digit growth in nominal incomes, we get an improvement in affordability over the next 12 months that we've only seen a handful of times over the past 30 years.Jay Bacow: Now this six and a quarter forecast is certainly good news versus spot rates. It's almost two per cent below the peaks we saw last year, but I don't really think it solves the lock-in effect that we've discussed on this podcast previously.Close to 80 per cent of homeowners have a mortgage rate below 5 per cent. So, they're still out of the money versus our expectations for our mortgage rates going next year.James Egan: Right, and we think that's a very important point. You made the point earlier about thinking about supply and demand with respect to mortgage rates versus treasuries, and we're going to talk about it here in the housing market. We have to think about affordability improvement in terms of both that supply and demand piece.If we look back towards the start of this year, I'd say that demand increased a little bit faster, a little bit stronger than we thought. Typically, when you see sharp improvements in affordability, it doesn't always lead to immediate increases in sales volumes. However, what we saw from November to January seemed to be a little bit quicker to stir animal spirits, perhaps because of how healthy this improvement in affordability was. Home prices were still climbing. Mortgage rates weren't even coming down because the Fed was cutting; it was because of market expectations for future fed cuts in a soft landing environment. But on the supply side, while we expect for sale listing volumes to increase as rates come down, they aren't going to race higher because of that lock-in dynamic that you just described.Jay Bacow: So, Jim, you think more people will list their homes; but what will actually happen to sales volumes? Will people buy them?James Egan: Right. So, I think we have to delineate between existing home sales and new home sales here. Yes, we think existing listings are going to increase on the margins. New home inventory has already increased.Historically, new homes make up about 10 to 20 per cent of the for-sale inventory on a monthly basis. Right now, they're between 30 and 35 per cent, and that's been the case for a little while. So, when we think about our forecasts for sales volumes, we're confident that new home sales will increase more than existing home sales. And that that growth in new home sales will spur single unit starts to increase more than both of them. Our specific spot forecasts, 10 per cent growth in new home sales, 5 per cent growth in existing home sales, with single unit starts edging out a double digit return of about 15 per cent growth. Jay Bacow: Do you have specific spot forecasts for home prices as well? James Egan: We do. As supply increases, the pace of home price growth should slow from where it is right now. It's been accelerating for the past several months, but the absolute level of supply is still pretty tight. We're at 3.8 months of supply as we're recording this podcast. Any reading below 6 is really associated with home price growth, not just today, but at least over the course of the next 6 months -- and we're well below 6 months of inventory.Right now, home prices are growing at about 6.5 per cent. We think they're growing to slow to about 2 per cent by the end of 2024, before accelerating to 3 per cent in 2025. So, while growing inventory leads to deceleration, tight inventory keeps home price appreciation positive.Jay Bacow: Alright so, home sale activity is going to pick up. It's going to be led by starts, which we think will be up 15 percent and more new home sales than existing home sales. There’s new home sales up 10 per cent. Home prices we now think will end the year positive; up 2 per cent in 2024 and up 3 per cent in 2025.Jim, always a pleasure talking.James Egan: Great speaking with you, Jay.Jay Bacow: And thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Why is the US economy poised for a strong second half of the year, despite slowing GDP growth? Our Chief US Economist points to population growth, housing demand and anticipated Fed rate cuts. ----- Transcript -----Ellen Zentner: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ellen Zentner, Morgan Stanley's Chief US Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss our mid-year outlook for the US economy. As we near the midpoint of this year, we refresh our outlook for the second half of the year. In our base case, the US economy remains strong, but US GDP growth is slowing, and slowing from 3.1 percent on a fourth quarter over fourth quarter basis last year, to 2.1 percent this year and in 2025.Okay, so what's behind the continued strength? Well, it's something we've been intensely following this year. Faster immigration and population growth will continue to expand the labor supply and support economic activity, and all without increasing inflationary pressures. So, whereas the mid-pandemic labor market was characterized by persistent shortage of labor, the supply of labor is now increasing, and we think will outstrip demand this year.This will drive the unemployment rate higher, which we expect will end this year half a point above 2023 at 4.2 per cent and rise further to 4.5 per cent in 2025. And wage gains should moderate further as the unemployment rate rises. We think consumer activity will continue to slow this year and into 2025 as that cooling labor market weighs on growth in real disposable income and elevated interest rates keep borrowing costs high.Tight lending standards also limit credit availability. That said, we do think lower rates are on the horizon, and this should spur a pickup in housing demand and goods spending around the middle of next year. In fact, after substantial reflation numbers in the first quarter of 2024, we expect lower inflation numbers ahead. We've already seen that in the April data, as rents, goods, and services prices decelerate. The Fed has held the policy rate steady at a range of 5.25 to 5.5 per cent since July 2023, and we expect it will deliver the first quarter point cut in September this year. In total, we expect three quarter point cuts this year, and four more by the middle of next year, which lowers the policy rate to around 4.5 per cent in the fourth quarter this year to about 3.5 per cent in the fourth quarter of 2025. But even before rate cuts, the Fed has announced it will start phasing out Quantitative Tightening, or QT, in June. We expect QT to end around March 2025, when the Fed's balance sheet is a little above 3 trillion.Finally, let's talk about housing. We expect continued growth in residential investment through 2025, with a rapid rise in housing starts, solid new home sales, and a bit more turnover in existing home sales as mortgage rates fall. Home building and increased brokerage commissions should keep residential investment on the boil, posting a 4.6 per cent rise on a 4th quarter over 4th quarter basis this year and 3.2 per cent in 2025. Our residential investment forecasts are a good deal stronger than we expected in the year ahead outlook we published last November. Booming first quarter growth probably reflected a combination of the warm winter and the temporary downswing in mortgage rates. We don't expect the same outperformance later in the year. But at the same time, housing demand is greater than we had anticipated amid that faster population growth. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Cross-Asset Strategist and Global Chief Economist discuss the state of asset markets at the midway point of 2024, and why the current backdrop suggests positive directions for several key markets.----- Transcript -----Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist.Serena Tang: And I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's Chief Global Cross Asset Strategist.Seth Carpenter: And yesterday, Serena, you and I discussed Morgan Stanley's global economic mid-year outlook. And today, I'm going to turn the tables on you, and we'll talk about asset markets.It's Tuesday, May 21st, at 10am in New York.Okay, so yesterday we talked about all sorts of different parts of the macro environment. Disinflation, inflation, central bank policy, growth. But when you think about all of that -- that macro backdrop -- what does it mean to you for markets across the world?Serena Tang: Right, I think the outlook laid out by your team of stable growth, disinflation, rate cuts. That is a great backdrop for risk assets, one of the reasons why we got overweight in global equities. Now, there will likely be low visibility and uncertainty beyond year end, and why we recommend investors should focus on the triple C's of cheap optionality, convexity, and carry.That very benign backdrop suggests more bullish possibilities. Your team has noted several times now that the patterns we're seeing now and what we expect have parallels to what happened in the mid 1990s -- when the Fed cut in small increments, US growth was sustained at high levels, and the labor market was strong. And now I'm not suggesting that this is 1990s and we should party like it. But just that the last time we found ourselves in this kind of benign macro environment, risk assets -- actually most markets did really well.Seth Carpenter: So, I will say the 1990s was a pretty good decade for me. However, you mentioned some uncertainty ahead, low visibility. We titled our macroeconomic outlook ‘Are we there yet?’ Because I agree, we do feel like we're on a path to something pretty good, but we're not out of the woods yet. So, when you say there's some low visibility about where asset markets are going, maybe beyond year end, what do you mean by that?Serena Tang: I think there's less visibility going into 2025. And specifically, I'm talking about the US elections. When I think about the range of possible outcomes, all I can confidently say is that it's wide, which I think you can see reflected in our strategist's latest forecast. Most teams actually have relatively constructive forecast returns for their assets in the base case, but there's an unusually wide gap between their bull and bear cases for bond and equity markets.Seth Carpenter: Let me narrow it down a little bit because equity markets have actually performed pretty well during the first half of the year. So what do you think is going to happen specifically with equities going forward? How should we be thinking about equity markets per se?Serena Tang: Equities have rallied a lot, but we've actually gotten more bullish. I talked about the three Cs of cheap optionality, convexity, and carry earlier, and I think European and Japanese equities really tick these boxes. Both of these markets also have above average dividend yields, especially for a dollar-based FX hedge investor.Serena Tang: Where we think there might be some underperformance is really in EM equities, but it's a bit nuanced. Our China equity strategy team thinks that consensus mid-teens earnings growth expectation for this year will still likely to disappoint given the Chinese growth forecast that you talked about yesterday.Seth Carpenter: Alright, in that case. Let me flip over to fixed income. A lot of that is often driven by central banks. Around the world, you just mentioned EM equities may be struggling a little bit. A lot of EM central banks are either cutting a little bit ahead of the Fed, but being cautious, worrying about not getting too far ahead of the Fed. So, if that's what's going on with policy rates at the very front end of the curve, what's happening in fixed income more broadly?Serena Tang: We generally see government bond yields lower over the forecast horizon for two reasons. On your team's forecast of central banks cutting rates and also in the US, an optical rise in the unemployment rate, our macro strategy team forecasts for the 10 year U.S. Treasury yields to fall to just above 4 per cent by the end of this year. And because government bond yields will be coming down, we also expect yields for spread products like agency MBS, investment grade, etc. to also come down. But I think for these spread products, returns can be positive beyond that duration piece.Serena Tang: So, credit loves moderation, and I think the mild growth backdrop your team is forecasting for is exactly that. US fixed income more generally should also see renewed flows from Japanese investors as FX hedging costs come down over the next six months. All of this supports tighter than average spreads.Seth Carpenter: Okay, so we talked about equities, we talked about fixed income. Big asset class that we haven't talked about yet are commodities. How bullish are you going into the summer? What do you think is going to go on and can that bullish view that you guys have last even longer?Serena Tang: So for crude oil, our strategists see market tightness over the summer, which could drive Brent to about $90 per barrel. You have demand coming in stronger than expected, and of course OPEC has extended its production agreement.But we also don't really expect prices to hold over the medium term. Non-OPEC supply should meet most of the global demand growth later this year and into 2025, which sort of leaves very little room for OPEC to unwind production cuts. We expect Brent to revert back steadily to its long-term anchor, which is probably somewhere around $80 per barrel.Serena Tang: For copper, it’s actually our metal strategist's top pick right now, and it's very much driven by, I think, tightening supply and demand balance. You've had significant mine supply disruptions, but also better than expected demand and new drivers such as -- we've talked about AI a lot, data centers and increasing participation.Serena Tang: And on gold, in our view, pricing is likely to remain pretty choppy as investors have to weigh inflation risk, incoming data, and the Fed path. But historically, that first rate cut tends to be a very positive catalyst for gold. And we see risks more skewed to our bull case at the moment.Seth Carpenter: Okay, so talked about equities, talked about fixed income, talked about commodities. These are global markets, and often when investors are looking around the world and thinking about what it means for them, currencies come into it, and everybody's always going to be looking at the dollar. So why don't you run us through the Morgan Stanley view on where the US dollar is going to go over the rest of this year, and maybe over the next 12 months.Serena Tang: The short answer is we see the dollar staying stronger for longer. Yes, we expect central banks to begin cutting this year. But the pace of cuts and ultimate destinations are likely to vary widely. Now another potential dollar tailwind is an increased risk premium being priced for the 2024 US elections. We think that investors may begin to price in material risks to dollar positive changes in US foreign and trade policy as the election approaches, which we assume will sort of begin ramping up in the third quarter.Seth Carpenter: All right, let's step back from the details. I want you to bring us home now. Give me some strategy. So where should people lean in, where should we be looking for the best returns and where do we need to be super cautious?Serena Tang: In our asset allocation recommendation, we recommend overweight in global equities, overweight in spread products, equal weight in commodities, and underweight in cash.We really like European and Japanese equities on the back of pretty strong earnings revision, attractive relative valuations, and good carry for a dollar based investor. We like spread products. Not so much that our strategists are not expecting duration to do well. We are still expecting yields to come down.Serena Tang: Where we are most cautious on, really, continues to be EM equities. From a very top down perspective, the outlook we have is constructive stable growth, continued disinflation, rate cuts. These make for a good environment for risk assets. But uncertainties beyond year end, that really argues for investors to look for assets which have those triple Cs, cheap optionality, convexity, and carry.And we think Japanese and European equities and spread products within fixed income take those boxes.Seth Carpenter: Alright, looking at the clock, I'm going to have to cut you off there. I could talk to you all day. Thank you for coming in and letting me turn the tables relative to yesterday when you were asking me all the questions.Serena Tang: Great speaking with you, Seth. And yes, I know we can go on forever.Seth Carpenter: And thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you get your podcasts. And share this episode with a friend or a colleague today.

Our Head of Corporate Credit Research explains why the debt of high-rated EM countries is a viable alternative for investors looking for high yields with longer duration.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about why – for buyers of investment grade bonds – we see better value in Emerging Markets. It's Friday May 17th at 2pm in London.This is a good backdrop for corporate credit. The asset class loves moderation and our forecasts at Morgan Stanley see a US soft landing with growth about 2 percent comfortably above recession, but also not so strong that we think we need further rate increases from the Federal Reserve. Corporate balance sheets are in good shape, especially in the financial sector and the demand for investment grade corporate bonds remains high – thanks to yields, which hover around five and a half percent.For all these reasons, even though the additional yield that you currently get on corporate bonds, relative to say government bonds is low, we think that spread can remain around current levels, given this unusually favorable backdrop. But we're less confident about longer maturity bonds. Here, credit spreads are much more extreme, near their lowest levels than 20 years. So, what can investors do if they're looking to get some of the advantages of this macro backdrop but still access higher risk premiums.For investors who are looking for high rated yield with longer duration, we see a better alternative: the debt of high rated countries in the Emerging Markets, or EM. Adjusting for rating, high grade Emerging Market debt currently trades at a discount to corporate bonds. That is for bonds of similar ratings, the spreads on EM debt are generally higher. And this is even more pronounced when we're looking at those longer dated borrowings; the bonds with the maturity over 10 years. In investment grade credit, you get paid relatively little incremental risk premium to lend to a company over 30 years, relative to lending it to 10. But that's not the case in Emerging Market sovereigns. There, these curves are steep. The incremental premium you get for lending at a longer maturity is much higher. So, what's driving this difference? Well one has been relatively different flows between these different but related asset classes. Corporate bonds have been very popular with investors, enjoying strong inflows year to date. But Emerging Market bond funds have not, and have seen money come out. Relatively weaker flows may help explain why risk premiums in the EM debt market are higher.Another reason is that the same EM investors who are often seeing outflows have been asked to buy an unusually large amount of EM bonds. Issuance from Emerging Market sovereigns has been unusually high year to date and unusually focused on longer dated debt. We think this may help explain why Emerging Market risk premiums are even higher for longer dated bonds. The good news? Our EM strategy team thinks some of this issuance surge will moderate in the second half of the year. It's a good backdrop for high rated credit and this week's CPI number, which showed continued moderation. And inflation is further reinforcing the idea that the US can see a soft landing. The challenge is that – that good news has tightened spreads in the corporate market.While we think those risk premiums can stay low, we currently see better relative value for investors, looking for yield and risk premium in high-rated EM sovereigns – especially for those looking at longer maturities. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market wherever you get your podcasts and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you. 

Our research shows travelers are willing to spend more this summer than last. U.S. Thematic Strategist Michelle Weaver explains how this will impact the airline, cruise and lodging industries. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley’s US Thematic Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll talk about the summer travel trends we’re expecting to see this year. It’s Thursday, May 16th at 10am in New York. With Memorial Day just around the corner, most of us are getting really excited about our summer vacation plans. We recently ran a survey, and our work shows that nearly 60 percent of US consumers are planning to travel this summer. This figure though skews significantly higher for upper income consumers. 75 percent of consumers making $75,000 to $150,000 are planning to travel and this figure rises to 78 percent for those who make more than $150,000. And travel remains a key spending priority for higher-income consumers. They place travel as one of their top priorities when compared to other discretionary purchases. This picture reverses though when you look at lower-income consumers making less than $50,000 a year. Travel tends to be among their lowest priorities when they are thinking about their discretionary purchases.What really matters for companies though is if consumers are going to spend more this year than they did last year. And consumers who are planning a vacation are inclined to spend more this year, with 49 percent expecting to spend more and 16 percent intending to spend less. So that yields a net plus-32 percent increase in spending intentions for summer travel.And what does this mean for key players in the travel industry? For starters, let’s look at airlines, where demand no longer seems to be a market debate within the space. It’s remained very resilient so far in 2024, contrary to what many had feared when we were going into this year. Our Transportation Analyst also has a positive view of US Airlines, especially Premium carriers. And the reason: This category caters to high-end consumers who are more likely to fly regardless of the state of the economy. Since the pandemic, Premium air travel has been one of the fastest growing and likely most resilient parts of the US Airlines industry, with premium cabin outperforming the main cabin consistently. And then what’s in store for cruise companies this summer? The outlook seems to be broadly positive, according to our analysts. The largest cruise operators source the majority of their guests from the US. And these companies provide leisure travel – as opposed to business travel – almost exclusively, so their revenues are closely tied to the health of the US consumer. Of the 60 percent of consumers who are planning to travel this summer, 6 percent are planning a cruise. That’s a little bit lower than pre-COVID, but cruise passengers tend to skew older and more affluent. So, they take more than one vacation frequently. This keeps the outlook broadly supportive for cruise companies. Finally, let’s think about Gaming and Lodging. These are your hotels and casinos. Investor sentiment is generally cautious for this space, but our analyst believes the data is encouraging. Yes, there’s been a slowdown in demand, compounded by continued – but moderating – labor inflation. This has created margin pressure for companies with higher operating leverage but the data suggests that upscale and luxury operators are outpacing midscale and economy ones. In addition, the Las Vegas strip, which tends to skew higher end, has outpaced regional casinos. And even when you look within the Las Vegas strip, baccarat is outpacing slot demand and luxury properties are outpacing more affordable options.So, all in all, the summer looks bright for travel operators, especially those who have more exposure to the high-end consumer. Thank you for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research explains that the Biden administration’s new tariffs on Chinese imports are narrower than those of 2018 and 2019, but still send a signal about the economic relationship between the US and China.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the impact of newly announced tariffs by the United States. It's Wednesday, May 15th at 10:30am in New York.Yesterday, the Biden administration announced new tariffs on the import of certain goods from China. These include semiconductors, batteries, solar cells and critical minerals among other products. For investors, this might remind them of the tariff escalation in 2018 and 2019 that led to global economic concerns. But we’d caution investors not to arrive at similar conclusions from this latest action.Consider that the scope of this action is far more muted than the tariffs actions from a few years ago. New tariffs will affect a projected $18 billion of imports, or only about 0.5 percent of all China’s exports. And as our chief Asia economist Chetan Ahya has explained in his recent work, the sectors in scope for this round are areas where China has substantial spare capacity. Said differently, the tariffs are narrowly scoped and appear to be targeted at areas where the US perceives specific risk of imbalanced trade and market conditions. That contrasts with tariffs on roughly $360 billion of imports from China in the 2018-2019 period – a much broader approach that was in part aimed at forcing broad trade concessions from China but carried greater economic consequences by crimping corporate’s capital spending globally as they re-evaluated their production strategies. There is some signal for investors here though. While the scope of the Biden administration's efforts here are more narrow, it does signal something we’ve known for a few years now. There’s continuity across presidential administrations and across political parties in the US on the topic of the economic relationship with China. While each party has different tactics, there’s clear overlap in their goals, in particular on the idea that the US must continue taking steps to protect critical and emerging technologies in order to preserve its economic and national security. This suggests that the laws of gravity won’t apply to US tariffs any time soon, regardless of the US election outcome. So, the rewiring of the global economy in the emerging multipolar world will continue, and investors can still focus on some key regional beneficiaries of this secular trend – namely Mexico, India, and Japan.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Retail Analyst discusses the key strategies that have propelled a select few companies in U.S. consumer retail amid a challenging demand backdrop. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Simeon Gutman, Morgan Stanley’s Hardlines, Broadlines & Food Retail Analyst. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss how some retail businesses are responding to daunting consumer challenges. It’s Tuesday, May 14th at 10am in New York.There have been dramatic shifts within the consumer sector over the past three years. During the pandemic, we all had to redirect our spending away from services, such as travel and leisure, to various goods, which we were able to purchase online and have delivered at home. Consumer packaged goods, for example, experienced two years of outsized growth during the pandemic. But since 2022, consumption has been declining across the value chain. For some categories, this dynamic may not be a temporary, post-COVID phenomenon, but rather a continuation of a longer-standing secular trend that had started prior to the pandemic. For example, non-durable goods – such as clothing, footwear and food at home – were already losing wallet share pre-COVID. Grocery spend was losing to dining out, as consumers placed more value on convenience. And although some sectors experienced unprecedented pricing power between 2020 and 2023, they’re now seeing this pricing power decline as inflation moderates. Against this backdrop, Consumer Packaged Goods companies and retailers are attempting to find new growth levers in the face of stagnating – or even declining – sales and decreasing pricing power. A select few companies in US consumer retail, automotive, communication services and IT hardware have been able to navigate the current consumer environment of slowing growth. We believe there’s a powerful lesson in the combination of strategies these successful outliers have deployed to reposition themselves in the face of tepid demand. For example, these companies are shifting their value proposition by focusing on products in faster-growing markets. They are also exiting underperforming areas to optimize their core brand and product portfolios. They’re streamlining their internal operations by changing organizational structures, revamping their supply chains, and using AI to automate processes. All of this helps to reduce costs and enhance productivity. Successful retail companies are also looking to alternative revenue sources and profit pools to grow their businesses, focusing on higher growth areas within their industries. Discount retail is a prime example as it focuses on high margin digital media, which has the potential to lift operating profit margins for the entire sector. Furthermore, a shift to omni-channel has revolutionized Retail, by capturing greater consumer wallet share and reducing delivery costs. And finally, successful companies have prioritized free cash flow by divesting non-core assets in less profitable areas. Businesses that have been able to deploy these strategies have been rewarded by the market. They have seen their average 12-month price to earnings multiples expand more than 35 percent over the past five years, meaning that the market's outlook for these companies is considerably better than it was previously. Several of these strategies have also led to stronger top-line growth and margin expansion, which our US equity strategists identify as the two major drivers of shareholder value across consumer staples and consumer discretionary.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our experts highlight their biggest takeaways from the International Monetary Fund’s recent meetings, including which markets around the globe are on an upward trajectory.----- Transcript -----Simon Waever: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Simon Waever, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Emerging Markets, Sovereign Credit and Latin America Fixed income strategy. Neville Mandimika: And I'm Neville Mandimika from the Emerging Markets Credit Strategy team with a focus on Central and Eastern Europe, Middle East and Africa.Simon Waever: And on this episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll discuss what we believe investors should take away from the International Monetary Fund’s Spring Meetings in Washington, DC. It's Monday, May 13th at 10am in New York.Neville Mandimika: And it's 3 pm in London.To give some context, every year, the Spring Meetings of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank provide a forum for country officials, private sector market participants and academics to discuss critical global economic issues. This time around, the meetings were held against a backdrop, as you might imagine, of rising geopolitical tensions, monetary policy pivots, and limited fiscal space.Simon, we were both at the event, and I wanted to discuss what we took away from our own meetings, as well as discussions with other market participants. How would you describe the mood this time around compared to the annual meetings in October last year?Simon Waever: So, I would say sentiment was cautiously optimistic. Of course, it did happen in the backdrop of inflation; the first quarter not being as well behaved as everyone had hoped for. So that really put the focus on central banks being more cautious in their easing paths, which is actually a point the IMF also made back in October.But away from that, growth has held up better than expected. In the US for sure, but also more globally. So, I would say it could have been a lot worse.Neville Mandimika: Was it just me or there was a particular focus on fiscals this time around? What did you make of this?Simon Waever: No, there was for sure and interestingly it was focused on both developed economies and developing economies, which isn't usually the case. And I think it's clear that not only the IMF but also the markets are worried that we're still some distance away from stabilizing debt in most countries. And not only that but that it's going to be hard to close that gap due to lower growth and spending pressures. So that meant that there was a lot of discussions on how much term premier there needs to be in government bond curves and whether they need to be steeper.Neville Mandimika: It's often very difficult to talk about, you know, the global economic dynamics without talking about AI, which seems to be the catchphrase this year. How is the fund viewing this in light of the potential for the global economy?Simon Waever: So, the issue is that the IMF has often had to revise down medium-term growth outlook; something that it pretty much had to do every year since 2010, actually. And today it stands at only 2.8 globally. If you look at the IMF's publications, they attribute the key reasons to this to misallocation of capital and labor.But what they also did this time around was look at what could turn it around; and maybe unsurprisingly structural reforms that reduces that misallocation would be the larger potential factor that could boost this up again. They estimate about around 1.2 per cent of GDP. But then to your point the adoption of AI is seen as another new driver.Of course, it's also a lot more uncertain because there needs to be a lot of a lot more work done around it. But they think it could add nearly one percentage point to global growth in a positive scenario. But Neville, with that, let's dig deeper into the issues of developing countries which, after all, is the focus of the meetings. The cost of debt is rising, which has led to some countries experience debt distress. But from our side, we've also frequently pushed back against the idea that there is a growing debt crisis. So, coming back from the meetings, what kind of debt restructuring progress has been made? And how do you see it playing out for the remainder of the year? Neville Mandimika: Yeah, interestingly, there was still plenty of talk in the meetings about EM (emerging market) debt crisis, but the backdrop to the conversation was significantly better this time around compared to October 2023.Since last year, we've seen progress from Suriname, which is a small part of the Emerging Market Bond Index, close its restructuring, Zambia reaching a deal with private bondholders with the expectation that all of this could be buttoned up by June this year, multiple proposals in Sri Lanka and Ukraine making some progress.This gives me some hope that the number of sovereigns in default will be lower by the end of this year. And I think more importantly, we don't expect any country, any new country, to get into default -- as countries like Pakistan and Tunisia have made some progress in avoiding restructuring its own debt.The other important thing that came out from my vantage point is that the Global Sovereign Debt Roundtable seems to be making some progress, particularly on outlining the structure of EM debt crises, which is, you know, emphasizing parallel negotiations between official and private creditors and, of course, timely sharing of information between stakeholders.Simon Waever: Then another focus has been that the IMF has been making some concessions to try to increase financing for countries that need it. Do you think there was progress on this front? Neville Mandimika: Yeah, it certainly seems so. You know, there seems to be some momentum on that front. You'd remember that last year, there was a resolution to increase the IMF's lending capacity by increasing country quotas by 50 per cent. Once this is buttoned up, heavy borrowers like Egypt and Argentina would greatly benefit, I think.Until this is done, the fund extended its temporary higher access limits to allow countries to borrow more in the meantime. There was also increased dialogue on reducing surcharges, which is the additional interest payments the IMF imposes on borrowers. The reduction of these would greatly help the likes of Argentina and Ecuador. Unfortunately, not much concrete progress has been made on this front.Simon Waever: And then finally, across all the meetings we held, which countries did you come away more positive on and which ones would still be of concern?Neville Mandimika: Yeah, I certainly came out a lot more positive on Senegal, as fears of large policy changes like leaving the CFA franc were eased. Egypt was also another clear positive, given the commitment to reforms, despite large financing that was received earlier this year. Nigeria, there was also some momentum on this front as reforms is still very much front and center from the political authorities. And lastly, Turkey saw authorities affirming their commitment to fighting inflation and loosening the grip on the foreign exchange market.And I'll throw the same question to you, Simon. Which countries are you positive on?Simon Waever: Yeah, I mean, it was pretty hard to take away the excitement from Egypt, but I would say that Argentina is another country where people came away pretty positive. The imbalances are significant, but they're just making very good headway in unwinding them; and they have the support of the IMF to do so. Ecuador would be the other one where sentiment in general is positive. On the more cautious side, I would point towards those countries where fiscal deficits are heading in the wrong direction, which goes back to the worries about fiscals we spoke about earlier -- and Colombia is one such example.But with that, let's wrap it up. Neville, thanks for taking the time to talk.Neville Mandimika: Great speaking with you, Simon.Simon Waever: And as a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen to the podcast. It helps more people find the show.

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

Our Chief Fixed Income Strategist explains why the Federal Reserve’s most recent meeting was so consequential, and the likeliest path ahead for interest rates.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about last week’s FOMC meeting and its impact on fixed income markets.  It's Thursday, May 9th at 1pm in New York.Last week’s Fed meeting was consequential. It had a clear and unambiguous messaging about the path ahead for Fed’s monetary policy. Fed’s next move in policy rate is unlikely to be a hike. The Fed’s focus now is on how long the current target range for the fed funds rate will be maintained; and the next move, whenever it happens, is likely a cut. Importantly, the FOMC’s decision was unanimous and their statement maintained an overall easing bias.In the aftermath of recent upside surprises to inflation and the reaction in the rates market, many market participants, yours truly included, were apprehensive that the FOMC’s tone might be overtly hawkish. Turns out, that was not the case. By setting a very high bar for the next move to be a hike, the Fed’s message has meaningfully narrowed the distribution of outcomes for policy rates, at least in 2024 As our economists led by Ellen Zentner note, the two likely policy outcomes now are keeping the rates on hold or cutting. Given the prospect that policy rates may remain in the current target range, the negative carry of an inverted yield curve keeps us from pounding the table to move to outright long in duration, although the direction of travel does suggest that. We would note that Guneet Dhingra, our head of US interest rate strategy, sees better risk/reward in duration longs through 3 month 10 year receivers than in the very crowded curve steepener trade. In general, spread products in fixed income – agency MBS, corporate credit and securitized credit – stand to benefit the most from this notably less hawkish messaging, in our view.As Jay Bacow, our head of agency MBS strategy, observes, the backdrop in which tail risks of higher policy rates are much more remote than they were before the FOMC meeting is supportive for agency MBS. At current valuations, agency MBS offers an attractive expression for investors seeking to play for lower interest rates, lower interest rate volatility or both. Their high all-in yields have bolstered strong inflows and sustained demand for corporate credit across a wide range of investor types. If policy rates remain in the current range, we expect the demand for corporate credit to accelerate. If policy rates stay in the current range or go lower, pressures on interest coverage are unlikely to get worse going forward. Given their high single-digit all-in yields, we see an attractive risk/reward calculus favoring leveraged loans. We like expressing this view directly in loans as well as in securitized credit through CLO tranches.  In sum, the message from the Fed was clear and unambiguous. The policy rate path ahead is for rates to remain in the current range or decline, and the bar for the next move to be a hike is very high. This bodes well for a wide range of instruments in fixed income.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our expert panel explains the U.S. dollar’s current status as the primary global reserve currency and whether the euro and renminbi, or even crypto currencies are positioned to take over that role.Digital assets, sometimes known as cryptocurrency, are a digital representation of a value that function as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, or a store of value, but generally do not have legal tender status. Digital assets have no intrinsic value and there is no investment underlying digital assets. The value of digital assets is derived by market forces of supply and demand, and is therefore more volatile than traditional currencies’ value. Investing in digital assets is risky, and transacting in digital assets carries various risks, including but not limited to fraud, theft, market volatility, market manipulation, and cybersecurity failures—such as the risk of hacking, theft, programming bugs, and accidental loss. Additionally, there is no guarantee that any entity that currently accepts digital assets as payment will do so in the future. The volatility and unpredictability of the price of digital assets may lead to significant and immediate losses. It may not be possible to liquidate a digital assets position in a timely manner at a reasonable price.Regulation of digital assets continues to develop globally and, as such, federal, state, or foreign governments may restrict the use and exchange of any or all digital assets, further contributing to their volatility. Digital assets stored online are not insured and do not have the same protections or safeguards of bank deposits in the US or other jurisdictions. Digital assets can be exchanged for US dollars or other currencies, but are not generally backed nor supported by any government or central bank.Before purchasing, investors should note that risks applicable to one digital asset may not be the same risks applicable to other forms of digital assets. Markets and exchanges for digital assets are not currently regulated in the same manner and do not provide the customer protections available in equities, fixed income, options, futures, commodities or foreign exchange markets. Morgan Stanley and its affiliates do business that may relate to some of the digital assets or other related products discussed in Morgan Stanley Research. These could include market making, providing liquidity, fund management, commercial banking, extension of credit, investment services and investment banking.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income Research.James Lord: I'm James Lord, Head of FX Strategy for Emerging Markets.David Adams: And I'm Dave Adams, head of G10 FX Strategy.Michael Zezas: And on this episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll discuss whether the US status as the world's major reserve currency can be challenged, and how.It's Wednesday, May 8th, at 3pm in London.Last week, you both joined me to discuss the historic strength of the US dollar and its impact on the global economy. Today, I'd like us to dive into one aspect of the dollar's dominance, namely the fact that the dollar remains the primary global reserve asset.James, let's start with the basics. What is a reserve currency and why should investors care about this?James Lord: The most simplistic and straightforward definition of a reserve currency is simply that central banks around the world hold that currency as part of its foreign currency reserves. So, the set of reserve currencies in the world is defined by the revealed preferences of the world's central banks. They hold around 60 percent of those reserves in U.S. dollars, with the euro around 20 percent, and the rest divided up between the British pound, Japanese yen, Swiss franc, and more recently, the Chinese renminbi.But the true essence of a global reserve currency is broader than this, and it really revolves around which currency is most commonly used for cross border transactions of various kinds internationally. That could be international trade, and the US dollar is the most commonly used currency for trade invoicing, including for commodity prices. It could also be in cross border lending or in the foreign currency debt issuance that global companies and emerging market governments issue. These all involve cross border transactions.But for me, two of the most powerful indications of a currency's global status.One, are third parties using it without the involvement of a home country? So, when Japan imports commodities from abroad, it probably pays for it in US dollars and the exporting country receives US dollars, even though the US is not involved in that transaction. And secondly, I think, which currency tends to strengthen when risk aversion rises in the global economy? That tends to be the US dollar because it remains the highly trusted asset and investors put a premium on safety.So why should investors care? Well, which currency would you want to own when global stock markets start to fall, and the global economy tends to head into recession? You want to be positioning in US dollars because that has historically been the exchange rate reaction to those kinds of events.Michael Zezas: And so, Dave, what's the dollar's current status as a reserve currency?David Adams: The dollar is the most dominant currency and has been for almost a hundred years. We looked at a lot of different ways to measure currency dominance or reserve currency status, and the dollar really does reign supreme in all of them.It is the highest share of global FX reserves, as James mentioned. It is the highest share of usage to invoice global trade. It's got the highest usage for cross border lending by banks. And when corporates or foreign governments borrow in foreign currency, it's usually in dollars. This dominant status has been pretty stable over recent decades and doesn't really show any major signs of abating at this point.Michael Zezas: And the British pound was the first truly global reserve currency. How and when did it lose its position?David Adams: It surprises investors how quick it really was. It only took about 10 years from 1913 to 1923 for the pound to begin losing its crown to king Dollar. But of course, such a quick change requires a shock with the enormity of the First World War.It's worth remembering that the war fundamentally shifted the US' role in the global economy, bringing it from a large but regional second tier financial power to a global financial powerhouse. Shocks like that are pretty rare. But the lesson I really draw from this period is that a necessary condition for a currency like sterling to lose its dominant status is a credible alternative waiting in the wings.In the absence of that credible alternative, changes in dominance are at most gradual and at least minimal.Michael Zezas: This is helpful background about the British pound. Now let's talk about potential challengers to the dollar status as the world's major reserve currency. The currency most often discussed in this regard is the Chinese renminbi. James, what's your view on this?James Lord: It seems unlikely to challenge the US dollar meaningfully any time soon. To do so, we think China would need to relax control of its currency and open the capital account. It doesn't seem likely that Beijing will want to do this any time soon. And global investors remain concerned about the outlook for the Chinese economy, and so are probably unwilling to hold substantial amounts of RNB denominated assets. China may make some progress in denominating more of its bilateral trade in US dollars, but the impact that that has on global metrics of currency dominance is likely to be incremental.David Adams: It’s an interesting point, James, because when we talk to investors, there does seem to be an increasing concern about the end of dollar dominance driven by both a perceived unsustainable fiscal outlook and concerns about sanctions overreach.Mike, what do you think about these in the context of dollar dominance?Michael Zezas: So, I understand the concern, but for the foreseeable future, there's not much to it. Depending on the election outcome in the US, there's some fiscal expansion on the table, but it's not egregious in our view, and unless we think the Fed can't fight inflation -- and our economists definitely think they can -- then it's hard to see a channel toward the dollar becoming an unstable currency, which I believe is what you're saying is one of the very important things here.But James, in your view, are there alternatives to the US led financial system?James Lord: At present, no, not really. I think, as I mentioned in last week's episode, few economies and markets can really match the liquidity and the safety that the US financial system offers. The Eurozone is a possible contender, but that region offers a suboptimal currency union, given the lack of common fiscal policy; and its capital markets there are just simply not deep enough.Michael Zezas: And Dave, could cryptocurrency serve as an alternative reserve currency?David Adams: It's a question we get from time to time. I think a challenge crypto faces as an alternative dominant currency is its store of value function. One of the key functions of a dominant currency is its use for cross border transactions. It greases the wheels of foreign trade. Stability and value is important here. Now, usually when we talk to investors about value stability, they think in terms of downside. What's the risk I lose money holding this asset?But when we think about currencies and trade, asset appreciation is important too. If I'm holding a crypto coin that rises, say, 10 per cent a month, I'm less likely to use that for trade and instead just hoard it in my wallet to benefit from its price appreciation. Now, reasonable people can disagree about whether cryptocurrencies are going to appreciate or depreciate, but I'd argue that the best outcome for a dominant currency is neither. Stability and value that allows it to function as a medium of exchange rather than as an asset.Michael Zezas: So, James, Dave, bottom line, king dollar doesn't really have any challengers.James Lord: Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.Michael Zezas: Well, both of you, thanks for taking the time to talk.David Adams: Thanks much for having us.James Lord: Yeah, great speaking with you, Mike.Michael Zezas: And as a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

As the U.S. economy continues to send mixed signals, our CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist explains how markets are likely to oscillate between “soft landing” and “no landing” outcomes. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the higher-than-normal uncertainty in economic data and its impact on markets. It's Tuesday, May 7th at 1:30 pm in New York. So let’s get after it. In recent research, I’ve discussed how markets are likely to oscillate between the "soft landing" and “no landing" outcomes in today's late cycle environment. Continued mixed and unpredictable macro data should foster that back and forth, and last week was a microcosm in that respect. Tuesday's Employment Cost Index report came in stronger than expected, leading to a rise in the 10-year Treasury yield to nearly 4.7 per cent. Meanwhile, the Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index turned down, falling to its lowest level since July of 2022. On Friday, the equity market rose sharply as bond yields fell on the back of a weaker labor report, while the ISM Services headline series fell to its lowest level since December of 2022. In our view, this uncertain economic backdrop warrants an investment approach that can work as market pricing and sector/factor leadership bounces between these potential outcomes. As such, we recommend a barbell of quality cyclicals which should outperform in a "no landing" scenario and quality growth, the relative winner in a "soft landing.” One might even want to consider adding a bit of exposure to defensive sectors like Utilities and Staples in the event that growth slows further.  Meanwhile, last week's Fed meeting materialized largely as expected. Chair Powell expressed somewhat lower confidence on the timing of the first cut given recent inflation data, but he pushed  back on the notion that the next move would be a hike which eased some concerns going into the  meeting. The April Consumer Price Index released on May 15th is the next key macro event informing the path of monetary policy and the market's pricing of that path. As usual, the price reaction on the back of this release may be more important than the data itself given how influential price action has been on investor sentiment amid an uncertain macro set up. On the rate front, our view remains consistent with our recent research—the relationship between the 6-month rate of change on the 10-year yield and the S&P 500 price earnings multiple implies that yields around current levels are about 10 per cent headwind to valuation through the end of June but a tailwind thereafter, all else equal.Given the uncertainty and unpredictability of the economic data more recently, we think it's useful to look at the technicals for insight into what comes next. In early April, we highlighted that the breakdown in the S&P 500 from its well-defined uptrend was an important early warning sign that performance could become more challenged. Based on our analysis, this headwind to valuation is likely to remain with us through the end of June unless yields fall significantly in the near term. Assuming interest rates stay around current levels, stronger valuation support lies closer to 19 times earnings, which would also imply price support closer to the 200-day moving average or 4800.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today. 

Lisa Shalett is a member of Morgan Stanley’s Wealth Management Division and is not a member of Morgan Stanley’s Research Department. Unless otherwise indicated, her views are her own and may differ from the views of the Morgan Stanley Research Department and from the views of others within Morgan Stanley. Our CIO for Wealth Management, Lisa Shalett, and our Head of Corporate Credit Research continue their discussion of the impact of interest rates on different asset classes, the high concentration of value in equity markets and more.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market, and to part two of a conversation with Lisa Shalett, chief investment officer for Morgan Stanley wealth management. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of corporate credit research at Morgan Stanley.Today, we'll be continuing that conversation, focusing on how higher interest rates could impact asset classes, and also some recent work about the unusually high concentration of stocks within the equity market.We begin with Lisa's very topical question about how higher interest rates might impact credit. Lisa Shalett: So, Andrew, let me ask you this. From your perspective as the Global Head of Corporate Credit Research, what happens if we're, in fact, in this new regime of rates being higher for longer? Andrew Sheets: Yeah, thanks, Lisa. It seems more topical by the day as we see yields continuing to march higher. So I think like a lot of things in the market, it kind of depends a little bit on what the fundamental backdrop is that's driving those interest rates higher. Because if I think about the modern era for credit, which I’ll define as maybe the last 40 years, the tightest that we've ever seen corporate credit spreads was not when the Fed or the European central bank was buying bonds. It was not when you had lots of leverage building up in the financial system prior to the financial crisis. It was in the mid 90s when the economy was pretty good. The Fed had hiked rates a lot in [19]94 and then it cut them a little. And, you know, the mid nineties, I think, are one of the poster children for, kind of, a higher for longer rate environment amidst a pretty strong economy. So, if that is what we're looking at, we're looking at rates being higher for longer because the economic output of the US and other regions is generally stronger. I think that's an environment where you can have the overall credit market performing still pretty well. You'll certainly have dispersion around that as not every balance sheet, not every capital structure was planned, was created with that sort of rate environment in mind.Overall, if you had to say, is credit more afraid of a kind of higher for longer scenario or is it more afraid of, growth being a lot weaker than expected, but that would bring low rates. I actually think a lot of credit investors would much rather have a more stable growth environment, even if that brings somewhat fewer rate cuts and higher for longer rates.Lisa Shalett: One other thing, I know that the Global Investment Committee has been debating is this idea between the haves and the have nots that's been somewhat unique to this business cycle where, there's been a portion of the mega cap and large cap universes who have demonstrated, quite frankly, total insensitivity to interest rates because of their cash balances. Or because of their lack of need for actual borrowing. And then there's smaller midsize companies, these smaller cap or unprofitable tech companies, some of the companies that may have been born in the venture capital boom of the early 2020s. How is this have, have not, debate playing out in the credit markets? Are there parts of the credit markets that are starting to worry that there's a tail?Andrew Sheets: Yeah, I think that's just a fascinating question at the moment because we’ve lived in this very macro world where it seemed like big picture questions about central banks: Will we go into recession? What will commodity prices do is driving everything. And even this week, questions about interest rates are dominating the headlines on TV and on the news.But I think if you peel things back a little bit, this is an incredibly micro market, you know, we're seeing some of the lowest correlations and co-movement between individual stocks in the US and Europe that we haven't in 15 years. If I think about the credit market, the credit market is not just sailing into this environment, happy go lucky, no risk on the horizon. It's showing some of the highest tiering that we've seen in a very long time between CCC rated issuers, which is the lowest rated, main part of performing credit and Single-B issuers, which are still below investment grade rated, but are somewhat better. Market is charging a very high price premium between those two, which suggests that it is exactly as you mentioned, differentiating based on business model strength and level of leverage and the likes.So, this environment of differentiation -- where the overall market is kind of okay, but you have lots of churning below the surface -- I think it's a very accurate description of credit. I think it's a very accurate description of the broader market, and it's certainly something that we're seeing investors take advantage of we see it in the data.Andrew Sheets: Lisa, you recently published a special report on the consequences of concentration, which focuses on some of these mega cap stocks and how they may present underappreciated risks for investors. What were the key takeaways from that that we should keep in mind when it comes to market concentration and how should we think about that?Lisa Shalett: The fundamental point we were trying to make -- and it really has to do with some of the unintended risks potentially that passive investors may be embracing that they don't fully appreciate -- is really through the end of 2023, US equity indices became extraordinarily, concentrated; where the top 10 names were accounting for greater than, a third of the market capitalization. And history has shown that such high levels of concentration are rarely sustainable. But what was particularly unique about the era of the Magnificent Seven or these top 10 mega cap tech stocks is not only were they a huge portion of the whole index, but in many ways they had become correlated to one another, right? Both, in terms of their trading dynamics and their valuations, but in terms of their factor exposures, right? They were all momentum oriented. They were all tech stocks. They were all moving on an AI, narrative. In many cases, they had begun competing with each other; one another directly in businesses, like the cloud, like streaming services and media, et cetera.Andrew Sheets: And Lisa, kind of further on that idea, I assume that one counterpoint that you get to this work is that some of these very large mega cap names are just great companies. They've got strong competitive positions; they've got opportunities for future growth. As an investor, how do you think about how much you are supposed to pay up for quality, so to speak? And, you know, maybe you could talk just a little bit more about how you see the valuations of some of these larger names in the market.Lisa Shalett: What we always remind clients is, there is no doubt that, these are great companies and they have cash flows, footprints, dominant positions, and markets that are growing. But the question is twofold. When is that story fully discounted, right?And when do great companies cease to be great stocks? And if you look back in history, history is littered with great companies who cease to be great stocks and very often, clients quote unquote never saw it coming because they hung their hat on this idea, but it's a great company.Andrew Sheets: Any parting thoughts as we move closer to the midpoint for 2024?Lisa Shalett: The line that I'm using most with clients is that, I fundamentally believe that uncertainty in terms of the economic scenarios that could play out from here. Whether we're talking about a no landing, we're talking about a hard landing, we talk about a stagflation. And the policy responses to that, whether it's the timing of the Fed, and what they do. And what's their mix between balance sheet and rates, and then what happens post the presidential elections in the US. And is there a policy change that shifts some of the growth drivers in the economy. I just think overall uncertainty is rising through the end of the year, and that continues to argue, for a position as we've noted, where clients and their advisors are particularly active towards risk management, and where the premium to diversification is above average. Andrew Sheets: Lisa, thanks for taking the time to talk. Hope we can have you back again soon.Lisa Shalett: It's great to speak with you, as always, Andrew.Andrew Sheets: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts in the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you get your podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

Lisa Shalett, our CIO for Wealth Management, and our Head of Corporate Credit Research discuss how to forecast expected returns over the long term, and whether historic cycles can help make sense of the market environment today. ----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Lisa Shalett: And I'm Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management.Andrew Sheets: And on part one of this special episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing long run expected returns across markets, how we think about cross asset correlations and portfolio construction, and what are the special considerations that investors might want to have in mind in the current environment.It's Friday, May 3rd at 4pm in London.Lisa Shalett: And it's 11am here in New York City.Andrew Sheets: Lisa, you and I are both members of Morgan Stanley's Global Investment Committee, which brings together nine of our firm's market, economic, and portfolio management thought leaders to provide a strategic framework for advice that we give to clients.Andrew Sheets: I wanted to touch on a unique aspect of that process because, you know, we're talking about estimating returns over different horizons for markets. And I think there's something that's kind of unique about that challenge. I mean, I think in most aspects of life, it's probably safe to say that the next decade is more uncertain than the next six months or next year. But when we're thinking about asset class returns, it's not quite as simple as that.Lisa Shalett: Not at all. And very often this is where our understanding of history needs to play a big part. When we think about the future, what are the patterns that we think might be persistent? And therefore, encourage us to think about long run trends and mean reversion. And what dynamics might actually be disconnected, or one offs that are characteristic of maybe structural change in the economy or geopolitics or in policymaking stance.Andrew Sheets: How have these latest capital market assumptions changed over the last year?Lisa Shalett: I think one of the most profound changes has been our willingness to embrace the idea that, in fact, we are in a higher for longer inflation regime. And that has a couple of implications. The first has to do, of course, with nominal returns. A higher inflation environment suggests that nominal returns are actually likely to be higher. The second really has to do with where we are in the cycle and its implications for correlations. We've been through periods most recently, where stocks and bonds were, in fact, anti-correlated; or there was a diversifying property, if you will to the 60 40 portfolio. Most recently, as inflation and level of interest rates has had profound importance to both stock valuations and bond valuations, we have found that these correlations have turned positive. And that creates a imperative, really, for clients to have to look elsewhere beyond cash, bonds, and stocks to get appropriate diversification in their portfolios.Andrew Sheets: Well, it's been less than a month since we updated our strategic recommendations. We've recently also published an update to our tactical asset allocation recommendations. So, Lisa, I guess I have two questions. One is, how do you think about these different horizons, the strategic versus the tactical? And can you also summarize what's changed?Lisa Shalett: Sure. You know, we very often talk to clients about the tactical horizon as being in the 12 to 18-month time frame.In our most recent adjustment, we moved from what had been roughly a, year old underweight in US large cap stocks, and we neutralized that, kind of quote unquote, back to benchmark. So, we added some exposure, and we funded that exposure by selling out of two other positions; one that we had had in both small cap value and small cap growth, as well as a position we had, that we had put on as a hedging oriented position and long duration treasuries.Now, some might say well, given the move in interest rates, is now the right time to take that hedge off? Our decision was basically premised on the fact that we're just not seeing the value in holding duration today given the inversion of the yield curve, and we're not getting paid for the risk of duration. And so, you know, we thought redeploying into those large cap stocks was prudent. Now, the other rationale, really has to do with earnings achievability. A lot of our thoughts were premised early in the year on this idea of a soft landing -- and a soft landing that would include deceleration in top line growth. And so, we were skeptical that could produce what consensus was looking for, which was a 10 to 11 per cent bottom line in 2024. As it turns out, it looks like, nominal GDP in the US is going to continue to persist at levels above 5 per cent, and that kind of tailwind, suggested that our skepticism would prove too conservative; and that, in fact, in a, 10 per cent bottom line could be achievable -- especially if it were being driven by manufacturing oriented companies who are seeing a pick up from global growth.Andrew Sheets: Lisa, maybe if I could just ask you kind of one more question related to some of these longer-term assumptions, you know, I imagine you get some skepticism to say, ‘Well, you know, is the market of today really comparable to, say, the stock market of 30 or 40 years ago? Can we really use metrics or mean reversion that's worked in the past when, you know, the world is different.’Lisa Shalett: Yeah, no, that, that's a fantastic question. I mean, some of the bigger variables in the world that we look at have shown over very long periods of time tendencies to cycle, whether those are things around the business cycle, valuations, cost of capital. Those are the types of variables that over long periods of time tend to mean revert. Same thing volatility. There tend to be long term characteristics. And the history book is pretty convincing that even if sometimes mean reversion is delayed, it ultimately plays out. But we do think that there are elements that we need to continue to question, right. One of them is, you know, has monetary policy and central bank intervention fundamentally changed the rules of the game? Where central banks implicitly or explicitly are managing market liquidity as much as they are managing cost of capital; and as a result, the way markets interact with the central bank and the guidance -- is that different?A second, factor has to do with market structure, right? And in a world where market prices were really being determined almost exclusively by fundamentals, right? There was this constant rotational shift between growth style and value style and where value could be determined in the market. As we've moved to a market that is increasingly driven by passive flows; there's a question that many market participants have raised about whether or not markets have gotten more inefficient because price discovery is actually, in the short run, not what's driving prices, but rather flows; passive flows are driving prices.And so, you know, how do we account for these leads and lags in prices being actually remarked to fundamentals? So those are at least two of the things that I know we are constantly tossing around as we think about our methodologies and capital market assumptions.Andrew Sheets: That was part one of my conversation with Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management.Look out for part two of our conversation, where we'll be discussing the impact of higher interest rates on asset classes. And how investors should think about an unusually concentrated stock market. Andrew Sheets: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts in the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you get your podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

Our Global Chief Economist explains why the rapid hikes, pause and pivot of the current interest rate cycle are reminiscent of the 1990s.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the current interest rate cycle and the parallels we can draw from the 1990s.It's Monday, April 8th, at 10am in New York.Last year, we reiterated the view that the 1990s remain a useful cycle to consider for understanding the current cycle. Our European equity strategy colleagues shared our view, and they've used that episode to inform their ‘out of consensus, bullish initiation on European equities’ in January. No two cycles are identical, but as we move closer to a Fed cut, we reassess the key aspects of that comparison.We had previously argued that the current interest rate cycle and the mid 90s cycle differ from the intervening cycles because the goal now is to bring inflation down, rather than preventing it from rising. Of course, inflation was already falling when the 1994 cycle started, in part, because of the recession in 1991.This cycle -- because much of the inflation was driven by COVID-related shocks, like supply chains for consumer goods and shifts in housing for shelter inflation -- inflation started falling rapidly from its peak before the first hike could have possibly had any effect. In recent months, our economic growth forecasts have been regularly revised upward, even as we have largely hit our expected path for inflation.A labor supply shock appears to be a contributing factor that accounts for some of that forecast deviation, although fiscal policy likely contributed to the real side's strength as well. Supply shocks to the labor market are an interesting point of comparison for the two cycles. In the 1990s, labor force growth was still benefiting from this multi-decade rise in labor force participation among females. The aggregate labor force participation rate did not reach its peak until 2000.Now, as we've noted in several publications, the surge in immigration is providing a similar supply side boost, at least for a couple of years. But the key lesson for me for the policy cycle is that monetary policy is not on a pre-set, predetermined course merely rising, peaking and then falling. Cycles can be nuanced. In 1994, the Fed hiked the funds rate to 6 per cent, paused at that peak and then cut 75 basis points over 1995 and 1996. After that, the next policy move was actually a hike, not a cut.Currently, we think the Fed starts cutting rates in June; and for now, we expect that cutting to continue into next year. But as our US team has noted, the supply side revisions mean that the path for policy next year is just highly uncertain and subject to review. From 1994 to 1996, job gains trended down, much like they have over the past two years.That slowing was reflective of a broader slowing in the economy that prompted the Fed to stop hiking and partially reverse course. So, should we expect the same now, only a very partial reversal? Well, it's too soon to tell, and as we've argued, the faster labor supply growth expands both aggregate demand and aggregate supply -- so a somewhat tighter policy stance could be appropriate.In 1996, inflation stopped falling, and subsequently rose into 1997, and it was that development that supported the Fed's decision to maintain their somewhat restrictive policy. But we can't forget, afterward, inflation resumed its downward trajectory, with core PCE inflation eventually falling below 1.5 per cent, suggesting that that need to stop cutting and resume hiking, well, probably needs to be re-examined.So, no two cycles match, and the comparison may break down. To date, the rapid hikes, pause and pivot, along with a seeming soft landing, keeps that comparison alive. The labor supply shock parallel is notable, but it also points to what might be, just might be, another possible parallel.In the late 1990s, there was a rise in labor productivity, and we've written here many times about the potential contributions that AI might bring to labor productivity in coming years.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our experts discuss U.S. dollar strength and its far-reaching impact on the global economy and the world’s stock markets.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income Research.James Lord: I'm James Lord, Head of FX Strategy for Emerging Markets.David Adams: And I'm Dave Adams, Head of G10 FX Strategy.Michael Zezas: And on this episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll discuss one of the most debated topics in world markets right now, the strength of the US dollar.It's Wednesday, May 1st, at 3 pm in London.Michael Zezas: Currencies around the world are falling as a strong US dollar continues its reign. This is an unusual situation. So much so that the finance ministers of Japan, South Korea, and the United States released a joint statement last month to address the effects being felt in Asia. The US dollar's dominance can have vast implications for the global economy and the world stock markets.So, I wanted to sit down with my colleagues, James and David, who are Morgan Stanley's currency strategy experts for emerging markets and developed markets. James, just how dominant is the US dollar right now and what's driving the strength?James Lord: So, we should distinguish between the role the US dollar plays as the world's dominant reserve currency and its value, which can go up and down for other reasons.Right now, the dollar remains just as dominant in the international monetary system as it has been over the past several decades, whilst it also happens to be very strong in terms of its value, as you mentioned. That strength in its value is really being driven by the continued outperformance of the US economy and the ongoing rise in US interest rates, while growth in the rest of the world is more subdued.The dollar's international role remains dominant simply because no other economy or market can match the depth of the US capital markets and the liquidity that it provides, both as a means of raising capital, but also as a store of value for investment; while also offering the strong protection of property rights, strong sovereign credit ratings, the rule of law, and an open capital account. There simply isn't another market that can challenge the US in that respect.Michael Zezas: And can you talk a bit more specifically about the various ways in which the dollar impacts the global economy?James Lord: So, one of the strongest impacts is through the price of the dollar, and the price of dollar debt, which have an impact beyond the borders of the US economy. Because the majority of foreign currency denominated debt that corporates outside of the US issue is denominated in US dollars, the interest rate that's set by the US Federal Reserve has a big impact on the cost of borrowing. It's also the same for many emerging market sovereigns that also issue heavily in US dollars. The US dollar is also used heavily in international trade, cross border lending, because the majority of international trade is denominated in US dollars. So, when US interest rates rise, it also tightens monetary conditions for the rest of the world. That is why the US Federal Reserve is often referred to as the world's central bank, even though Fed only sets policy with respect to the US economy.And the US dollar strengthens, as it has been over the past 10 years, it also makes it more challenging for countries that borrow in dollars to repay that debt, unless they have enough dollar assets.Again, that's another tightening of financial conditions for the rest of the world. I think it was a US Treasury Secretary from several decades ago who said that the US dollar is our currency, but your problem. And that neatly sums up the global influence the US dollar has.Michael Zezas: And David, nothing seems to typify the strength of the US dollar recently, like the currency moves we're seeing with the Japanese Yen. It looks very weak at the moment, and yet the Japanese stock market is very strong.David Adams: Yeah, weak is an understatement for the Japanese yen. In nominal terms, the yen is at its weakest level versus the dollar since 1990. And if we look in real terms, it hasn't been this weak since the late 1960s. Why it's weak is pretty easy to explain, though. It's monetary policy divergence. Theory tells us that as long as capital is free to move, a country can't both control its interest rates and control the exchange rate at the same time.G10 economies typically choose to control rates and leave their currencies to float, and the US and Japan are no exception. So, while the while the Fed's policy rate has risen to multi-decade highs, Japan's has been left basically unchanged, consistent with its economic fundamentals.Now, you mentioned Japanese equities, which is also increasingly important to this story. As foreign investors have deployed more cash into the Japanese stock market, a lot of them have hedged their FX [foreign exchange] exposure, which means they're buying back dollars in the forward market. The more that Japanese equities rise, the more hedges they add, increasing dollar demand versus the yen.So, put simply, the best outcome for dollar yen to keep rising is for US rates versus Japan and Japanese equities to both keep marching higher. And for a lot of investors, this seems increasingly like their base case.Michael Zezas: That makes sense. And yet, despite the dollar's clear dominance at the moment, the consensus view on the dollar is that it's going to get weaker. Why is that the case and what's the market missing?James Lord: Yeah, the consensus has been on the wrong side of the dollar call for quite a few years now, with a persistently bearish outlook, which has largely been incorrect. I think for the most part this is because the consensus has underestimated the strength of the US economy. It wasn't that long ago when the consensus was calling for a hard landing in the US economy and a pretty deep easing cycle from the Fed. And yet here we are with GDP growth north of 2 per cent and murmurings of another rate hike entering the narrative. I also wonder whether this debate about de-dollarization, whereby the dollar's global influence starts to wane, has impacted the sentiment of forecasters a bit as well.We have seen over the past three to four years much more noise in the media on this topic, and there appears to be a correlation between the extent to which the consensus is expecting dollar weakness and the number of media articles that are discussing the dollar's status as the world's major reserve currency.Maybe that's coincidence, but it's also consistent with our view that the market generally worries too much about this issue and the impact that it could have on the dollar's outlook.Michael Zezas: Now there've been a few notable changes to Morgan Stanley's macro forecasts over the last few weeks. Our US economist, Ellen Zentner revised up her forecast for US growth and inflation. And she also pushed back our expectations for the first Fed cut. Along with this, our US rate strategy team also revised their 10-year treasury yield expectations higher. Do these updates to the macro-outlook impact your bullish view on the dollar, both near term and longer term?David Adams: So, higher US rates are often helpful for the dollar, but we think some nuance is required. It's not that US rates are moving; it's why they're moving. And our four-regime dollar framework shows that increases or decreases in rates can give us very different dollar outcomes depending on the reason why rates are moving.So far this year, rates have been moving higher in a pretty benign risk environment. And in a world where US real interest rates rise alongside equities; the dollar tends to go nowhere in the aggregate. It gains versus low yielding funders like the Japanese yen, the Swiss franc, and the euro, but it tends to weaken versus those higher beta currencies with positive carry, like the Mexican peso. It's why we've been neutral on the dollar overall since the start of the year, but we still emphasize dollar strength, especially versus the euro.If rising rates were to start weighing on equities, that would lead the dollar to start rallying broadly, what we call Regime 3 of our framework. It's not our base case, but it's a risk we think markets are starting to get more nervous about. It suggests that the balance of risks are increasingly towards a higher dollar rather than a lower one.Michael Zezas: And finally, Dave, I wanted to ask about potential risks to the US dollar's current strength.David Adams: I'd say the clearest dollar negative risk for me is a rebound in European and Chinese growth. It's hard for investors to get excited about selling the dollar without a clear alternative to buy. A big rebound in rest of world growth could easily make those alternatives look more attractive, though how probable that outcome is remains debatable.Michael Zezas: Got it. So, this discussion of risk to the strong dollar may be a good time to pause. There's so much more to talk about here. We've barely scratched the surface. So, let's continue the conversation in the near future when we can talk more about the dollar status as the world's dominant reserve currency and potential challenges to that position.James Lord: This sounds like a great idea, Mike. Talk to you soon.David Adams: Likewise. Thanks for having me on the show and look forward to our next conversation.Michael Zezas: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our analysts survey the hurdles, opportunities and investment trends in energy renovation.Please note that Laurel Durkay is not a member of Morgan Stanley’s Research department. Unless otherwise indicated, her views are her own and may differ from the views of the Morgan Stanley Research department and from the views of others within Morgan Stanley. We make no claim that Ms Durkay’s representations are accurate or complete.----- Transcript -----Cedar Ekblom: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Cedar Ekblom, Equity Research Analyst, covering the European building and construction sector for Morgan Stanley Research.Laurel Durkay: And I'm Laurel Durkay, head of the Global Listed Real Assets Team within Morgan Stanley Investment Management.Cedar Ekblom: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll discuss the opportunities, risks, and latest investment trends when it comes to decarbonizing buildings.It's Tuesday, April 30th, at 2pm in London.Laurel Durkay: And 9am in New York.Cedar Ekblom: So, let's take a step back. Picture the gleaming towers of New York, London, or Hong Kong. Now think about these buildings breathing out carbon dioxide. The built environment is responsible for about a third of all global energy consumption and CO2 emissions. And so, if we want to get to Net Zero by 2050, which means emitting as much CO2 into the atmosphere as we take out of it, decarbonizing the building stock is essential.We've been doing a lot of work in Europe from the research side to try and understand how the investment trends are linked to this topic. But Laurel, I wanted to have you on the podcast because I wanted to understand how you're coming at it from the other side as a real estate investor and portfolio manager.Laurel Durkay: Yeah, Cedar, so I've seen some of your notes and I actually wasn't too surprised by your conclusion that energy renovation is seeing rising investment momentum in Europe. And this is despite the high upfront costs which are driven by government regulation, build cost inflation and higher interest rates.Cedar Ekblom: Yeah, we decided to do this work because we've had a lot of incoming from investors around what's happening from an investment perspective because we have seen a few government policy sidesteps or backtracks in the last 12 to 18 months around this topic. And so, we did some proprietary survey work in the residential, non-residential and providers of capital space. And we had some really interesting outcomes.I think the most interesting was that despite the fact that government subsidies have been dialed back a little bit, and the cost of investment has gone up because of inflation, actually private investment is really robust. And I think it's because there is a clear economic incentive that both homeowners and non-residential building owners are actually talking to.I mean, the first one is that homeowners are telling us that they see a 12 per cent increase in their home equity value if they green that property. And when we look at the non-residential space, what we're seeing is that renovation budgets are up 4 per cent year over year, even in a backdrop of higher interest rates.We see a huge runway of investment to come through on this topic. It is multi-decade. It's not going to happen overnight.You're talking about 2.8 trillion euros of investment by 2030 on our estimates, and that number extending to potentially 5 trillion euros by 2050. And that's just in Europe.Laurel Durkay: So the scope and need for investment really is huge. What do you think are the hurdles to delivering this opportunity?Cedar Ekblom: It's such an interesting question. I mean, there are so many. It's a little bit daunting at points when you think about it, but we're looking at really complicated projects. We're looking at skills bottlenecks. We're looking at upfront costs being really high. We're also looking at energy policy, not necessarily being aligned in every region in Europe.So yes, it's going to cost you a lot, but basically the respondents to the surveys tend to suggest that the benefits are actually starting to outweigh those potential costs.So, Laurel, I think that there's been some really interesting overlaps between what you and I cover, but from different angles. Let me pivot to you. How do you think about sustainability when it comes to real estate investment in your seat?Laurel Durkay: Yeah, bottom line is that understanding and incorporating sustainability and real estate investing really is very important; and we need to be aware not only of the physical risks, but also those transition risks associated with buildings. Taking a step back, what I'm observing is that real estate is seeing the sustainability focus really play out from three different constituents, and that's from investors, from regulators, and from tenants.So, from that investor perspective, we're seeing increasing demand for sustainable linked financing investing. Think green bonds. In some cases, you're actually seeing more favorable spreads for green financing versus traditional -- and ultimately that means better cash flows for companies.We also have that coming from the government. What we see is a continued evolution on regulations, and there have been several real estate specific laws being adopted across the states.All of these have the objective of providing greater transparency on carbon emissions with the ultimate goal of reducing such emissions. Now lastly, for tenants, we're seeing increasing demand for sustainable and best in class buildings.There's actually a growing body of evidence that shows sustainability is impacting leasing decisions and resulting in rent premiumsCedar Ekblom: So, how do we think about integrating ESG into your investment process?Laurel Durkay: So, there's a number of different metrics that we're looking at. We've run a proprietary analysis really trying to identify the most financially material factors. And we've ultimately concluded that the most important factors to be looking at are the absolute level of emissions and then the progress towards reducing those emissions -- water and waste usage, green certified buildings -- among a number of other factors.Ultimately, what we need to do is put together a framework that helps us assess the expenditures in order to really adhere to the regulatory requirements that I was just describing and ultimately allow the buildings to enjoy operational cost savings from implementing sustainability measures.This is really about future proofing buildings and enhancing value.Cedar Ekblom: So, it sounds like really a topic around trying to understand where they may or may not be stranded assets. We've spoken a lot about this topic in Europe, but maybe you could talk a little bit about what's happening from a sort of policy backdrop in the US.Laurel Durkay: Yeah, so government really is driving a lot of this change, both at a federal and at a state level. So, from a federal perspective, it really is more of a carrot as opposed to a stick with regard to implementation and adoption, really rewarding those who embrace sustainability. Now, interestingly, from a state perspective, it's a bit more of a stick than a carrot.Buildings not in compliance will be subject to fines and penalties. It's actually estimated that those penalties could be upwards of 1 billion annually by 2030. I should also mention that the SEC is getting really involved with the adoption of new climate related disclosure requirements.Now this isn't real estate specific, but it is impactful, nonetheless. New requirements mandate companies to disclose material Scope 1 and Scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions.Right now, less than 30 per cent of US companies even attempt to disclose Scope 3, and that's even less for real estate. Now Cedar, these scope three emissions are really where our worlds intersect most given the built environment.So, for a typical property owner, Scope 1 emissions represent about 25 per cent. Scope 2 is about 55 per cent of their missions. And then the remainder is going to be this Scope 3. But if you look at a developer and an owner, that's where you see Scope 3 emissions range between 80 to 95 per cent of their total emissions.Cedar Ekblom: So, if we look towards the future, what are you hearing from clients and colleagues about where sustainability investment trends go from here?Laurel Durkay: I think the trends have to be towards reducing these Scope 3 emissions, or maybe I just I hope that's where the trend is. You really need for building developers and owners to focus on development processes, building products and materials, and you need to see innovation within that space.Now, how about from your side, Cedar? What are you hearing from various companies you cover about the trends they foresee?Cedar Ekblom: The building materials and products businesses are really bullish on the long-term investment horizon on this topic. And we can see that in some of the data in Europe. The new build environment is under a lot of pressure. Higher interest rates have impacted affordability, and we have some activity in new build down 20 to 30 per cent.And yet when you look at the renovation and the refurbishment sector, we actually have a much more resilient backdrop.So look, our companies are really bullish on this. We ultimately see this manifesting in a higher multiple for businesses linked to this theme over the medium term. In all honesty, we're really just at the beginning of this theme. We think there's a lot of runway of investment still to come and we're keeping an eye on it.So, with that, Laurel, I'd like to say, thanks for taking the time to talk.Laurel Durkay: It was great speaking with you, Cedar.Cedar Ekblom: And as a reminder to our listeners, if you've enjoyed thoughts on the market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen to the podcast. It helps more people to find the show.

Our analysts find that despite the obvious differences between retail fashion and airlines, struggling brands in both industries can use a similar playbook for a turnaround.----- Transcript -----Ravi Shanker: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ravi Shanker, Morgan Stanley's North American Freight Transportation and Airlines Analyst.Alex Straton: And I'm Alex Straton, Morgan Stanley's North America Softlines, Retail and Brands Analyst.Ravi Shanker: On this episode of the podcast, we'll discuss some really surprising parallels between fashion, retail, and airlines.It's Monday, April 29th at 10am in New York.Now, you're probably wondering why we're talking about airlines and fashion retail in the same sentence. And that's because even though they may seem worlds apart, they actually have a lot in common. They're both highly cyclical industries driven by consumer spending, inventory pressure, and brand attrition over time.And so, we would argue that what applies to one industry actually has relevance to the other industry as well. So, Alex, you've been observing some remarkable turnaround stories in your space recently. Can you paint a picture of what some fashion retail businesses have done to engineer a successful turnaround? Maybe go over some of the fundamentals first?Alex Straton: What I'll lead with here is that in my North America apparel retail coverage, turnarounds are incredibly hard to come by, to the point where I'd argue I'm skeptical when any business tries to architect one. And part of that difficulty directly pertains to your question, Ravi -- the fundamental backdrop of the industry.So, what are we working with here? Apparel is a low single digit growing category here in North America, where the average retailer operates at a mid single digit plus margin level. This is super meager compared to other more profitable industries that Ravi and I don't necessarily have the joy of covering. But part of why my industry is characterized by such low operating performance is the fact that there are incredibly low barriers to entry in the space. And you can really see that in two dynamics.The first being how fragmented the competitive landscape is. That means that there are many players as opposed to consolidation across a select few. Just think of how many options you have out there as you shop for clothing and then how much that has changed over time. And then second, and somewhat due to that fragmentation, the category has historically been deflationary, meaning prices have actually fallen over time as retailers compete mostly on price to garner consumer attention and market share.So put differently, historically, retailers’ key tool for drawing in the consumer and driving sales has been based on being price competitive, often through promotions and discounting, which, along with other structural headwinds, like declining mall traffic, e-commerce growth and then rising wages, rent and product input costs has actually meant the average retailers’ margin was in a steady and unfortunately structural decline prior to the pandemic.So, this reliance on promotions and discounting in tandem with those other pressures I just mentioned, not only hurt many retailers’ earnings power but in many cases also degraded consumer brand perception, creating a super tough cycle to break out of and thus turnarounds very tough to come by -- bringing it full circle.So, in a nutshell, what you should hear is apparel is a low barrier to entry, fragmented market with subsequently thin margins and little to no precedent for successful turnarounds. That's not to say a retail turnaround isn't possible, though, Ravi.Ravi Shanker: Got it. So that's great background. And you've identified some very specific key levers that these fashion retail companies can pull in order to boost their profitability. What are some of these levers?Alex Straton: We do have a recent example in the space of a company that was able to break free of that rather vicious cycle I just went through, and it actually lifted its sales growth and profitability levels above industry average. From our standpoint, this super rare retail turnaround relied on five key levers, and the first was targeting a different customer demographic. Think going from a teens focused customer with limited brand loyalty to an older, wealthier and less fickle shopper; more reliable, but differently.Second, you know, evolving the product assortment. So, think mixing the assortment into higher priced, less seasonal items that come with better margins. To bring this to life, imagine a jeans and tees business widening its offering to include things like tailored pants and dresses that are often higher margin.Third, we saw that changing the pricing strategy was also key. You can retrain or reposition a brand as not only higher priced through the two levers I just mentioned, but also try and be less promotional overall. This is arguably, from my experience, one of the hardest things for a retailer to execute over time. So, this is the thing I would typically, you know, red flag if you hear it.Fourth, and this is very, very key, reducing the store footprint, re-examining your costs. So, as I mentioned in my coverage, cost inflation across the P&L (profit and loss) historically, consumers moving online over time, and what it means is retailers are sitting on a cost base that might not necessarily be right for the new demand or the new structure of the business. So, finding cost savings on that front can really do wonders for the margins.Fifth, and I list this last because it's a little bit more of a qualitative type of lever -- is that you can focus on digital. That really matters in this modern era. What we saw was a retailer use digital driven data to inform decision making across the business, aligning consumer experience across channels and doing this in a profitable way, which is no easy feat, to say the least.So, look, we identified five broad enablers of a turnaround. But there were, of course, little changes along the way that were also done.Ravi Shanker: Right.Alex Straton: So, Ravi, given what we've discussed, how do you think this turnaround model from fashion retail can apply to airlines?Ravi Shanker: Look, I mean, as we discussed, at the top here, we think there are significant similarities between the world of fashion retail and airlines; even though it may not seem obvious, at first glance. I mean, they're both very consumer discretionary type, demand environments. The vicious circle that you described, the price deflation, the competition, the brand attrition, all of that applies to retail and to airlines as well.And so, I think when you look at the five enablers of the turnaround or levers that you pull to make it happen, I think those can apply from retail to airlines as well. For instance, you target a different customer, one that likes to travel, one that is a premium customer and, and wants to sit in the front of the plane and spend more money.Second, you have a different product out there. Kind of you make your product better, and it's a better experience in the sky, and you give the customer an opportunity to subscribe to credit cards and loyalty program and have a full-service experience when they travel.Third, you change your distribution method. You kind of go more digital, as you said. We don't have inventory here, so it'd be more of -- you don't fly everywhere all the time and be everything to everyone. You are a more focused airline and give your customer a better experience. So, all of those things can drive better outcomes and better financial performance, both in the world of fashion retail as well as in the world of airlines.Alex Straton: So, Ravi, we've definitely identified some pretty startling similarities between fashion retail and airlines. Definitely more so than I appreciated when you called me a couple months ago to explore this topic. So, with that in mind, what are some of the differences and challenges to applying to airlines, a playbook taken from the world of fashion retail?Ravi Shanker: Right, so, look, I mean, they are obviously very different industries, right? For instance, clothing is a basic human staple; air travel and going on vacations is not. It's a lot more discretionary. The industry is a lot more consolidated in the airline space compared to the world of retail. Air travel is also a lot more premium compared to the entire retail industry. But when you look at premium retail and what some of those brands have done where brands really make a difference, the product really makes a difference. I think there are a lot more similarities than differences between those premium retail brands on the airline industry.So, Alex, going back to you, given the success of the turnaround model that you've discussed, do you think more retail businesses will adopt it? And are there any risks if that becomes a norm?Alex Straton: The reality is Ravi, I breezed through those five key enablers in a super clear manner. But, first, you know, the enablers of a turnaround in my view are only super clear in hindsight. And then secondly, one thing I want to just re-emphasize again is that a turnaround of the nature I described isn't something that happens overnight. Shifting something like your consumer base or changing investor perception of discounting activity is a multi year, incredibly difficult task; meaning turnarounds are also often multi year affairs, if ever successful at all.So, looking ahead, given how rare retail turnarounds have proven to be historically, I think while many businesses in my coverage area are super intrigued by some of this recent success; at the same time, I think they're eyes wide open that it's much easier said than done, with execution far from certain in any given turnaround.Ravi Shanker: Got it. I think the good news from my perspective is that hindsight and time both the best teachers, especially when put together. And so, I think the learnings of some of the success stories in your sector can not only be lessons for other companies in your space; they can also be lessons in my space. And like I said, I think some airlines have already started embarking on this turnaround, others are looking to see what they can do here. And I'm sure again, best practices and lessons can be shared from one sector to another. So, Alex, thanks so much for taking the time to talk to us today.Alex Straton: It was great to speak with you, Ravi.Ravi Shanker: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen to the show and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Our Head of Europe Thematic Research discusses revolutionary “Longshot” technologies that can potentially alter the course of human ageing, and which of them look most investible to the market.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ed Stanley, Morgan Stanley’s Head of Thematic Research in London. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss the promise of technology that might help us live longer and better lives.  It’s Friday, the 26th of April, at 2pm in London.You may have heard me discuss Moonshots and Earthshots on this podcast before. Moonshots are ambitious solutions to seemingly insurmountable problems using disruptive technology, predominantly software; while Earthshots, by contrast, are radical planet-focused technologies to accelerate decarbonization and mitigate global warming, predominantly hardware challenges.But today I want to address a third group of revolutionary solutions that I call Longshots. These are the most promising Longevity technologies. And in terms of the three big secular themes that Morgan Stanley is focused on – which are Decarbonization, Tech Diffusion, and Longevity – Longshots straddle the latter two. Unlike software-based Moonshots or hardware-based Earthshots, these Longshots face some of the greatest challenges of all. First, we know remarkably little about the process of ageing. Second, these are both hardware and software problems. And third, the regulatory hurdles are far more stringent in healthcare, when compared to most other emerging technology fields.      We believe the success of Longshots depends on a deep understanding of Longevity. And loosely speaking, you can think of that as a question of whether someone's phenotype can outweigh their genotype. In other words, can their lifestyle, choices, environment trump the genetics that are written into their DNA.Modern medicine, by focusing almost exclusively on treating disease rather than preventing it, has succeeded in keeping us alive for longer – but also sicker for longer. Preventing disease increases our health spans and reduces morbidity, and its associated costs.So, in this regard, can we learn anything from the centenarians - the people who live to a hundred and beyond? They number around 30 people in every 100,000 of the population. And many of them live healthy lives well into their eighties. And what makes them so rare is they are statistically better at avoiding what the medical industry calls the Four Horsemen: coronary disease, diabetes, cancer and Alzheimer’s. So, can Longshots help to replicate that successful healthy ageing story for a larger slice of the population?We look to technology for ways to delay the onset of these chronic diseases by 10 to 30 years, giving healthy life extension for all. That’s not an outlandish goal in theory; but in practice we need a new approach to medical research. And we will be watching how the ten key Longshots we have identified play into this.Two of these Longshots are already familiar to our listeners: Diabesity medication and Smart Chemotherapy treatments, with a combined addressable market – according to our analysts – of a quarter of a trillion dollars. The other eight Longshots include AI-enabled drug discovery, machine vision embryo selection dramatically increasing the odds of fertility via IVF, bioprinting of organs, brain-computer Interfaces, CRISPR, DNA synthesis, robotics and psychedelics. In assessing the maturity and investibility of these ten Longshots, we find that obesity medication, smart chemo, and AI-assisted drug discovery are better understood by the market and look more investible. Many of the others are seeing material outcome- and cost-improvements but they remain earlier-stage, more speculative, particularly for public market investors.In contrast to Moonshots and Earthshots, where venture investors make up the lion's share of most of the early-stage capital, Longshots have substantially higher exposure to government agencies that make investments in early-stage healthcare projects. Governments are making hundreds of bets on Longshots in searches for solutions to reduce overall healthcare spending – or at the very least get a better return on that investment – which in 2023 amounted to $4.5 trillion in the US, and a whopping $10 trillion globally.Clearly, the stakes are very high, and the market opportunity is vast, particularly as AI technologies advance in tandem. And so, we’ll keep you updated on the promise of these Longshots. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave a review and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.

With interest in anti-obesity medications growing significantly, the head of our European Pharmaceuticals Team examines just how large that market could become.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Mark Purcell, head of Morgan Stanley’s European Pharmaceuticals Team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll talk about the enormous ripple effects of anti-obesity drugs across the global economy. It’s Thursday, April the 25th, and it’s 2pm in London. Obesity is one of the biggest health challenges of our time. More than a billion people are living with obesity worldwide today, with 54 per cent of adults expected to be either overweight or obese by 2035. Growing rates of obesity worldwide combined with rising longevity are putting a heavy burden on healthcare systems.Our Global Pharma team has covered obesity extensively over the last 18 months. When we wrote our original report in the summer of 2022, the whole debate centered on establishing the patient-physician engagement. The historic precedent we looked at was the hypertension market in the 1980s when high blood pressure was considered a disease caused by stress rather than a chronic illness. And obesity was seen as the result of genetics or a lack of willpower.But through the influence of social media and an increasingly weight-centric approach to treating diabetes, demand for anti-obesity medications skyrocketed. Back in July 2022, we saw obesity as a $55 billion market. And at that point the key question was if and when these drugs would be reimbursed. If you fast-forward to July 2023, what we saw was reimbursement kicking in the U.S. much more quickly than we anticipated. There were almost 40 million people who had access to these medicines, and 80 percent of them were paying less than $25 out of pocket. By the end of 2023 we had the first landmark obesity trial called SELECT, and that finally established that weight management saves lives in individuals not living with diabetes. These SELECT data supported the cardiac protection GLP-1 medicines have already established for individuals living with diabetes. We expect weight management with anti-obesity medicines will improve the outlook for more than 200 chronic diseases, or so-called co-morbidities, including heart failure and kidney disease, as well as complications like sleep apnea, osteoarthritis, and even potentially Alzheimer's disease.Now the debate is no longer about demand for these medicines, but it’s about supply. The major pharma companies in the space are investing almost $60 billion of capital expenditure in order to establish a supply chain that can satisfy this vast demand. And beyond supply, the other side of the current debate is the ripple effects from anti-obesity drugs. How will they impact the broader healthcare sector, consumer goods, food, apparel? And how do lower obesity rates impact life expectancy? So, with all this in mind, our base case, we estimate the global obesity market will now reach $105 billion in 2030. Right now, supply is being primarily diverted to the U.S., but in the long term we think that the market opportunity will become bigger outside the US. Furthermore, the size of the obesity market will be determined by co-morbidities and improved supply. So, if all these factors play out, our bull scenario is a $144 billion total addressable market. However, if supply constraints continue, then we can see a market more restricted to $55 billion as of 2030. So, things are developing fast, and we will continue to keep you updated. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

As the U.S. presidential election remains closely contested, our experts discuss what a change in administration could mean for European equities in terms of trade, China relations and other key issues.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research.Marina Zavolock: And I'm Marina Zavolock, Chief European Equity Strategist.Michael Zezas: And on this episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll discuss how the U.S. election could impact European markets.It's Wednesday, April 24th at 10am in New York.Marina Zavolock: And 3pm in London.Michael Zezas: As the U.S. presidential election gets closer and the outcome remains highly uncertain, we're exploring the impact of a potential departure from the current status quo of President Biden in the White House. Today, my colleague Marina and I want to discuss just what that would mean for European equity markets.Marina, how closely is Europe following the election, and why?Marina Zavolock: So, European equities derive about 25 percent of their market cap weighted revenues from the U.S. And the U.S. is the largest export market for European firms outside of Europe. So, of course, interest in U.S. elections here is very high; and this is in terms of the exposures of European stocks, sectors, asset classes, and economics as a whole. European investors, I would say that their peak interest in U.S. elections was around the Republican primaries, and it's stayed elevated ever since.And Mike, I know you want to dig in specifically on how European markets would react in a change in status quo scenario. But first let's talk about your outlook on some of the key policies that may change if Biden loses the election. What are your thoughts on trade policy and tariffs?Michael Zezas: Trump's been clear about his view that countries levying higher tariffs on U.S. imports than the US levies on their imports is unfair, and he's willing to correct it with tariffs. And while in his term as president he focused more on China, he was interested in tariff escalation with Europe. But he reportedly was moved off that position by advisors and members of his own party who were wary of creating more noise in the transatlantic alliance. But this time around, the Republican party's views are much more aligned with Trump's. So, imports on European goods like autos could easily come into scope.Marina, how are you thinking about the impact of potentially higher tariffs on the European market? What sectors might be most affected?Marina Zavolock: The initial reaction to recent tariff related headlines we've been fielding from investors is around the risks to our bullish European equities view in particular. The general investor feedback we get is that European equities may continue to rally for now, but as we approach November and as we approach US elections, the downside risks from this event start to build.What our in-depth analysis demonstrates, however, is that it's far more nuanced than that. As I mentioned, Europe derives about 25 per cent of its weighted revenues from the US. But, when we've dug into that number, most of these revenues are in the form of services or local to local goods, meaning goods produced locally in the US and sold in the US -- but by European companies. Only about 6 per cent of Europe's overall weighted revenue exposure is to goods exported into the US. So, we find the risk is far more idiosyncratic from a change in tariff policy than broad based. And in terms of individual sectors most exposed to tariff risks, these include a lot of healthcare sectors -- med tech, life sciences, pharma, biotech -- aerospace as well, metals and mining; of course, autos as you mentioned, and a number of others.After tariffs, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is the next most common policy area we get asked about in Europe, given relatively high exposures for European utilities, construction materials, and the capital goods sector.Overall, we find European equities aggregate exposure to IRA is also low, is less than 2 percent of weighted revenues, so even lower than that of tariffs. But the stocks most exposed in Europe to IRA are underperforming the rest of the market. What are your scenarios around the IRA if Trump wins, Mike?Michael Zezas: Well, we think the money appropriated in the IRA is here to stay. Many of that program's investments overlap with geographies represented by Republicans in Congress, which means repealing the IRA may be a better talking point than a political strategy -- similar to how Republicans in 2017 failed to repeal the Affordable Care Act despite campaigning on that as a priority. But Trump could certainly slow the spending of that money through regulatory means such as ratcheting up the rules about how much of the materials involved have to be sourced from within the US.Now switching gears, Marina, you mentioned the performance of European stocks related to our election scenarios. Based on your recent work, you have very granular stock level data on relative exposure to potential administration policies. How are stocks with the greatest exposures behaving overall?Marina Zavolock: Yeah, this was a very interesting conclusion from our work. We thought that it's still fairly early ahead of US elections for stocks to start to diverge on the basis of potential policy changes. But what we found when we surveyed our analysts and collected data for over 350 European stocks with material US exposure is that when we break out these exposures and we aggregate them, the stocks with the highest level of potential risk exposure to Trump administration policies are underperforming the overall market. And the stocks with the greatest potential positive exposure, to Trump administration policies are outperforming.And then you have groups like moderate exposure that are in the middle, and these groups, no matter how we slice the data for different policies, are lining up. Exactly as you might expect, depending on their level of exposure as the market starts to price in some probability of either scenario coming through. We're also starting to see the volatility of the stocks most exposed start to rise. But this is a very early trend.The other big area that we get asked about is China. So, Europe has about 8 per cent of its weighted revenues exposed to China. It's the highest of any major developed market region in the world. What are your expectations about China policy under a new Trump administration?Michael Zezas: Well, it's bipartisan consensus now that China is a rival and that more protective barriers to trade are needed to protect the US' tech advantage in order to safeguard US national and economic security. But like with Europe, Trump appears more willing to use tariffs as a tool in this rivalry, which can create more rhetorical and fundamental noise in the economic relationship.Marina, how do you think this would impact Europe?Marina Zavolock: So, we've been talking about China as a risk factor for some time for a variety of reasons, and recently when I mentioned that European stocks are starting to react to potential change in administration policies. This hasn't so much been the case on China exposures. China exposures are behaving as they were before. We're not seeing any great divergences as we approach elections; though in our overall model, we do favor sectors with lower exposure to China.Mike, and how are you thinking about Ukraine? We have a huge amount of interest in the defense sector, and it's one of the best performing sectors in Europe this year.Michael Zezas: Yeah. So here Trump's been pretty clear that he'd like to push for a rapid reconciliation between Russia and Ukraine. What investors should pay attention to is that a Trump attempt at rapid reconciliation, perhaps in contrast with the European approach. And then when you couple that with potential tariffs on Europe from the US, it can send a signal to Europe that they have to shift their own defense and economic strategy. And one manifestation of that could be greater security spending, particularly defense spending in Europe and globally. It's a key reason why defense is a sector we favor in both the US and Europe.So, Marina, what are some of the bottom-line conclusions for investors?Marina Zavolock: I think there's two main conclusions from our work. First, the aggregate exposures in Europe to potential changes in policy from a Trump administration are pretty low and quite idiosyncratic by stock. We talked about a few of the greatest exposure areas, but in aggregate, if we take all the policy areas that we've analyzed, net exposure of Europe's revenues is about 7 per cent.Second, the stocks that are most exposed, either positively or negatively, are already moving based on those relative exposures, and we think that will continue, and these groups of stocks will also have increased volatility as we get closer to November.Michael Zezas: Marina, thanks for taking the time to talk.Marina Zavolock: Great speaking with you, Mike.Michael Zezas: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen to podcasts; and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.Important note regarding economic sanctions. This research references country/ies which are generally the subject of comprehensive or selective sanctions programs administered or enforced by the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), the European Union and/or by other countries and multi-national bodies. Any references in this report to entities, debt or equity instruments, projects or persons that may be covered by such sanctions are strictly informational, and should not be read as recommending or advising as to any investment activities in relation to such entities, instruments or projects. Users of this report are solely responsible for ensuring that their investment activities in relation to any sanctioned country/ies are carried out in compliance with applicable sanctions.

New data on both immigration and inflation defied predictions and may have shifted the Fed’s perspective. Our Chief U.S. Economist and Head of U.S. Rates Strategy share their updated outlooks.  ----- Transcript -----Ellen Zentner: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ellen Zentner, Morgan Stanley's Chief US Economist.Guneet Dhingra: And I'm Guneet Dhingra, Head of US Rates Strategy.Ellen Zentner: And today on the podcast, we'll be discussing some significant changes to our US economic outlook and US rates outlook for the rest of this year.It's Tuesday, April 23rd at 10am in New York.Guneet Dhingra: So, Ellen, last week you put out an updated view on your outlook -- with some substantial forecast changes. Can you give us the headlines on GDP, inflation and the Fed forecast path? And what has really changed versus your last update?Ellen Zentner: Sure Guneet. So, our last economic outlook update was in November last year. And since that time, really, the impetus for all of these changes came from immigration. So, we got new immigration data from the CBO, and just to give you a sense of the magnitude of upward revision, we thought we had an increase of 800,000 in 2023. It turns out it was 3.3 million. And so far, the flows of immigrants suggest that we're going to get about as many as last year, if not a little bit more. And so, what does that mean? Faster population growth, those are more mouths to feed. You've got a faster labor force growth. They can work. They are working. And data historically shows that their labor force participation rates are higher than native born Americans.So, you've got to take all this into account. And it means that you've got this big positive supply side shock. And so, when the labor market has been about balance now between demand and supply, as Chair Powell's been noting, you're now going to have supply outrun demand this year.And so, you basically got much more labor market slack. You've got -- and I'm going to steal Chair Powell's words here -- you've got a bigger economy, but not a tighter economy. So, it's faster GDP growth. We have taken out one Fed cut, and I know we're going to talk about that because inflation has surprised the upside recently. But you've got slower wage growth. More labor market slack. And so, we did not change our overall inflation numbers on the back of this better growth and better labor force growth.Guneet Dhingra: That's very helpful. That's a very interesting read in the economy, Ellen. Do you think the Fed is reading the supply side story the same way as you are? And said differently, is the Fed on the same page as you? And if not, when do you think they could be?Ellen Zentner: Yeah. So, you know, Chair Powell, if you go back to his speeches and the minutes from the Fed. They've been talking about immigration. I think we've known for a while that the numbers were bigger than previously thought. But how you interpret that into an outlook can be different. And it takes some time. It even took us some time -- about a month -- to finally digest all the numbers and figure out exactly what it meant for our outlook. So, here's the biggest, I think, change for them in terms of what it means. The break-even level for payrolls is just that much higher.Now what does break even mean? It means it's the pace of job gains you need to generate each month in order to just keep the unemployment rate steady. And six months ago, we all thought it was 100, 000, including the Chair. And now we think it's 265,000. That is eye popping. And it means that when you see these big labor market numbers -- 250, 000; 300,000. That's normal. And that's not a labor market that's too tight.And so, I think the easiest thing the Fed, has realized is that they don't need to worry about the labor market. There's a lot more slack there. There's going to be a lot more slack there this year. Wage growth has come down because of it. ECI, or Employment Cost Index, is going to come down for this year. The unemployment rate is going to be higher. They do still need to reflect that in their forecast. And that means that we could show, sort of, this flavor of bigger but not tighter economy when we get their forecast updates in June.Guneet Dhingra: I think the medium-term thesis is very compelling, Ellen, but how do you fit the three back-to-back upside surprises in CPI here? How does that fit with the labor supply story?Ellen Zentner: So, that is sort of disconnected from the bigger but not tighter economy, because we did have to take into account that inflation has surprised to the upside. I mean, these have been some real volatile prints in the last three months, and we're now tracking March core PCE at 0.25 per cent and we're going to get that number later this week. And so that's above the threshold that we think the Fed needs in order to gain confidence that that pace of deceleration we saw late last year, is not in danger of slowing down for them to gain further confidence.Ellen Zentner: And so, the way I would characterizes this is that it's a bigger but not tighter economy. But we also had to take into account these inflation upside surprises, which is really what led us to push the June cut off to July.So, after we get that March, core PCE print, let's see what that data holds, but we think a few prints around 0.2 per cent are needed to satisfy Chair Powell, and gain that consensus to cut. So, I want to stress to the listeners that, you know, our conviction that inflation will head toward target remains high.And it was also helped last week by fresh data on new tenant rents. So that is a leading indicator for rental inflation in our models. And it's slowed again. And suggests an even faster pace of deceleration ahead.But here's where I think it matters for the Fed. Whereas before, they were very convicted that this rental inflation story was going to play out, that rent inflation was going to come down. They used similar models to us. But because of the inflation data being so volatile over the past three months, rather than providing forward guidance on what you're going to do around rental inflation coming down, you want to see it. You want to see it in the data. And so that's why they've been so willing to say, you know what, we're just going to, we're going to hold longer here.Guneet Dhingra: Perfect. So just to get the Fed call on the record, what exactly are you calling for the Fed? And I know investors love the hypothetical question. What is the probability in your mind that the Fed doesn't cut at all in 2024?Ellen Zentner: Yeah, they do love scenario analysis. So here we go. So, our baseline is they cut in July. They skip September. By November, the inflation data is coming down to monthly prints that tell them they're on track for their 2 per cent goal and at risk of falling below it. So, from November to June next year, they're cutting every meeting to roughly around three and a half percent.Now, as you asked, what if inflation doesn't go down? So, inflation doesn't go down, you know, then the Fed's forecast and our forecast are going to be wrong and the three rate cuts they envision is predicated on that inflation forecast coming true. So, you know, the most important takeaway from that scenario is that the result would be a Fed on holder for longer. But as opposed to a hike being the next move -- and I think that's really important here. The Fed is still very strongly convicted on they will cut this year. This is about the timing. Now, the hold period could last into 2025, I mean, we don't know, but what happens if inflation accelerates from here?So, I'm going to provide another scenario here. So, there is a scenario where inflation accelerates on a backdrop of strong growth, which would suggest it might be sustained, and perhaps begins to lift inflation expectations. Now, you know, that's a recipe for a hold that then turns into additional hikes as the Fed realizes neutral is just higher than where rates currently sit. But at this point, I would put quite a low probability on that scenario. But from a risk weighted perspective, I suppose it should be taken into account.So, given all this and the changes that we've made, what is your expectation for rates for the rest of the year?Guneet Dhingra: Yeah, I think we also, based on the forecast revision you guys have, we also revised up our treasury yield forecast. We earlier had 10 year yields ending slightly below 4 per cent by the end of 2024. Now we have them at about 4.15 percent which again is a 20-basis point uplift from our forecast before this. But still, I think it's not the higher for longer number that people are expecting because when I look at the forecast you have on the Fed, I think Fed path you have is well below what the markets expect.I think the forecast you have has about seven cuts from July this year to the middle of next year. The market for contrast is only four. There's a pretty massive gap that opens up, I think, between the way we see it -- and ultimately that does come down to the interpretation of the data that we're seeing so far.So, for us, the forecast numbers are slightly higher than before, but the message still is: we are not in the hire for longer camp, and we do expect rates to end up below the market applied forwards.Ellen Zentner: All right. So, you know, I've talked a lot about immigration. One could say I've been pretty obsessed with it over the last couple of months. But from a rates perspective, you know, what are the broader implications of the immigration story for that? You know, this, this bigger but not tighter economy. How do you translate that into rates?Guneet Dhingra: Yeah, let me say your obsession has been contagious. You know, I've caught on to that bug, the immigration bug. And, you know, I've been I've been discussing this thesis with investors, quite a lot. And I think it seems to me as you framed it pretty nicely. It's a bigger but not a tighter economy. I don't think investors have caught on to that page yet. I think most investors continue to think of these inflation prints is telling you that this is a tighter economy. Bigger, yes -- maybe on the margin. But the tighter part is still very much in people's minds. And when I look at the optics off the CPI numbers, the payroll numbers, investors have just been very conditioned, very reflexively conditioned to look at a 250K number on payrolls as a very strong number. They look at the 3 per cent number of GDP as a very strong number.And as you laid out earlier, these numbers may not be necessarily telling you about an overheating economy. But simply a bigger economy. So, I think the disconnect is there, pretty pervasive. And I think for me, most investors will take a lot of time to get over the optics. The optics of three strong points of inflation, the optics of 250K payrolls. I think it's gradually seeping in. But for now, I think the true impact or the true learnings from the immigration story is not very well understood in the investment community.Ellen Zentner: Okay, but is there, is there anything else missing in your view?Guneet Dhingra: Yeah, quite a few things. I think you can add more nuances to this immigration story itself. For example, when I think about last year, when rates were going up massively in third quarter, fourth quarter, one of the focal points was Atlanta Fed GDP Now. My GDP now was tracking close to four and a half, five per cent, and inflation was cooling pretty clearly in the second half of last year. And so investors had a choice to make. Do we actually trust the GDP growth numbers? Because they are probably an inflation risk in the future. And the markets very clearly chose to focus on growth with the belief that this growth is eventually going to lead to high inflation. And so, I think that disconnect has really translated into, sort of, what I would call like a house of cards where investors have built the entire market level on growth upside, and growth upside, and growth upside.So, I think the market level -- when I do the math and try and suss out the counterfactual -- the market level of 4.6 per cent tenure should have and could have been a market level of 3.8 per cent tenure based on my calculations. And so, there's an 80-basis point gap from where we are to where we could have been based on a misunderstanding of the supply story and the immigration story.Ellen Zentner: Yeah, I certainly wish the volatility was a lot lower here. It would make it easier for the Fed and for us to separate signal from noise. Certainly difficult for market participants to do that. But Guneet, thanks for taking the time to talk.Guneet Dhingra: Great speaking with you, Ellen.Ellen Zentner: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Recent data indicates the economy may avoid either a soft or hard landing for now. Our Chief U.S. Equity Strategist explains why investors should seek out quality as the economy stays aloft.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the impact of better economic growth and stickier inflation on stocks.It's Monday, April 22nd at 11:30am in New York. So let’s get after it.In our first note of the year, I cited three potential macro-outcomes for 2024 with similar probability of occurring.First, a soft landing with slowing, below potential GDP growth and falling inflation toward the Fed's target of 2 per cent. Second, a no landing scenario under which GDP growth re-accelerated with stickier inflation. And third, a hard landing, or recession. Of course, each scenario has very different implications for asset prices generally and equity leadership, specifically. Just a few months ago, the consensus view skewed heavily toward a soft landing. However, the macro data have started to support the no landing outcome with recent growth and inflation data exceeding most forecasters' expectations – including the Fed’s. Over the past year, consensus views have gone from hard landing in the first quarter of 2023 to soft landing in the second quarter, back to hard landing in the third quarter to soft landing in the fourth quarter, and now to no landing currently. This shift has not been lost on markets with assets that benefit from higher inflation doing well over the past few months. However, while cyclically sensitive stocks and sectors have started to outperform, quality remains a key attribute for the leaders. We think this combination of quality and cyclical factors makes sense in the context of what is still a later, rather than early cycle re acceleration in growth. If it was more the latter, we would not be observing such persistent under performance of low-quality cyclicals and small caps. Furthermore, we continue to believe much of the upside in economic growth over the past year has been the result of government spending, funded by growing budget deficits. This has led to a crowding out of many smaller and lower quality businesses – and the lowest small business sentiment since 2012. As with most fiscal stimulus packages, the plan is for the bridge of support to buy time until a more durable growth outcome arrives – driven by organic private income, and consumption and spending. Until this potential outcome is more solidified, the equity market should continue to trade with a quality bias. The largest risk for stocks more broadly is higher 10-year Treasury yields as investors begin to demand a larger term premium due to higher inflation and the growing supply of bonds to pay for the endless deficits. While leadership within the equity market continues to broaden toward cyclicals it still makes sense to stay up the quality curve. Our recent upgrade of large cap Energy fits the shifting narrative to the no landing outcome, and it remains one of the cheapest ways to get exposure to the reflation theme. Other reflation trades are more extended in our view. Our primary concern for equities at this point is that aggressive fiscal spending has led to better economic growth. But it keeps upward pressure on inflation and prevents the Fed from cutting interest rates that many economic participants desperately need at this point. In short, a no landing outcome may make the crowding out problem even worse for smaller businesses, many consumers and even regional banks. This is all in-line with our 2024 outlook that suggests the major equity indices are overvalued while the best opportunities are likely beneath the surface in underappreciated sectors like energy that are positively levered to stickier inflation and higher interest rates. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Japan and India are currently set to lead growth in these markets, but a higher-for-longer rate environment in the U.S. could favor China, Hong Kong and others, according to our analyst.----- Transcript -----Daniel Blake: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Daniel Blake from Morgan Stanley's Asia & Emerging Market Equity Strategy Team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss whether U.S. macro resilience is too much of a good thing when it comes to its impact on Asia's equity markets.It's Friday 19th of April at 10am in Singapore.Our U.S. economics team has substantially lifted its forecast for 2024 and 2025 GDP growth following strong migration boosted activity and employment trends. Recent inflation readings have been bumpy, but our team still sees it moderating over the summer as core services and housing prices cool off. While the market has been focused on this silver lining of stronger global growth, the clouds are rolling in from expectations of a shallower and later easing of global monetary policy.Our team now believes that the first Fed rate cut won't come until July but does see two additional cuts coming in November and December. We've made similar adjustments in our outlook for Asia-ex-China's monetary policy easing cycle, seeing it coming later and shallower. Meanwhile, in Japan, our economists now expect two further hikes from the Bank of Japan -- in July this year, and again in January next year -- taking policy rates up to 0.5 per cent.But how does all this leave the Asia and EM equity outlook? In a word, mixed.We see this driving more divergence within Asia and EM, depending on how exposed each market is to stronger global growth, a stronger U.S. dollar or impacted by higher interest rates. On the positive side, Taiwan, Japan, Mexico, and South Korea have the most direct North American revenue exposure. And for Japan, the strong US dollar is also positive through the translation of foreign revenues back at this historically weak yen. However, in the short run, we do need to be mindful of any price momentum reversal as April is normally seasonally weak, and we do see dollar-yen approaching 155. So, any FX (foreign exchange) intervention could sharpen a price momentum reversal.Next up, we're paying close attention to India's equity market, where we have a secularly bullish view. India has remained resilient to date, consistent with our thesis that macro stability has become a key driver of the bull market. And this is in sharp contrast to prior cycles. For example, during the Taper tantrum of 2013, where India saw a sudden and sharp bear market as Fed expectations shifted.On the negative side then, we are seeing a breakdown in correlations of some markets with these higher Fed funds expectations, including in Indonesia and Brazil where policy space is being constrained, and in Australia where valuations were pushed up on hopes of an RBA easing cycle that won't come until next year in our view.So, this is indeed a mixed picture for Asia and EM, but we retain our core views that market leadership will continue coming from Japan and India through 2024. And so, what's the risk from here? The larger risk to Asia and EM markets, we think, comes from an even more inflationary and hawkish scenario where the Fed is forced to recommence rate hikes, ultimately bearing the risk of driving a hard landing to bring inflation back to target.In this scenario, we could see a pivot in leadership away from markets with high US revenue exposure, such as Taiwan and Japan, towards more domestically oriented and resilient late cycle markets, such as an emerging ASEAN partner, and potentially China and Hong Kong -- if additional stimulus is forthcoming there.Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

GenAI will likely drive the exponential growth of data centers. Listen as our Capital Goods Analyst shares key takeaways on the electrical equipment central to the data center market.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Max Yates from the European Capital Goods team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll focus on the critical element of the AI revolution. It's Thursday, April 18, at 2pm in London. Over the last few weeks, several of my colleagues have come on to the show to talk about the exponential growth of data centers and just what it will take to power the GenAI revolution. Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Head of Global Sustainability, forecasts that in 2027 data center power consumption just from GenAI will equal 80 percent of the consumption from all data centers in 2022.This shows the sheer scale of necessary additions and upgrades. And it also makes clear that the AI push provides very significant opportunities for Electrical Equipment companies. It’s these businesses that are the picks and shovels of the AI revolution. These companies provide key solutions such as Data Center Infrastructure Management software, connected equipment, racks, switchgears, and last but not least, cooling. Keep in mind that in this breakneck AI race, ever-increasing efficiency is essential. So, imagine we’re inside an actual data center. What you’d see is a huge number of racks, the steel frameworks that house the servers, cables, and other equipment. The power needed to run GenAI then creates a lot of heat.Our recent work on the data center market suggests two key takeaways when it comes to the electrical equipment.First, there’s a significant imbalance in supply-demand. Data center vacancy rates and rental prices all point to an intensifying capacity shortage. This explains why the top 10 cloud providers have increased their capital expenditures this year by 26 per cent. Equipment shortages and lead times are still an issue in the industry and large electrical equipment suppliers have a clear competitive advantage at the moment, with their stronger supply chains and ability to actually deliver this equipment. The second thing we found from our work, there are well-known and less well-known ways to deal with increasing power density. Now why is power density rising? Because what we’re trying to do is cram more high-power chips into the same amount of space. There’s more power per rack, higher computing workload that all has to be accommodated into less floor space. This higher power density, however, requires more powerful cooling solutions. But there’s also smaller changes that can support airflow management that are less talked about in the industry. This is things like busways, to reduce cable density and promote airflow. Smart equipment provides information on power consumption. And another key element is rear-door cooling, which pushes airflow through the servers.The other theme that’s gaining traction in the industry to facilitate a faster ramp up is the idea of modular data centers. This helps equipment suppliers plan supply chains but also customers to quickly ramp up and meet the new data center demand with more standardized data center offerings. However, there’s not yet an industry standard to manage higher data center power and rack density for AI. There will be new builds. There will also be data center upgrades. However, there’s no consensus yet on exactly how the power equipment will be configured, and when the data centers will be upgraded. And in what style and what way.      This is clearly a dynamic space to watch, and we’ll be keeping you updated.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen to your podcasts. It helps more people to find the show.

As global conflicts escalate, our Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research unpacks the possible market outcomes as companies and governments seek to bolster security. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about current geopolitical tensions and their impact on markets.It's Wednesday, April 17th at 10:30 am in New York.Continued tensions in Middle East kept geopolitics in focus with clients this week. But markets seem to be shrugging off the recent escalation in the conflict, with relative stability in oil prices and equities. This implies some faith in the idea that the involved parties benefit from no further escalation – and will design responses to one another that won’t lead to a broader conflict with bigger consequences. But obviously, this tricky dynamic bears watching, which we’ll be doing. In the meantime, there’s a key market theme that’s underscored by these tensions. And that’s the idea of Security as a secular market theme.This is a topic we’ve been collaborating with many research teams on, including Ed Stanley, our thematics analyst in Europe, and defense sector research teams globally. The idea here boils down to this. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the US’ increased rivalry with China, questions about the future of NATO, and of course the Middle East conflict, all reminds us that we’re in a transition phase to a multipolar world where security is more tenuous. That requires a lot of spending by companies and governments to cope with this reality. In fact, we estimate that supply chains, food and health systems, IT, and more will require about $1.5 trillion of investment across the US and EU to protect against rising geopolitical risks. This means a lot more demand for global tech and industrials.And of course it means more demand for the defense sector. Regardless of whether US military aid plans continue to stall, there’s news of increased spending in China, Canada, and Europe. Our head defense analyst in Europe, Ross Law, and our head European Economist Jens Eisenschmidt have looked at this in recent weeks. They argue there’s scope for tens of billions of euros in extra spend annually in Europe, with a greater geopolitical shock putting that number into the hundreds of billions. It’s a key reason our equity research colleagues favor the US and EU defense sectors.Bottom line, geopolitical events continue to reflect the transition to a multipolar world. And as companies and governments seek security in this world, there will be market impacts. We’ll be tracking them here.Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We’d love to hear from you.

Our Global Head of Sustainability Research and U.S. Utilities Analyst discuss the rapidly growing power needs of the GenAI enablers and how to meet them.----- Transcript -----Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Sustainability Research.David Arcaro: And I'm Dave Arcaro, Head of the US Power and Utilities team.Stephen Byrd: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll discuss just what it would take to power the Gen AI revolution.It's Tuesday, April 16th at 10am in New York.Last summer, scientists used GenAI to find a new antibiotic for a nasty superbug. It took the AI system all of an hour and a half to analyze about 7,000 chemical compounds; something that human scientists would have toiled over for months, if not years. It's clear that GenAI can open up breathtaking possibilities, but you have to stop and think. What kind of compute power is needed for all of this?A few weeks ago, our colleague Emmet Kelly, who covers European Telecom, discussed the exponential growth of European data centers on this podcast. And today, Dave and I want to continue the conversation about this critical moment of powering the GenAI revolution.So, Dave, what is your current assessment of the global power demand from data centers?David Arcaro: Yeah, Stephen, we're expecting rapid growth in the power demand coming from data centers across the world. We're currently estimating data centers consume about one and a half per cent of global electricity today. We're expecting that to grow to almost four percent in 2027. And in the US, data centers represent roughly three percent of total electricity consumption now, and we expect that to escalate to eight per cent of the total US by 2027.And there will be even more dramatic impacts at the local and regional level. The data center landscape tends to be highly concentrated, and the next wave of GenAI data centers is likely to be much larger than the previous generation.So, the impact on specific regions will be magnified. To give an example, in Georgia, the utility there has previously forecasted just half a percent of annual growth in electricity use but is now calling for nine per cent of annual growth in electricity consumption, and that's largely driven by data centers.It's a dynamic that we haven't seen in decades in the utility space.Stephen Byrd: You know, what I find interesting about what you just said, Dave, is -- it is impressive to see growth go from one and a half to four per cent, but it's really these local dynamics where what we're seeing is just much more concentrated, and that's where we start to see the real issues with the infrastructure growing quickly enough.So, it's becoming obvious that the existing power grid infrastructure is not meeting the growth and capacity needs of data centers. And that's something that you refer to as the tortoise and the hare. How big of a mismatch are we exactly talking about here, Dave?David Arcaro: It's definitely a big mismatch. To your point before, the US electricity growth across the country has been flattish over the last 10 years.So, this is a step change in expectations now, from the impact from Gen AI going forward. And we're looking at over 100 per cent annual growth in the power consumed by data centers now in the US over the next four years. And for comparison, the US utility industry is growing at about 8 per cent a year.These data centers that are coming are huge. They can be 10 to 50 times as big as the last generation of data centers in terms of their power consumption. And this means it takes time to connect to the electric grid and get power. 12 to 18 months in the best case, three to five years plus in other locations, often because they might need to wait for the electric utility grid to catch up, waiting for grid upgrades and assessments and new power plants to get built.Stephen Byrd: Well, I think those delays are going to be fairly problematic for the fast-moving GenAI sector. So essentially there's a lot of pressure on data center developers to secure a power source as quickly as possible. And in our note, we described the mathematics around that. The time value to get these data centers online is absolutely enormous. But you've just described the power grid infrastructure as a tortoise.So, are there any other alternatives? How about nuclear power plants in this context?David Arcaro: There's a lot of urgency, as you can tell from the data center companies, to get online as fast as possible. It's a fast-moving market, very competitive, they need the power, they need to run these GenAI models as soon as possible. And the utility industry is not used to responding to demand that's coming this quickly.It's a slower moving industry. There's policies and processes and regulation that all utilities have to get through. They're not prepared strategically to move as quickly as the data center industry is moving. So, data center developers are getting creative and they're looking at all options to get power.And one that has an appealing value proposition is nuclear plants. By placing a data center at an existing nuclear plant, this can avoid the need to go through that lengthy electric grid connection process, providing a much faster timeline to get the data center powered up.And that has big benefits for the data center companies, as you can imagine. Nuclear plants also have other advantages. They have land available on site. They have water for cooling, security. It's 24x7 clean power with no emissions, and it's already up and running, so you don't have to go and build much.Over time, we do expect renewables to play a major role as well in powering data centers along with traditional power from the electric grid and even new gas plants, but the benefits of coming online quickly in this market we think, give nuclear an edge.So, Stephen, as much as I can talk about the massive power needs of Gen AI, we can't ignore the issue of sustainability. So, what have you been thinking about when it comes to assessing the potential carbon footprint of powering data centers? What concerns are you seeing?Stephen Byrd: You know, Dave, this field is evolving so quickly that we've had to evolve our assessment of the carbon footprint of GenAI quite quickly as well. You know, traditionally what we would have seen is a data center gets connected to the grid. And then that data center developer would often sign a power contract with a renewable developer. And that results in a very low carbon footprint, if zero in many cases. But going forward, we do see the potential for increased natural gas usage in power plants, higher than we had originally forecast.And that's driven really by two dynamics. The first is the increased potential to site data centers directly at nuclear power plants, which you described, and there are a lot of benefits to doing so. In effect, what's going to happen then is, those data centers will siphon away that nuclear power, so less nuclear power goes to the grid. Something has to make up that deficit. That something is often going to be natural gas fired power plants.The second dynamic that we could see happening is an increased potential for just onsite natural gas fire power generation at the data centers that could provide shorter time to power, and also provide quite good power reliability.Now, when we sum these up and we look at the projected carbon footprint of data centers going forward, we could see an additional 70 million tons a year. We're about half a per cent of 2022 global CO2 emissions for data centers. That is quite a bit higher than we had previously forecast.Now that said, a wild card would be the hyperscalers and others who may decide to consciously offset this by signing additional power contracts with new renewables that could reduce this quite a bit. So, it's very much in flux right now. We frankly don't know what the carbon footprint is really going to look like.David Arcaro: You know, there's so much urgency to bring data centers online quickly that in the past many of these big hyperscalers especially have had quite ambitious sustainability goals and decarbonization goals. I'd say it's an open question on our end as to how flexible they might get in the near term or how strictly they do apply those decarbonization …Stephen Byrd: Exactly…David Arcaro: … targets going forward as they, y’know, also try to compete in an urgent grab for power in the near term.Stephen Byrd: That's exactly right. That's… You laid that tension out quite well.David Arcaro: And finally, from your global perspective, what regions are best positioned to keep pace with the power needs of Gen AI?Stephen Byrd: You know, Dave, I am thinking a lot about what you said a minute ago, about the size of these datacentres moving from, you know, quite small – often we would see datacentres at just 10 or 15 megawatts. Now the new designs are often above 100 megawatts.And now we're starting to hear and see some signs of truly mega data centers, essentially massive supercomputers that could be a thousand megawatts, a couple of thousand megawatts, and could cost tens of billions of dollars to build. So, when we think about that dynamic, that's a lot of power for any one location. So, to go back to your question, we think about the locations. It's very local specific.The dynamics all have to line up correctly, for this to work. So, we see pockets of opportunity around the world. Examples would be Pennsylvania, Texas, Illinois, Malaysia, Portugal -- these are locations for a variety of reasons where policy support is there, the infrastructure growth potential is there, and for a number of reasons, just it's the right confluence of dynamics. Most of the world doesn't have that confluence, so it's going to be very specific. And I think we're also setting up for a lot of concentration in those locations where all these dynamics line up.David Arcaro: You know, historically, the data center industry in the US has been highly concentrated, like you say, in Northern Virginia, in Northern California, they've been data center hubs, but we're running into infrastructure constraints there, we've got to look elsewhere. And some of these factors, geographically, are going to be extremely important.Where is their local support? And one of the dynamics we think could happen is that as you build more data centers that are very power hungry, that could push up the price of power. And what kind of local pushback might you get in that situation? What's the local desire to have a data center from an employment perspective and property tax and local benefit perspective? And how does the cost benefit weigh against the potential for higher power prices in those regions?Stephen Byrd: That's a great point. I mean, in places like Northern Virginia, to your point about property taxes, the value of all this data center equipment is in the tens of billions, which does help local tax revenue quite a bit. That said, there are offsetting impacts such as higher power prices. And this is why I think your original point about the local dynamics mattering so much is so critical because you really do need to see political support, policy support. You need to see the infrastructure that's available.So that's a fairly precious lineup, a fairly rare lineup of all the attributes you need to see to support new giant data center development.David Arcaro: Definitely a delicate balance that the industry needs to tread here as these huge data centers start to come online.Stephen Byrd: Well, I think a delicate balance is a good place to end this discussion. Dave, thanks so much for taking the time to talk.David Arcaro: Great to speak with you, Stephen.And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen to the show, and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Markets are suggesting that spirits consumption will return to historical growth levels post-pandemic, but our Head of European Consumer Staples Research disagrees.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Sarah Simon, Head of the European Consumer Staples team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll talk about a surprising trend in the global spirits market.It's Monday, April 15, at 2pm in London. We all remember vividly the COVID-19 period when we spent much more on goods than services, particularly on goods that could be delivered to our homes. Not surprisingly, spirits consumption experienced a super-cycle during the pandemic. But as the world returned to normal, the demand for spirits has dropped off. The market believes that after a period of normalization, the US spirits market will return to mid-single-digit growth in line with history; but we think that’s too optimistic.Changes in demographics and consumer behavior make it much more likely that the US market will grow only modestly from here. There are several key challenges to the volume of US alcohol consumption in the coming years. Sobriety and moderation of alcohol intake are two rising trends. In addition, there’s the increased use of GLP-1 anti-obesity drugs, which appear to quell users' appetite for alcoholic beverages. And finally, there’s stiffer regulation, including the lowering of alcohol limits for driving.A slew of recent survey data points to consumer intention to reduce alcohol intake. A February 2023 IWSR survey reported that 50 per cent of US drinkers are moderating their consumption. Meanwhile, a January 2024 NCSolutions survey reported that 41 per cent of respondents are trying to drink less, an increase of 7 percentage points from the prior year. And importantly, this intention was most concentrated among younger drinkers, with 61 per cent of Gen Z planning to drink less in 2024, up from 40 per cent in the prior year's survey. Meanwhile, 49 per cent of Millennials had a similar intention, up 26 per cent year on year.Why is all this happening? And why now? Perhaps the increasingly vocal commentary by public bodies linking alcohol to cancer is really hitting home. Last November, the World Health Organization stated that "the higher the amount of alcohol consumed, the higher the risk of developing cancer" but also that "half of all alcohol-attributable cancers in the WHO European Region are caused by ‘light’ and ‘moderate’ alcohol consumption. A recent Gallup survey of Americans indicated that young adults are particularly concerned that moderate drinking is unhealthy, with 52 per cent holding this view, up from 34 per cent five years ago. Another explanation for the increased prevalence of non-drinking among the youngest group of drinkers may be demographic makeup: the proportion of non-White 18- to 34-year-olds has nearly doubled over the past two decades.And equally, the cost of alcohol, which saw steep price increases in the last couple of years, seems to be a reason for increased moderation. Spending on alcohol stepped up materially over the COVID-19 period when there were more limited opportunities for spending. With life returning to normal post pandemic, consumers have other – more attractive or more pressing – opportunities for expenditure.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen to podcasts. It helps more people to find the show.

The math of ‘bond-equity correlation' is complicated. Our head of Corporate Credit Research breaks it down, along with the impact of bond rates on other asset classes.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about why the same factors can have different outcomes for interest rates and credit spreads.It's Friday, April 12th at 2pm in London.  Most of 2024 remains to be written. But so far, the financial story has been a tale of two surprises. First, the US Economy continues to be much stronger and hotter than expected, with growth and job creation exceeding initial estimates. Then second, due in part to that strong economy, interest rates have risen materially, with the yield on the US 10-year government bond about half-a-percent higher since early January. More specifically, market attention over the last week has refocused on whether these higher interest rates are a problem for other markets. In math terms, this is the great debate around bond-equity or bond-spread correlation, the extent to which assets move with bond yields, and a really important variable when it comes to thinking about overall portfolio diversification. But this somewhat abstract mathematical idea of correlation can also be simplified. The factors that are driving yields higher might look very different for other asset classes, such as credit. That could argue for a different correlation. Let’s think about how.Consider first why yields have been rising. Economic data has been good, with strong job growth and rising Purchasing Manager Indices or PMIs, conditions that are usually tough for government bonds. Supply has been heavy, with the issuance of Treasuries up substantially relative to last year. The so-called carry on government bonds is bad as the yield on government bond yields is generally lower, much lower, than the yield on cash. And the time-of-year is unhelpful: since 1990, April has been the worst month of the year for government bonds.But take all those same things thought the eyes of a different asset class, such as credit, and they look – well – different. Good economic data should be good for credit; historically, low-but-rising PMIs, as we’ve been seeing recently, is the most credit-friendly regime. Corporate bond supply hasn’t risen nearly as much as the supply for government bonds. The carry for credit is positive, thanks to still-steep credit curves. And the time of year looks very different: over that same period since 1990, April has been the best month of the year for corporate credit – as well as broader stock markets.Government bonds are currently being buffeted by multiple headwinds. Hot economic data, heavy supply, poor yields relative to cash, and unhelpful seasonality. The good news? Well, Morgan Stanley’s interest rate strategists expect these headwinds to be temporary, and still forecast lower yields by year-end. But for other asset classes, including credit, it’s also important to note that that same data, supply, carry and seasonality debate – fundamentally look very different in other asset classes.We think that means that Credit spreads can stay at historically tight levels in April and beyond, even as government bond yields have risen.Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We’d love to hear from you.

With global temperatures rising and an increasing urgency to speed progress on the energy transition, our Head of Sustainability Equity Research examines the key materials needed—and the risks of disruption from US-China trade tensions.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Laura Sanchez, Head of Sustainability Equity Research in the Americas. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss a highly topical issue: the impact of US-China trade tensions on the energy transition. It is Thursday, April 11, at 12 pm in New York.Last week, you may have heard my colleagues discuss the geopolitics at play around US-China trade tensions and the energy transition. Today I’m going to elaborate on that discussion, spearheaded by my team, with a deeper dive into the materials and minerals at risk and exactly what is at stake for several industries in the US.When we talk about clean technologies such as electric vehicles, energy storage and solar, it is important to note that minerals such as rare earths, graphite, and lithium — just to name a few — are crucial to their performance. At present, China is a dominant producer of many of those key minerals, whether at the mining level – which is the case with gallium, rare earths and natural graphite; at the refining level – the case for cobalt and lithium; or at the downstream level – that is, the final product, such as batteries and EVs.If trade tensions between the US and China rise, we believe China could implement new or incremental export bans on some of these minerals that are key for western nations’ energy transition as well as for their broad economic and national security.So, we have analyzed over 10 materials and found that the highest risks of disruption exist for rare earths and related equipment, as well as for graphite, gallium, and cobalt. Some minerals have already seen certain export bans but given the lack of diversification across the value chain, we actually see the potential for incremental restrictions.So, this led us to ask our research analysts: how should investors view rising trade tensions in the context of clean technologies’ penetration, specifically?While electric vehicles appear most at risk, we see the largest negative impacts for the clean technology sector as well as for large-scale renewable energy developers. This has to do with China dominating around 70 per cent of the battery supply chain and still having strong indirect ties in the solar supply chain. But there are important nuances to consider for renewable energy developers, such as their ability to pass the higher costs to customers, whether this higher cost could hurt the economics of projects and therefore demand, and the unequal impacts between large and small players – where large, tier 1 developers could actually gain share in the market as they have proven to navigate better through supply chain bottlenecks in the past.On the Autos side, slower EV adoption would naturally impact sentiment on EV-tilted stocks; but as our sector analyst highlights, this could also mean lighter losses near term, as well as market share preservation for the largest EV players in the market. US Metals & Mining stocks would likely see positive moves as further trade tensions incentivize onshoring of mining and increase demand for US-made equipment.Given strong bipartisan support in the US for a more hawkish approach to China, our policy experts believe that the US presidential election is unlikely to lead to easing trade restrictions. Nonetheless, in terms of the energy transition theme, a Republican win could create volatility for trade and corporate confidence, while a Democrat administration would be more sensitive to the balance between protectionism and achieving global climate goals.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Chief Economist joins our Head of Fixed Income Research to review the most recent Consumer Price Index data, and they lay out potential outcomes in the upcoming U.S. elections that could impact the course of inflation’s trajectory.  ----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research.Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Global Chief Economist.Michael Zezas: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll be taking a look at how the 2024 elections could impact the outlook for inflation.It's Wednesday, April 10th at 4pm in New York.Seth, earlier this morning, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics released the Consumer Price Index (CPI) data for March, and it's probably an understatement to say it's been a much-anticipated report -- because it gives us some signal into both the pace of inflation and any potential fed rate cut path for 2024. I want to get into the longer-term picture around what the upcoming US election could mean for inflation. But first, I'd love your immediate take on this morning's data.Seth Carpenter: Absolutely, Mike. This morning's CPI data were absolutely critical. You are right. Much anticipated by markets. Everyone looking for a read through from those data to what it means for the Fed. I think there's no two ways about it. The market saw the stronger than expected inflation data as reducing the likelihood that the Fed would start cutting rates in June.June was our baseline for when the Fed would start cutting rates. And I think we are going to have to sharpen our pencils and ask just how much is this going to make the Fed want to wait? I think over time, however, we still see inflation drifting down over the course of this year and into next year, and so we still think the Fed will get a few rate hikes in.But you wanted to talk longer term, you wanted to talk about elections. And when I think about how elections could affect inflation, it's usually through fiscal policy. Through choices by the President and the Congress to raise taxes or lower taxes, and by choices by the Congress and the President to increase or decrease spending.So, when you think about this upcoming election, what are the main scenarios that you see for fiscal policy and an expansion, perhaps, of the deficit?Michael Zezas: Yeah, I think it's important to understand first that the type of election outcome that historically has catalyzed a deficit expansion is one where one party gets complete control of both the White House and both chambers of Congress.In 2025, what we think this would manifest in if the Democrats had won, is kind of a mix of tax extensions, as well as some spending items that they weren't able to complete during Biden's first term -- probably somewhat offset by some tax increases. On net, we think that would be incremental about $500 billion over 10 years, or maybe $40 [billion] to $50 billion in the first year.If Republicans are in a position of control, then we think you're looking at an extension of most of the expiring corporate tax cuts -- expire at the end of 2025 -- that is up to somewhere around a trillion dollars spread over 10 years, or maybe a hundred to $150 billion in the first year.Seth Carpenter: So, what I'm hearing you say is a wide range of possible outcomes, because you didn't even touch on what might happen if you've got a split government, so even smaller fiscal expansion.So, when I take that range from a truly modest expansion, if at all, with a split government, to a slight expansion from the Democrats, a slightly bigger one from a Republican sweep, I'm hearing numbers that clearly directionally should lead to some inflationary pressures -- but I'm not really sure they're big enough to really start to move the needle in terms of inflationary outcomes.And I guess the other part that we have to keep in mind is the election’s happening in November of this year. The new president, if there's a new president, the new Congress would take seats in the beginning of the year next year. And so, there's always a bit of a lag between when a new government takes control and when legislation gets passed; and then there's another lag between the legislation and the outcome on the economy.And by the time we get to call it the end of 2025 or the beginning of 2026, I think we really will have seen a lot of dissipation of the inflation that we have now. So, it doesn't really sound like, at least from those baseline scenarios that we're talking about a huge impetus for inflation. Would you think that's fair?Michael Zezas: I think that's fair. And then it sort of begs the question of, if not from fiscal policy, is there something we need to consider around monetary policy? And so around the Fed, Chair Powell's term ends in January of 2026 -- meaning potential for a new Fed chair, depending on the next US president.So, Seth, what do you think the election could mean for monetary policy then?Seth Carpenter: Yeah, that's a great question, Mike. And it's one that, as you know well, we tend to get from clients, which is why you and I jointly put out some research with other colleagues on just what scope is there for there to be a -- call it particularly accommodative Fed chair under that Republican sweep scenario.I would say my take is -- not the biggest risk to worry about right now. There are two seats on the Federal Reserve Board that are going to come open for whoever wins the election as president to appoint. That's the chair, clearly very important. And then one of the members of the Board of Governors.But it's critical to remember there's a whole committee. So, there are seven members of the Board of Governors plus five voting members, across the Federal Reserve Bank presidents. And to get a change in policy that is so big, that would have massive inflationary impacts, I really think you'd have to have the whole committee on board. And I just don't see that happening.The Fed is set up institutionally to try to insulate from exactly that sort of, political influence. So, I don't think we would ever get a Fed that would simply rubber stamp any president's desire for monetary policy.Michael Zezas: I think that makes a lot of sense. And then clients tend to ask about two other concerns; with particularly concerns with the Republican sweep scenario, which would be the impact of potentially higher trade tariffs and restrictions on immigration. What's your read here in terms of whether or not either of these are reliable in terms of their impact on inflation?Seth Carpenter: Yeah, super topical. And I would say at the very least, we have some experience now with tariff policy. And what did we see during the last episode where there was the trade war with China? I think it's very natural to assume that higher tariffs mean that the cost of imported goods are going to be higher, which would lead to higher inflation; and to some extent that was true, but it was a much smaller, much more muted effect than I think you might otherwise assume given numbers like 25 per cent tariffs or has been kicked around a few times, maybe 60 per cent tariffs. And the reason for that change is a few things.One, not all of the goods being brought in under tariffs are final consumer goods where the price would just go straight through to something like the CPI. A lot of them were intermediate goods. And so, what we saw in the last round of tariffs was some disruption to US manufacturing, disruption to production in the United States because the cost of production went up.And so, it was as much a supply shock as it was anything else. For those final consumer goods, you could see some pass through; but remember, there's also the offset through the exchange rate, that matters a lot. And, consumers, they have a willingness to pay, or maybe a willingness not to pay, and so, sellers aren't always able to pass through the full cost of the tariffs. And so, as a result, I think the net effect there is some modestly higher inflation, but really, it's important to keep in mind that hit to economic activity that, over time, could actually go in the opposite direction and be disinflationary.Immigration, very different story, and it has been very much in the news recently. And we have seen a huge surge in immigration last year. We expect it to continue this year. And we think it's contributing to the faster run rate that we've seen in the economy without continued inflationary pressure. So, I think it's a natural question to ask -- if immigration was restricted, would we see labor shortages? Would that drive up inflation? And the answer is maybe.However, a few things are really critical. One, the Fed is still in restrictive territory now, and they're only going to start to lower rates if and when we see inflation come down. So the starting point will matter a lot. And second, when we did our projections, we took a lot of input from where the CBO's estimates are, and they've already been assuming that immigration flows really start to normalize a bit in 2025 and a lot more in 2026. Back to run rates that are more like pre-COVID rates. And so, against that backdrop, I think a change in immigration policy might be less inflationary because we'd already be in a situation where those flows were coming down.But that's a good time for me to turn things around, Mike, and throw it right back to you. So, you've been thinking about the elections. You run thematic research here. I've heard you say to clients more than once that there is some scope, but limited scope for macro markets to think about the outcome from the election, but lots of scope from a micro perspective. So, if we were thinking about the effect of the election on equity markets, on individual sectors, what would be your early read on where we should be focusing most?Michael Zezas: So we've long been saying that the reliable market impacts from this election, at least this far out, appear to be more micro than macro. And so, for example, in a Republican sweep scenario, we feel pretty confident that there would be a heavier skew towards extending corporate tax cut provisions that are expiring at the end of 2025.And if you look at who benefits fundamentally from those extensions, it tends to be companies that do more business domestically in the US and tend to be a bit smaller. Sectors that tend to come in the scope include industrials and telecom; and in terms of size of company, it tends to skew more towards small caps.Seth Carpenter: So, I can see that, Mike, but let me make it even more provocative because a question I have got from clients recently is the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which in lots of ways is helping to spur spending on infrastructure, is helping to spur spending on green energy transition. What's the chance that that gets repealed if the outcome, if the election goes to Trump?Michael Zezas: We see the prospects for the IRA to get repealed is quite limited, even in a Republican sweep scenario. The challenge for folks who might not want to see the law exist anymore is that many of the benefits of this law have already been committed; and the geographic area where they've been committed overlays with many of the districts represented by Republicans, who would have to vote for its repeal. And so, they might be voting against the interests of their districts to do that. So, we think this policy is a lot stickier than people perceive. The campaign rhetoric will probably be, pretty elevated around the idea of repealing it; but ultimately, we think most of the money behind the IRA will be quite durable. And this is something that should accrue positively to the clean tech sector in particular.Seth Carpenter: Got it. Well, Mike, as always, I love being able to take time and talk to you.Michael Zezas: Seth, likewise, thanks for taking the time to talk. And as a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple podcast app. It helps more people find the show.

Our Chief Fixed Income Strategist surveys the latest big swings in the oil market, which could lead to opportunities in equities and credit around the energy sector.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the implications of recent strong moves in oil markets.It's Tuesday, April 9th at 3pm in New York.A lot is going on in the commodity markets, particularly in the oil market. Oil prices have made a powerful move. What is driving these moves? And how should investors think about this in the context of adjacent markets in equities and credit?Morgan Stanley's Global Commodity Strategist and Head of European Energy Research, Martijn Rats, raised crude oil price forecast for the third quarter to $94 per barrel. The rally in recent weeks is a result of positive fundamental news and rising geopolitical tensions.On the fundamental side, we've had better than expected demand from China and steeper than forecast fall in US production. Further, oil prices have also found support from growing potential for supply uncertainty in the Middle East. Martijn thinks that the last few dollars of rally in oil prices should be interpreted as a premium for rising geopolitical risks. The revision to the third quarter forecast should therefore be seen to reflect these growing geopolitical risks.Our US equity strategists, led by Mike Wilson, have recently upgraded the energy sector. The underlying rationale behind the upgrade is that the energy sector relative performance has really lagged crude oil prices; and unlike many other sectors within the US stock world, valuation in energy stocks is very compelling.Furthermore, the relative earnings revisions in energy stocks are beginning to inflect higher and the sector is actually exhibiting best breadth of any sector across the US equity spectrum. Higher oil prices are also important for credit markets. To quote Brian Gibbons, Morgan Stanley's Head of Energy Credit Research, for credit bonds of oil focused players, flat production levels and strong commodity prices should support free cash flow generation, which in turn should go to both shareholder returns and debt reduction.In summary, there is a lot going on in the energy markets. Oil prices have still some room to move higher in the short term. We find opportunities both in equity and credit markets to express our constructive view on oil prices.Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen to this podcast. And share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Chief Economist explains why the rapid hikes, pause and pivot of the current interest rate cycle are reminiscent of the 1990s.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the current interest rate cycle and the parallels we can draw from the 1990s.It's Monday, April 8th, at 10am in New York.Last year, we reiterated the view that the 1990s remain a useful cycle to consider for understanding the current cycle. Our European equity strategy colleagues shared our view, and they've used that episode to inform their ‘out of consensus, bullish initiation on European equities’ in January. No two cycles are identical, but as we move closer to a Fed cut, we reassess the key aspects of that comparison.We had previously argued that the current interest rate cycle and the mid 90s cycle differ from the intervening cycles because the goal now is to bring inflation down, rather than preventing it from rising. Of course, inflation was already falling when the 1994 cycle started, in part, because of the recession in 1991.This cycle -- because much of the inflation was driven by COVID-related shocks, like supply chains for consumer goods and shifts in housing for shelter inflation -- inflation started falling rapidly from its peak before the first hike could have possibly had any effect. In recent months, our economic growth forecasts have been regularly revised upward, even as we have largely hit our expected path for inflation.A labor supply shock appears to be a contributing factor that accounts for some of that forecast deviation, although fiscal policy likely contributed to the real side's strength as well. Supply shocks to the labor market are an interesting point of comparison for the two cycles. In the 1990s, labor force growth was still benefiting from this multi-decade rise in labor force participation among females. The aggregate labor force participation rate did not reach its peak until 2000.Now, as we've noted in several publications, the surge in immigration is providing a similar supply side boost, at least for a couple of years. But the key lesson for me for the policy cycle is that monetary policy is not on a pre-set, predetermined course merely rising, peaking and then falling. Cycles can be nuanced. In 1994, the Fed hiked the funds rate to 6 per cent, paused at that peak and then cut 75 basis points over 1995 and 1996. After that, the next policy move was actually a hike, not a cut.Currently, we think the Fed starts cutting rates in June; and for now, we expect that cutting to continue into next year. But as our US team has noted, the supply side revisions mean that the path for policy next year is just highly uncertain and subject to review. From 1994 to 1996, job gains trended down, much like they have over the past two years.That slowing was reflective of a broader slowing in the economy that prompted the Fed to stop hiking and partially reverse course. So, should we expect the same now, only a very partial reversal? Well, it's too soon to tell, and as we've argued, the faster labor supply growth expands both aggregate demand and aggregate supply -- so a somewhat tighter policy stance could be appropriate.In 1996, inflation stopped falling, and subsequently rose into 1997, and it was that development that supported the Fed's decision to maintain their somewhat restrictive policy. But we can't forget, afterward, inflation resumed its downward trajectory, with core PCE inflation eventually falling below 1.5 per cent, suggesting that that need to stop cutting and resume hiking, well, probably needs to be re-examined.So, no two cycles match, and the comparison may break down. To date, the rapid hikes, pause and pivot, along with a seeming soft landing, keeps that comparison alive. The labor supply shock parallel is notable, but it also points to what might be, just might be, another possible parallel.In the late 1990s, there was a rise in labor productivity, and we've written here many times about the potential contributions that AI might bring to labor productivity in coming years.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Oil demand has been higher than expected so far in 2024. Our Global Commodities Strategist explains what could drive oil to $95 per barrel by summer.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley’s Global Commodities Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss recent developments in the oil market. It is Friday, April the 5th at 4 PM in London. At the start of the year, the outlook for the oil market looked somewhat unexciting. With the recovery from COVID largely behind us, growth in oil demand was slowing down. At the same time, supply from countries outside of OPEC (Organization for Petroleum Exporting Countries) had been growing strongly and we expected that this would continue in 2024. In fact, at the start of the year it looked likely that growth in non-OPEC supply would meet, or even exceed, all growth in global demand. When that occurs, room in the oil market for OPEC oil is static at best, which in turn means OPEC needs to keep restraining production to keep the balance in the market. Even if it does that, it results in a decline in market share and a build-up of spare capacity. History has often warned against such periods.Still, by early February, the oil market started to look tighter than initially expected. Demand started to surprise positively – partly in jet fuel, as aviation was stronger than expected; partly in bunker fuel as the Suez Canal issues meant that ships needed to take longer routes; and partly in oil as petrochemical feedstock, as the global expansion of steam cracker capacity continues. At the same time, production in several non-OPEC countries had a weak start of the year, particularly in the United States where exceptionally cold weather in the middle of January caused widespread freeze offs at oil wells, putting stronger demand and weaker supply together, and the inventory builds that we expected in the early part of the year did not materialise. By mid-February, we could argue that the oil market looked balanced this year, rather than modestly oversupplied; and by early March, we were able to forecast that oil market fundamentals were strong enough to drive Brent crude oil to $90 a barrel over the summer.Since then, Brent has honed in on that $90 mark quicker than expected. Over the last week or so, the oil market has shown a powerful rally that has the hallmarks of simply tightening fundamentals but also with some geopolitical risk premium creeping back into the price. For now, our base-case forecast for the summer is still for Brent to trade around $90 per barrel as that is where we currently see fundamental support. However, the oil market typically enjoys a powerful seasonal demand tailwind over the summer. And that still lies ahead. And, geopolitical risk is still elevated, for which oil can be a useful diversifier. With those factors, our $95 bull case can also come into play.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Experts from our research team discuss how tensions with China could limit US access to essential technologies and minerals.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research.Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore from the US Public Policy Research Team.Michael Zezas: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll discuss how tensions in the US-China economic relationship could impact US attempts to transition to clean energy.It's Thursday, April 4th at 10am in New York.Ariana, in past episodes, I've talked about governments around the world really pushing for a transition to clean energy, putting resources into moving away from fossil fuels and moving towards more environmentally friendly alternatives. But this transition won't be easy. And I wanted to discuss with you one challenge in the US that perhaps isn't fully appreciated. This is the tension between US climate goals and the goal of reducing economic links with China. So, let's start there.What's our outlook for tensions in the near term?Ariana Salvatore: So, first off, to your point, the world needs over two times the current annual supply of several key minerals to meet global climate pledges by 2030. However, China is a dominant player in upstream, midstream, and downstream activities related to many of the required minerals.So, obviously, as you mentioned, trade tensions play a major role in the US ability to acquire those materials. We think friction between the US and China has been relatively controlled in recent years; but we also think there are a couple factors that could possibly change that on the horizon.First, China's over-invested in excess manufacturing capacity at a time when domestic demand is weak, driving the release of extra supply to the rest of the world at very low prices. That, of course, impacts the ability of non-Chinese players to compete. And second, obviously a large focus of ours is the US election cycle, which in general tends to bring out the hawk in both Democrats and Republicans alike when it comes to China policy.Michael Zezas: Right. So, all of that is to say there's a real possibility that these tensions could escalate again. What might that look like from a policy perspective?Ariana Salvatore: Well, as we established before, both parties are clearly interested in policies that would build barriers protecting technologies critical to US economic and national security. These could manifest through things like additional tariffs, as well as incremental non-tariff barriers, or restrictions on Chinese goods via export controls.Now, importantly, this could in turn cause China to act, as it has done in the recent past, by implementing export bans on minerals or related technology -- key to advancing President Biden's climate agenda, and over which China has a global dominant position.Specifically on the mineral front. China dominates 98 per cent of global production of gallium, more than 90 per cent of the global refined natural graphite market, and more than 80 per cent of the global refined markets of both rare earths and lithium. So, we've noted that those minerals are at the highest risk of disruption from potential escalation intentions.But Michael, from a market's perspective, are there any sectors that stand out as potential beneficiaries from this dynamic?Michael Zezas: So, our research colleagues have flagged that traditional US autos would see mostly positive implications from this outcome as EV penetration would likely stagnate further in the event of higher trade tensions. Similarly, US metals and mining stocks would likely benefit on the back of increased support from the government for US production, as well as increased demand for locally sourced materials.On the flip side, Ariana, any clear risks that our analysts are watching for?Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, so a clear impact here would be in the clean tech sector, which faces the greatest risk of supply chain disruption in an environment with increasing trade barriers in the alternative energy space. And that's mainly a function of the severe dependencies that exist on China for battery hardware. Our analysts also flagged US large scale renewable energy developers for potential downside impacts in this scenario -- again, specifically due to their exposure to battery and solar panel supply chains, most of which stems from China domiciled industries.Michael Zezas: Makes sense and clearly another reason we’ll have to keep tracking the US-China dynamic for investors. Ariana, thanks for taking the time to talk.Ariana Salvatore: Great speaking with you Mike.Michael Zezas: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen to the show and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Consumers are increasingly sensitive about where their personal data is being processed and stored. The head of our European Telecom team explains the complexity around data sovereignty and why investors should care about the issue.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Emmet Kelly, Head of Morgan Stanley’s European Telecom team. Today I’ll be talking about data sovereignty. It’s Wednesday, April 3rd, at 5pm in London.It’s never been easier to manage your life with just a click of a button or tap on the screen. You can take a photo, upload it to social media, and share it with friends and family. You can pay your bills online – from utilities and groceries to that personal splurge. You can even renew your library card or driver’s license or access your emails from years and years ago.But where is all this data stored? Our recent work shows that consumers are increasingly sensitive about this issue. Among European consumers, for example, more than 80 percent think it’s either very or somewhat important to know where their data is stored. And two-thirds of European consumers would like their data to be stored in their country of residence. A further 20 percent would be willing to pay more to store data locally, especially consumers in Spain and Germany. These results suggest that in the future, processing and storage of European data is more likely to be near shored rather than be based abroad.A few weeks ago, I came on this podcast to talk about our expectation that European data centers will grow five-fold over the next decade. Our research showed that key drivers would include increased cloudification, artificial intelligence and data sovereignty. We believe the most under-appreciated driver of this exponential growth is the question of where data is stored and processed. This is data sovereignty; and it’s a concern for European consumers.Data sovereignty means having legal control and jurisdiction over the storage and processing of data. It also means that data is subject to the laws of the country where that data was gathered and processed. More than 100 countries have data sovereignty laws in place, and laws governing the transfer of data between countries will only proliferate from here. In Europe, for example, we estimate that less than 50 per cent of cloud data is stored locally, within the European continent. The remainder is stored either in the US – notably in Virginia, which is the key data center hub in the United States; or, to a lesser extent, in lower-cost locations within Emerging Markets or in Asia.Complicating the issue of data sovereignty further are the so-called “extraterritorial laws” or "extra-territorial jurisdiction." These dictate the legal ability of a government to exercise authority beyond its normal geographic boundaries. From a data perspective, even if data is stored and/or processed in Europe, it may also be subject to extraterritorial laws. Essentially, foreign, non-European governments could still gain access to European data.This is something to keep in mind as we put data sovereignty in the context of the transition to a multipolar world – a major theme which Morgan Stanley Research has been mapping out since 2019. The rewiring of the global economy is well under way and data security is a key imperative for policy makers against the backdrop of accelerating tech diffusion and also geopolitical tensions. Our baseline de-risking scenario for the rewiring of global trade extends to data security and implies a robust case for the near shoring of European data and data center growth.With so little of the European data pie stored or processed in Europe, the potential upside from near-shoring is considerable. Bottom line, we think investors should pay close attention to the issue of data sovereignty, especially as it plays out in Europe over the coming decade.  Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

We discuss how the upcoming U.S. elections could affect trade and tax policy, and which scenarios are most favorable to retailers and brands. ----- Transcript -----Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore from Morgan Stanley's US Public Policy Research Team.Alex Straton: And I'm Alex Straton, head of the North America Softlines Retail and Brands team.Ariana Salvatore: On this episode of the podcast, we'll discuss some key policy issues that may play into the U.S. presidential election and their potential impact on businesses and consumers.It's Tuesday, April 2nd, at 10 am in New York.Election season is fully underway here in the U.S. and as in past election cycles, trade policy and tax reform are once again a big concern.With that in mind, I wanted to discuss the potential implications on the retail space with my colleague Alex. So, let's start there. In general, Alex, how are retail stocks impacted leading up to the U.S. presidential elections?Alex Straton: So, look, this kind of surprised us when we had looked into some of this data. But if you look at the last six elections or so, on a full year basis, trading activity can be super volatile in my coverage; and it depends on what's at stake.But what we do broadly observe is back half underperformance to a bigger magnitude than is typical in a normal year. So, there is pressure on these stocks, in a way that you don't see in non-election years. Makes sense, right? Kind of a makes sense hypothesis that we confirmed. But I think the more interesting nugget about Softlines, Retail and Brand stocks leading into elections is that the higher frequency data can actually look worse than what actually comes to fruition in the top line or the sales numbers.So, by that I mean, you'll see surveys out of our economics team or out of, you know, big economics forums that say, ‘Oh, sentiment is getting worse.’ And then we'll see things like traffic is getting worse, these higher frequency indicators; and they actually end up almost exacerbating the impact than what we actually see when we get the true revenue results later on.So, my point being -- beware, as you see this degradation in the data; that doesn't necessarily mean that these businesses fundamentals are going to deteriorate to the same degree. In fact, it shows you that -- yes, maybe they're a little bit worse, but not to that extent.Alex Straton: So, Ariana, let's look at the policy side. More specifically, let's talk about some potential changes in tax policy that's been a hot topic for companies I cover. So, what's on the horizon, top down?Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, so, lots of changes to think about the horizon here.Just for some quick context, back in 2017, Republicans under former President Trump passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and that included a whole host of corporate and individual tax cuts. The way that law was structured was set to start rolling off around 2022, and most, if not all, of the bill is set to expire by the end of 2025.So that means that regardless of the election outcome, the next Congress will have to focus on tax policy, either by extending those cuts, or allowing some or all of them to roll off. So, in general, we think a Democratic sweep scenario would make it more likely that you would see the corporate rate, perhaps tick up a few points; while in a Republican sweep, we think you probably would maintain that 21 per cent corporate rate; and perhaps extend some of the other expiring corporate provisions.So, Alex, how do you expect these potential changes in the corporate tax side to impact the retailers and the brands that you cover?Alex Straton: Yeah. So, high level, I think about it on a sub-sector basis. And so, the headline you should hear is that my brand or wholesale coverage, which has more international revenue experience exposure, is better off than my retail coverage, which has more domestic or North America exposure.And it all just comes back to having more or less foreign exposure. The more North America exposure you have, the more subject you are to a change in tax rate. The more foreign exposure you have, the less subject you are to a change in tax rate. So that's the high-level way to think about it.We did run some analyses across our coverage, and if we do see the US corporate tax rate, let's say, lowered to 15 per cent hypothetically, we'll call that the Trump outcome, if you will. We calculate about a 5 per cent average benefit to 2025 earnings across our coverage. Now on the other hand, if we see something like a corporate tax rate that goes to 25 per cent, Biden outcome -- let's just label it that. We calculate 3 per cent average downside to the 2025 EPS estimates in our coverage.So that's how we sized it. It's not a huge swing, right? And the only reason why there's what I would call more of a benefit than a downside impact of that analysis is because of where the current tax rate sits and the relative magnitudes we took around it.Alex Straton: Now back over to you. You've highlighted trade policy as another key issue for the [20]24 election. Why is it so crucial in this election cycle compared to prior ones we've seen?Ariana Salvatore: Right. So, in contrast to some of the tax changes that we were just talking about, those would require full congressional agreement, right?So, you need either sweep scenario to make changes to tax policy in a really significant way. Trade policy is completely different because it is very much at the discretion of the president alone. So, to that end, we've envisioned a few different scenarios that can range from things like targeted tariffs on particular goods or trading partners, you know, something akin to the first Trump administration; to things like a universal baseline tariff scenario, and that's more similar to some of the more recent proposals that the former president has been talking about on the campaign trail.So, there are a whole host of different circumstances that can lead to each of those outcomes, but it's critically important, that level of discretion that I mentioned before. And we think for that reason, that investors really need to contemplate each of these different scenarios and what they could mean for, you know, macro markets and their individual stocks that they cover. Because, frankly, a lot can change.So, to that point, how do you think changes in trade policy are going to affect the side of the retail sector that you cover? Obviously, you mentioned North American exposure, so I imagine that's going to be critical again.But what kind of businesses will be most affected under the different scenarios that I just mentioned?Alex Straton: Yeah, so the way we examined this on our end, so from a Softlines, Retail, and Brands perspective, was looking at what a incremental China tariff means.I do think there's important background for people to understand in my space that differs this time around versus an election cycle, you know, four or eight years ago, whatever it may have been -- in that my companies have intentionally diversified out of China.The fact I love to give people is that US apparel imports from China has fallen from nearly 40 per cent to 20 per cent in the last, you know, decade or so; with 10 points of that in the last five years alone. So, the headline you should hear is there's not as much China exposure as there used to be. So that's good if there is a tariff put on for my companies. But with that backdrop, turning to the numbers, we have about 20 per cent cost of goods sold exposure to China on average across Softlines, Retail and Brands businesses.So, if that goes up by an incremental 10 per cent what we calculate is about a 15 per cent impact to 2025 earnings across my coverage. One final thing I would say is that it's very rare for businesses to have a North America based supply chain. But there are some companies -- very few, but select ones -- that do have a majority domestic supply chain. You can think about some of the favorite jeans you might wear on an everyday basis. Maybe more often than not, you don't realize they're actually made in America. And that's a benefit in a scenario like that.Ariana Salvatore: Makes sense. Alex, thanks for taking the time to talk.Alex Straton: It was great speaking with you, Ariana. Thanks for having me.Ariana Salvatore: And thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen to the show and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Chief Economist surveys recent US and Australian census data to explain immigration’s impact on labor supply and demand, as well as the implications for monetary policy. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist, along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives. And today, I'll be talking about immigration, economic growth, and the implications for monetary policy.It's Monday, April 1st, at 10am in New York.Global migration is emerging as an important macro trend. Some migration patterns change during and after COVID, and such changes can have first order effects on the population and labor force of an economy.That fact has meant that several central banks have discussed immigration in the context of their economic outlook; and we focus here on the Fed and the Reserve Bank of Australia, the RBA.In the US, recent population estimates from the CBO and the census suggests that immigration has been and is still driving faster growth in the population and labor supply, helping to explain some of last year's upside surprise in non-farm payrolls. In Australia, the issue is even longer standing, and accelerated migration in recent years has provided important support to consumption and inflation.From a macro perspective, immigration can boost both aggregate demand and aggregate supply. More specifically, more immigration can lead to stronger consumption spending, a larger labor force, and may drive investment spending.The permanence of the immigration, like some immigrants are temporary students or just visiting workers, the skill level of the migrants and the speed of labor force integration are consequential -- in determining whether supply side or demand side effects dominate. Demand side effects tend to be more inflationary and supply side effects more disinflationary.In Australia, the acceleration in immigration has played an important driver in population growth and aggregate demand. In the decade before COVID, net migration added about a percentage point to the population growth annually. In 2022 and 2023, the growth rate accelerated beyond two percent. The pace of growth and migration and the type of migration have supported consumption spending and made housing demand outpace housing supply.Our Australia economists note that net migration will likely remain a tailwind for spending in 2024 -- but with significant uncertainty about the magnitude. In stark contrast, recent evidence in the US suggests that the surge in immigration has had a relatively stronger impact on aggregate supply. Growth in 2023 surprised to the upside, even relative to our rosier than consensus outlook.Academic research on US states suggests that over the period from 1970 to 2006, immigration tended to increase capital about one for one with increases in labor -- because the capital labor ratio in states receiving more immigrants remained relatively constant. That is, the inflow of immigrants stimulated an increase in investment.Of course, the sector of the economy that attracts the immigrants matters a lot. Immigrants joining sectors with lesser capital intensiveness may show less of this capital boosting effect.So, what are the implications for monetary policy? Decidedly, mixed. In the short run, more demand from any of the above sources will tend to be inflationary, and that suggests a higher policy rate is needed. But, as any supply boosting effects manifest, easier policy is called for to allow the economy to grow into that higher potential. So, a little bit here, a little bit there. Over the long run, though, only a persistently faster growth rate in immigration, as opposed to a one-off surge, would be able to raise the equilibrium rate, the so-called R star, on a permanent basis.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.

A landmark settlement with the National Association of Realtors will change the way brokers are paid commissions. How would this affect people looking to buy or sell homes? Our co-heads of Securitized Products Research discuss.----- Transcript -----James Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley.Jay Bacow: And I'm Jay Bacow, the other co-head of Securitized Products Research.James Egan: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing some proposed changes to the US housing market. It's Thursday, March 28th, at 1pm in New York.Jay Bacow: Jim, two weeks ago, the National Association of Realtors (NAR) settled a case that could fundamentally change how commissions are paid to brokers. Acknowledging that there's a few months until this is all going to get approved, it looks like sellers are no longer going to have to compensate buyers’ agents. Which means that the closing cost that sellers have to pay is going to come down from the current 5 to 6 per cent to brokers to something more in the context of 3.5 to 4 percent -- based on estimates from many economists. What does this mean for the housing market?James Egan: So, this is certainly a settlement worth paying attention to.There are a lot of moving pieces here, but some of our first thoughts. Look, if we're lowering the ultimate transaction costs when it comes to selling homes, we do think that -- all else equal and probably a little bit more into the future -- it's going to lead to a higher volume of transactions. Or a higher level of turnover in the housing market.Now sellers no longer having to compensate buyers’ agents. That becoming something that buyers will need to do -- that could, at least from a perception perspective, increase the cost for buyers at a place, where we're already at one of our least affordable points in several decades. So, when we think about an increased level of transaction volumes; if that means, especially in the near term, or especially where we are right now, a little bit of an increase in for-sale inventory, combined with some of the affordability issues -- maybe it weighs a little bit on home prices. But our bottom line here is we think from a home price perspective, largely unchanged here. From a transaction volume perspective, all else equal, you could see a little bit of a pickup.Jay Bacow: All right. But Jim, haven't you been calling for some of the story already with increased housing activity, causing home prices to end 2024 slightly below 2023. Does this then change the narrative at all?James Egan: No, I don't think this changes the narrative. If we go back into that call just a little bit, our call for the marginal decrease in year over year home price growth was driven by growth in for-sale inventory this year. We're seeing that steady growth in existing listings over the past couple of months.Now, the most recent housing start print was also positive from this perspective. Single unit housing starts were up for the eighth month in a row and have now increased 11 per cent from their local lows, which were in June of 2023. I think it's also worth pointing out over that same time frame, five plus unit starts, multi-unit housing, they're down in almost every single one of those months -- all but one of them. And they're down 19 per cent from that same month, June of 2023. But that's probably something for another podcast.Jay Bacow Alright. Well, I think there's two more things we should include in this podcast. First, this settlement isn't the only factor that could increase housing activity. Recently, around the State of the Union [address], President Biden announced a number of plans that could also contribute.Now, some of them require congressional approval, including a $10,000 middle-income first-time homebuyer tax credit. And then a separate $10,000 tax credit to middle class families that would sell their home below the median income in the county to help account for some of these lock-in effects that you mentioned.Jay Bacow: However, he also announced a pilot program that would eliminate total insurance fees for some low-risk refinance transactions. And that one doesn't require congressional approval; it's getting put in place as we speak, and that would save homeowners about $750 in closing costs on a refinance.James Egan: Interesting. So, if I'm hearing you correctly, the ones that would require congressional approval, they're more on the -- what we would call housing activity side: sales, purchase volumes. Whereas the one that didn't was on the refinance side. Now, presumably there's not much refinance activity going on right now.Jay Bacow: That's a correct presumption. Right now, we estimate that only about 3 per cent of homeowners have a critical incentive to refinance 25 basis points versus a prevailing mortgage rate. So, this is going to matter a lot more if we rally in rates. Realistically, we think we need a mortgage rate to get closer to 5 per cent than the current level for this to really matter.But I imagine that's probably a similar case with the NAR settlement as well.James Egan: Exactly. And that's why I made a point to say, all else equal, we think this is going to lead to a higher volume of transactions or a higher turnover rate in the housing market. It's because of that lock-in effect. Right now, so much of the homeowning distribution is well below the prevailing mortgage rate, that any real impacts of this we think are just going to be on the margins.Jay Bacow: Alright, so there's a lot of changes are coming to the housing market. They're likely to impact the market more if rates rally and are more of the back half of the year, next year event than this summer.Jim, thanks for taking the time to talk.James Egan: Great speaking with you, Jay.Jay Bacow: And thanks for listening.If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen, and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Consumer credit scores have ticked higher in the last two years – but so have the rate of delinquencies and defaults. Our Global Head of Fixed Income discusses “credit score migration” with the firm's Asset-Backed Security Strategist.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley.Heather Berger: And I'm Heather Berger, Asset-Backed Security Strategist.Michael Zezas: And today, we'll be talking about the trend of migrating US consumer credit scores and the potential effect on equities and fixed income. It's Wednesday, March 27th at 10am in New York.Heather, I really wanted to talk to you today because we've all seen some recent news reports about delinquencies and defaults in consumer credit ticking higher over the last two years. That means more people missing payments on their car loans and credit cards, suggesting the consumer is increasingly in a stressed position. But at the same time, that seems to be at odds with what's been an upward trend in consumers’ credit scores, which on its face should suggest the consumer is in a healthier position.So, it all begs the question: what's really going on here with the consumer, and what does it mean for markets? Now, you and your colleagues have been doing some really fascinating work showing that in order to get to the truth here, we have to understand that there's a measurement problem. There’s quirks in the data that, when you understand them, mean you have a more accurate picture of the health of the consumer. And that, in turn, can clarify some opportunities in the fixed income and equity markets.So, this measurement problem seems to center around the idea of credit score migration. Can you start by explaining what exactly is credit score migration?Heather Berger: Sure. So, credit scores are used as a way to estimate expected default risk on consumer loans. And these scores are really the most standardized and widespread way of evaluating consumer credit quality. Scores are meant to be relative metrics at any point in time. So, a 700 score today is meant to indicate less default risk than a 600 score today, but a 700 score today isn't necessarily the same as a 700 score a few years ago.Credit scores have been increasing throughout the past decade; most extremely from 2020 to 2021, largely due to COVID related factors such as stimulus checks. The average credit score is up 10 points in the past four years, and this trend has broadly been referred to as credit score migration.Michael Zezas: So, just so we can have a concrete example, can you talk about how this has affected one particular consumer credit category?Heather Berger: Well, as you mentioned earlier, delinquencies and defaults have been rising across consumer loan types, whether it's autos, credit cards, or personal loans. The macro backdrop has definitely contributed to this, as inflation has weighed on consumers real disposable income, but we do think that score migration has had an impact as well, considering the large changes over the past few years.Looking at auto loans, for example, with the same credit scores from 2022 versus loans from 2018, we see that delinquency rates on the 2022 loans are up to 60 per cent higher than on the 2018 loans. We estimate that 30 to 50 per cent of this increase can be due to effects of credit score migration.Michael Zezas: And is there anything we can assume here about the actual health of the US consumer? Do we see delinquencies improving or getting worse?Heather Berger: I think one of the main takeaways here is that since score migration impacts performance metrics, we shouldn't necessarily extrapolate delinquency data to broader consumer health. Despite the high delinquency rates, our economists do expect consumers to remain afloat.They're forecasting a modest slowdown in consumer spending this year as we move off a hot labor market and continue to face elevated interest rates.Michael Zezas: So, let's shift to the market impacts here. Maybe you could tell us what your colleagues in equity research saw as the impact on the banks and consumer finance sectors. And in your area of expertise, what are the impacts for asset-backed securities?Heather Berger: We think that across both of these spaces, taking into account changes in credit scores will be important to use in models moving forward; and this can help us to more accurately assess the risks of consumer loans and to predict performance. Movements in credit scores have actually been muted in the past year, which is a big change from the large increases we saw a few years ago.So, score migration should now have a smaller impact on consumer performance and delinquency rates. This means that performance will be driven by macro factors and lending standards. As inflation comes down and with lending standards tight, we view this as a positive for asset backed securities, and our colleagues view it as a positive for their coverage of consumer finance equities.Michael Zezas: Heather, this has been really insightful. Thanks for taking the time to talk.Heather Berger: Great speaking with you, Michael.Michael Zezas: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy thoughts on the market, please be sure to rate and review us on the Apple podcast app or wherever you listen. It helps more people find the show.

As investors look for clues on market durability, our Chief U.S. Equity Strategist highlights which sectors could show more widely distributed gains in the near term.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about an opportunity for energy stocks to keep working in the near term.It's Tuesday, March 26th at 9:30 am in New York. So let’s get after it.Over the past five months, global stocks are up about 25 percent while many other asset prices were up double digits or more. What’s driving this appreciation? Many factors are at work. But for stock indices, it’s been mostly about easier financial conditions and higher valuations rather than improving fundamentals. Granted, higher asset prices often beget even higher prices – as investors feel compelled to participate. From our perspective, it’s hard to justify the higher index level valuations based on fundamentals alone, given that 2024 and 2025 earnings forecasts have barely budged over this time period.  We rolled out our “Boom-Bust” thesis in 2020 based on the shift to fiscally dominant policy in response to the pandemic. At that point, our positive view on stocks was based on the boom in earnings that we expected over the 2020-2021 period as the economy roared back from pandemic lows. Our outlook anticipated both accelerating top line growth and massive operating leverage as companies could reduce headcount and other costs while people were locked down at home. The result was the fastest earnings growth in 30 years and record high margins and profitability. In other words, the boom in stocks was justified by the earnings boom that followed. Stock valuations were also supported by arguably the most generous monetary policy in history. The Fed continued Quantitative Easing throughout 2021, a year when S&P earnings grew 48 percent to an all-time high.Today, stock valuations have reached similarly high levels achieved back in 2020 and [20]21 – in anticipation of improving growth after the earnings deterioration most companies saw last year. While the recent easing of financial conditions may foreshadow such an acceleration in earnings, bottom-up expectations for 2024 and [20]25 S&P 500 earnings remain flat post the Fed’s fourth quarter dovish shift. Meanwhile, small cap earnings estimates are down 10 percent and 7 percent for 2024 and [20]25, respectively since October. We think one reason for the muted earnings revisions since last fall, particularly in small caps, is the continued policy mix of heavy fiscal stimulus and tight front-end interest rates. We see this crowding out many companies and consumers.  The question for investors at this stage is whether the market can finally broaden out in a more sustainable fashion. As we noted last week, we are starting to see breadth improve for several sectors. Looking forward, we believe a durable broadening comes down to whether other stocks and sectors can deliver on earnings growth. One sector showing strong breadth is Industrials, a classic late-cycle winner and a beneficiary of the major fiscal outlays for things like the Inflation Reduction and CHIPS Act, as well as the AI-driven data center buildout. A new sector displaying strong breadth is Energy, the best performer month-to-date but still lagging considerably since the October rally began. Taking the Fed’s recent messaging that they are less concerned about inflation or loosening financial conditions, commodity-oriented cyclicals and Energy in particular could be due for a catch-up. The sector’s relative performance versus the S&P 500 has lagged crude oil prices, and valuation still looks compelling. Relative earnings revisions appear to be inflecting as well. Some listeners may be surprised that Energy has contributed more to the change in S&P 500 earnings since the pandemic than any other sector. Yet it remains one of the cheapest and most under-owned areas of the market.  Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen and leave us a review. We’d love to hear from you. 

Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist explains why private credit markets have expanded rapidly in recent years, and how they may fare if public credit makes an expected comeback.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the implications of the rapid growth in private credit for the broader credit markets.  It’s Monday, March 25th at 12 noon in New York.The evolution of private credit is reshaping the landscape of leveraged finance. Investors of all stripes and all around the world are taking notice. The rapid expansion of private credit in the last few years has come against a much different backdrop in the public credit markets – a contraction in the high yield bond market and lackluster growth in the broadly syndicated loan market. What the emergence of private credit means for the public credit and the broader credit markets is a topic of active debate.Just to be clear, let me define what we mean by private credit. Private credit is debt extended to corporate borrowers on a bilateral basis or involving very small number of lenders, typically non-banks. Lenders originate and negotiate terms directly with borrowers without the syndication process that is the norm in public markets for both bonds and loans. These private credit loans are typically not publicly rated; they’re not typically traded in secondary markets; tend to have stronger lender protections and offer a spread premium to public markets.Given the higher overall borrowing costs as well the need to provide stronger covenant protection to lenders, what motivates borrowers to tap private credit versus public credit? Three key factors explain the recent rapid growth in private credit and show how private credit both competes and complements the public credit markets.First, small and medium-sized companies that used to rely on banks had to find alternative sources of credit as banks curtailed lending in response to regulatory capital pressures. A majority of these borrowers have very limited access to syndicated bond and loan markets, given their modest size of borrowings.Second, because of the small number of lenders per deal – frequently just one – private credit offers both speed and certainty of execution along with flexibility of term. The last two years of monetary policy tightening has meant that there was a lot of uncertainty around how high policy rates would go and how long they will stay elevated – which has led investors to pull back. The speed and certainty of private credit ended up taking market share from public markets against this background, given this uncertainty in the public markets.Third, the pressure on interest coverage ratios from higher rates resulted in a substantial pick-up in rating agency downgrades into the B- and CCC rating categories. At these distressed ratings levels, public markets are not very active, and private credit became the only viable source of financing.Where do we go from here? With confidence growing that policy tightening is behind us and the next Fed move will be a cut, the conditions that contributed to deal execution uncertainty are certainly fading. Public markets, both broadly syndicated loan and high yield bond markets, are showing signs of strong revival. The competitive advantage of execution certainty that private credit lenders were offering has become somewhat less material. Further, given the amount of capital raised for private credit that is waiting to be deployed – the so-called dry powder – the spread premium in private credit may also need to come down to be competitive with the public markets.So private credit is both a competitor and a complement to the public markets. Its competitive attractiveness will ebb and flow, but we expect its complementary benefit as an avenue for credit where public markets are challenged to remain as well as grow.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts or wherever you get this podcast – and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Head of Corporate Credit notes that while recent central bank meetings offered few surprises, there was still plenty to be gleaned that could affect credit valuations.  ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about this week’s central bank meetings, and why as expected outcomes can still mean new information for credit investors.It's Friday, March 22nd at 2pm in London.When a good friend was interviewing at Morgan Stanley, many years ago, he was asked a version of the ‘Monty Hall Problem.’ Imagine that you’re on a game show with a prize behind one of three doors. You make your guess of door 1, 2 or 3. And then the host opens one of the doors you didn’t pick, showing that it’s empty. Should you change your original guess?While it’s a bit of a paradox, you should. Your original odds of finding the prize were 1-in-3. But by showing you a door with a wrong answer, the odds have improved. The host gave you new information. And that’s what came to mind this week, after important meetings from the Federal Reserve and Bank of Japan. Both banks acted in-line with our economists’ expectations. But those meetings and what came after still provided some valuable new information. Information that, in our view, was helpful to credit.On Tuesday, the Bank of Japan raised interest rates for the first time since 2016, ended Yield Curve Control, and ended its purchases of equities. All of these measures had been previously used to help boost too-low inflation. But they have also resulted in a significant weakening of Japan’s currency, the Yen. And that, in turn, had made it attractive for Japanese investors to invest in overseas bonds in other currencies – which were gaining value as the Yen weakened.So, one risk heading into this week was that these big changes in the Bank of Japan would reverse these other trends. It would strengthen the currency and make buying corporate bonds from the US or Europe less attractive to Japanese investors. But this meeting has now come and gone, and the Yen saw little movement. That is helpful, new information. Before Tuesday, it was impossible to know how the currency would react.Then on Wednesday, the Fed confirmed its expectation from December that it was planning to cut interest rates three times this year. On the surface, that was another ‘as expected’ outcome. But it still contained new information. The Fed’s forecast suggested more confidence that stronger 2024 growth wouldn’t lead to higher inflation. And that endorsed the idea that the productive capacity of the US economy is improving. Solid growth and lower inflation co-existing, thanks to better productivity, will be closer to a 1990s style outcome. And that was a pretty good scenario for credit.This week’s central bank meetings have come and gone without big surprises. But sometimes ‘as expected’ can still deliver new information. We continue to expect credit valuations to hold at richer-than-average levels, and like US leveraged loans, as a high yielding market well-suited for a mid-90s scenario.Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We’d love to hear from you. 

The perspective from our recent European Financials Conference looked positive for UK markets, loan demand and M&A activity. Our European heads of Diversified Financials and Banks Research discuss.----- Transcript -----Bruce Hamilton: Welcome to thoughts on the Market. I'm Bruce Hamilton, head of European Diversified Financials Research.Alvaro Serrano: And I'm Alvaro Serrano, head of European Banks Research.Bruce Hamilton: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll discuss some of the key takeaways from Morgan Stanley's just concluded 20th European Financials Conference. It's Thursday, March 21st at 3 pm in London.Alvaro, we were both at the European Financials Conference in London. More than 100 companies attended the event. 95 percent of the attendees were from CE level management. There was a lot to take in.Investor sentiment heading into the conference seemed noticeably more upbeat than last year's, thanks in part to stronger-for-longer net interest income (NII), an M&A cycle that is heating up, attractive capital returns, and increasing activity in private markets.Now you were the conference chair, Alvaro. And you have a unique overview of this event. What's, in your view, the single most important takeaway?Alvaro Serrano: Thanks, Bruce. Look, I think for me that if I had to summarize in two words is ‘risk on.’ I think the tone of the conference has been positive almost across the board. The lower rate outlook has increased market confidence. And corporates were pointing that out. They've seen stronger activity, so far this year, in many product lines. They've called out loan demand being stronger. They've called out debt capital market activity being stronger. They've announced M&A -- we know is up strongly and asset management inflows are up strong as well. So yes, a strong start to the year - confidence is back, and I would summarize it as risk on.Bruce Hamilton: Got it. And in terms of the other key themes and debates that emerged from company presentations at the conference.Alvaro Serrano: Yeah, look, I think the main themes following up from what I was saying earlier are: First of all, I would say leadership change. Within the sector, we've been calling for leadership change in our outlook. And I think what we heard at the conference supports this. So, given market activities coming back, I think a lot of investors were more keen to look for more resilient revenue models; maybe less peripheral banks, less NII retail-centric banks. And looking for more fee growth that could benefit from that market recovery.The second point I would point out is UK. There’s definitely a change in sentiment around the UK in the polling questions. It came out as a preferred region, and I think what's behind that preference is that we're seeing an inflection point in NII.And I think the third and final theme for me is investment banking and wealth recovery. Look, wealth may not recover already in Q1. But as this confidence builds up, we definitely expect inflows to pick up in the second half, both in quantity and margin.Bruce Hamilton: So, based on your own work and what you heard at the conference, what's your overall view on the financial sector and what drives that from here?Alvaro Serrano: We continue positive the sector. Look, the valuation is depressed. The multiples, the PE multiples on six times. Historically, it's been much closer to double-digit. We think, recovering PMIs should help re-rate that multiple. And while we do wait for those PMIs to recover, you're being paid 11 per cent yield between dividends and buybacks.I think the confidence build up that we're seeing in the tone of the conference suggests an early indicator of those PMIs recovering, if you ask me. And then in the panels, we've had plenty of discussions around asset quality. Obviously, commercial real estate exposure is a big theme. But we think it's a manageable problem. It's less than 5 per cent of the loan books, within that office is less than a third. And within that US office spaces is a fraction. So overall, we think it's a manageable problem and our highest single conviction in the sectors that the yields are sustainable and resilient.So, with a strong valuation underpin, we continue, positive of the sector.Bruce, why don't I turn it over to you? Given your focus on private markets, exchanges, and asset management sub-sectors within diversified financials, can you talk us through private markets and deal activity space?Bruce Hamilton: Yeah, our fireside chats with panels, and with private market management teams, saw more optimistic commentary on capital markets activity. And similarly fundraising improvements are expected to be closely linked to cash flows from exit activity flowing back to institutional clients, who can then reallocate to new funds.So there's a little delay. But overall, the direction of travel clearly feels positive and pointed to a reacceleration in the private markets’ flywheel in due course, which has been, of course, the rationale behind the more positive view we have taken on this subsector since our outlook piece in November last year.Alvaro Serrano: AI is obviously a dominant theme across sectors and industries globally. Also, by the way, a frequent topic in the discussion of this podcast. Can you give us an update on AI and its implications for wealth and asset management?Bruce Hamilton: Sure. I mean, our discussions with asset management CEOs highlighted the transformative potential of AI, as they see it as a source of significant efficiency potential across the value chain. From sales and marketing, through investments and research, to middle and back office -- in areas such as report writing, research synthesis and client servicing. The benefits of starting early, with leaders having been working on this for 12 months or more, seems clear given the need to manage risks, for example, ensuring data quality to avoid hallucinations.One asset management CEO indicated that his firm had identified 85 use cases, with 35 already in production. The initial opportunities for asset managers were seen as principally in driving cost efficiencies; though in wealth management a greater revenue potential we think exists given the scope to improve the effectiveness of wealth advisors in targeting and servicing clients.Exchanges also noted scope for AI to both support revenue momentum. For example, via chatbots, assisting clients in accessing data more effectively. And in driving efficiency in report writing, as well as in costs. So, think about scope to drive efficiencies in areas such as client servicing and data ingestion and organization where large language models (LLMs) are already driving efficiency gains for employees.Alvaro Serrano: Finally, let's talk about private credit, another big theme. What did you hear, at the conference around the growth of private credit? And what's your outlook from here?Bruce Hamilton: Sure. So, the players were positive on the potential for growth in private credit from here. In the near-term deployment opportunities probably look stronger in the private credit space relative to private equity, where some differences in buyer-seller expectations is still acting as a bit of a constraint. There are opportunities given bank retrenchments, even if the Basel III endgame is expected to be less negative than initial draft proposals. And the appetite from insurance -- institutional, as well as retail clients for the diversification benefits and attractive yields on offer -- remains pretty significant.Both private market specialists and traditional asset managers continue to explore ways to extend their capabilities in the space, with some adopting an organic approach and others looking to accelerate scaling via M&A.We expect that as we look forward, that some recovery in the bank's syndicated lending markets is likely to reduce the record market share enjoyed by private credit in private equity deals last year. However, we think a more vibrant overall deal environment is likely to drive opportunities for both bank syndicated and private credit looking forward.The democratization theme with wealth clients increasing allocations to private markets remains an additional powerful growth theme as we look forward; both for private credit providers, as well as players active in private equity infrastructure and real estate.I'm sure there'll be lots more to unpack from the conference in the near future. Let's wrap it up for this episode. Alvaro, thanks a lot for taking the time to talk.Alvaro Serrano: Great speaking with you, Bruce.Bruce Hamilton: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research outlines the potential impact the upcoming U.S. elections could have on increasing treasury yields, US-China policy and Japan’s current trajectory.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about overseas investors' view on the US election. It's Wednesday, Mar 20th at 10:30 am in New York. I was in Japan last week. And as has been the case with other clients outside the US, the upcoming American elections were a key concern. To that end, we’re sharing the three most frequently asked questions, as well as our answers, about the impact of the U.S. election on markets coming from clients outside the US.First, clients are curious what the election could mean for what’s recently been a very rosy outlook for Japan. The central bank is taking steps toward normalizing monetary policy which, combined with corporate reforms, is driving renewed investment. And it doesn’t hurt that multinationals are finding it more challenging to do new business in China due to U.S. policy restrictions. In our view, regardless of the election outcome, these positive secular trends will continue. While its true that Republicans are voicing greater interest in tariffs on US friend and foe alike, in our view there are other geographies more likely to bear the impact of stricter trade policy from the US – such as Europe, Mexico, and China; areas where there’s clearer overlap between US trade interests and the geopolitical preferences of the Republican party.Second, clients wanted to know what the election would mean for US-China policy. The first thing to understand is that both parties are interested in policies that build barriers protecting technologies critical to US economic and national security. For Democrats, this has meant a focus on extending non-tariff barriers such as export and investment restrictions; many of which end up affecting the trade relationship between the US and China, and over time have resulted in US direct investment tilting away from China and toward the rest of the world.  Republicans support these policies too. But key party leaders, including former President and current candidate Trump, also want to use tariffs as a tool to negotiate better trade agreements; and, potentially as a fall back, to harmonize tariff levels between countries. So, the election is unlikely to yield an outcome that eases trade tension between the US and China. But an outcome where Republicans win could create more volatility for global trade flows and corporate confidence, creating more economic uncertainty in the near term. Third and finally, clients wanted to know if there were any election outcomes that would reliably change the trajectory of US growth, inflation, and accordingly the trajectory for treasury yields. In particular there was interest in outcomes that could cause yields to move higher. Our take here is that there’s been no solidly reliable outcome that points in that direction -- at least not yet. While it's likely that a potential Trump presidency would favor tax cuts and tariffs, it’s not clear that either of these definitively lead to inflation. Cutting taxes for companies with healthy balance sheets doesn’t necessarily yield more investment. Tariffs increase the cost of the thing being tariffed, but that could lead to prices of other goods in the economy suffering from weaker demand. Relatedly, the idea that a more dovish Fed could enable inflation is not a foregone conclusion because – as we’ve discussed on prior episodes – the President's ability to influence monetary policy is more limited than you might think.Still, because of the pileup of these factors, it wouldn’t be surprising to see rates rise at some point this year on election risk perceptions. But it's not clear this would be a sustained move, and so it's not causing us yet to recommend clients’ position for it. For clients looking for more reliable market moves from the election, we’re still focused on key sectoral impacts: sectors like industrials and telecom which could benefit from tax cuts in a Republican win scenario; and sectors like clean tech which benefit in a Democratic win scenario, on greater certainty for the spend of energy transition money in the IRA.  Of course, as markets change and price in different outcomes, interesting macro markets opportunities will emerge -- and we’ll be here to tell you all about it.Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We’d love to hear from you.

Our Chief Asia and Emerging Market Equity Strategist reviews an up-and-down first quarter for markets across the region, and gives an update on which sectors investors should be eyeing. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to the Thoughts on the Market. I’m Jonathan Garner, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Asia and Emerging Market Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about our key investment views in Asia. It's Tuesday, Mar 19th at 9 am in Singapore.It's been quite a first quarter in Asian equities with a wide degree of dispersion in market returns. At one end of the spectrum Japan’s Nikkei index is up 16 percent. At the other end, despite a recent rally, the Hang Seng index in Hong Kong is down 2 percent for the year. Meanwhile, the AI thematic has helped Taiwan into second place regionally, with a 10 percent gain; but Korea has risen by a lot less.Our highest conviction views remains that we’re in the midst of multi-year secular bull markets in Japan and India, whilst at the same time China is in a secular bear market. So, let’s lay out the building blocks of those theses.Firstly, Japan’s Return on Equity Journey. We think that markets – like stocks – reward improvement in profitability or ROE. The drivers of the ROE improvement are numerous but include domestic reflation, a weaker Yen, a productive capex cycle and improved capital management by Japan’s leading firms. And these together have led to improving net income margins in two-thirds of industries versus a decade ago. We forecast robust EPS growth of around 9 percent in 2024, with similar growth in 2025. Now that’s assuming our foreign exchange strategists’ USD/JPY forecast of 140 for the fourth quarter of this year is accurate. This week the BOJ – the Bank of Japan – is considering whether to exit its Negative Interest Rate Policy and abolish or flex yield curve control. If it does so, that will be a sign – along with recent strong wage gains – that Japan has definitively exited deflation.Secondly, India’s Decade. Multipolar world trends are supporting foreign direct investment (FDI) flows and portfolio flows to India, whilst positive demographics from a rapidly growing working age population are also supporting the equity market. India is holding national elections in May, and we will be watching the policy framework thereafter. But our base case is little change; success that India has achieved in macro-stability is underpinning a strong capex and profits outlook.Finally, China’s Deflationary Challenge. China continues to battle what we’ve termed its 3D challenge of Debt (now standing at 300 per cent of GDP), Demographics and Deflation. And profitability has fallen steadily in recent years – so going in the opposite direction from Japan; approximately halving since the middle of the last decade, whilst earnings have missed for nine straight quarters. We think more forceful countercyclical measures are needed to boost demand in China given incipient balance sheet recession due to headwinds from property and local government austerity.Finally, to summarize some of our sector and style views. We still like Korea and Taiwan’s semiconductors, into an expected 2024 recovery in traditional product areas such as smart phone, as well as the new theme of AI related demand. We are positive on Financials in India, Indonesia and Singapore; Industrials in India and Mexico; and Consumer Discretionary in India. On the quant and style side, we’re neutral on value versus growth as we expect the path to lower yields to be bumpy – as inflation risk remains. And we have recently recommended investors to reduce momentum exposure for risk management purposes given the strong outperformance year to date.Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen – and leave us a review. We’d love to hear from you.

Our CIO and Chief Equity Strategist discusses the continued uncertainty in the markets, and how investors are now looking at earnings growth and improving valuations.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the risk of higher interest rates and equity valuations. It's Monday, March 18th at 11:30 am in New York. So let’s get after it.Long term interest rates peaked in October of last year and coincided with the lows in equities. The rally began with the Treasury's guidance for less coupon issuance than expected. This surprise occurred at a time when many bond managers were short duration. When combined with the Fed’s fourth quarter policy shift, there was a major squeeze in bonds. As a result, 30-year Treasury bonds returned 19 per cent over the October-December 2023 period, beating the 14 per cent return in the S&P 500. Nearly all of the equity return over this period was attributable to higher valuations tied to the fall in interest rates.Fast forward to this year, and the story has been much different. Bond yields have risen considerably as investors took profits on longer term bonds, and the Fed walked back several of the cuts that had been priced in for this year. The flip side is that the growth data has been weaker in aggregate which argues for lower rates. Call it a tug of war between weaker growth and higher inflation than expected.There is also the question of supply which continues to grow with the expanded budget deficit. From an equity standpoint, the rise in interest rates this year has not had the typically negative effect on valuations.  In other words, equity investors appear to have moved past the Fed, inflation and rates – and are now squarely focused on earnings growth that the consensus expects to considerably improve.  As noted in prior podcasts, the consensus earnings per share (EPS) growth estimates for this year are high, and above our expectations – in the context of sticky cost structures and falling pricing power as fiscal spend crowds out both labor and capital for the average company. In our view, this crowding out is one reason why fundamentals and performance have remained relatively muted outside of the large cap, quality winners. We have been expecting a broadening out in leadership to other large cap/quality stocks away from tech and communication services; and recently that has started to happen. Strong breadth and improving fundamentals support our relative preference for Industrials within broader cyclicals.Other areas of relative strength more recently include Energy, Materials and Utilities. Some of this is tied to the excitement over Artificial Intelligence and the impact that will have on power consumption. The end result is lower valuations for the index overall as investors rotate from the expensive winners in technology to laggards that are cheaper and may do better in an environment with higher commodity prices.  Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen --and leave us a review. We’d love to hear from you. 

Our Head of Corporate Credit Research explains why leveraged loans would benefit if bumpy inflation data leads the Federal Reserve to delay interest rate cuts.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll be talking about the ramifications of the fed rate cuts, and what it could mean for credit – and what would benefit if rates stay higher for longer. It's Friday, March 15th at 2pm in London.The big story in markets this week was inflation. U.S. Consumer Price inflation continues to moderate on a year-over-year basis, but the recent path has been bumpier than expected. And as U.S. Economic growth in the first quarter continues to track above initial expectations, there’s growing debate around whether the U.S. economy is still too strong to justify the Federal Reserve lowering rates.Morgan Stanley’s economic base case is that these inflation readings will remain bumpy – but will trend lower over the course of the year. And if we couple that with our expectations that job growth will moderate, we think this still supports the idea that the Federal Reserve will start to lower interest rates starting in June.Yet the bumpiness of this recent data does raise questions. What if the Federal Reserve lowers rates later? Or what if they lower rates less than we expect?For credit, we think the biggest beneficiary of this scenario would be leveraged loans. For background, these represent lending to below-investment grade borrowers, similar to the universe for high yield bonds. But loans are floating rate; their yields to investors rise and fall with central bank policy rates.Coming into 2024, there were a number of concerns around the levered loan market. Worries around growth had led markets at the start of the year to imply significant rate cuts from the Fed. And that’s a double whammy, so to speak, for loans; as loans are both economically sensitive to that weaker growth scenario and would see their yields to investors decline faster if there are more rate cuts. Meanwhile, an important previous buyer of loans, so-called Collateralized Loan Obligations, or CLOs, had been relatively dormant.Yet today many of those factors are all looking better. Estimates for US 2024 GDP growth have been creeping up. CLO activity has been restarting. And some of this recent growth and inflation data means that markets are now expecting far fewer rate cuts – which means that the yield on loans would also remain higher for longer. And that’s all happening at a time when the spread on loans is relatively elevated, relative to similar fixed rate high yield bonds.A question of whether or not U.S. inflation will be sticky remains a key debate. While we think inflation resumes its improvement, we like leveraged loans as a high yielding, floating rate instrument that has a number of key advantages – if rates stay higher, for longer, than we expect.Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We’d love to hear from you. 

Morgan Stanley’s chief economists have their quarterly roundtable discussion, focusing on the state of inflation across global regions, the possible effect of the US election on the economy and more.----- Transcript -----Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts On the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. On this episode, on this special episode of the podcast, we'll hold our second roundtable discussion covering Morgan Stanley's global economic outlook as we look into the second quarter of 2024.It's Thursday, March the 14th at 10 am in New York.Jens Eisenschmidt: And it's 2 pm in London.Chetan Ahya: And 10pm in Hong Kong.Seth Carpenter: Excellent. So, things around the world have changed significantly since our roundtable last quarter. US growth is notably stronger with few signs of a substantial slowdown. Inflation is falling, but giving some hints that things could stay -- maybe -- hotter for longer.In Europe, things are evolving mostly as anticipated, but energy prices are much lower, and some data suggest hope for a recovery. Meanwhile, in China, debt deflation risks are becoming a reality. And the last policy communication shows no sign of reflation. And finally, Japan continues to confirm the shift in equilibrium, and we are expecting the policy rate change imminently.So, let's dig into these developments. I am joined by the leaders of the economics team in key regions. Ellen Zentner is our Chief US Economist, and she's here with me in New York. Chetan Ahya is our Chief Asia Economist, and Jens Eisenschmidt is our Chief Europe Economist.Ellen, I'm going to start with you and the US. Have the stronger data fundamentally changed your view on the US economy or the Fed?Ellen Zentner: So, coming off of 2023, growth was just stronger than expected. And so, carrying that into 2024, we have revised upward our GDP forecast from 1.6 per cent Q4 over Q4 to 1.8 per cent. So already we've got stronger growth this year. We have not changed our inflation forecast though; because this could be another year of stronger data coming from supply side normalization, and in particular the labor market -- where it's come amid higher productivity and decelerating inflation. So, I think we're in store for another year like that. And I would say if I add risks, it would be risk to the upside on growth.Seth Carpenter: Okay, that makes sense. But if there's risk to the upside on growth -- surely there's some risk that the extra strength in growth, or even some of the slightly stronger inflation that we've seen, that all of that could persist; and the Fed could delay their first cut beyond the June meeting, which is what you've got penciled in for the first cut. So how do you think about the risks to the timing for the Fed?Ellen Zentner: So, I think you've got a strong backdrop for growth. You've got relatively easy financial conditions. And Fed policymakers have noted that that could pose upside risks to the economy and to inflation. And so, they're very carefully parsing every data point that comes in. Chair Powell said they need a bit more confidence on inflation coming down. And so that means that the year over year rate on core PCE -- their preferred measure of inflation -- needs to continue to take down.I think that the risk is more how long they stay on hold -- than if the next move is a hike, which investors have been very focused on. Do we get to that point? And so certainly if we don't see the next couple of months and further improvement, then I think it just does lead for a longer hold time for the Fed.Seth Carpenter: All right. A risk of a longer hold time. Chetan, how do you think about that risk?Chetan Ahya: That risk is important to consider. We recently published on the idea that Asian central banks will have to wait for the Fed. Even though inflation across Asia is settling back into target ranges, central banks appear to be concerned that real rate differentials versus US are negative and still widening, keeping Asian currencies relatively weak.This backdrop means that central banks are still concerned about future upside to inflation and that it may not durably stay within the target. Finally, growth momentum in Asia excluding China has been holding up despite the move in higher real rates -- allowing central banks more room to be patient before cutting rates.Seth Carpenter: I got it. Okay, so Jens, what about for the ECB? Does the same consideration apply if the Fed were to delay its cutting cycle?Jens Eisenschmidt: I'm glad you're asking that question, Seth, because that's sort of the single most asked question by our clients. And the answer is, well, yes and no. In our baseline, first of all, to stress this, the ECB cuts before the Fed, if only by a week. So, we think the ECB will go on June 6th to be precise. And what we have heard, last Thursday from the ECB meeting exactly confirms that point. The ECB is set to go in June, barring a major catastrophe on growth or disappointments on inflation.I think what is key if that effect cuts less than what Ellen expects currently; the ECB may also cut less later in the year than we expect.So just to be precise, we think about a hundred basis points. And of course, that may be subject to downward revision if the Fed decides to go later. So, it's not an idle or phenomenon. It's rather a rather a matter of degree.Seth Carpenter: Got it. Okay, so that's really helpful to put the, the Fed in the context of global central banks. But, Ellen, let me come back to you. If I'm going to look from here through the end of the year, I trip over the election. So, how are you thinking about what the US election means for the Fed and for the economy as a whole?Ellen Zentner: Sure. So, I think the important thing to remember is that the Fed has a domestic directive. And so, if there is something impacting the outlook -- regardless, election, geopolitics, anything -- then it comes under their purview to support the economy. And so, you know, best example I can give maybe is the Bush Gore election, when we didn't know who was going to be president for more than two months.And it had to go to the Supreme Court, and at that time, the uncertainty among households, among businesses on who will be the next president really created this air pocket in the economy. So that's sort of the best example I can give where an election was a bit disruptive, although the economy bounced back on the other side of that.Seth Carpenter: But can I push you there? So, it sounds like what you're saying is it's not the election per se that the Fed cares about. the Fed's not entering into the political fray. It's more what the ramification of the election is for the economy. Is that a fair statement?Ellen Zentner: Absolutely. Absolutely fair.Chetan Ahya: One issue the election does force us to confront is the prospect of geopolitical tension, and in particular the fact that President Trump has discussed further tariffs. For China, it is worth considering the implications, given the current weakness.Seth Carpenter:  That’s a really good point, Chetan, but before we even get there, maybe it's worth having you just give us a view on where things stand now in China. Is there hope of reflationary fiscal policy?Chetan Ahya: Unfortunately, doesn’t seem like a lot right now. We have been highlighting that China needs to stimulate domestic demand with expansionary fiscal policy targeted towards boosting consumption. And it is in this context that we were closely watching policy announcement during the National People's Congress a couple of weeks ago.Unfortunately, the announcement in NPC suggests that there are very limited reflationary policies being implemented right now. More importantly, the broad policy focus remains firmly on supporting investment and the supply side; and not enough on the consumption side. So, it does seem that we are far away from getting that required reflationary and rebalancing policies we think is needed to lift China back to moderate 2 to 3 per cent inflation trajectory.Jens Eisenschmidt: I would jump in here and say that part of the ongoing weakness we see in Europe and in particularly Germany is tied to the slowdown in global trade and the weakness Chetan is talking about for China.Seth Carpenter: Okay, Jens, if you're going to jump in, that's great. Could you just let us know where do you think things go in Europe then for the rest of this year and into next year?Jens Eisenschmidt: So, we see indeed a small rebound. So, things are not looking great on numbers. But, you know, where we are coming from is close to recessionary territory; so everything that's up looks will look better.So, we have 0. 5 on year and year growth rates; 1 percent next year; 0.5 for this year. In terms of quarterly profiles -- so, essentially we are hitting at some point later this year a velocity between 0.2 to 0.3, which is close to potential growth for the Euro area, which we estimate at 1.1.Seth Carpenter: Got it. Okay, so outside of the U. S. then. China's week. Europe's lackluster Chetan, I gotta come back to you. Give us some good news. Talk to us about the outlook for Japan. We were early adopters of the Japan reflation story. What does it look like now?Chetan Ahya: Well, the outlook in Japan is the exact opposite of China. We are constructive on Japan's macro-outlook, and we see Japan transitioning to a moderate but sustainable inflation and higher normal GDP growth environment.Japan has already experienced one round of inflation and one round of wage growth. But to get to sustained inflation, we need to see wage growth to stay strong and more evidence of wage passing through to inflation. In this context, we are closely watching the next round of wage negotiations between the trade unions and the corporate sector.We expect the outcome of first round of negotiations to be announced on March 15th, and we think that this will reflect a strong acceleration in wage growth in Japan. And that, we think, will allow Japan's core inflation to be sustained at 1.5 to 1.75 per cent going forward.This rise in inflation will mean higher normal GDP growth and lower real interest rates, reviving the animal spirits and revitalize the corporate sector. We do see BOJ moving from negative rates to positive rates in March 19th policy meeting and later follow up with another 15 bps (basis points) hike in July policy meeting. But we think overall policy environment will remain accommodative supporting Japan's reflation story.Seth Carpenter: All right, that does make me feel a little bit better about the global economy outside of the US. But I'm seeing the indication from the producers, we've got to wrap up. So, I'm going to go to each of you, rapid fire questions. Give me two quick risks to your forecast. Ellen for the US…Ellen Zentner: All right. If we're wrong and the economy keeps growing faster, I think I would peg it on something like fiscal impulse, which has been difficult to get a handle on. Maybe throw in easier than expected financial conditions there that fuel the economy, fuel inflation. I think if we slow a lot more then it's likely because of some stresses in the banking sector.Let's think about CRE; we say it's contained, maybe it's not contained. And then also if companies decide that they do need to reduce headcounts because economic growth is weaker, and so we lose that narrative of employee retention.Seth Carpenter: Got it. Okay, Jens, you're up. Two risks.Jens Eisenschmidt: The key upside risk is clearly consumption. We have a muted part for consumption; but consumption isn't really back to where it has been pre-COVID or just barely so. So, there's certainly more way up and we could be simply wrong because our outlook is too muted.Downside, think of intensification of supply chain disruptions. Think about Red Sea. The news flow from there is not really encouraging. We have modeled this. We think so far so good. But if persists for longer or intensified, it could well be a downside risk because either inflation goes up and/or growth actually slows down.Seth Carpenter: Perfect. All right, Chetan, let me end with you and specifically with China. If we are going to be wrong on China, what would that look like?Chetan Ahya: We think there are two upside risks to our cautious view on China's macro-outlook. Number one, if global trade booms, that helps China to use its excess capacity and enables it to de-lever and lift its inflation. And number two, if we see a shift in the reflationary and rebalancing policies, such that there is aggressive increase in social expenditure on things like healthcare, education, and public housing. This would help households to unlock precautionary saving, boost consumption demand, and get China out of current deflationary environment.Seth Carpenter: Got it. Ellen, Chetan, Jens, thank you each for joining us today. And to the listener, thank you for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to the show and share thoughts on the market with a friend or a colleague today.

Our Freight Transportation & Airlines Analyst unboxes the latest trends around parcel transit times and systems in the U.S. and their impact on the future of e-commerce supply chains.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ravi Shanker, Morgan Stanley’s Freight Transportation analyst. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss what’s happening in the eCommerce parcel delivery space. It’s Wednesday, March 13, at 10 AM in New York.Most people love the convenience of online shopping. You click, you pay. Next thing you know, your doorbell rings. Turns out, we’ve become so used to this kind of instant gratification that many customers now abandon an online cart – if the delivery process takes too long. eCommerce parcel delivery companies are taking notice of consumers' growing impatience and are putting a lot of effort into making parcel transit shorter, faster and tighter. A couple of factors drive this trend. First, we have the retailers’ desire to store inventory at more locations; closer to the end-consumer versus the centralized, nationalized distribution centers of the old model. Second, connecting those inventory locations quickly, easily and cheaply by truck rather than long-haul transportation modes like air or rail. As a result, companies can offer consumers one-day or same-day delivery in a highly cost-effective manner.This means a shift from long-distance transit via air towards ground transportation – be it express or non-express ground. Such a transition could be a drag on margins at major parcel companies. These players are fully aware of the risk; and they’re making their own structural changes and downsizing their air business. However, even as big parcel companies are trying to keep up with the times and evolving consumer pressures, the transition from long-haul air to short-haul truck makes parcel delivery a less complex operation to run – and that may attract more competitors over time.Another factor at play is the continued popularity of curbside pickup, also known as Click And Collect or even delivery from the store – these are options that became ubiquitous during the pandemic. Even post-pandemic, major retailers have been attempting to move inventory closer to customers and lowering the cost to ship to homes by treating their physical brick and mortar stores as last-mile fulfillment options.As inventories have been getting leaner over the last few quarters, Click & Collect, Ship from Store, and other similar services have seen their popularity rise. Indeed, several retailers have expanded their physical footprint to accommodate these options. Or they have leveraged their current stores to offer more of these capabilities.We think this could have a significant impact on eCommerce supply chains for incumbent parcel companies. In the current long-distance eCommerce supply chain model, the long-haul middle-mile portion accounts for the bulk of the profitability for a parcel carrier. By substituting that middle-mile parcel move with regular inventory channel fill, parcel companies could be effectively excluded from the process, in our view. Given their entrenched long-haul networks, it could be difficult for the parcel companies to be consistently profitable doing last-mile deliveries alone. Instead, this last mile delivery market could go to delivery companies, regional delivery providers, or even in-house delivery solutions.This is a rapidly evolving landscape, and we’ll continue to keep you updated on major new developments.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our roundtable of experts recaps highlights from the 2024 Morgan Stanley Technology, Media & Telecom Conference, including AI innovation, trends in live entertainment and the need for operational efficiency. ----- Transcript -----Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley Research's US thematic strategist. I'm joined by Ben Swinburne, who leads coverage of the media and entertainment, advertising, and cable and satellite industries, and Kieran Kenny, who covers internet. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today we'll discuss some key themes from Morgan Stanley's recently concluded Technology, Media, and Telecom Conference in San Francisco.It's Tuesday, March 12th, at 10am in New York.Ben, Kieran, we have to lead off on AI. It was a tech conference. As we've written about in the past, most companies want to either be AI enablers or AI adopters. And we believe that 2024 will be the year of the adopters. We scraped transcripts of the presentations at the conference and found that AI was mentioned 155 times.There was a particular focus on Generative AI or Gen AI. And one of the means of adopting AI that was repeatedly mentioned was using chatbots for customer service. And chatbots can easily handle commonly asked questions without needing a customer service person to speak live. Kieran, can we start by talking about some of the most interesting ways companies and internet are adopting AI?Kieran Kenny: So, there's a wide range of use cases so far. What we're seeing more recently is growing adoption for, to your point, AI assistance for customer support types of use cases. We're also seeing increased adoption from advertisers; for generative AI, for image and text creation for advertisements. And in the video game space, we're also seeing demand for generative AI based content creation tools -- to give you a sense of some of the use cases. The most common use case, though, is adoption of generative AI coding assistant tools, which we're seeing that pretty pervasively across the internet space.Michelle Weaver: Great. And I know you've done a bunch of work around AI. What are some of the areas you think we'll see the quickest AI driven efficiency gains?Kieran Kenny: I think most likely you'll see the efficiency gains come first in the code assistant use cases. That when we go through and scan company disclosures for efficiency gains related to generative AI and look through some of the empirical studies -- code assistant tools tend to show the most consistent productivity gains in the 20 to 50 per cent range. And because R&D expenses are such a large percent of revenue for internet. It's on average 25 percent. There's a really strong incentive for companies to adopt those tools to drive productivity amongst their software engineers. So, we think that's the area you're likely going to see the benefits first.Michelle Weaver: Great. Thanks, Kieran. Ben, what do you think some of the most interesting ways companies in your coverage are leveraging AI?Benjamin Swinburne: I would echo some of the points that Kieran made, particularly around content creation and dealing with customers.You know, in the content creation area, we're seeing AI leveraged in creative services. So, creating content for marketing purposes is an area we're seeing the ad agencies look for opportunities. In the audio industry, we've seen AI used to more efficiently and more effectively translate podcasts and audio books to different languages, which can be then distributed around the world.One leading streaming audio company has an AI DJ that they used to drive recommendations for listeners. And on the customer front, we're seeing a lot of companies in the cable industry, basically distribute AI tools into their call centers and into their network diagnostics -- so they can predict where network failures may happen before they happen. Or help call center agents better help customers with issues more effectively using, you know, AI and big data.Michelle Weaver: Great. Super interesting. I'm sure that's just the tip of the iceberg, too, in terms of what we'll see with AI adoption. Ben, I also noticed that there was a lot of discussion from media companies around live events and whether that's high demand for concert tickets, streaming services offering live events, or demand for theme parks. Can you tell us a little bit about consumer experiences in the media space?Benjamin Swinburne: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, we believe that there are secular drivers of consumer spending towards experiences, for a variety of reasons. And we're seeing that happen; show up in the results and outlook for a number of companies in our coverage. We had some really positive commentary from a number of companies in the theme park space around current trends, which are pacing better than expected from the conference. We've seen leading streaming companies increase their investment in live content, particularly live sports, which is uniquely powerful and driving customer acquisition and attracting advertising dollars.And probably no place is consumer spending continuing to grow and grow off record levels as quickly as they are in concerts. Where we really see -- while it's a minority of the population that drives the concert industry. Our survey work and what we heard at the conference last week is that consumers value that live communal experience more than ever. And we're seeing that show up in financial results.Michelle Weaver: The last theme I want to talk about is operational efficiency and profitable growth. Our research has shown that companies that demonstrate high operational efficiency have outperformed on a relative basis over the past two years; and operational efficiency and cost cutting came up repeatedly and fireside conversations with the phrase ‘do more with less’ being used quite a few times. And it was clear that at the conference companies are very aware of the importance of being the best operators, given the expectations for more tepid economic growth in 2024.Kieran, what did you hear about profitable growth or the importance of efficiency within internet?Kieran Kenny: For many of our companies, including one of the largest social media slash advertising companies in the space, 2023 was very much a year of efficiency. But that focus is persisting through 2024 and is likely to continue going forward. So, I think a lot of companies are pointing to that one social media company as the North Star of their ability to operate with a leaner cost structure, to be more disciplined in their investments. And ultimately do that in a way where hopefully it can reaccelerate revenue growth and not be detrimental to revenue growth. So, efficiency and AI, well they go hand in hand. Both of those are two of the biggest focus areas for internet companies broadly.Michelle Weaver: Ben, same question for you. What did you hear about the importance of efficiency in the media world?Benjamin Swinburne: Yeah, we’re seeing focus on efficiency, both in sort of an offensive and a defensive posture. I mean, there are companies who are seeing accelerating revenue growth, demonstrating real pricing power in their business who are also reducing headcount and focusing on operating leverage. So, there's no question that efficiency, particularly in the technology industries, has probably never been a bigger focus than it is right now.We're also seeing companies that are heavily driven by -- you know, service companies driven by labor costs looking at offshoring. That's a big theme in our space. Probably more on the defensive side, companies facing real secular challenges on the revenue front are looking for efficiencies, particularly around content spending. That typically shows up in a shift to more unscripted content, which is less expensive or producing more content offshore with lower cost of production.Michelle Weaver: Ben, Kieran, thank you for taking the time to talk. And thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share thoughts on the market with a friend or colleague today.

Matt Cost of the firm’s U.S. Internet team shares his key takeaways from the 2024 Morgan Stanley Technology, Media & Telecom Conference, including the online ad market’s rebound and the future of property tech.  ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Matt Cost, from the Morgan Stanley US Internet team.Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll talk about some key trends that emerged in conversations with internet companies at Morgan Stanley’s 2024 Technology Media and Telecom Conference in San Francisco.It’s Monday, Mar 11th at 8am in New York.So, we had a busy four days at the conference last week. It was our biggest gathering yet for what’s really the marquee TMT event of the year. And we brought together companies and investors from all over the world for keynotes and meetings and a lot of moments in between to connect with industry insiders about the latest trends in their space.I want to start with talking about AI. It was a big topic for almost every company we saw. But I’d say that for me, the video game companies stood out the most. Some C-suite executives that we spoke to talked about how their companies could become up to 30 per cent more efficient, as they leverage new AI tools to build and operate their games. But they also talked about the need to reinvest those efficiencies to make sure their products are the biggest, the best, and the most competitive they can be.This is against a video game market backdrop that remains more mixed though we did hear about some green shoots in mobile games; since there are a number of newly launched games there that are getting good traction – which is actually something we haven’t seen in a few years at this point. On the M&A front, after a wave of game industry consolidation we’ve seen over the past few years, we did hear companies acknowledge that scale matters more than ever – if you want to compete in this space.When it comes to the advertising companies, it’s clear that we’ve seen a marked improvement in the health of the online ad markets since October and November of [20]23, but there are still pockets of strength and weakness, particularly for smaller players where competition is the most intense.We’re also seeing a major focus on privacy, which has been a long-term trend in the space. But in the near term, the industry does expect browser cookies to go away later this year. And investors are trying to decide who that might hurt – and in some cases who it might potentially help. And when it comes to AI in the ad space, we’ve heard a mostly positive story about the potential for more personalized and better targeted ads in the future.Finally on the property tech side. Despite the fact that the residential real estate market is still pretty subdued in the US, many players in the space feel that two years into higher mortgage rates, they have leaner business models that set them up well to benefit when the market does come back. We also heard greater confidence from companies that they don’t expect to see major disruption from the ongoing legal disputes around real estate broker commissions. But that does remain one of the uncertainties in the space that investors are the most focused on into 2024 and beyond.For more on the Morgan Stanley TMT conference, check out the episode tomorrow, where my colleagues will dive deeper into thematic takeaways from this year's event.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen. And share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Head of Corporate Credit Research cites near-term and long-term factors indicating that investors should expect a major boost in merger and acquisition activity.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape, and how we put those ideas together.It's Friday, March 8th at 2:00pm in London.Usually, company activity follows the broader trends in markets. But last year, it diverged. 2023 was generally a strong year for economic growth and the stock market. But Mergers and Acquisition activity was anemic. By our count, global M&A activity in 2023, adjusted for the size of the economy, was the lowest in 30 years. We think that’s going to change. There are both near-term and longer-term reasons why we think the buying and selling of companies can pick up. We think we’re going to see the return of M&A.Near term, we think corporate confidence, which is essential to any large transaction, is improving. While stocks and the economy were ultimately strong last year, a lot of 2023 was still dominated by fears of rising yields, elevated inflation and persistent expectations of recession. Recall that as recently as October of 2023, the median stock in the S&P 500 was actually down about 5 per cent for the year.All of those factors that were hitting corporate confidence, today are looking better. And with Morgan Stanley’s expectation for 2024, and economic soft landing, we think that improvement will continue. But don’t just take our word for it. The companies that traffic directly in M&A were notably more upbeat about their pipelines when they reported earnings in January.Incidentally, this is also the message that we get from Morgan Stanley’s industry experts. We recently polled Morgan Stanley Equity Analysts across 150 industry groups around the world. Half of them saw M&A activity increasing in their industry over the next 12 months. Only 6 per cent expected it to decline.But there’s also a longer run story here.We think we can argue that depressed corporate activity has actually been a multi-year story. If we think about what factors historically explained M&A activity, such as stock market performance, overall valuations, volatility, Central Bank policy, and so on – the activity that we’ve seen over the last three years has undershot what these variables would usually expect by somewhere between $4-11 trillion. We think that speaks to a multi-year hit to corporate confidence and increased uncertainty from COVID and its aftermath; as that confidence returns, some of this gap might be made up.And there are other longer-term drivers. We believe Private Equity firms have been sitting on their holdings for an unusually long period of time, putting more pressure on them to do deals and return money to investors. Europe is just starting to emerge from an even longer-drought of activity, while reforms in Japan are encouraging more corporate action. We are positive on both European and Japanese equity markets. And other multi-year secular trends – from rising demand in AI capabilities, to clean energy transition, to innovation in life sciences – should also structurally support more M&A over the next cycle.Mergers and Acquisition activity has been unusually low. We think that’s changing, and investors should expect much more of this activity going forward.Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We’d love to hear from you.

Morgan Stanley’s Europe Telecom Analyst outlines three factors pointing to a boom, the obstacles to overcome and the associated industries most likely to benefit.---- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Emmet Kelly, head of Morgan Stanley's European Telecom team. Today, I'll be talking about the rise of data centers in Europe.The subject of data centers has, until now, largely been confined to the U.S. However, we believe that this is all about to change; and we also think the market significantly underestimates the size and scope of this potential growth in Europe.Why do we believe that the European data center market is set for such strong growth? Well, we've identified three reasons.The first reason is cloud computing. The primary driver of data center demand today is cloud and digitalization.Cloud represents the lion's share of data center growth in Europe on our numbers. Roughly 60 percent of growth by 2035. The second driver is AI. What's interesting is training AI models needs to be done within a single data center, and that's driving demand for large data center campuses across the globe.The third driver is data sovereignty. Data sovereignty is becoming increasingly important to both companies and also to consumers. Essentially, consumers want their data to be stored at home, and they want this to be subject to local law. A common parallel I've received is: would you want your bank account to be stored in a different country? The answer is probably no. And therefore, we believe that data will be increasingly near-shored across EuropeSo what's limiting European data center growth today? There are a number of hurdles in place and these bottlenecks include energy, capital, planning permission, and also regulationSo how do we get around that? Well, having chatted with my colleagues in the utilities and renewables teams, it's been quite clear that Europe needs to invest a lot of money in renewable energy, up to 35 billion euros over the next decade in Europe. This will bring a lot of onshore wind, offshore wind, solar and hydro energy to the market.In terms of the big data center markets in Europe, we've identified five big data center markets, commonly referred to as FLAP-D.Now this acronym does not roll off the tongue, but it does stand for Frankfurt, London, Amsterdam, Paris, and Dublin. Today, there are constraints in three of those markets, in Ireland, in Frankfurt and also in Amsterdam. We therefore believe that London and Paris should see outsized growth in data centers over the next decade or so.We also believe we'll see the emergence of new secondary data center markets.So, who stands to benefit from the explosive growth of European data centers? Among the key beneficiaries, we would highlight the picks and shovels. I'm talking about electric engineering, construction. I'm talking capital goods. We've also got the hyperscalers, the large providers of cloud computing and storage services. And then there is the co-locators as well. Beyond this, it's also worth looking at private capital and private equity companies as being positively exposed too.Thanks for listening. If you do enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share thoughts on the market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Head of Fixed Income shares some startling data on decarbonization, the widespread use of AI and longevity.  ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about key secular themes impacting markets.It's Wednesday, Mar 6th at 10:30 am in New York.We kicked off 2024 by highlighting the three secular themes we think will make the difference between being ahead of or behind the curve in markets – longevity, AI tech diffusion, and decarbonization. How’s it going so far? We’ve got some initial insights and opportunities at the sector level worth sharing, and here they are through the lens of three big numbers.The first number is €5 trillion – that’s how much our global economics and European utilities teams estimate will be spent in Europe by 2030 on efforts to decarbonize the energy system. These attempts will boost both growth and inflation, though by how much remains unclear. A more concrete investment takeaway is to focus on the sectors that will be on the receiving end of decarbonization spending: utilities and grid operators.The second set of numbers are US$140 billion and US$77 billion – these are our colleagues' total addressable market projections for smart-chemo, over the next 15 years, and obesity treatments, by 2030. In terms of our longevity theme, we see companies increasingly investing in and achieving breakthroughs that can extend life. While the theme will have myriad macro impacts that we’re still exploring, the tangible takeaway here is that there are clear beneficiaries in pharma to pursue.The last number we’re focusing on is US$500 billion. That’s the opportunity associated with a fivefold increase in the size of the European data center market out to 2035. That should be driven by the need to ramp up to deal with key tech trends, like Generative AI.So, while those numbers drive some pretty clear equity sector takeaways, the macro market implications are somewhat more complicated. For example, on longevity, a common client question is whether health breakthroughs will have a beneficial impact for bond investors by shrinking fiscal deficits. Among US investors, for example, one theory is that breakthroughs in preventative care will reduce Medicare and Medicaid spending. But even if that proved true, we still have to consider potential offsetting effects, such as whether new healthcare costs will arise. After all, if people are living longer, more active lives, they might need more of other types of healthcare, like orthopedic treatments. Simply put, the macro market impacts are complicated, but critical to understand. We remain on the case. In the meantime, there’s clearer opportunities from our big themes in utilities, pharma, and other key sectors.Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We’d love to hear from you.

With tax season underway, our U.S. economist explains what the average refund will look like and how people are likely to spend it.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Sarah Wolfe, from the Morgan Stanley US Economics Team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll talk about the US federal tax refunds season. It’s March 5, at 10 AM in New York. The IRS began accepting tax returns for the 2023 tax year on January 29, 2024. This is about a week later than when they started accepting tax returns in 2023. As a result, the number of refunds and the total amount of refunds issued by the end of February is about 12 per cent below where they were at the same time last year. However, if we look at the average refund amount that households are getting in the third and fourth week of the tax refund season, they are about in line with the prior year. As such, we expect that total refunds will ramp up to an average amount similar to last year; so that’s about $3100 per person. While data show that refunds can fluctuate notably on a weekly and daily basis, total tax refunds through the end of February ran about in line compared to the same period over the past five years. Let’s remember though that they’re not going to be as high as 2022 when refunds were much larger due to COVID-related stimulus programs. So, we can compare it to the past five years apart from 2022.February through April remains the period where most tax refunds are received and spent, with the greatest impact on consumer spending in March. Our own AlphaWise survey of household intentions around the refunds reveals that households typically spend about a third of their refunds on everyday purchases – such as grocery, gas, apparel. Another third goes toward paying off debt, and the remaining third into savings. Last year, higher inflation pushed more households to use their refunds on everyday purchases. This year, it is likely that everyday purchases will remain a top priority, but we do think that more refunds will go in towards paying off debt than last year. There’s a couple of reasons why we think this. First, there was an expiration of the student loan moratorium at the end of 2023. This is affecting millions of student loan borrowers and putting more pressure on their debt service obligations. And then we’re also seeing rising credit card and consumer loan delinquencies, which reveal pressure to pay down debt. If we look at spending intentions by income group, upper income households are more likely to save any tax refund they may get or spend it on home improvement and vacations. So, a bit more on the discretionary side.When we think about tax liabilities instead of refunds, anomalous factors make this year’s tax season a poor comparison to last year – because last year several states got an extended deadline due to natural disasters. A delayed Tax Day largely impacts filers who have a tax liability or a complicated financial situation and prefer to file later. This has larger implications for the fiscal deficit since delayed tax remittances caused a larger deficit in the third quarter of 2023, and then it narrowed in the fourth quarter when remittances came in. But in terms of refunds and consumer spending, filers who expect refunds tend to file early and on time. An extension of the deadline has very little impact on this group of consumers.All in all, based on early data, we think that total tax refunds this year will be similar to last year, though higher than pre-COVID years due to inflation. Barring factors that can lead to a significant shift of the filing deadline, we should see a more normal timeline for tax remittances, but it is still important to track closely how the tax season evolves.Thank you for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

The U.S. stock market is rising to new highs, but investors should still try to minimize risk in their portfolios. Our analysts list a few key strategies to navigate this dynamic.----- Transcript -----Stephan Kessler: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stefan Kessler, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Quantitative Investment Strategies Research, QIS Research in short.Aris Tentes: And I am Aris Tentes, also from the QIS research team.Stephan Kessler: Along with our colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today we'll discuss different strategies to hedge equity portfolios.It's Monday, the 4th of March at 10am in London.The US equity market has been climbing to record levels, and it seems that long only investors -- and especially investors with long time horizons -- are inclined to keep their positions. But even in the current market environment, it still makes sense to take some risk off the table. With this in mind, we took a closer look at some of the potential hedging strategies for high conviction calls with a quantitative lens. Long only portfolios of high conviction names of opportunities for excess returns, or alpha; but also of exposures to broad market risk, or beta, embedded in these names.While investors are keen to access the idiosyncratic excess return in individual stocks, they often overlook the systematic market and risk factors that come with owning stocks. Rather than treating these risks as uncontrolled noise, it makes sense to think about hedging such risks.Aris, let me pass over to you for some popular approaches to hedging such risk exposures.Aris Tentes: Yes, thank you, Stefan.Today, investors can use a range of approaches to remove systematic risk exposures. The first one, and maybe the most established approach, is to hedge out broad market risks by shorting equity index futures. Now, this has the benefit of being a low-cost implementation due to the high liquidity of a futures contract.Second, a more refined approach, is to hedge risks by focusing on specific characteristics of these stocks, or so-called factors, such as market capitalization, growth, or value. Now this strategy is a way to hedge a specific risk driver without affecting the other characteristics of the portfolio. However, a downside of both approaches is that the hedges might interfere with the long alpha names, some of which might end up being effectively shorted.Stephan Kessler: Okay, so, so these are two interesting approaches. Now you mentioned that there is a potential challenge in which shorting out specific parts of the portfolio and removing risks, we effectively end up shorting individual equities. Can you tell us some approaches which can be used to overcome this issue?Aris Tentes: Oh, yes. Actually, we suggest an approach based on quantitative tools, which may be the most refined way of overcoming the issues with the other approaches I talked about. Now, this one can hedge risk without interfering with the long alpha positions. And another benefit is that it provides the flexibility of customization.Stephan Kessler: Aris, maybe it's worth actually mentioning why better hedges are important.Aris Tentes: So actually, better hedges can make the portfolio more resilient to factor and sector rotations. With optimized hedges, a one percentile style or sector rotation shock leads to only minor losses of no more than a tenth of a percentage point. As a result, risk adjusted returns increase noticeably.Stephan Kessler: That makes sense. Overall, hedging with factor portfolios gives the most balanced results for diversified, high conviction portfolios. One exception would be portfolios with a small number of names, where the universe remaining for the optimized hedge portfolio is broad enough to construct a robust hedge. This can lead to returns that are stronger than for the other approaches.However, if the portfolio has many names, the task becomes harder and the factor hedging approach becomes the most attractive way to hedge. Having discussed the benefits of factor hedging, I think we also should talk about the implementation side. Shorting outright futures to remove market beta is rather straightforward. However, it leaves many other sectors and factor risks uncontrolled. To remove such risks, pure factor portfolios are readily available in the marketplace.Investors can buy or sell those pure factor portfolios to remove or target factor and sector risk exposures as they deem adequate. Pure factor portfolios are constructed in a way that investment in them does not affect other factor orsector exposures. Hence, we refer to them as “pure.” Running a tailored hedge rather than using factor hedging building blocks can be beneficial in some situations -- but comes, of course, at a substantially increased complexity.Those are some key considerations we have around performance enhancement through thoughtful hedging approaches.Aris, thank you so much for helping outline these ideas with me.Aris Tentes: Great speaking with you, Stefan.Stephan Kessler: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Our head of Corporate Credit Research explains why the Purchasing Manager’s Index is a key indicator for investors to get a read on the economic outlook.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape, and how we put those ideas together.It's Friday, March 1st at 2pm in London.A perennial problem investors face is the tendency of markets to lead the economic data. We’re always on the lookout for indicators that can be more useful, and especially more useful at identifying turning points. And so today, I want to give special attention to one of our favorite economic indicators for doing this: the Purchasing Manager Indices, or PMIs. And how they help with the challenge that economic data can sometimes give us.PMIs works by surveying individuals working in the manufacturing and services sector – and asking them how they’re viewing current conditions across a variety of metrics: how much are they producing? How many orders are they seeing? Are prices going up or down? These sorts of surveys have been around for a while: the Institute of Supply Management has been running the most famous version of the manufacturing PMI since 1948.But these PMIs have some intriguing properties that are especially helpful for investors looking to get an edge on the economic outlook.First, the nature of manufacturing makes the sector cyclical and more sensitive to subtle turns of the economy. If we’re looking for something at the leading edge of the broader economic outlook, manufacturing PMI may just be that thing. And that’s a property that we think still applies -- even as manufacturing over time has become a much smaller part of the overall economic pie. Second, the nature of the PMI survey and how it’s conducted – which asks questions whether conditions are improving or deteriorating – helps address that all important rate of change. In other words, PMIs can help give us insight into the overall strength of manufacturing activity, whether that activity is improving or deteriorating, and whether that improvement or deterioration is accelerating. For anyone getting flashbacks to calculus, yes, it potentially can show us both a first and a second derivative.Why should investors care so much about PMIs?For markets, historically, Manufacturing PMIs tend to be most supportive for credit when they have been recently weak but starting to improve. Our explanation for this is that recent weakness often means there is still some economic uncertainty out there; and investors aren’t as positive as they otherwise could be. And then improving means the conditions likely are headed to a better place. In both the US and Europe, currently, Manufacturings are in this “recently weak, but improving” regime – an otherwise supported backdrop for credit.If you’re wondering why I’m mentioning PMI now – the latest readings of PMI were released today; they tend to be released on the 1st of each month. In the Eurozone, they suggest activity remains weak-but-improving, and they were a little bit better than expected. In the US, recent data was weaker than expected, although still showing a trend of improvement since last summer.PMIs are one of many data points investors may be considering. But in Credit, where turning points are especially important, it’s one of our favorites. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We’d love to hear from you. 

Our Global Macro Strategist explains the complex nature of recent U.S. economic reports, and which figures should matter most to investors.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Matthew Hornbach, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Macro Strategy. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll talk about what investors should take away from recent economic data. It's Thursday, February 29, at 4pm in New York.There’s been a string of confusing US inflation reports recently, and macro markets have reacted with vigor to the significant upside surprises in the data. Before these inflation reports, our economists thought that January Personal Consumption Expenditures inflation, or PCE inflation, would come at 0.23 per cent for the month. On the back of the Consumer Price Index inflation report for January, our economists increased their PCE inflation forecast to 0.29 per cent month-over-month. Then after the Producers’ Price Index, or PPI inflation report, they revised that forecast even higher – to 0.43 per cent month-over-month. Today, core PCE inflation actually printed at 0.42 per cent - very close to our economists’ revised forecast.That means the economy produced nearly twice as much inflation in January as our economists thought it would originally. The January CPI and PPI inflation reports seem to suggest that while inflation is off the record peaks it had reached, the path down is not going to be smooth and easy. Now, the question is: How much weight should investors put on this data? The answer depends on how much weight Federal Open Market Committee participants place on it. After all, the way in which FOMC participants reacted to activity data in the third quarter of 2023 – which was to hold rates steady despite encouraging inflation data – sent US Treasury yields sharply higher.Sometimes data is irrational. So we would take the recent inflation data with a grain of salt. Let me give you an example of the divergence in recent data that’s just that – an outlying number that investors should treat with some skepticism. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, or BLS, calculates two measures of rent for the CPI index: Owner’s equivalent rent, or OER, and rents for primary residences. Both measures use very similar underlying rent data. But the BLS weights different aspects of that rent data differently for OER than for rents.OER increased by 0.56 per cent month-over-month in January, while primary residence rents increased 0.36 per cent month-over-month. This is extremely rare. If the BLS were to release the inflation data every day of the year, this type of discrepancy would occur only twice in a lifetime – or every 43 years.The confusing nature of recent economic data suggests to us that investors should interpret the data as the Fed would. Our economists don't think that recent data changed the views of FOMC participants and they still expect a first rate cut at the June FOMC meeting. All in all, we suggest that investors move to a neutral stance on the US treasury market while the irrationality of the data passes by.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show.

As the deadline to fund the government rapidly approaches, Michael Zezas explains what economic effect a possible shutdown could have and whether investors should be concerned. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the market impacts of a potential US government shutdown.It's Wednesday, February 28th at 2pm in New York.Here we go again. The big effort in Washington D.C. this week is about avoiding a government shutdown. The deadline to pass funding bills to avoid this outcome is this weekend. And while many investors tell us they’re fatigued thinking about this issue, others still see the headlines and understandably have concerns about what this could mean for financial markets. Here’s our quick take on it, specifically why investors need not view this as a markets’ catalyst. At least not yet.In the short term, a shutdown is not a major economic catalyst. Our economists have previously estimated that a shutdown shaves only about .05 percentage points off GDP growth per week, and the current shutdown risk would only affect a part of the government. So, it's difficult to say that this shutdown would mean a heck of a lot for the US growth trajectory or perhaps put the Fed on a more dovish path – boosting performance of bonds relative to stocks. A longer-term shutdown could have that kind of impact as the effects of less government money being spent and government employees missing paychecks can compound over time. But shutdowns beyond a few days are uncommon.Another important distinction for investors is that a government shutdown is not the same as failing to raise the debt ceiling. So, it doesn’t create risk of missed payments on Treasuries. On the latter, the government is legally constrained as to raising money to pay its bills. But in the case of a shutdown, the government can still issue bonds to raise money and repay debt, it just has limited authority to spend money on typical government services. So then should investors just simply shrug and move on with their business if the government shuts down? Well, it's not quite that simple. The frequency of shutdown risks in recent years underscores the challenge of political polarization in the U.S. That theme continues to drive some important takeaways for investors, particularly when it comes to the upcoming US election. In short, unless one party takes control of both Congress and the White House, there’s little domestic policy change on the horizon that directly impacts investors. But one party taking control can put some meaningful policies into play. For example, a Republican sweep increases the chances of repealing the inflation reduction act – a challenge to the clean tech sector. It also increases the chances of extending tax cuts, which could benefit small caps and domestic-focused sectors. And it also increases the chances of foreign policies that might interfere with current trends in global trade through the levying of tariffs and rethinking geopolitical alliances. That in turn creates incentive for on and near-shoring…an incremental cost challenge to multinationals.So, we’ll keep watching and keep you in the loop if our thinking changes.  Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We’d love to hear from you.

As grocery and dining costs continue to increase, our analysts break down how this has affected consumers and when food prices may stabilize.----- Transcript -----Sarah Wolfe: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Sarah Wolfe from the US economics team.Simeon Gutman: And I'm Simeon Gutman; Hardlines, Broadlines, and Food Retail Analyst.Sarah Wolfe: Today on the podcast, we'll discuss what's happening with food prices and how that's affecting the US consumer. It's Tuesday, February 27th at 10am in New York.It was almost exactly a year ago when I came on this podcast to talk about why eggs cost so much at the start of 2023. Here we are. It's a year later and food in the US still costs more. The overall inflation basket and personal consumption expenditures inflation was 2.6 per cent year over year in December; but dining out prices are still up 5.2 per cent. I'd like to admit that grocery prices are a little bit better. They're just a tad over 1 per cent. So we've seen a little bit more disinflation there. But overall food is still up and it's still expensive.Simeon, can you give us a little bit more color on what's actually going on here?Simeon Gutman: Yeah, so food prices measured by the CPI, as you mentioned, up about a per cent. The good news, Sarah, is that your eggs are actually deflating by about 30 per cent at the moment; so maybe you can buy a couple more eggs. But in general, we're following this descent that we started -- about almost two years ago where food prices were up double digits. A year ago, we were up mid single digits. And now we're down to this one per cent level. Looks like they're gonna hold. But so prices are coming in; but not necessarily deflating, but dis-inflating.Sarah Wolfe: Can you help me understand that a little bit better? You mentioned that some commodity prices are coming down, like food prices. So why is overall inflation for food still rising? And dining out, grocery stores, both of them are still seeing price increases.Simeon Gutman: Well, commodity prices, which is the most visible input to a lot of food items -- that's coming down in a lot of cases, and I'll mention some that haven't. But there's many other components into food pricing, besides the pure commodity. That's labor; you have freight; you have transportation. Those costs -- there's still some inflation running through the system -- and those costs make up a decent chunk of the total product costs. And that's why we're still seeing prices higher year over year on average for the entire group of products.Sarah Wolfe: How are grocery sales actually performing though? Are we seeing demand destruction from the higher pricing? Or has unit growth actually been holding up well?Simeon Gutman: First of all, total grocery sales are just slightly negative. We saw a little ray of hope in January, positive for the month; but likely driven by some stocking up ahead of weather events that happened in the country. So we were barely positive. It looked like we were getting out of the negative territory; but the first few weeks of February, we're back into the negative territory. Negative one, negative two per cent.Units are negative. Negative three to four per cent. If we look at CPI as sort of a proxy for the product categories that are doing better than others: dairy and fruit units, those are up mid to high single digits. And as I mentioned, we're seeing egg prices down significantly. We're also seeing a lot of deflation with fish and seafood as well as meat.So, and if you use that as a way to think about the various product categories that consumers are demanding, but overall industry sales are flat to slightly negative; and we think this negative cadence continues going forward.Sarah, let me turn it to you. You monitor the U. S. consumer closely. How big a bite of the US wallet is food right now? Groceries, eating out at restaurants, etc., and how does that compare to prior periods?Sarah Wolfe: Let's start high level with essential spending, which I consider to be groceries, energy and shelter. That typically averages about 40 per cent of household disposable income pre-COVID. And now if you add on all the price increases we've seen across all three categories, it's an additional 5 per cent of disposable income today.And this matters a lot when you're a lower income household and already over 90 per cent of your disposable income was going towards these essential categories pre-COVID. If I look at grocery prices alone, they're up 20 per cent on average since the start of the pandemic. And prior to COVID on a per household basis, they were spending $4,600 a year on groceries. And now that's $5,700 a year. More than a thousand dollars more each year on groceries.The last time we saw such extreme food inflation was the 1980s. Granted, I have to mention that we've also seen a really notable rise in disposable income too. So if you look at grocery spending as a share of disposable income, it's only marginally higher than it was pre-COVID. It was six and a half per cent, now it's seven per cent.What's really driving higher wallet share towards food is this dining out category -- and it's a price and unit story. On the pricing side, we have high labor costs, high food prices still. And on the unit side, there's still a much more notable preference to dine out to enjoy services.And so you mentioned that unit growth has been a lot weaker for groceries. That's not what we're seeing in the dining out space. And overall, it's been driving total food spend as a share of disposable income to high since the early 1990s.Simeon Gutman: So food spending is up a lot. But the situation is somewhat confusing. You have US inflation data and forecasts seem to be suggesting that food prices should be coming down. That doesn't seem to be happening. We're still looking for inflation. Can you talk about the macro factors behind these persistently high food prices?Sarah Wolfe: So as you mentioned, we have seen disinflation, right? So grocery prices are down from 12 per cent year over year in the summer of 2022 to about 1.5 per cent today. Dining out is down from 8 per cent to about 5 per cent. So there's a bit of progress on inflation growth. But price levels are not coming down. They're still rising and that definitely does not feel good to households.The reason we're still seeing a rise in prices, as you've mentioned, are supply chain disruptions, there was an avian flu, and we see very high labor costs. Some of the forward-looking indicators are pointing to more progress on inflation for food, so we know that labor costs are starting to moderate as supply demand imbalances in the labor market are getting a bit better. We know that supply chain disruptions have been unwinding. But all these things together are not pointing to price deflation. Only disinflation. So growth, but at a slower pace.Simeon Gutman: Yeah, so some of this backdrop continues. When can the US consumer expect some kind of relief, and then what data and indicators are you watching closely?Sarah Wolfe: Unfortunately, prices are still going up in our forecast, but they're going to stabilize around one to one and a half per cent year over year for grocery. So kind of where we are right now, that's what we expect for the next year and a half or so. But the price levels are going to remain elevated.As I mentioned in the last response. We know we're watching the supply chain indicators to see if commodity prices start to come up again. If freight costs start to come up again because of geopolitical tensions. We're not seeing any notable rise there yet but we're watching it very closely. And we're also watching what happens with the labor market. Do we continue to see slack in the labor market that'll bring down wages and bring down labor costs? Or do we continue to run a very tight labor market.Simeon, thanks for taking the time to talk.Simeon Gutman: Great speaking with you, Sarah.Sarah Wolfe: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Our Chief U.S. Equity Strategist reviews how the unusual mix of loose fiscal policy and tight monetary policy has benefited a small number of companies – and why investors should still look beyond the top five stocks.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the investment implications of the unusual policy mix we face.It's Monday, February 26th at 12pm in New York. So let’s get after it.Four years ago, I wrote a note entitled, The Other 1 Percenters, in which I discussed the ever-growing divide between the haves and have-nots. This divide was not limited to consumers but also included corporates as well. Fast forward to today, and it appears this gap has only gotten wider.Real GDP growth is similar to back then, while nominal GDP growth is about 100 basis points higher due to inflation. Nevertheless, the earnings headwinds are just as strong despite higher nominal GDP – as many companies find it harder to pass along higher costs without damaging volumes. As a result, market performance is historically narrow. With the top five stocks accounting for a much higher percentage of the S&P 500 market cap than they did back in early 2020. In short, the equity market understands that this economy is not that great for the average company or consumer but is working very well for the top 1 per cent.  In my view, the narrowness is also due to a very unusual mix of loose fiscal and tight monetary policy. Since the pandemic, the fiscal support for the economy has run very hot. Despite the fact we are operating in an extremely tight labor market, significant fiscal spending has continued.In many ways, this hefty government spending may be working against the Fed. And could explain why the economy has been slow to respond to generationally aggressive interest rate hikes. Most importantly, the government’s heavy hand appears to be crowding out the private economy and making it difficult for many companies and individuals. Hence the very narrow performance in stocks and the challenges facing the average consumer.  The other policy variable at work is the massive liquidity being provided by various funding facilities – like the reverse repo to pay for these deficits. Since the end of 2022, the reverse repo has fallen by over $2 trillion. It’s another reason that financial conditions have loosened to levels not seen since the federal funds rate was closer to 1 per cent. This funding mechanism is part of the policy mix that may be making it challenging for the Fed’s rate hikes to do their intended work on the labor market and inflation. It may also help explain why the Fed continues to walk back market expectations about the timing of the first cut and perhaps the number of cuts that are likely to continue this year.  Higher interest rates are having a dampening effect on interest-rate-sensitive businesses like housing and autos as well as low to middle income consumers. This is exacerbating the 1 percenter phenomena and helps explain why the market’s performance remains so stratified. For many businesses and consumers, rates remain too high. However, the recent hotter than expected inflation reports suggest the Fed may not be able to deliver the necessary rate cuts for the markets to broaden out – at least until the government curtails its deficits and stops crowding out the private economy. Parenthetically, the funding of fiscal deficits may be called into question by the bond market when the reverse repo runs out later this year. Bottom line: despite investors' desire for the equity market to broaden out, we continue to recommend investors focus on high-quality growth and operational efficiency factors when looking for stocks outside of the top five which appear to be fully priced. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We’d love to hear from you. 

The valuations of stocks and corporate bonds, which have been driven largely by macroeconomic factors since 2020, are finally starting to reflect companies’ underlying performance. Our Head of Corporate Credit Research explains what that means for active investors.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape – and how we put those ideas together.It's Friday, February 23rd at 2pm in London.In theory, investing in corporate securities like stocks or corporate bonds should be about, well, the performance of those companies. But since the outbreak of COVID in 2020, financial markets have often felt driven by other, higher powers. The last several years have seen a number of big picture questions in focus: How fast could the economy recover? How much quantitative easing or quantitative tightening would we see? Would high inflation eventually moderate? And, more recently, when would central banks stop hiking rates, and start to cut.All of these are important, big picture questions. But you can see where a self-styled investor may feel a little frustrated. None of those debates, really, concerns the underlying performance of a company, and the factors that might distinguish a good operator from a bad one.If you’ve shared this frustration, we have some good news. While these big-picture debates may still dominate the headlines, underlying performance is starting to tell a different story. We’re seeing an unusual amount of dispersion between individual equities and credits. It is becoming a market of many.We see this in so-called pairwise correlation, or the average correlation between any two stocks in an equity index. Globally, that’s been unusually low relative to the last 15 years. Notably options markets are implying that this remains the case. We see this in credit, where solid overall performance has occurred along-side significant dispersion by sector, maturity, and individual issuer, especially in telecom, media and technology.We see this within equities, where my colleague Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist, notes that the S&P 500 and global stocks more broadly have decoupled from Federal Reserve rate expectations.And we see this in performance. More dispersion between stocks and credit would, in theory, create a better environment for Active Managers, who attempt to pick those winners and losers. And that’s what we’ve seen. Per my colleagues in Morgan Stanley Investment Management, January 2024 was the best month for active management since 2007.The post-COVID period has often felt dominated by large, macro debates. But more recently, things have been changing. Individual securities are diverging from one another, and moving with unusual independence. That creates its own challenges, of course. But it also suggests a market where picking the right names can be rewarded. And we think that will be music to many investors' ears.Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We’d love to hear from you.

As traditional financial institutions tightened their lending standards last year, private credit stepped in to fill some of the gaps. But with rates now falling, public lenders are poised to compete again on the terrain that private credit has transformed.----- Transcript -----Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today we’ll have a conversation with Joyce Jiang, our US leveraged finance strategist, on the topic of private credit.It's Thursday, February 22nd at noon in New York.Joyce, thank you for joining. Private credit is all over the news. Let’s first understand – what is private credit. Can you define it for us?Joyce Jiang: There isn't a consensus on the definition of private credit. But broadly speaking, private credit is a form of lending extended by non-bank lenders. It's negotiated privately on a bilateral basis or with a small number of lenders, bypassing the syndication process which is standard with public credit.This is a rather broad definition and various types of debt can fall under this umbrella term; such as infrastructure, real estate, or asset-backed financing. But what's most relevant to leveraged finance – is direct lending loans to corporate borrowers.Private credit lenders typically hold deals until maturity, and these loans aren't traded in the secondary market. So, funding costs in private credit tend to be higher as investors need to be compensated for the illiquidity risk. For example, between 2017 and now, the average spread premium of direct lending loans is 250 basis points higher compared to single B public loans.Vishy Tirupattur: That’s very helpful Joyce. The size of the private credit market has indeed attracted significant attention due to its rapid growth. You often see estimates in the media of [the] size being around $1.5 to $1.7 trillion. Some market participants expect the market to reach $2.7 trillion by 2027. Joyce, is this how we should think about the market? Especially in the context of public corporate credit market?Joyce Jiang: I've seen these numbers as well. But to be clear, they reflect assets under management of global private debt funds. So not directly comparable to the market size of high yield bonds or broadly syndicated loans.In our estimate, the total outstanding amount of US direct lending loans is in the range of $630-710 billion. So, we see the direct lending space as roughly half the size of the high yield bonds or broadly syndicated loan markets in the US.Vishy Tirupattur: Understood. Can you provide some color on the nature of private credit borrowers and their credit quality in the private credit space?Joyce Jiang: Traditionally, private credit targets small and medium-sized companies that do not have access to the public credit market. Their EBITDA is typically one-tenth the size of the companies with broadly syndicated loans. However, this is not representative of every direct lending fund because some funds may focus on upper middle-market companies, while others target smaller entities.Based on the data that’s available to us, total leverage and EBITDA coverage in private credit are comparable to a single B to CCC profile in the public space. Additionally, factors such as smaller size, less diversified business profiles, and limited funding access may also weigh on credit quality.Given this lower quality skew and smaller size, there have been concerns around how these companies can navigate the 500 basis point of rate hikes. However, based on available data, two years into the hiking cycle, coverage has deteriorated – mainly due to the floating-rate heavy nature of these capital structures. But on the bright side, leverage generally remained stable. Similar to what we’ve seen in public credit.Now let me turn it around to you, Vishy. What about defaults in private credit and how do they compare to public credit markets?Vishy Tirupattur: So when it comes to defaults, unlike in the public markets, data that cover the entire private credit market is not really there. We have to depend on the experience of sample portfolios from a variety of sources. These data tend to vary a lot, given the differences in defining what a default is and how to calculate default rates, and so on. So, all of this is a little bit tricky. We should also keep in mind that the data we do have on private credit is over the last few years only. So, we should be careful about generalizing too much.That said, based on available data we can say that the private credit defaults have remained broadly in the same range as the public credit. In other words, not substantially higher default rates in the private credit markets compared to the public credit defaults.A few things we should keep in mind as we consider this relatively benign default picture. What contributes to this?First, private credit deals have stronger lender protections. This is in contrast to the broadly syndicated loan market – which is, as you know, predominantly covenant-lite market. Maintenance covenants in private credit can really act as circuit breakers, reining in borrower behavior before things deteriorate a lot. Second, private credit deals usually involve only a very small number of lenders. So it’s easier to negotiate a restructuring or a workout plan. All of this contributes to the default experience we’ve observed in private credit markets.Joyce Jiang: And finally, what are your thoughts on the future of private credit?Vishy Tirupattur: The rapid growth of private credit is really reshaping the landscape of leveraged finance on the whole. Last year, as banks retreated, private credit stepped in and filled the gap – attracting many borrowers, especially those without access to the public market. Now, as rate cuts come into view, we see public credit regaining some of the lost ground. So how private credit adapts to this changing environment is something we’ll be monitoring closely. With substantial dry powder ready to be deployed, the competition between public and private credit is likely to intensify, potentially impacting the overall market.Joyce, let's wrap it up here, Thanks for coming on the podcast.Joyce Jiang: Thanks for having me.Vishy Tirupattur: Thank you all for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Central banks in the U.S. and Europe are looking to cut rates this year, but the path to those cuts differs greatly. Our Global Chief Economist explains this stark dichotomy.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley’s Global Chief Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll be talking about the challenges for monetary policy on both sides of the Atlantic.It’s Wednesday, Feb 21st at 10am in New York.The Fed, the Bank of England, and the ECB all hiked rates to fight inflation, and now we are looking for each of them to cut rates this year. For our call for a June Fed rate cut, both growth and inflation matter. But our call for a May and June start on the east side of the Atlantic depends only on inflation. “Data dependent” here has two different meanings.At the January Fed meeting, Chair Powell said continued disinflation like in prior months was needed to cut. But he also emphasized that disinflation needs to be sustainably on track; not simply touching 2 per cent. Until Thursday’s retail sales data, the market narrative began to flirt with a possible re-acceleration of the US economy, spoiling that latter condition of inflation going sustainably to target. January inflation data showed strength in services in particular, and payrolls showed a tight labor market that might pick up steam.The retail sales data pushed in the opposite direction, and we think that the slower growth will prevail over time. And for now, market pricing is more or less consistent with our call for 100 basis points of cuts this year, starting in June.Now the Fed’s situation is in stark contrast to that of the Bank of England. Last week’s UK data showed a technical recession in the second half of 2023. And while the UK economy is not collapsing, a strongly surging economy is not a risk either. But until the last print, inflation in the UK had been stubbornly sticky. The January print came in line with our UK economist’s call, but below consensus. But still, one swallow does not mean spring, and the recent inflation data do not guarantee our call for a May rate cut will happen. Rather, broader evidence that inflation will fall notably is needed; and for that reason, the risks to our call are clearly skewed to a later cut.For the ECB, the inflation focus is the same. And on Thursday, President Lagarde warned against cutting rates too soon – a particularly telling comment in light of the weak growth in the Euro area. Recent data releases suggest that not only did Germany’s GDP decline by three-tenths of a per cent in Q4 of 2023; the second largest economy, France, also experienced stagnation in the second half of the year. And with this weakness expected to persist – well, we forecast a weak half per cent growth this year and about only 1 per cent growth in 2025.So, why is this dichotomy so stark? The simple answer is the weak state of the economy in the UK and in Europe. More fundamentally, the drivers of inflation started with a jump in food and energy prices, and then surging consumer goods prices as disrupted supply chains met consumer spending shifting toward goods. That inflation has since abated but services inflation tends to be more tied to the real side of the economy. And for the US in particular, housing inflation is driven by the state of the labor market over time.The Bank of England and the ECB are waiting for services inflation to respond to the already weak economy, and there is little risk of a reacceleration of inflation if that happens. In contrast, the Fed cannot have conviction that inflation won’t reaccelerate because of the continued resilience on the real side of the economy. The retail sales data will help, but the pattern needs to continue.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple podcasts, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Head of Thematic Research in Europe previews the possible next phase of the AI revolution, and what investors should be monitoring as the technology gains adoption.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Edward Stanley, Morgan Stanley’s Head of Thematic Research in Europe. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss the latest developments around AI Adopters. It’s Tuesday, February the 20th, at 2pm in London.The current technology shift driven by AI is progressing faster than any tech shift that came before it. I came on the show at the beginning of the year to present our thesis – while 2023 was the “Year of the Enablers,” those first line hardware and software companies; 2024 is going to be the “Year of the Adopters,” companies leveraging the Enablers’ hardware and software to better use and monetize their own data for this generative AI world.And the market is still sort of treating this as a “show me” story. Enablers are still driving returns. Around half of the S&P’s performance this year can be attributed to three Enabler stocks. Yet, be it Consumer or – more importantly – Enterprise adoption, monthly data we’re tracking suggests AI adoption is continuing at a rapid pace.So let me paint a picture of what we’re actually seeing so far this year.There has been a widening array of consumer-facing chatbots. Some better for general purpose questions; some better at dealing with maths or travel itineraries; others specialized for creating images or videos for influencers or content creators. But those proving to be the stickiest, or more importantly leading to major behavioral day-to-day changes, are coding assistants, where the productivity upside is now a well-documented greater than 50 per cent efficiency gain.From a more enterprise perspective, open-source models are interesting to track. And we do, almost daily, to see what’s going on. The people and companies downloading these models are likely to be using them as a starting point – for fine-tuning their own models.Within that, text models which form the backbone of most chatbots you will have interacted with, now account for less than 50 per cent of all models openly available for download. What’s gaining popularity in its place is multi-modal models. This is: models capable of ingesting and outputting a combination of text, image, audio or video.Their applications can range from disruption within the music industry, personalized beauty advice, applications in autonomous driving, or machine vision in healthcare. The list goes on and on. The speed of AI diffusion into non-tech sectors is really bewildering.Despite all these data points, suggesting consumer and enterprise adoption is progressing at a rapid clip, Adopter stocks continue to underperform those picks-and-shovels Enablers I mentioned. The Adopters have re-rated modestly in the first month and a half of the year – but not the whole group. Of course, this is a rapidly changing landscape. And many companies have yet to report their outlook for the year ahead. We’ll continue to keep you informed of the newest developments as the years progress.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.

Our Fixed Income Strategist outlines commercial real estate’s post-pandemic challenges, which could make regional bank lenders vulnerable. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market, I’m Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the challenges of the commercial real estate markets. It's Friday, Feb 16th at 3 pm in New York.Commercial real estate – CRE in short – is back in the spotlight in the aftermath of the loan losses and dividend cuts announced by New York Community Bancorp. Lenders and investors in Japan, Germany, and Canada have also reported sizable credit losses or write-downs related to US commercial real estate. The challenges in CRE have been on a slow burn for several quarters. In our view, the CRE issues should be scrutinized through the lenses of both lenders and property types. We see meaningful challenges in both of them.From the lenders’ perspective, we now estimate that about a trillion and a half of commercial real estate debt matures by the end of 2025 and needs to be refinanced; about half of this sits on bank balance sheets.The regulatory landscape for regional banks is changing dramatically. While the timeline for implementing these changes is not finalized, the proposed changes could raise the cost of regional bank liabilities and limit their ability to deploy capital; thereby pressuring margins and profitability. This suggests that the largest commercial real estate lender – the regional banking sector – might be the most vulnerable.Office as a property type is confronting a secular challenge. The pandemic brought meaningful changes to workplace practice. Hybrid work has now evolved into the norm, with most workers coming into the office only a few days a week, even as other outdoor activities such as air travel or dining out have returned to their pre-Covid patterns. This means that property valuations, leasing arrangements, and financing structures must adjust to the post-pandemic realities of office work. This shift has already begun and there is more to come.It goes without saying, therefore, that regional banks with office predominant in their CRE exposures will face even more challenges.Where do we go from here? Property valuations will take time to adjust to shifts in demand, and repurposing office properties for other uses is far from straightforward. Upgrading older buildings turns out to be expensive, especially in the context of energy efficiency improvements that both tenants and authorities now demand. The bottom line is that the CRE challenges should persist, and a quick resolution is very unlikely.Is it systemic? We get this question a lot. Whether or not CRE challenge escalates to a broader system-wide stress depends really on one’s definition of what systemic risk is. In our view, this risk is unlikely to be systemic along the lines of the global financial crisis of 2008. That said, strong linkages between the regional banks and CRE may impair these banks’ ability to lend to households and small businesses. This, in turn, could lead to lower credit formation, with the potential to weigh on economic growth over the longer term.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research, gives his take on how the U.S. election may influence European policy on national security, with implications for the defense and cybersecurity sectors.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the impact of the US election on global security and markets. It's Thursday, February 15th at 3pm in New York.Last week I was in London, spending time with clients who – understandably – are starting to plan for the potential impacts of the US election. A common question was how much could change around current partnerships between the US and Europe on national security and trade ties, in the event that Republicans win the White House. The concern is fed by a raft of media attention to the statements of Republican candidate, Former President Trump, that are skeptical of some of the multinational institutions that the US is involved in – such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO. Investors are naturally concerned about whether a new Trump administration could meaningfully change the US-Europe relationship. In short, the answer is yes. But there’s some important context to keep in mind before jumping to major investment conclusions.For example, Congress passed a law last year requiring a two-thirds vote to affirm any exit from NATO, which we think is too high a hurdle to clear given the bipartisan consensus favoring NATO membership. So, a chaotic outcome for global security caused by the dissolution of NATO isn’t likely, in our view.That said, an outcome where Europe and other US allies increasingly feel as if they have to chart their own course on defense is plausible even if the US doesn’t leave NATO. A combination of President Trump’s rhetoric on NATO, a possible shift in the US’s approach to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, and the very real threat of levying tariffs could influence European policymakers to move in a more self-reliant direction. While it's not the chaotic shift that might have been caused by a dissolution of NATO, it still adds up over time to a more multipolar world. For investors, such an outcome could create more regular volatility across markets. But we could also see markets reflect this higher geopolitical uncertainty with outperformance of sectors most impacted by the need to spend on all types of security – that includes traditional suppliers of military equipment as well companies providing cyber security. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We’d love to hear from you.

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

Our expert panel discusses how the Red Sea situation is affecting the global economy and equity markets, as well as key sectors and the shipping industry.----- Transcript -----Jens Eisenschmidt: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Jens Eisenschmidt, Morgan Stanley's Chief Europe Economist.Marina Zavolock: And I'm Marina Zavolock, Chief European Equity Strategist.Cedar Ekblom: And I'm Cedar Ekblom, Shipping and Logistics Analyst.Jens Eisenschmidt: And on this special episode of the podcast, we will discuss the ongoing Red Sea disruptions and the various markets and economic dislocations caused by it. It's Tuesday, February 13th, 6pm in Frankfurt.Marina Zavolock: And 5pm in London.Marina Zavolock: 12 per cent of global trade and 30 per cent of container trade passes through the Suez Canal in Egypt, which connects the Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea. Safety concerns stemming from the recent attacks on commercial ships in the Red Sea have driven the majority of container liners to divert trade around the Cape of Good Hope, pushing up container freight rates more than 200 per cent versus December of last year on the Asia to Europe route.Last week, our colleague Michael Zezas touched briefly on the situation in the Red Sea. Now we'd like to dig deeper and examine this from three key lenses. The European economy, the impact on equity markets and industries, as well as on global container shipping in particular.Marina Zavolock: So Cedar, let's start with you. You’ve had a high conviction call since freight rates peaked in the middle of January – that container shipping rates overshot and were likely to decline. We've started to see the decline. How do you see this developing from here?Cedar Ekblom: Thanks, Marina. Well, if we take a step back and we think about how far container rates have come from the peak, we're about 15 per cent lower than where we were in the middle of January. But we're still nearly 200 per cent ahead of where we were on the 1st of December before the disruption started.Cedar Ekblom: The reason why we're so convicted that freight rates are heading lower from here really comes down to the supply demand backdrop in container shipping. We have an outlook of significant excess supply playing out in [20]24 and extending into [20]25. During the COVID boom, container companies enjoyed very high freight rates and generated a lot of cash as a result. And they've put that cash to use in ordering new ships. All of this supply is starting to hit the market. So ultimately, we have a situation of too much supply relative to container demand.Another thing that we've noticed is that ships are speeding up. We have great data on this. And since boats have been diverted around the Cape of Good Hope, we've seen an increase in sailing speeds, which ultimately blunts the supply impact from those ships being diverted.And then finally, if we look at the amount of containers actually moving through the Suez Canal, this is down nearly 80 per cent year over year.Sure, we're not at zero yet, and there is ultimately [a] downside to no ships moving through the canal. But we think we are pretty close to the point of maximum supply side tension. That gives us conviction that freight rates are going lower from here.Jens Eisenschmidt: Thank you, Cedar, for this clear overview of the outlook for the container shippers. Marina, let's widen our lens and talk about the broader impact of the Red Sea situation. What are the ripple effects to other sectors and industries and are they in any way comparable to supply chain disruptions we saw as a result of the COVID pandemic?Marina Zavolock: So what we've done in equity strategy is we've worked with over 10 different sector analyst teams where we've seen the most prominent impacts from the situation in the Red Sea. We've worked as well with our commodity strategy team. And what we were interested in is finding the dislocations in stock moves related to the Red Sea disruptions in light of Cedar's high conviction and differentiated view.And what we found is that if you take the stocks that are pricing in the most earnings upside, and you look at them on a ratio basis versus the stocks that have priced in the most earnings downside. That performance along with container freight rates peaked sometime in January and has been declining. But there's more to go in light of Cedar's view in that decline.We believe that these moves will continue to fade and the bottom group, the European retailers that are most exposed. They have fully priced in the bear case of Red Sea disruptions continuing and also that the freight rate levels more importantly stay at these recent peaks. So we believe that ratio will continue to fade on both sides.The second point is you have some sectors, like European Airlines, where there's also been an impact. Air freight yields have risen by 25 per cent in Europe. And we believe that there is the potential for more persistent spillover in demand for certain customers that look to speed up delivery times.The third point is that in case of an escalation scenario in the Red Sea, we believe that it's less the container shipping companies at this point that would be impacted and we actually see the European refiners as most exposed to any kind of escalation scenario.And lastly, and I think this is going to tie into Jens’ economics.We see a fairly idiosyncratic and broadly limited impact on Europe overall. Yes, Europe is the most exposed region of developed market regions globally – but this is nowhere near a COVID 2.0 style supply chain disruption in our view.Marina Zavolock: And Jens, if I could turn it back to you, how do you estimate the impact of these Red Sea disruptions on the European economy?Jens Eisenschmidt: That's indeed one thing we were sort of getting busy on and trying to find a way to get a handle on what has happened there and what would be the implications. And of course, the typical thing, what you do is you go back in time and look [at] what has happened last time. We were seeing changes to say delivery time. So basically disruptions in supply chains.And of course, the big COVID induced supply chain disruptions had [a] significant impact on both inflation and output. And so, it's of course a normal thing to ask yourself, could this be again happening and what would we need to see?And of course, we have to be careful here because that essentially is assuming that the underlying structure of the shock is similar to the one we have seen in the past, which of course it's not the case.But you know, again, it's instructive at least to see what the current level of supply chain disruptions as measurable in these PMI sub-indices. What they translate to in inflation? And so we get a very muted impact so far. We have 10 basis points for the EU area, 15 basis points for the UK. But again, that's probably an upper bound estimate because the situation is slightly different than it was back then.Back then under COVID, there was clearly a limit to demand. So demand was actually pushing hard against the limits of good supply. And so that has to be more inflationary than in the current situation where actually demand, if anything, is weakened by [the] central bank chasing inflation targets and also weak global backdrop.So, essentially we would say, yes, there could be some small uptick in inflation, but it's really limited. And that's talking about here, core goods inflation. The other point that you could sort of be worried about is commodity prices and here in particular energy commodities.But so far the price action here is very, very limited.If anything, so far, TTF prices are, you know, going in the other direction. So all, all in all, we don't really see a risk here for commodity prices, at least. If the tensions in the Red Sea are not persisting longer and intensify further – and here really, this chimes very well in the analysis of Cedar and also with Marina – what you just mentioned.That doesn't really look like any supply chain disruption we have seen on the COVID. And it also doesn't really look like that it would, sort of, last for so long. And we have the backdrop of a oversupply of containers. So all in all, we think the impact is pretty limited. But let's sort of play the devil's advocate and say, what would happen to inflation if this were to persist?And again, the backdrop would be similar to COVID. Then we could think of 70 basis points, both in the Euro area and the UK added to inflation. And of course that's sizable. And that's precisely why you have central bankers around the world, not particularly concerned about it – but certainly mentioning it in their public statements that this is a development to watch.Marina Zavolock: Thank you Jens, and thank you Cedar for taking the time to talk.Cedar Ekblom: Great speaking with you both.Jens Eisenschmidt: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Despite a likely softening of the labor market, U.S. consumer spending should remain healthy for 2024.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Sarah Wolfe from the US Economics Team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives; today I’ll give you an update on the US consumer. It’s Monday, February 12, at 10 AM in New York.Lately, there's been a lot of mixed data on the health of the US consumer. We saw a very strong holiday spending in November and December; very strong jobs  reports in recent months. But we’re forecasting somewhat softer data in January for retail sales. And we know that delinquencies have been rising for households.When we look towards the rest of 2024, we're still expecting a healthy US consumer based on three key factors. The first is the labor market. Obviously, the labor market has been holding up very well and we’ve actually been seeing a reacceleration in payrolls in the last few months. What this means is that real disposable income has been stronger, and it’s going to remain solid in our forecast horizon. We do overall expect some cooling in disposable income though, as the labor market softens. Overall, this is the most important thing though for consumer spending. If people have jobs, they spend money.The second is interest rates. This has actually been one of the key calls for why we did not expect the US consumer to be in a recession two and half years ago, when the Fed started raising interest rates. There’s a substantial amount of fixed rate debt, and as a result less sensitivity to debt service obligations. We estimate that 90 per cent of household debt is locked in at a fixed rate. So over the last couple of years, as the Fed has been raising interest rates, we’ve seen just that: less sensitivity to higher interest rates. Right now, debt service costs are still below their 2019 levels. We’re expecting to see a little upward pressure here over the course of this year – as rates are higher for longer, as housing activity picks up a bit; but we expect there will be a cap on it.The last thing is what’s happening on the wealth side. We’ve seen a 50 percent accumulation in real estate wealth since the start of the pandemic. And we’re expecting to see very little deterioration in housing wealth this year. So people are still feeling pretty good; still have a lot of home equity in their homes. So overall, good for consumer spending. Good for household sentiment.So to sum it up, this year, we’re seeing a slowing in the US consumer, but still relatively strong. And the fundamentals are still looking good.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Investors in credit markets pay close attention to the latest economic data. Our head of Corporate Credit Research explains why they should be less focused on the newest numbers and more focused on whether and how those numbers are changing.--------Transcript--------Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape, and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, February 9th at 2pm in London.Almost every week, investors are confronted with a host of economic data. A perennial question hovers over each release: should we focus more on the level of that particular economic indicator; or its rate of change. In many cases, we find that the rate of change is more important for credit. If so, recent data has brought some encouraging developments with surveys of US Manufacturing, as well as bank lending.I’m mindful that the concept of “economic data” is about as abstract as you can get. So let’s dig into those specific manufacturing and lending releases. Every quarter, the Federal Reserve conducts what is known as their Senior Loan Officer [Opinion] Survey, where they ask senior loan officers – at banks – about how they’re doing their lending. The most recent release showed that more officers are tightening their lending standards than easing them. But the balance between the two is actually getting a little better, or looser, than last quarter. So, should we care more about the fact that lending standards are tight? Or that they’re getting a little less tight than before?Or consider the Purchasing Managers Index, or PMI, from the Institute of Supply Management. This is a survey of purchasing managers at American manufacturers, asking them about business conditions. The latest readings show conditions are still weaker than normal. But things are getting better, and have improved over the last six months.In both cases, if we look back at history, the rate of change of the indicator has mattered more. As a credit investor, you’ve preferred tight credit conditions that are getting better versus easy credit that’s getting worse. You’ve preferred weaker manufacturing activity that’s inflecting higher instead of strong conditions that are softening. In that sense, at least for credit, recent readings of both of these indicators are a good thing – all else equal.But why do we get this result? Why, in many cases, does the rate of change matter more than the level?There are many different possibilities, and we’d stress this is far from an iron rule. But one explanation could be that markets tend to be quite aware of conditions and forward looking. In that sense, the level of the data at any given point in time is more widely expected; less of a surprise, and less likely to move the market.But the rate of change can – and we’d stress can – offer some insight into where the data might be headed. That future is less known. And thus anything that gives a hint of where things are headed is more likely to not already be reflected in current prices. No rule applies in all situations. But for credit, when in doubt, root for a positive rate of change.Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We’d love to hear from you.

Our credit experts from Research and Investment Management give their overview of private and public credit markets, comparing their strengths and weaknesses following two years of rate hikes.----- Transcript -----Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Chief Fixed Income Strategist in Morgan Stanley Research.David Miller: And I'm David Miller, Head of Global Private Credit and Equity for Morgan Stanley Investment Management.Vishy Tirupattur: And on this special edition of the podcast, we'll be taking a deep dive into the 2024 credit landscape, both from a private credit and public credit perspective.Vishy Tirupattur: So, David, you and I come at credit from two different avenues and roles. I cover credit, and other areas of fixed income, from a sell side research perspective. And you work for our investment management division, covering both private credit and private equity. Just to set the table for our listeners, maybe we could start off by you telling listeners how private credit investing differs from public credit.David Miller: Great. The main differences are: First, privately negotiated loans between lenders and borrowers. They're typically closely held versus widely distributed in public credit. The loans are typically held to maturity and those strategies are typically has that long duration, sort of look. Private credit -- really -- has three things of why their borrowers are valuing it. Certainty, that's committed capital; certainty of pricing. There's speed. There's no ratings -- fewer parties, working on deals. And then flexibility -- structures can be created to meet the needs of borrowers versus more highly standardized parts of the public credit spectrum. Lastly and importantly, you typically get an illiquidity premium in private credit for that holding to maturity and not being able to trade.Vishy Tirupattur: So, as we look forward to 2024, from your perspective, David, what would you say are some of the trends in private credit?David Miller: So private credit, broadly speaking, continues to grow -- because of bank regulations, volatility in capital markets. And it is taking some share over the past couple of years from the broadly syndicated markets. The deal structures are quite strong, with large equity contributions -- given rates have gone up and leverage has come down. Higher quality businesses typically are represented, simply as private equity is the main driver here and there tend to be selling their better businesses. And default rates remain reasonably low. Although we're clearly seeing some pressure, on interest coverage, overall. But volumes are starting to pick up and we're seeing pipelines grow into [20]24 here.Vishy Tirupattur: So obviously, it's interesting, David, that you brought up, interest rates. You know, it's a big conversation right now about the timing of the potential interest rate cuts. But then we also have to keep in mind that we have come through nearly two years of interest rate hikes. How have these 550 basis points of rate hikes impacted the private credit market?David Miller: The rate hikes have generally been positive. But there are some caveats to that. Obviously, the absolute return in the asset class has gone up significantly. So that's a strong positive, for the new deals. The flip side is -- transaction volumes have come down in the private credit market. Still okay but not at peak levels. Now older deals, right, particularly ones from 2021 when rates were very low -- you're seeing some pressure there, no doubt. The last thing I will say, what's noteworthy from the increase in rates is a much bigger demand for what I'll call capital solutions. And that's junior capital, any type of security that has pick or structure to alleviate some of that pressure. And we're quite excited about that opportunity.Vishy Tirupattur: David, what sectors and businesses do you particularly like for private credit? And conversely, what are the sectors and businesses you'd like to avoid?David Miller: Firstly, we really like recurring or re-occurring revenue businesses with stable and growing cash flows through the cycle, low capital intensity, and often in consolidating industries. That allows us to grow with our borrowers over time. You know, certain sectors we continue to like: insurance brokerage, residential services, high quality software businesses that have recurring contracts, and some parts of the healthcare spectrum that really focus on reducing costs and increasing efficiency. The flip side, cyclicals. Any type of retail, restaurants, energy, materials, that are deeply cyclical, capital intensive and have limited pricing power and high concentration of customers.So, now I get to ask some questions. So, Vishy, I'd love to turn it to you. How do returns, spreads, and yields in private credit compare to the public credit markets?Vishy Tirupattur: So, David, yields and spreads in private credit markets have been consistently higher relative to the broadly syndicated loan market for the last six or seven years -- for which we have decent data on. You know, likely reflecting, as you mentioned earlier, illiquidity premia and perhaps potentially investor perception of the underlying credit quality. The basis in yields and spreads between the two markets has narrowed somewhat over the last couple of years. Between 2014 and the first half of 2023, private credit, on average, generated higher returns and recorded less volatility relative to the broadly syndicated loan market. For example, since the third quarter of 2014, the private credit market realized negative total returns just in one quarter. And you compare that to eight quarters of negative returns on the broadly syndicated loan market.David Miller: Something we both encounter is the idea of covenants -- which simply put, are additional terms on lending agreements around cash flow, leverage, liquidity. How do covenants help investors of private credit?Vishy Tirupattur: Over the last several years, the one thing that stands out in the public credit markets -- especially in the leveraged loan market -- is the loosening of the covenant protection to lenders. Cov-Lite, which means, nearly no maintenance covenants, has effectively become the norm in the broadly syndicated loan market. This is one place that I think private credit markets really stand out. In our view, covenant quality is meaningfully better in private credit. This is mainly because given the much smaller number of lenders in typical private credit deals, private credit has demonstrably stronger loan documentation and creditor protections. Maintenance covenants are typically included. And to a great extent, these covenant breaches could act potentially as circuit breakers to better manage outcomes, you know, as credit gets weaker.David, we also hear a lot about the risk of defaults, in private credit markets. How much concern do you have around defaults?David Miller: We are watching, obviously stress on credits and the default rates overall, and they are at historically quite low levels. We do expect them to tick up over time. But there are some reasons why we clearly like private credit from that perspective. First, as mentioned, the covenant protections typically are a little better. If you look historically, depending on the data, private credit, default rates have been, somewhat lower than public leveraged credit and its been quite a resilient asset class, for a number of reasons. We like the amount of private equity dry powder that sits waiting to support some of the companies that are underperforming. And it's important to remember that private credit lenders typically have an easier time resolving some of these stresses and workouts given that they're quite bilateral or a very small group, to make decisions and reach those negotiated settlements. So overall, we feel like there will be a category of businesses that are underperforming and are in structural decline and that will default. But that number will be still very low relative to the universe of overall private credit.Vishy Tirupattur: So David, it’s been great speaking with you.David Miller: Thanks for having me on the podcast, Vishy.Vishy Tirupattur: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show.

With multiple, ongoing geopolitical conflicts, our analyst says investors should separate signals from noise in how these events can impact markets.Important note regarding economic sanctions. This research may reference jurisdiction(s) or person(s) which are the subject of sanctions administered or enforced by the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), the United Kingdom, the European Union and/or by other countries and multi-national bodies. Any references in this report to jurisdictions, persons (individuals or entities), debt or equity instruments, or projects that may be covered by such sanctions are strictly incidental to general coverage of the relevant economic sector as germane to its overall financial outlook, and should not be read as recommending or advising as to any investment activities in relation to such jurisdictions, persons, instruments, or projects. Users of this report are solely responsible for ensuring that their investment activities are carried out in compliance with applicable sanctions. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the impact of geopolitical events on markets. It's Wednesday, February 7 at 5 pm in London.Geopolitical conflicts around the globe seem to be escalating in recent weeks. Increased US military involvement in the Middle East, fresh uncertainty about Ukraine’s resources in its conflict with Russia, and lingering concerns about the US-China relationship are in focus. And since financial markets and economies around the world have become more interconnected, it's more important than ever for investors to separate signals from noise in how these events can impact markets. So here’s a few key takeaways that, in our view, do just that.First, fighting in the red sea may influence the supply chain, but the results are probably smaller than you’d think. Yes, there’s been a more than 200 per cent increase in the cost of freight containers moving through a channel that accounts for 12 per cent of global trade. But, the diversion of the freight traffic to longer routes around Africa really just represents a one-time lengthening of the delivery of goods to port. That’s because there’s an oversupply of containers that were built in response to bottlenecks created by increased demand for goods during the pandemic. So now that there’s a steady flow of containers with goods in them, even if they are avoiding the Red Sea, the impact on availability of goods to consumers is manageable, with only a modest effect on inflation expected by our economists.Second, ramifications on oil prices from the Middle East conflict should continue to be modest. While it might seem nonsensical that fighting in the Middle East hasn’t led to higher oil prices, that’s more or less what’s happened. But that’s because disruptions to the flow of oil don’t appear to be in the interest of any of the actors involved, as it would create political and economic risk on all sides. So, if you’re concerned about movements in the price of oil as a catalyst for growth or inflation, then our team recommends looking at the traditional supply and demand drivers for oil, which appear balanced around current prices.Finally, as the US election campaigns gear up, so does rhetoric around the US-China economic relationship. And here we see some things worth paying attention to. Simply put, higher tariffs imposed by the US are a real risk in the event that party control of the White House changes. That’s the stated position of Republicans’ likely candidate – former President Trump – and we see no reason to doubt that, based on how the former President levied tariffs last time he was in office. As our chief Asia economist Chetan Ahya recently noted, such an outcome creates downside risk for the China economy, at a time when downside risk is accumulating for other structural reasons. It's one reason our Asia equity strategy team continues to prefer other markets in Asia, in particular Japan.Of course, these situations and their market implications can obviously evolve quickly. We'll be paying close attention, and keeping you in the loop.Thanks for listening! Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We’d love to hear from you.

Japan’s experience as one of the first countries to have an aging population offers a glimpse of what’s to come for other countries on the same path. See what an older population could mean in terms of social policy, productivity, immigration reform, medical costs and more.----- Transcript -----Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist.Robert Feldman: And I'm Robert Feldman, Senior Advisor at Morgan Stanley MUFG Securities.Seth Carpenter: And on this special episode of the podcast, we will talk about longevity, and what the rest of the world can learn from Japan. It’s Tuesday, February 6th, at 8 a. m. in New York.Robert Feldman: And it's 10 p. m. in Tokyo.Seth Carpenter: Over the past year, I am guessing that lots of listeners to this podcast have heard many, many stories about new anti obesity drugs, cutting edge cancer treatments. And so today, we're going to address what is perhaps a bigger theme at play here.Now, the micro human side of things is clearly huge, clearly important. But Robert and I are macroeconomists, and so we're going to think about what the potential for longer human lifespans is. For the economics. So as life spans increase, we're probably going to see micro and macro ramifications for demographics, consumer habits, the healthcare system, government spending, and long-term financial planning.And so, it follows that investors may want to consider these ramifications across a wide range of sectors. So, Robert, I wanted to talk to you in particular because you've been following this theme in your research on Japan -- which is perhaps at the earliest stage of this with the fastest aging population across developed economies.So, start us off. Perhaps share some more about the demographic challenges that Japan is facing and what's unique about their experience.Robert Feldman: Thanks, Seth. First, let me start by saying that Japan is not so much unique as it is early. For example, in the 1960s, Japan's total fertility rate averaged about two children per woman. But it hasn't been above two since 1975. Now it's about 1.34. Population as a whole peaked in 2010 and now is down by about 2.4 per cent.What about government spending on pensions and healthcare? Well, those went from about 16 per cent of GDP in 1994 to about 27 per cent now. So the speed of these increases is extremely fast. That said, Japan has one very unusual feature. Labor force participation rates have climbed quite sharply, especially for women. So, more people are working and they're working longer.But at the same time, Japan has actually been pretty successful in holding down costs of many longevity related spending categories. Japan has a nationalized healthcare system. So, the government has lots of power over drug prices, which it has held down. It’s shortened hospital stays. They're still too long -- but it has shortened them. It has also raised retirement ages and has a very clever pension indexing system.Seth Carpenter: All right, so if I can sum this up then, Robert. Japanese workers are working longer, the Japan economy is spending less on health care. So, does this mean that we can just say Japan has solved most or all of the challenges associated with longer lifespans?Robert Feldman: Well, it’s not exactly reduced spending on healthcare. It just hasn't gone up as much as it might have.Seth Carpenter: Okay, that's a good distinction.Robert Feldman: Yes. Anyway, Japan has not solved all the problems, not by a long shot. So, for example, productivity growth is very important for holding debt costs down. But productivity growth -- and I like the simplest measure, just real output per worker -- has been anemic in Japan.So, when productivity growth is low and aging is fast, it's kind of hard to pay the cost of longevity; even if labor force growth is high and Japan has been able to suppress ageing costs. That's the wrinkle here.Seth Carpenter: Okay. So then, if we shifted to think about the fiscal perspective on things. The debt side of things. Is the longer-lived nature of the population; is that going to end up being something like a debt time bomb?Robert Feldman: Well, I don’t think so. At least not yet. And there are two factors behind my view. One is the potential for productivity growth to accelerate a lot. And the other is some special things about Japan's debt dynamics. Let me start with growth. There is huge room here for productivity growth here in Japan. We still has a lot of labor that's underused. The labor force is very well educated, and it's very disciplined. Therefore, it can be re-skilled for more productive jobs. There's also a lot more room for cost reduction in social spending categories, especially by using IT and AI. In addition, healthier people are more productive workers.On the debt dynamic side, the national debt is about 250 percent of GDP. Very high. But Japan owns 1.23 trillion dollars of foreign exchange reserves. So, Japan is borrowing a lot at very, very low short-term rates, and very low long-term rates as well. They're below one per cent. That said it’s earning high foreign interest rates on its external assets. In addition, about half the national debt is owned by the central bank. And so when the central bank, the Bank of Japan, collects coupons from the government, it pays them right back to the government in its year end profit.Seth Carpenter: Okay, so that helps put things into perspective. So, if we're looking forward, do you have any concrete measures that you think Japan as a society, the Japanese government might undertake? And what some of those potential outcomes might be?Robert Feldman: Well, I'm expecting incremental change that Japan is very good at. Social policy is hard to make. There's a lot of politics involved. Even in the prime minister's policy speech the other day, he mentioned a number of things. There will be changes. For example, ways to keep costs down but also to improve productivity. There will some changes in retirement ages. There will be some flexible labor market rules. This is important because ideas move with people; and when people move more, then productivity should go up. There will be continued easing of the immigration rules for highly skilled workers. Japan now has about 2 million foreign workers and the number will probably keep going up. Medical costs reforms are also very important. For example, it’s important for Japan to allow non doctors to do some things that heretofore only doctors have been permitted to do. Faster deployment of new technologies in high import sectors like energy and agriculture -- this should save us a lot of money in terms of not buying imports that we don't need once technology is deployed domestically. Now, can I ask you some questions?Seth Carpenter: Of course.Robert Feldman: Okay. So. From where you sit as a global economist, what aspects of Japan's experience do you think are particularly relevant to other economies?Seth Carpenter: I would say the part where you were touching on the debt dynamics is particularly salient, right? We know that in the COVID era, lots of countries sort of ran up a really large increase in their national debt. And so, trying to figure out what sort of debt dynamics are sustainable over the long run I think are critical. And I think the factors that you point out in terms of an aging population, sort of, have to be considered in that context.I think more broadly, the idea of an aging population is pretty widespread. It is not universal, obviously. But we know, for example, that in China, the population growth is coming down. We know that for a long time in Europe, there has been this aging of the population and a fall in fertility rates. So, I think a lot of the same phenomena are relevant. And like you said at the beginning: it's not that Japan is unique, it's that Japan is early.Robert Feldman: I have another question for you is, and also on this longevity theme -- about the difference between developed and emerging markets. What are the notable differences between those two groups of countries?Seth Carpenter: Yeah, I mean, I think we can make some generalizations. It is more often the case that slowing population growth, falling fertility rates, aging population is more of a developed market economy than an emerging market economy phenomenon. So, I think in that regard, it's important. I will say, however, that there are some exceptions to every rule.And I mentioned China that, you know, maybe straddles those two worlds -- developed versus emerging market. And they’re also seeing this slowing in their population growth. But I think within that, what's also interesting is we are seeing more and more pressures on migration. Immigration could be part of the solution. I think you highlighted this about Japan. And therein lies, at times, some of the geopolitical tensions between developed market economies and emerging market economies. But I think, at the same time, it could be part of the solution to any of the challenges posed by longevity.Seth Carpenter: But, I have to say, we probably need to wrap it up there.Robert, for me, it is always a pleasure to get to talk to you and hear some of your wisdom.Robert Feldman: Thank you, Seth. This is great. Always happy to talk with you. And if you want to have me back, I'll be there.Seth Carpenter: That's fantastic. And for the listeners, thank you for listening. If you enjoy thoughts on the market, please leave us a review on Apple podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

As positive economic data makes it less likely that the Fed will cut rates in March, our Chief US Equity Strategist explains what this could mean for small-cap stocks. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U. S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, February 5th at 11 a. m. in New York.So let's get after it. Going into the last week, investors had a number of factors to consider. The busiest week of earnings season that included several mega cap tech stocks, a Fed meeting, and some of the most relevant monthly economic data for markets. Around these data releases, we saw significant moves in many macro markets, as well as individual securities.We started the week with a soft Dallas Fed Manufacturing Index reading, which followed the weak New York Manufacturing Survey two weeks earlier. Meanwhile, the Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index and the University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Survey both pushed higher.As the week progressed, we got more data that supported the view that the economy may not be slowing as much as many had started to believe, including perhaps the Fed. [00:01:00] In contrast to the Dallas and New York Fed Manufacturing Surveys, The ISM manufacturing PMI ticked higher, and surprised to the upside by a few points.More importantly, the orders component ticked above 50 to 52, which tends to lead the headline index. The fact that the overall equity market responded favorably to these data makes sense in the context of still present growth uncertainty. However, the fact that cyclical stocks that are levered to manufacturing continue to underperform tells me the market is still very undecided about the macro outcome this year, as am I.Finally, the headline non-farm payrolls number on Friday was extremely strong at 353, 000. Manufacturing jobs surprised to the upside, giving credence to the uptick in the ISM Manufacturing PMI cited earlier. However, the release also incorporated the annual revisions, which may be overstating the strength in labor markets.Employment trends from the Household Survey remain much softer, as do hours worked, quit rates, and layoff announcements. In short, the labor market is [00:02:00] fine, but still weakening, as desired by the Fed. The one area of unequivocal strength remains government spending and hiring, which could be working against the Fed's goals.The bond market went with the stronger read of the data and traded sharply lower on Friday, as so this morning. It has also pushed out the timing of the first Fed interest rate cut, taking the odds of a March cut all the way down to just 20 per cent. Recall this probability was as high as 90 per cent around the end of last year.Perhaps the market is starting to take the Fed at its word. They aren't planning to cut rates in March. The equity market tried to look through this rate move on Friday driven by a historically narrow move in large cap quality growth stocks. This is very much in line with our recommendation since the beginning of the year to stick with large cap quality growth.For now, the internals of the stock market appear to agree with our view that a stickier rate backdrop is a disproportionate headwind for stocks with poor balance sheets and a lack of pricing power. In other words, lower quality cyclicals and [00:03:00] many areas of small caps. Perhaps the most important data to support this conclusion is that earnings results and prospects for 2024 remain weak for these kinds of companies.On this front, we continue to get questions from investors on what it will take for small caps to work from here on a relative basis. The Russell 2000, the small cap index, has underperformed the S& P 500 by 7 per cent year to date and is still more than 20 per cent below all time highs reached over two years ago.While some think this is an opportunity, our view is that we need more confirmation that we're headed for a higher nominal growth regime driven more by the private economy rather than inefficient government spending.As we've discussed in the past, small caps are particularly economically sensitive and reliant on pricing power to offset their lack of scale.As they await more definitive confirmation on whether a higher nominal growth environment is coming, small caps are being weighed down by a weakening margin profile, higher leverage, and borrowing costs. In short, stick with what [00:04:00] works in a late cycle environment where the macro remains uncertain. Large cap, high quality growth. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show.

Mortgage rates are down, sales volumes are rising and housing is gradually getting more affordable. Our analysts discuss why they think the U.S. housing market is on a healthy foundation. ----- Transcript -----Jim Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, Co Head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley.Jay Bacow: And I'm Jay Bacow, the other Co Head of Securitized Products Research.Jim Egan: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll be talking about mortgage rates, home sales volumes and the U. S. housing market.Jay Bacow: Alright Jim. Mortgage rates are down. Sales volumes are up. [Is] the housing market back?Jim Egan: Sales volumes might finally be inflecting higher, or at least they might actually be finding that bottom. If we look at the seasonally adjusted annualized figures that came in in December, pending home sales increased 8 per cent to their highest level since July. Purchase applications, which -- little bit more high frequency, we have them through January -- they're up 23 percent from the lows that they put in in late October or early November.Jay Bacow: Alright, that sounds good, but seasonally adjusted annualized figure sounds like a mouthful. Can you lay that out a little easier for us?Jim Egan: I think that these numbers just need to be put [00:01:00] into a little bit more context. Yes, pending home sales were up 8 per cent month over month. But if I look at just the December print, it was the weakest pending home sales print for that month in the history of that index. Now, relative to 2022, it is improving. It was only down 1 per cent from December of 2022, and that's the lowest decrease we've had since 2021. But these numbers still aren't strong.Going around the horn to some of the other demand statistics, existing home sales finished 2023 down 19 per cent. But they also strengthened into year end only down 9 per cent in the fourth quarter. New home sales, as we've mentioned on this podcast before. That is the demand statistic that has actually been showing growth up 4 per cent in 2023 versus 2022. Up 15 per cent in the second half of 2023 versus the second half of 2022.Jay Bacow: Alright, so we’ve got a pickup or an inflection in housing activity, and we’ve had mortgage rates coming down. Affordability is also independent of home prices. So where does all this stand?    Jim Egan: Right? [00:02:00] So because of those home price increases that you've mentioned, the monthly payment on the medium price home is still up almost $100 year over year. But the path of affordability, the deterioration that we've been talking about -- it's as small as it's been since February 2021. And if we're not looking at this on a year over year basis; if we're just looking at this on a month, over month, or every two-month basis. The two-month increase that we've seen in affordability is the steepest increase, or the steepest drop in unaffordability, if you will, since January of 2009.Suffice it to say, we think this is a much healthier housing market than 2009.Jay Bacow: Alright. Now what about the supply side? Because obviously, [there’s] a lot of ways we can get supply. One of the more straightforward methods is for someone just to build a new home. How’s that data looking?  [00: 03:00]Jim Egan: We are building more homes. As new home sales have moved higher, single unit housing starts have moved higher as well. Now from cycle peak, which we estimate as April 2022, single unit starts fell about 23 per cent through the middle of 2023. And another thing that we've talked about on this podcast in the past is that build timelines have been elongating. And that was leading to a backlog in homes actually under construction.That decrease allowed that backlog to clear a little bit, and since the middle of 2023, June till the end of the year, single unit starts were actually up 7 per cent. We are building more homes.Jay Bacow: Alright. So new home sales are clearly, literally new homes. But people can also list their existing homes. What's that data look like?Jim Egan: Listing volumes are higher as well. In fact, as of this month, I can no longer say that we are at historic lows when it comes to for sale inventory. While inventory has also climbed throughout the second half of 2022 into the first half of 2023, [00:04:00] that historic low statement is something I could have made every month for the past 8 months.It's a statement I could have made for 41 of the past 54 months. Months of supply did retreat a little bit in December. But when we think about our models for housing activity and really for home prices, it's that growth in the absolute amount of for sale inventory that really plays a big role.Jay Bacow: Alright. I don’t have a PhD in economics. You’re the housing strategist. If we have more supply, does that mean prices are coming down?Jim Egan: That's what we think. We continue to think that these for sale inventory increases that are happening alongside what we do continue to believe will be sales growth in 2024 -- and we think we're seeing the first signs of now -- are going to be enough to bring home prices moderately negative in 2024. And alongside these recent activity prints, the most recent home price print was actually just a little bit softer than we thought it would be.We had forecasted about it a 15-basis point decrease in home prices in November. We saw an 18-basis point [00:05:00] decrease. It's not unusual for home prices to decrease month over month in November. But this is kind of from our perspective a little bit of validation from a home price forecast perspective.We're calling for them to fall 3 percent year over year in 2024. We think this is very moderate. We do not think this is a correction. We believe the housing market is on a very healthy foundation. Looks like we're moving towards sales increases. But we do still think you'll see a little bit of price weakness next year.  Jay Bacow: Jim, thanks for taking the time to talk.Jim Egan: Great speaking with you, Jay.Jay Bacow: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on the Apple Podcasts app; and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Our analyst explains what parts of the consumer staples sector could benefit from an aging global population.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Sarah Simon, Head of the European consumer staples team at Morgan Stanley, and today I’ll be talking the increasingly important longevity theme and its impact on consumers. It’s Thursday, the first of February, at 3 PM in London.It's no secret that global life expectancy is increasing. The rise of modern medicine, improved working conditions, urbanization, and greater access to food and water have all contributed to a greater life expectancy. According to the United Nations, global life expectancy has risen more than 54% since 1950, reaching about 71 years in 2021, with Asia improving the most. At the same time people are living longer, birth rates for most developed economies have dropped. Higher levels of education, the increasing proportion of women in the workforce, and modern medicine have all contributed to lower birth rates. In fact, over the last several decades, the global population has aged significantly, with the median global age increasing 8 years since 1950, hitting 30 years in 2021. Looking ahead, the United Nations expects the percentage of population aged 65+ will continue to increase at a faster rate than younger populations. An ageing population has far-reaching implications, but let’s consider the spending power of older adults. Real disposable income among older adults has increased throughout the years. In 2022, an older adult had about 50% more than in 2000. As a result, older adults today have more money to spend on consumer goods and services than in the last decades. Here are three categories within the Consumer Staples sector that could benefit from the rise in longevity.First, Consumer Health. As consumers skew older and their disposable income increases it bodes well for a wide range of consumer health products – think Vitamins, Minerals and Supplements (VMS), denture care, cold and flu remedies and more.Second, Active Nutrition, including protein supplements and probiotic-rich foods such as kimchi, kombucha, or yogurt, is a likely beneficiary of the longevity theme. This sub-category is currently growing mid- to high single digits on average (over 10% for protein-related categories), and we see room for further long-term growth.Finally, Medical Nutrition. With age comes increasing prevalence of chronic diseases, including cancers, and with malnutrition. Addressing malnutrition improves the cost, and effectiveness, of medical treatment and also allows for shorter hospital stays. To that end, healthcare providers are increasing turning to medical nutritional solutions--driving demand for these products.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

2023 was a tough year for U.S. mergers and acquisitions. But our analysts think buyers and sellers are both positioned for a busy 2024.Wally Cheng is not a member of Morgan Stanley’s Research department. Unless otherwise indicated, his views are his own and may differ from the views of the Morgan Stanley Research department and from the views of others within Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Wally Cheng: And I'm Wally Cheng, Head of West Coast Tech M&A for Investment Banking. Michael Zezas: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll focus on the outlook ahead for mergers and acquisitions in US tech. Michael Zezas: Wally, I really wanted to talk with you because 2023 was arguably the toughest year for U.S. mergers and acquisition markets since the global financial crisis. And we saw a three prong set of challenges in the form of rising interest rates, geopolitical conflicts and recession concerns. And that seems to have weighed on deal activity across the globe. Looking back, the first quarter of 2023 marked the lowest point of the M&A market, and since then we've seen deal activity tick higher. But from your perspective in tech banking, where are we right now and what should investors be watching for this year? Wally Cheng: The punch line answer that, Mike, is they should be looking for a bounce back in M&A in 2024 for all the reasons that you mentioned. Activity was very muted in 23. You highlighted rising interest rates. You highlighted geopolitical risks, wars, etc.. In that kind of environment deals just don't get done. There's not a meeting of the minds between buyer and seller. We're in a different environment now, I think what's happened over the last quarter or so is an appreciation or an acceptance of the new normal. The world has a lot of uncertainty around it, and that's no longer a new thing. It's a thing that buyers and sellers now know that they have to face for the foreseeable future. So my expectation for 2024 is much more activity, and we're seeing green shoots of that. And we saw a lot of that happening towards the end of last year. A number of large strategic deals that complemented the flow of private equity driven deals that we've seen for the last couple of years. The playing field now going into the full year of 2024 is really about all groups of buyers and sellers being active. What do I mean by that? I mean, on the buyer side, it's both corporate buyers and private equity buyers. Both active. First half of 2023 was only sponsors. Second half of 2023 was largely only strategics. Now they are both playing in the game. That's on the buyer's side. On the seller side, for the reasons that are articulated, sellers are no longer playing for a material change in the operating environment and a return or snap back, back to 2021 valuation levels. That was a blip on the screen, going to be a very long time to get back to there, if ever, and they're being much more sober and reasonable and realistic about valuations that they can get. So we're seeing much more of a meeting of the minds between buyer and seller. All buyer groups are active. Michael Zezas: So drilling down into your area of expertise a little bit more. It's been a slower tech IPO market recently. What's the impact of a slower IPO market on M&A? Wally Cheng: That is going to drive more M&A. And what I mean by that is when private companies can't get public, and return money to their private shareholders, they have to seek other ways of doing that. And that's M&A. Last year, and the year before were historically low in terms of IPO volume. Every year, on average over the last decade or so, there's been roughly 40 tech IPOs, last year and the year before less than ten. We're not expecting much more than that this year either. So with that kind of IPO volume, the huge number of private companies, by last count, about 1300 private companies of $1 billion in greater valuation were sitting in the private domain in technology. And of those 1300 companies, just a few of them are going to make it public in the next few years, which means they're going to have to seek other ways of monetizing for their shareholders. And that's going to be through M&A. Michael Zezas: So there's obviously a lot of discussion right now about when the Fed will begin cutting interest rates this year. But in any case, the consensus is that even when they are cutting, you're likely to see levels of interest rates also will be somewhat higher than what we saw in the decade between the financial crisis and the pandemic. So what's the potential impact on the next wave of M&A activity from having somewhat higher interest rates? Wally Cheng: It will be a factor that is going to hold back a more robust M&A market. But I think the real impact of it is going to be twofold. One is there are going to be many more stock deals. So deals where stock is used as an acquisition currency to buy the target. And then two is I think there's going to be a lot more activity from buyers who have a lot of cash firepower sitting on their balance already. They're going to press their advantage in an environment like this, where for many buyers who don't have that same luxury of cash on their balance sheet and require outside financing at the higher rates that you mentioned to go finance deals, which will make those deals a little bit more difficult to justify economically. So if you've got very inexpensive cash sitting on your balance sheet, now's the time to go use it. Michael Zezas: Drilling down a bit here, what sub sectors within technology do you think will see the most M&A activity? Wally Cheng: Number one software. And number two Semis with an asterisks on Semis, which I'll get to in a second. In both of those industries consolidation is imperative. In software. Customers are looking for best of platform solutions not best of breed anymore. So in a landscape where there are a thousand plus software companies valued at greater than $1 billion that are either public or private today there's going to be a lot of M&A happening, to get to a product offering that looks more like a best of platform solution for their customers. Similarly, in Semis, the dynamic is the same, a little bit more driven by scale, and that is really what's driving M&A in Semis. There's about 100 semiconductor companies that are public today with more than $1 billion in value. Our expectation is that the need for scale is going to drive that number down to about a third of that through M&A over the next 5 to 10 years. The asterisks that I mentioned on the semiconductor activity is that in order to get the semiconductor deal done today, given the global nature of their revenue, is that they require regulatory approval from governments all over the globe. And in today's environment, where East and West are in a tug of war for tech supremacy, those approvals are really difficult to get. Are they impossible? No. Does it take longer to get them? Yes. So buyers and sellers in semis are really, really taking a hard look at whether or not they can get regulatory approval before announcing their deals, because the last thing they want to do is announce a deal, wait for two years to get it approved, it not be approved, and they've got damaged companies coming out of the end of that. Michael Zezas: Got it. So geopolitical concerns, still a limiting factor for cross-border M&A, but overall we're seeing tailwinds for M&A activity picking up. Wally Cheng: You got it. Michael Zezas: Well Wally thanks for taking the time to talk. Wally Cheng: Super speaking to you Mike. Thanks. Michael Zezas: As a reminder if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show.

Who is going to buy nearly $11 trillion in new fixed-income assets in 2024? Find out where our Chief Cross-Asset strategist expects to see demand.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's Chief Cross Asset strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss our outlook for global fixed income supply and demand in 2024. It's Tuesday, January 30th at 10 a.m. in New York. This year is shaping out to be a big year for bond markets. We see global fixed income growth supply rising 12% to almost $11 trillion in 2024, and expect U.S. Treasury gross supply alone to increase 30% to $4 trillion in 2024. So the big questions investors are grappling with are one, what drives this increase in supply? And two, will there be sufficient demand and from where to meet the supply?One of the drivers for this rise in supply is quantitative tightening or QT. As G4 central banks have undertaken aggressive measures to curb inflation, they've shrunk their balance sheets by about $250 trillion. Yes, that's trillion with a T, since January 2023, and we expect them to do so by another $245 trillion in 2024. With central bank buying of coupon bonds dropping off, someone else will need to step in. A prevailing narrative in 2023 was that markets would get overwhelmed by the amount of fixed income issuance, either because of quantitative tightening or maturing corporate bonds, and this would push yields higher. Yields were indeed pushed higher last year, but it wasn't on the back of supply, instead, the economy turned out to be stronger than expected. And we think that 2024 will be no different. Gross and net issuance across global fixed income products will likely rise versus last year, but demand should be there to meet supply, especially in the second half of 2024, when central banks are expected to start cutting rates and rates volatility normalizes. With that said, what is interesting to note is the shift in the type of buyers of bonds. Bank portfolios are the most likely to see a decrease in net buying, while we anticipate that demand will pick up for overseas investors, especially in the second half of the year. Meanwhile, we think demand from U.S. pension funds remains strong. They've been big buyers of treasuries in the last few quarters, and should continue to support demand on the very long end of the curve. Another important point is that foreign private demand for U.S. treasuries never really went away. Foreign official demand exhibits cyclicality with the fed rate cycle, that is, it decreases as the Fed hike rates and increases when the Fed cuts. Private demand from Japan is particularly cyclical, and we are already seeing signs of Japanese investors returning to the scene as the fed cycle peaks. We also think Japanese investors will find Agency Mortgage-Backed Securities, or MBS, attractive this year, but will likely commit capital only when volatility in both rates and the bases normalize. Bottom line: as global fixed income supply rises in 2024, we think there will be sufficient demand to meet this increase. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. 

With the rise of technology, media and telecom credit markets, our analyst explains how companies are looking to manage the rapidly changing landscape. ----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. David Hamburger: And I'm David Hamburger, Head of U.S. Sector Corporate Credit Research and Lead Analyst for High Yield TMT here at Morgan Stanley. Andrew Sheets: And on today's special episode, the podcast, Dave and I will be discussing corporate credit analysis, the TMT sector and what may be ahead for credit investors. Andrew Sheets: David, I think it's safe to say that a lot of listeners are going to be a lot more familiar with what an equity analyst does. So before we get into your sector, I think it'd be great to just take a step back and how do you think about the role of a credit analyst, and how does your job differ from your equity analyst colleagues that sit across on the other side of the floor? David Hamburger: So, you know, we're primarily focused on the other side of the balance sheet compared to the equity analyst. So we'll be looking at the liabilities that companies have. Those liabilities do trade in the market and people invest in bonds, loans and otherwise. And importantly, the thing that we really do focus on the most is a company's willingness and ability to service debt and repay that debt. We are certainly concerned with how companies generate shareholder value. But importantly, it's really, really crucial and critical to understand a company's ability again and willingness to repay the debt that's on the balance sheet and the liability part of the balance sheet in particular. Andrew Sheets: We're also coming into 2024 at a pretty interesting time for corporate credit markets. You know, you've had yields on some of these high yield bond issuers or loan issuers, a double from where they were in 2021/2022. So you have a market that is offering higher yields than in the past, but also with quite a bit of volatility dispersion between better and weaker balance sheets, and quite a bit that's going on, that's getting investors attention. David Hamburger: Yeah. There are a lot of opportunities in corporate credit in general. And you know, people sometimes lose sight of the fact that there's quite a diversity of investment opportunities, whether you're looking at many different sectors in energy, consumer retail or importantly, the TMT sector that we look at, and you can really find situations that suit your risk profile and how much risk appetite an investor might have. Andrew Sheets: So let's dive a bit into that sector and how you're thinking about it. And again, there might be some investors that are very familiar with the idea of TMT credit and TMT standing for technology, media and telecom. What has been the story in TMT credit over the last five years? What has brought the sector to its current position? David Hamburger: I would say the thing that people have really focused on are some of the technological changes that emerged from the Covid pandemic. If you consider and you look at, you know, where we'll focus a lot of our attention on the telecom and cable sectors. And you look at what transpired during the pandemic. You really had two trends that were overarching. The first was connectivity. I mean, everyone was homebound in a situation where, you know, we were not going into work, going to our normal social interactions that we normally had. And connectivity was paramount. The second thing that it that helped spur huge technological advances, I think during that period of time, you probably saw what the types of technological advances that might have taken a cycle of a couple of years in just a few months, strikingly. And so what had transpired then is really we're seeing the fallout of some of those trends where you saw a number of consumers look at the opportunity to better connect through wireless, through broadband services, new technologies that those companies needed to embrace in order to reach the consumer and reach those new subscribers. And it's really been a trend that, you know, we continue to follow. And has really probably been that had the largest impact on this sector overall. Andrew Sheets: I think it's safe to say that consumers access to more media now than they've ever had before, which is a nice thing. But how do you think about the opportunities and the challenges that's created for companies, and how companies are dealing with that just seismic and rapid shift in the landscape. David Hamburger: So companies need to be extremely nimble. Management teams need a vision and have a lot of foresight how those technologies will evolve. For many of these companies and for this industry in general, that tend to be very high barriers to entry. Why is that? They're extremely capital intensive. So if you look at like a cable company or a telecom company, even a lot of the big media companies spend an incredible amount of money on their networks, on service, on content production and otherwise. And so importantly, what has ultimately been one of the most defining aspects of this period of time has been companies that are nimble, but really that have financial flexibility. When rates were very low and we had very accommodating credit markets, that helped facilitate a lot of that investment that companies needed. But now when we saw the rising rate environment, it really impacted the fact that a lot of these companies had elevated leverage, that needed it in order to undertake these intensive capital programs. So I would say what really has defined the trend in the space, is those companies with strong balance sheets, financial flexibility, management teams that have remained nimble, have succeeded and thrive in this environment. But on the contrary, companies that were extremely elevated amount of leverage on the balance sheet, found themselves with less financial flexibility to perform and compete. And we're really seeing the fallout from that trend over the last two years. Andrew Sheets: So, David, I think you've set that up really well. And so, I guess, as you think about the importance of flexibility, and you kind of highlighted the advantages of being more nimble and being more flexible. Do you think this is going to be a story where the market has already rewarded those better, more nimble companies? Or is this a theme that still has further to play out as the market does further differentiation between the two? David Hamburger: Yeah, it certainly has more room to run here in terms of differentiation. A lot of it is really around those new technologies. You begin to see this technological advances around more bandwidth and better networks and upgrades. And so, you know, that creates more competition. But at the same time, as we've seen the acceleration of the adoption of more connectivity, it becomes a more mature market. And so those competitive risks get exacerbated by some of the things like market maturation and even saturation. And as well, you can't minimize things like government subsidies that helped Americans stay connected. And so that dynamic continues to create a tension in the sector in terms of the haves and the have nots and the ability to better compete, the financial wherewithal to compete, and management teams that are very adept and nimble at, you know, embracing those new opportunities. And I think ultimately, what you will see is you're going to see further rationalization of the sector as a result of this, where you'll begin to see and particularly if rates start to come down, one of those follow throughs, or one of the potential outcomes of that is really a potential for more M&A in the space. Andrew Sheets: So, David, we started this conversation acknowledging that a credit investor and an equity investor might be looking at the same company, but approach that from a different point of view and different areas of emphasis. And I guess to conclude this conversation, as you look ahead, if you think about your sector, who do you think is in the driver's seat right now in the eyes of management, do you think it's more friendly to the equity holder, more friendly to the bondholder? Or does it really vary company by company? David Hamburger: A lot of it varies. Certainly in the interest rate regime we've been under for the last couple of years, the companies and their management teams have been more mindful of the balance sheet and more mindful of leverage. You know, we as credit investors, we're always kind of looking at the downside and the downside risks, because clearly we would just want those companies to pay back debt and always examining again the willingness and ability to do so. But to the extent that there's excess capital and excess financial flexibility, all things equal, you want to make sure they're staying nimble and investing in the business and remaining competitive. And one of the things is, you know, we look at this sectors now with a little more caution because of the amount of leverage, because, you know, there might be a tendency to look at the need to the business and to invest more aggressively should rates begin to come back down. We think the, you know, the higher leverage in the face of rising competition and intensity around consumer and enterprise demand, give us pause with regard to the, you know, these companies ability to to continue to focus on the balance sheet and creditors. And I think that's why, again, you're seeing a lot of these stress situations in this sector in particular. Andrew Sheets: David, thank you for taking the time to talk. David Hamburger: It's been my pleasure. Thank you. Andrew Sheets: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people find the show. 

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

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

Investors are concerned that the upcoming election might interfere with policy decisions. Here’s why our view is different.----- Transcript -----Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy at Morgan Stanley. Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. Matthew Hornbach: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll discuss whether the election will change Fed policy this year. It's Thursday, January 25th at 10 a.m. in New York. Matthew Hornbach: All eyes are on the Fed as 2024 gets underway. Investors are concerned not only about the timing and the magnitude of the expected rate cuts this year, but also on the liquidity in the funding markets, which is intricately linked to the Fed's ongoing quantitative tightening operations, or QT. Seth, let's dig right into it. Does the outcome of the US presidential election in November change your team's baseline view that the Fed will lower rates starting in June? Seth Carpenter: Matt, I think the short answer to your question is no. So our baseline forecast is, the Fed starts cutting rates in June. And over the second half of the year, it gets a total of 100 basis points worth of cuts in. But that forecast is predicated on the downward trajectory for inflation and the economy's slowing but not falling off of a cliff, or put simply, it's based on the Fed following their statutory objectives for stable prices and full employment, and not the political cycle. Matthew Hornbach: So, Seth, we often hear from investors that they believe that the election will have an impact on Fed policy and we also hear from FOMC participants from time to time about this topic. But why is it that FOMC participants dismiss this wisdom or conventional wisdom amongst investors that the election might interfere with Fed policy? Seth Carpenter: I think that question has a really simple answer, which is that the FOMC participants, they're the ones sitting around the table making the decisions, and they don't see themselves as being influenced by the politics. I mean, I can say I was at the Fed for 15 years. I was a staffer preparing memos, doing briefings to the committee in the 2000 election, the 2004 election, the 2008 election, the 2012 election. And I can honestly say from my firsthand experience, there really wasn't anything about the fact of the election that was doing anything to influence the way that monetary policy was being decided. Their eyes were fixed on those statutory objectives of full employment and stable prices. But let me turn it around to you, Matt, because I know that you did a lot of homework. You went back through the historical record and you looked at policy decisions in years when there were elections, in years when there weren't elections. When you do that really careful analysis, what comes out of that pattern? What do you see in the policy decisions that the committee took? Matthew Hornbach: Absolutely. We looked at actual policy rate changes going all the way back to 1971. So really getting in that period of time when inflation was also a problem in the 1970s and early 1980s. And we went all the way through the present day. And what we found was that the Fed doesn't shy away from changing policy, whether it be an election year, a general election year, a midterm election year or no election in a given year. They change policy all the time. You know, then we looked at, well, does the policy changes that occur in election years or non election years, does it differ in notable ways? Does the Fed tend to cut rates more in election years or hike rates more in non election years? And we didn't find any notable pattern at all. It just became very apparent in the data that we looked at that there isn't a political bias in terms of the policy rate, whether to change it or not, change it, to move it up, to move it down. The Fed seems, based on the data, to act in the best interest of what's going on in the economy at the time. Seth Carpenter: That makes sense to me, and that's very much consistent with my experience there. But let me push a little bit more, because I know that you didn't just do that wave of analysis and then stop. You always burn the midnight oil here, and you went back through the actual transcripts. Because one thing I know I hear from clients and you must hear it as well, is surely the FOMC has to be aware that the election is going on. How could they not be aware of it? It's got to come up during the meetings. It has to come up during the meeting. So when you look at the transcripts themselves, what was said during the meetings, how much do they talk about the election? Matthew Hornbach: They're definitely aware that there's an election, as I think most people around the world would be. And when they talk about the elections, you know, typically it comes up almost every election year. You typically get a handful of FOMC participants that bring up the election. 2008 was an interesting exception, where only one person mentioned the election the entire year. Seth Carpenter: They may have been thinking about other things. Matthew Hornbach: They may have other things on their mind, like the great financial crisis that was unfolding. But what we found is that not that many people actually bring it up every election year, but there are a handful here in there that talk about it. You typically find that in the first half of the calendar year, there's not that much discussion about the election. But as the election approaches in November, you get more discussion that ends up showing up in the transcript. So you typically find that the month of October, November and December will have the most discussion about the election by FOMC participants. The second thing we found, Seth, was that when they talk about the election, they typically talk about it in sort of two lines of thinking. One is with respect to fiscal policy. Elections can change fiscal policy, either going into the election or coming out of the election, fiscal policy can differ. And so they typically focus on the state of play with respect to fiscal policy. In 2012, which is when you were there at the fed. I'm sure you noticed that there were lots of discussions about the fiscal cliff. So we noticed that in the transcripts as well. Similarly, in 2016, in December, after the election, in 2016, when the markets were starting to price in the prospect of tax cuts and fiscal stimulus, there was a lot of discussion on the Fed at the time about fiscal policy. Seth Carpenter: Matt, it sounds like you're staking out the controversial view that the central bank of the country is paying attention to the macroeconomic environment and the main factors that drive the macro economy. Matthew Hornbach: That's absolutely right. We also found that they discussed the election in terms of the uncertainty that elections caused businesses and consumers. They typically grow more concerned about business investment as we head into an election and businesses pulling back on that investment for a short period of time, until they have clarity about the election outcome. So that's generally what they're talking about when they discuss the election, fiscal policy and uncertainty. Seth Carpenter: All right. So I feel a little bit relieved that my firsthand experience is fully consistent with all the digging that you did through the transcript through multiple decades. Matthew Hornbach: Absolutely. So, Seth, with that, let me just thank you for taking the time to talk with me. Seth Carpenter: Matt, I could talk to you all day, but particularly on this topic, it was a pleasure to be here. Matthew Hornbach: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

While it’s too early to tell who will win the U.S. presidential election ­­­– or how markets will respond to it – there are a few factors that investors should consider.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the impact of the US election on markets. It's Wednesday, January 24th at 10 a.m. in New York. We're two states into the Republican primary election season. Former President Trump has won both contests, underscoring what polls have been suggesting for months now. That he's the heavy favorite to be the party's nominee for the presidency. But other than that, have we learned anything that might matter to markets? Not particularly in our view. This election will clearly be consequential, the markets, but for the moment we're more in watch and learn mode. Here's two reasons to consider. First, knowing who the Republican candidate will be doesn't tell us much about who will become president. While we've heard from some clients that they rate President Biden's chances of reelection as low, and therefore, knowing who will be the Republican nominee is the same as knowing who will be president, we don't agree with this logic. Sitting presidents have had low approval ratings this far ahead of an election and still won before. Also, polls may show that economic factors like inflation are a political weakness for Biden today, but those circumstances could change given how quickly inflation is easing. Now, this doesn't mean we expect Biden will win, it's just that we think it's far from clear who the favorite is in this election. Our second point is that, even if we know who wins, we don't necessarily know what reliable market impact this would have. That's because there are many crosscurrents to the policies each party is pursuing. Democrats may be interested in more social spending, which could boost consumption, but they may also be interested in taxes to fund it, which could cut against growth. Republicans may be interested in lower taxes, but the presumptive nominee is also interested in increased tariffs, which could mitigate tax impacts. To top it off, neither party may be able to do much with the presidency unless they also control Congress, something that polls show will be difficult to achieve. So, this all begs the question. What will make this election matter to markets? The answer, in our view, is time and market context. As we get closer to the election, what's in the price of equity in bond markets will largely shape the stakes for investors. For example, if markets are priced for weak economic outcomes, investors may embrace a unified government outcome regardless of party, as it opens the door to fiscal stimulus measures. Of course, this is only one scenario that may matter, but you can see the point on how context is important. So as the stakes become clearer, we'll define them here and let you know more about it. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer of Morgan Stanley Wealth Management, discusses long-term investors’ biggest concern – the amount and timing of interest rate moves.Lisa Shalett is a member of Morgan Stanley’s Wealth Management Division and is not a member of Morgan Stanley’s Research Department. Unless otherwise indicated, her views are her own and may differ from the views of the Morgan Stanley Research Department and from the views of others within Morgan Stanley.----- Transcription -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Lisa Shalett: And I'm Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management. Andrew Sheets: And on this special episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing some of the latest market trends and what they may mean for our retail clients. It's Tuesday, January 23rd at 4 p.m. in London. Lisa Shalett: And it's 11 a.m. here in New York. Andrew Sheets: Lisa, it's great to have you back on. So wealth management clients are typically investing for the long term in order to meet specific goals such as retirement. And with that in mind, let's start with the current market backdrop. You know, we've entered the year with increased market confidence. We've seen implied volatility near some of the lowest levels that we've seen in several years. And yet we've also seen some mixed economic data to start the year. So as you look out into 2024, what are the major risks that you're focused on? Lisa Shalett: Well, I think one of the first things that, you know, we're trying to impress upon our clients, who tend to be long term, who tend to be multi-asset class investors, very often owning a simple classical 60/40 portfolio, is that we've been in this very interesting potential regime change, where both bonds and stocks are sensitive to the same thing. And that is the level and rate of change of interest rates. And that's meant that the 60/40 portfolio and stocks and bonds are actually positively correlated with one another. And so the very first thing we're talking to clients about is the extent to which we believe they need to focus on diversification. I think a second factor that we're talking, you know, to clients a lot about is liquidity. Now in the macro sense, we know that one of the reasons that markets have been able to resist some of the pressure is coming from the fed. Raising rates 550 basis points in kind of 15, 16 month period has been because there have been huge offsets in the macro backdrop providing liquidity to the marketplace. So we're talking about the fact that some of those supports to liquidity may, in fact, fall away and go from being tailwinds to being headwinds in 2024. So what does that mean? That means that we need to have perhaps more realistic expectations for overall returns. The third and final thing that we're spending a lot of time with clients on is this idea of what is fair valuation, right? In the last eight weeks of the year, clients were, you know, very I think enamored is probably the right word with the move in the last eight weeks of the year, of course, people had, you know, the fear of missing out. And yet we had to point out that valuations were kind of reaching limits, and we therefore haven't been shocked at this January, the first couple of weeks, markets have maybe stalled out a little bit, having to kind of digest the rate that we've come and the level that we're at. So those are some of the themes that, you know, we've begun to talk about, at least with regard to portfolio construction. Andrew Sheets: So, Lisa, that's a great framing of it. You know, you mentioned the importance of rates to the equity story, this unusually high correlation that we've had between bonds and stocks. And you have this debate in the market, will the Fed make its first rate cut in March? Will it make its first rate cut in June, like the Morgan Stanley research call is calling for? Is that the same thing? And how important to you in terms of the overall market outlook is this question of when the Fed actually makes its first interest rate cut? Lisa Shalett: Yeah. For our client base and long term investors, you know, we try to push back pretty aggressively on this idea that any of us can time the market and that there's a big distinction and difference between a march cut and a may or June cut. And so what we've said is, you know, the issue is, again, less about when they actually begin, but why do they begin? And one of the reasons that they may begin later than sooner would be that inflation is lumpy. And I know that some of the economists on our global macro team have that perspective that, you know, the heavy lifting, if you will, or the easy money on the inflation trade has been made. And we were able to get from 9 to 4 on many inflation metrics, but getting from 4 to 2 may require patience as we have to, you know, kind of wait for things like owner occupied rents and housing related costs to come down. We have to wait for the lags in wage growth to come out of some of the calculations, and that may require a pickup in unemployment. We may have to wait for some of the services areas where there has been inflation, things related to automotive insurance and things related to health care for some of those items to settle down as well. And so that might be one of the issues that impacts timing. Andrew Sheets: So moving to your second key point around market liquidity. Another factor I want to ask you about, which I think is kind of adjacent to that debate, is what about all this cash? You know, we've heard a lot about record inflows into US money market funds over 2023. You have around $6 trillion sitting in US money market funds. How do you see that story playing out, and how do you think investors should think about that question of should I redeploy my cash, given it's still offering relatively high yields? Lisa Shalett: So for our clients, you know, one of the things that we're very focused on, again, because we're taking that much longer time frame is saying, look, how does the current 5.3, 5.25 money market yield compare with expected returns for stocks and bonds over the next couple of years? And in that framing from where we sit, what we're saying is cash is reasonably competitive still. Now if rates come down very, very quickly right, we again get back to that question of why. If rates are coming down very quickly because we have disinflationary growth then, then that might be a signal that it's time to redeploy into riskier assets. Alternatively, if they're cutting because they see deteriorating economic conditions, staying in cash for a little while longer during a slowdown might also be the right thing, even though your yields might be going from five to 4 to 3 and a half. And from where we sit, I think our clients know that our capital market assumptions have erred on the conservative side, no doubt about it. But, you know, we think U.S. equities are apt to return at best in 2024 something in the 4 or 5, 6 range against a backdrop where earnings growth could be 10%. And for, you know, investment grade credit, which I know is your expertise. We're saying, you know, we think that rate risk is moderate from here, that it's asymmetric. Andrew Sheets: Lisa, just to bring in your third point on valuations, especially valuations and a potentially higher real rate environment. What should investors do in your opinion to build those diversified portfolios given the valuation reality that they're having to deal with? Lisa Shalett: So look, I think our perspective is that in a world where, you know, real interest rates are higher, the dynamics around balance sheet quality really come into the fore dynamics around those business models, where you have to ask yourself, are the companies that I own, are the credits that I own truly able to earn their cost of capital? And you know, those questions tend to put pressure on excess valuations. So when we're building portfolios, at least right now, we have a bias to press up against the current skew in the market, right. We're currently skewed to growth versus value. So we've got a preference for value. We've got some skew towards mega-cap versus large mid or small cap. So we're skewing large mid and small cap and active management versus the cap weighted management. We've had this huge skew towards a US bias in our client portfolios, and we're trying to push back against that and say in a relative value context, other regions like parts of emerging markets, like Japan, like parts of Europe are showing genuine interest. So part of this idea of higher real rates in the US is this idea that other asset classes, other regions than this mega cap U.S. growth bias that has really dominated the themes over the last 18 months, that that might get challenged. Andrew Sheets: Lisa, thanks for taking the time to talk. We hope to have you back soon. Lisa Shalett: It's always great speaking with you, Andrew. Andrew Sheets: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people find the show. 

As the current economic cycle plays out, history suggests that stock prices could be in for large price swings in both directions.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, January 22nd at 11am in New York. So let's get after it. For the past several weeks, we've engaged with many clients from very different disciplines about our outlook for 2024. From these conversations, the primary takeaway is that there isn't much conviction about how this year will play out or how to position one's portfolio. After one of the biggest rallies in history in both bonds and stocks to finish the year, there's a sense that markets need to take a rest before the next theme emerges. Our view isn't that different, except that from our perspective, not much has changed from three months ago other than the price of most assets. In our view, we remain very much in a late cycle environment, during which markets will oscillate between good and bad outcomes for the economy. The data continue to support this view, with both positive and negative reports on the economy, earnings and other risk factors. However, as noted, the price of assets are materially higher than three months ago, mainly due to the Fed's pivot from higher for longer, to we're done hiking and likely to be easing in 2024. In addition to the timing and pace of interest rate cuts, investors are also starting to ponder if and when the Fed will end its quantitative tightening or QT campaign. Since embarking on this latest round of QT, the Fed's balance sheet has shrunk by approximately $1.5 trillion. However, it's still $500 billion above the June 2020 levels immediately after the $3 trillion surge to offset the Covid lockdowns. To say that the Fed's balance sheet is normalized to desirable levels is debatable. Nevertheless, our economists and rate strategists think the fed will begin to taper the QT efforts starting sometime this summer. More importantly, we think equity prices now reflect this pivot, and the jury is out on whether it will actually increase the pace of growth and prevent a recession this year. Three weeks ago, we published our first note of the year, laying out what we think are three equally likely macro scenarios this year that have very different implications for asset markets. The first scenario is a soft landing with below potential GDP growth and falling inflation. Based on published sell side forecasts and discussions with clients, this is the consensus view, although lower than typical consensus probability of occurring. The second outcome is a soft landing with accelerating growth and stickier inflation, and the third outcome is a hard landing. There's been very little pushback to our suggestion of these three scenarios with equally likely probabilities, and why clients are not that convinced about the next move for asset markets, or what leads and lags. As an aside, this isn't that different from last year's late cycle backdrop, when macro events dictated several large swings in equity prices both up and down. We expect more of the same in 2024. While stock picking is always important, macro will likely remain a primary focus for the direction of the average stock price. In our view, the data tells us it's late cycle and the Fed will be easing this year. Under such conditions, quality growth outperforms just like last year. While lower quality cyclicals outperformed during the final two months of 2023, we believe this was mainly due to short covering and performance chasing into year end, rather than a more sustainable change in leadership based on a full reset in the cycle, like 1994. So far in 2024, that's exactly what's happened. The laggards of 2023 are back to lagging and the winners are back to winning. When in doubt, it pays to go with the highest probability winner. In this case it's high quality and defensive growth which will do best under two of the three macro scenarios we think are most likely to pan out this year. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps for people to find the show.

Original Release on January, 5th 2024: Should investors be concerned about a sluggish beginning to the year, or do they just need to be patient?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, January 5th at 2 p.m. in London. 2023 saw a strong finish to a strong year, with stocks higher, spreads and yields lower and minimal market volatility. That strength in turn flowed from three converging hopeful factors. First, there was great economic data, which generally pointed to a US economy that was growing with inflation moderating. Second, we had helpful so-called technical factors such as depressed investor sentiment and the historical tendency for markets, especially credit markets, to do well in the last two months of the year. And third, we had reasonable valuations which had cheapened up quite a bit in October. Even more broadly, 2024 offered and still offers a lot to look forward to. Morgan Stanley's economists see global growth holding up as inflation in the U.S. and Europe come down. Major central banks from the US to Europe to Latin America should start cutting rates in 2024, while so-called quantitative tightening or the shrinking of central bank balance sheets should begin to wind down. And more specifically, for credit, we see 2024 as a year of strong demand for corporate bonds, against more modest levels of bond issuance, a positive balance of supply versus demand. So why, given all of these positives, has January gotten off to a rocky, sluggish start? It's perhaps because those good things don't necessarily arrive right away. Starting with the economic data, Morgan Stanley's economists forecast that the recent decline in inflation, so helpful to the rally over November and December, will see a bumpier path over the next several months, leaving the Fed to wait until June to make their first rate cut. The overall trend is still for lower, better inflation in 2024, but the near-term picture may be a little murky. Moving to those so-called technical factors, investor sentiment now is substantially higher than where it was in October, making it harder for events to positively surprise. And for credit, seasonally strong performance in November and December often gives way to somewhat weaker January and February returns. At least if we look at the performance over the last ten years. And finally, valuations where the cheapening in October was so helpful to the recent rally, have entered the year richer, across stocks, bonds and credit. None of these, in our view, are insurmountable problems, and the base case expectation from Morgan Stanley's economists means there is still a lot to look forward to in 2024. From better growth, to lower inflation, to easier monetary policy. The strong end of 2023 may just mean that some extra patience is required to get there. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.

Elections, geopolitical risks and rate cuts are driving markets in the short term. But there are three trends that could provide long-term investment opportunities.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about three key investment themes for 2024. It's Wednesday, January 17th at 10 a.m. in New York. Markets will have plenty of potential near-term catalysts to contend with in 2024. There's elections, geopolitical risks as tensions rise with regional conflicts in Europe and the Middle East, and key debates about the timing and pace of central bank rate cuts. We'll be working hard to understand those debates, which will influence how markets perform this year. But what if you're thinking a bit longer term? If that's you, we've got you covered. As it's become our annual tradition, we’re rolling out three secular themes that Morgan Stanley research will be focused on developing collaborative, in-depth research for, in an effort to identify ways for investors to create potential alpha in their portfolio for many years to come. The first theme is our newest one, longevity. It's the idea that recent breakthroughs in health care could accelerate the trend toward longer and higher quality human lives. To that end, my research colleagues have been focused on the potential impacts of innovations that include GLP-1 drugs and smart chemo. Further, there's reason to believe similar breakthroughs are on the horizon given the promise of AI assisted pharmaceutical development. And when people lead longer lives, you'd expect their economic behavior to change. So there's potential investment implications not just for the companies developing health care solutions, but also for consumer companies, as our team expects that, for example, people may consume 20 to 30% less calories on a daily basis. And even asset managers are impacted, as people start to manage their investments differently, in line with financing a longer life span. In short, there's great value in understanding the ripple effects into the broader investment world. The second theme is a carryover from last year, the ongoing attempts to decarbonize the world and transition to clean energy. Recent policies like the Inflation Reduction Act in the US include substantial subsidies for clean energy development. And so we think it's clear that governments and companies will continue to push in this direction. The result may be a tripling of renewable energy capacity by 2030. And while this is happening, climate change is still asserting itself and investment should pick up in physical capital to protect against the impact. So all these efforts put in motion substantial amounts of capital, meaning investors need to be aware of the sectors which will be crimped by new costs and others that will see the benefits of that spend, such as clean energy. Our third theme is also a carryover, the development of AI. In 2023, companies we deemed AI enablers, or ones who were actively developing and seeking to deploy that technology, gained about $6 trillion in stock market value. In 2024, we think we'll be able to start seeing how much of that is hype and how much of that is reality, with enduring impacts that can create long term value for investors. We expect clear use cases and impacts to productivity and company's bottom lines to come more into focus and plan active research to that end in the financials, health care, semiconductor, internet and software sectors, just to name a few. So stay tuned. We think these debates could define asset performance for many years to come. And so we're dedicated to learning as much as we can on them this year and passing on the lessons and market insights to you. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

Although China has emerged as one of the world’s largest end markets for technology, its tech sector faces some significant macro hurdles. Here’s what investors need to know.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Shawn Kim, Head of Morgan Stanley's Asia Technology Research Team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll talk about the impact of macro factors on China's technology sector. It's Tuesday, January 16th at 10 a.m. in Hong Kong. Over the past year, you've heard my colleagues discuss what we call China's 3D journey. The 3Ds being debt, deflation and demographics. As we enter 2024, it looks like China is now facing greater pressure from these 3Ds, which would cap its economic growth at a slow pace for longer. Given this investor’s currently debating the potential risks of a prolonged deflation environment. In fact, the situation in China, including the rapid contraction of property sales and investment, default risk and initial signs of deflation, has led to comparisons with Japan's extended period of deflation, which was driven by property downturn and the demographic challenge of an aging population. At the same time, within the past decade, China has quickly emerged as one of the most important end demand markets for the global information and communication technology industry, accounting for 12% of market share in 2023 versus just 7% back in 2006. This trend is fueled by China's economic growth driving demand for IT infrastructure and China's large population base driving demand for consumer electronics. China has also become the largest end demand market for the semiconductor industry, accounting for about 36 to 40% of global semiconductor revenues in the last decade. As it aims to achieve self-sufficiency and semiconductor localization, China has been aggressively expanding its production capacity. It  currently accounts for about 25% of global capacity. Over the long term, we believe China's economic slowdown will likely lead to lower trade flows in other countries, misallocation of resources across sectors and countries, and reduced cross-border dissemination of knowledge and technology. China's semiconductor manufacturing, in particular, will continue to face significant challenges. As the world transitions to a multipolar model and supply chains get rewired, a further gradual de-risking of robotic manufacturing away from China is underway, and that includes semiconductor manufacturing. In a more extreme scenario, a complete trade decoupling would resemble the 1980s, when the competition between the US and Japan in the semiconductor industry intensified significantly. Our economics team believes that China can beat the debt deflation loop threat decisively next 2 to 3 years. It's important to note, however, that risks are skewed to the downside, with a delayed policy response potentially leading to prolonged deflation. And this could send nominal GDP growth to 2.2% in 2025 to 2027. And based on the historical relationship between nominal GDP growth and the information and communication technology total addressable market, we estimate that China's ICT market and semiconductor market could potentially decline 5 to 7% in 2024, and perhaps as much as 20% by 2030, in a bear case scenario. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcast and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Changing Fed policy in 2024 is likely to bring down yields from these increasingly popular funds. Here’s what investors can consider instead.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, January 12th at 2 p.m. in London. One of the biggest stories in recent years has been the rise of the money market fund. Today, an investor in a US dollar money market fund earns a yield of about 5.3%, a full 1% higher than the yield on a 30 year US government bond and almost 4% higher than the yield on the S&P 500. All investment strategy at the moment, to some extent, flows from the starting point that holding cash pays pretty well. Unsurprisingly, those high yields in money market funds for little volatility have been popular. Per data from the Investment Company Institute, U.S. money market fund assets now stand at about $6 trillion, over $1 trillion higher than a year ago, which flows into these funds accelerating over the last few months. But we think this could change looking into 2024. The catalyst will be greater confidence that the Federal Reserve has not just stopped raising interest rates, but will start to cut them. If short term rates are set to fall, the outlook for holders of a money market fund changes. Suddenly they may want to lock in those high current yields. Morgan Stanley expects the declines and what these money market funds may earn to be significant. We see the Fed reducing rates by 100 basis points in 2024, and another 200 basis points in 2025, leaving short term rates to be a full 3% lower than current levels over the next two years. In Europe, rates on money market funds may fall 2% over the same period. While lower short term interest rates can make holding money market funds less attractive, they make holding bonds more attractive. Looking back over the last 40 years, the end of Federal Reserve rate increases, as well as the start of interest rate cuts has often driven higher returns for high quality bonds. But would a shift out of money market funds into bonds make sense for household allocations? We think so. Looking at data from the Federal Reserve back to the 1950s, we see that household allocation to bonds remain relatively low, while exposures to the stock market remain historically high. And this is the reason why we think any flows out of money market funds are more likely to go into bonds than stocks. Stock market exposure is already high, and stocks represent a much more volatile asset than bonds, relative to holding cash. While the US money market funds saw $1 trillion of inflows into 2024 flows to investment grade and high yield saw almost nothing. That is starting to change. With the Fed done raising rates, we expect higher flows into credit, especially in 1 to 5 year investment grade bonds, the part of the credit market that could be the easiest first step for investors coming out of cash and looking for something to move into. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.

Investors are split on the outlook for natural gas as “peak shale” may be on the horizon. Here’s what to expect in 2024.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Devin McDermott, Head of Morgan Stanley's North American Energy Research Team and the Lead Commodity Strategist for Global Gas and LNG Markets. Today, I'll be talking about some of the big debates around natural gas and shale in 2024. It's Thursday, January 11th at 10 a.m. in New York. The evolution of shale as a viable, low cost energy resource, has been one of the biggest structural changes in global oil and gas markets of the past few decades. In oil, this turned the U.S. into the world's largest producer, while falling costs also led to sharp deflation in prices and global oversupply. For U.S. natural gas, which is more regionally isolated, it allowed the market to double in size from 2010 to 2020, with demand growing rapidly across nearly every major end-market. Over this period, the U.S. transitioned from a net importer of liquefied natural gas, or LNG, to one of the world's largest exporters. But despite this robust growth, prices actually declined 80% over the period as falling cost of U.S. shale and pipeline expansions unlocked low cost supply. Now looking ahead after a multi-year pause, the US is set to begin another cycle of LNG expansion. This comes in response to some of the market shocks from the Russia/Ukraine conflict, including loss of Russian gas into Europe, as well as strong demand growth in Asia, where LNG serves as a key energy transition fuel. In total, projects that are currently under construction should nearly double US LNG export capacity by the later part of this decade. While the last wave didn't drive prices higher, this time can be different as it comes at a time when some investors feel like peak shale might be on the horizon. Shale is maturing, well costs and break-evens are generally no longer falling, and pipe expansions have slowed significantly due to regulatory challenges. While many of these issues are more apparent on the oil side, there are challenges for gas as well. Notably, the lowest cost US supply region, the Marcellus in Appalachia, is constrained by lack of infrastructure. As a result, meeting this demand likely elicits a call on supply growth from higher cost regions relative to last cycle. This not only includes the Haynesville, a gas play in Louisiana, but also the Eagle Ford in Texas and Basins in Oklahoma, potentially requiring prices in the $4 to $5 per MMBtu range to incentivize sufficient investment. Investors are split on the natural gas outlook. Bears argue that abundant, low cost domestic supply will meet LNG demand without higher prices, just like last time, while bulls backed higher prices this time around. Now, strong supply and a mild start to the winter heating season has actually pushed Henry Hub prices lower to close out 2023, bringing year-to-date declines to 50%. While this drives a softer set up for the first half of 2024, lower prices also come with a silver lining. This should help moderate potential investment in new supply ahead of the pending wave of LNG expansions. As a result, we believe the bearish near-term setup may prove bullish for the second half of 2024 and 2025. A dynamic many stocks in the sector do not fully reflect. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

World oil demand is slowing, non-OPEC supply remains strong and OPEC is likely to follow through on planned cuts. Here’s how investors can understand this precarious balance.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Martjin Rats, Morgan Stanley's Global Commodity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss the 2024 Global Outlook for oil. It's Wednesday, the 10th of January at 2 p.m. in London. Around six months ago, oil market forecasters widely forecasted a tight second half for 2023 with considerable inventory draws. This expectation was partially driven by two factors. One, OPEC cuts, and in particular the additional voluntary cut of about 1 million barrels a day announced by Saudi Arabia back in June that took the country's production to 9 million barrels a day, about 10% lower than the average of the first half of 2023. The second factor was a positive view on demand, which had mostly surprised to the upside in the first half of 2023. The market indeed tightened in the third quarter and inventories drew sharply at the time. As a result, Dated Brant rallied and briefly reached $98 a barrel in late September. However, this was not to last in the fourth quarter. Demand disappointed, growth and non-OPEC supply remained relentless and inventories built again. Needless to say, these trends have been reflected in prices. Not only did spot prices decline, Dated Brant fell to about $74 a barrel in mid-December, but a number of other indicators, such as calendar spreads for example, signaled a broad weakening of the oil complex. Looking ahead, we expect a relatively precarious balance in 2024. Demand growth is set to slow as the post-Covid recovery tailwinds have largely run out of steam by now. Despite low investment in production capacity in recent years, the growth in non-OPEC supply is set to remain strong in 2024 and probably also in 2025, enough to meet all global demand growth. Naturally, this limits the room in the oil market for OPEC oil. When OPEC cuts production in response, as it has recently been doing, this puts downward pressure on its market share and upward pressure on its spare capacity. History warns of such periods. On several occasions when non-OPEC supply growth outpaced global demand, eventually, a period of lower prices was needed to reverse that balance. However, we argue that is not quite what lies ahead for 2024. OPEC cohesion has been robust in recent years and will likely continue this year. We expect the production cuts agreed to in late November 2023 to eventually be extended through all of 2024, and we don't exclude a further deepening of those cuts either. This would limit the pace of inventory builds in 2024, but probably not prevent them. In our base case projections, we still see inventories built modestly at a rate of about a few hundred thousand barrels a day this year, and our initial 2025 estimates also imply a modest oversupply next year. As a result, we see lower oil prices ahead, but again, not a large difference. We estimate Dated Brant will remain close to $80 a barrel in the first half of 2024, but may gradually decline towards the end of the year, trading in the low to mid $70s in 2025. That may also support our economists' call for inflation to moderate further this year. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Companies that offer generative AI solutions saw their valuations rise in 2023. This year, investors should look at the companies adopting these solutions.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ed Stanley, Morgan Stanley's Head of Thematic Research in Europe. And along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss our views on the broad impacts of AI across global markets. It's Tuesday, the 9th of January at 2 p.m. in London. AI has established itself as a critical theme of the last 12 months, but we are clearly in the early innings of its diffusion. More specifically, 2023 was very successful for AI players that we call the enablers, those first line of hardware and software companies that play into the generative AI debate. But after the first wave of excitement, how does that trend percolate through the rest of the market, and how much of the hype will translate to sustainable earnings uplift? What is the next move for this entire debate, which so captivated markets in 2023? Our team mapped out the next stage of the debate across all regions and industries, and came to three key conclusions. The first, looking back at 2023, the enablers did extraordinarily well, and that shouldn't come as a surprise to any of our regular listeners. Some of those companies saw triple digit returns last year, and we estimate that more than $6 trillion of market cap was added to those names globally. But that brings us to our second key conclusion. Namely, looking forward, we think that investors should now turn their attention to the adopters. Meaning companies that are leveraging the enablers software and hardware to better use their own data and monetize that for the AI world. Looking back last year, where the enablers returned more comfortably double digit and triple digit returns, the adopters only gained on average around 6%. Of course, we're only in the early innings of the AI revolution, and the market is still treating these adopters as a "show me" story. We think that 2024 is going to be transformative for this adopter group, and we expect to see a wave of product launches using large language models and generative AI, particularly in the second half of 2024. Our third key conclusion is around the rate of change. And what do we mean by this? Well, in 2023, the enabler stocks, where AI was moderately important to the investment debate, increased their total market cap by around 28%. But if AI increases in importance to the point where analysts deem it to be core to the thesis for that particular stock, we expect it can add another 40% to market cap of this group based on last year's performance. A final point worth noting is that investors should pay close attention to the give and take between enabler and adopter groups. As I mentioned, the adopters were relatively more muted in their performance last year than the enablers. However, we believe in 2024 we will see the virtuous cycle between these two groups come into greater focus for investors. Enablers, consensus upgrades and valuations will depend increasingly on the enterprise IT budgets being deployed by the adopters in 2024-25. The adopters, in turn, are in a race to build both revenue generating and productivity enhancing tools, which completes the virtuous circle by feeding the enablers revenue line. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today. 

Investors worry that anti-obesity drugs could dent demand for medical procedures and devices. Here’s what they could be missing.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Patrick Wood, Morgan Stanley's MedTech analyst. And today, I'll be talking about the potential impact of anti-obesity medications on the MedTech industry. It's Monday, January 8th at 10 a.m. in New York. Anti-obesity drugs have made significant gains in popularity over the past year, and by and large, the market expects them to disrupt numerous MedTech markets as widespread adoption leads to population-level weight reduction and co-morbidity improvement. To a certain extent, we agree with the premise that obesity is linked to high health care spend and therefore anti-obesity drugs could represent a risk to device sales. Our research suggests that moderate obesity is associated with about $1,500 a year higher spend on healthcare per capita, with an even greater impact in severe obesity at about $3000 bucks a year. But  we think it would be a mistake to assume reduced rates of obesity are intrinsically negative for medtech makers overall. In fact, we think anti-obesity drugs may ultimately prove to be a net positive for MedTech companies as the drugs increased life expectancy and increased demand for procedures or therapies that would not have been a good option for patients who are obese. In some cases, severe obesity can actually be contraindication for ortho or spine surgery, with many patients denied procedures until they shed a certain amount of weight for fear of complications, infection, and other issues. In this context, anti-obesity drugs could actually boost procedure volumes for certain patients. Another factor to consider, we believe the importance of life expectancy shifts as a result of potentially lower obesity rates cannot be ignored. In fact, our analysis suggests that obesity reduces life expectancy by about ten years in younger adults and five years in middle age adults. Think of it this way, from the standpoint of total healthcare consumption, one incremental year of life expectancy in old age could equate to as much as ten years of obesity in terms of overall healthcare spending. Adults 65 plus spend 2 to 3 times more per year on average, than adults 45 to 64, with a significant $10 to $25,000 step up in dollar terms. Furthermore, rates of sudden cardiac death increased dramatically in high body mass index patients, eliminating the possibility of medical intervention to address the underlying obesity issue or the associated co-morbidities. Given all this, we think anti-obesity drugs will ultimately prove to be a net benefit for cardiovascular device makers overall, even in certain categories where body mass index is correlated with higher procedure rates. In markets such as structural heart, where we're replacing things like heart valves, we believe the number of patients reaching old age, that is 70 plus, is most important in regards to volumes. Though rates of obesity are contributing factors as well, orthopedics is more of a mixed bag. The strongest evidence we've seen here is on lower BMI's leading to reduced procedure volumes though pertaining to osteoarthritis in the knees and degenerative disc disease in spine. But we think the argument that fewer people with obesity means fewer knee replacements or fewer incidences of spine disease is actually only half the picture. Clearly, age may be a factor here, and our sense is that hip volumes in particular are not dependent on high BMI's as much as on an aging population. To sum up, we believe that anti-obesity drugs won't dismantle core MedTech markets. There are more layers to the story here.Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Should investors be concerned about a sluggish beginning to the year, or do they just need to be patient?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, January 5th at 2 p.m. in London. 2023 saw a strong finish to a strong year, with stocks higher, spreads and yields lower and minimal market volatility. That strength in turn flowed from three converging hopeful factors. First, there was great economic data, which generally pointed to a US economy that was growing with inflation moderating. Second, we had helpful so-called technical factors such as depressed investor sentiment and the historical tendency for markets, especially credit markets, to do well in the last two months of the year. And third, we had reasonable valuations which had cheapened up quite a bit in October. Even more broadly, 2024 offered and still offers a lot to look forward to. Morgan Stanley's economists see global growth holding up as inflation in the U.S. and Europe come down. Major central banks from the US to Europe to Latin America should start cutting rates in 2024, while so-called quantitative tightening or the shrinking of central bank balance sheets should begin to wind down. And more specifically, for credit, we see 2024 as a year of strong demand for corporate bonds, against more modest levels of bond issuance, a positive balance of supply versus demand. So why, given all of these positives, has January gotten off to a rocky, sluggish start? It's perhaps because those good things don't necessarily arrive right away. Starting with the economic data, Morgan Stanley's economists forecast that the recent decline in inflation, so helpful to the rally over November and December, will see a bumpier path over the next several months, leaving the Fed to wait until June to make their first rate cut. The overall trend is still for lower, better inflation in 2024, but the near-term picture may be a little murky. Moving to those so-called technical factors, investor sentiment now is substantially higher than where it was in October, making it harder for events to positively surprise. And for credit, seasonally strong performance in November and December often gives way to somewhat weaker January and February returns. At least if we look at the performance over the last ten years. And finally, valuations where the cheapening in October was so helpful to the recent rally, have entered the year richer, across stocks, bonds and credit. None of these, in our view, are insurmountable problems, and the base case expectation from Morgan Stanley's economists means there is still a lot to look forward to in 2024. From better growth, to lower inflation, to easier monetary policy. The strong end of 2023 may just mean that some extra patience is required to get there. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.

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

Tune in as our analysts take a look back at the major themes from 2023 and a look ahead to what investors should be eyeing in 2024.----- Transcript -----Paul Walsh: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's European Head of Research Product. And on this special episode of the podcast, we'll take a look back at 2023, which has been an extraordinary year. And we'll also touch on what 2024 could have in store for investors. It's Wednesday, January the 3rd at 2 p.m. in London. Paul Walsh: At the start of last year, we identified ten overarching long term themes that we believed would command investor focus throughout 2023 and beyond. And they ranged from macro developments like inflation, China's reopening and India's economic transformation to micro oriented themes such as Chat GPT, obesity, drugs and a number of others. Of course, the year did throw in a few curveballs, so I wanted to sit down with Ed Stanley to review some of the major themes that did hold investor interest last year, and that will likely continue to unfold in 2024. Paul Walsh: The whole energy and utilities space has been a topic of constant debate, be it at the energy transition or what's been going on around energy security. And then slightly more sort of sector specific with some of the micro dynamics, we've had the value of innovation in pharma at work around GLP-1s proving to be tremendously popular, as one would expect. And clearly the proliferation of artificial intelligence has really been, you know, the other non macro big theme this year, which has been tremendously prevalent, pretty much whichever corner you've looked in. If I take a little bit of a step back, Ed, and I think about the global themes that we've tried to own this year, namely multipolar world, decarbonization and tech diffusion, from a thematics perspective what themes worked and what played out in the way that you thought, and where have we seen things happening that were unexpected? Ed Stanley: I think the three big themes that you talk about remain as relevant, if not more relevant now than when we started the year. If you think about tech diffusion, A.I. has been the theme of the year. In multipolar world, we've had more conflict this year, and obviously  that kind of sharpens people's minds to what stocks will and won't work in this kind of backdrop. And then if you think about the decarb theme as the final structural theme, higher interest rates are making investors really question whether the net zero transition is on track. So those three themes remain super relevant. We talked about the China reopening that sort of worked and then it was a bit of a disappointment mid and later on in the year. I'd say we got the micro probably better nailed down than the macro, but in a volatile year, I think we did a fairly good job of picking what to watch out for. Paul Walsh: What themes have people not been talking about that have been on your radar screen over recent years that you think could make a resurgence as we look forwards? Ed Stanley: There is a kind of joke in the tech world that we go in three year cycles, so we have A.I, then we have Web3, which is de facto crypto, and then we go back to AR/VR and we run in these cycles waiting for whatever breakthrough comes next. We've had crypto having another rally and we've had A.I this year, so we've had sort of all of them this year, but those are always rotating on the back burner. There are always things like unexpected news in quantum computing that could have overflow and disruption effects across the economy, which most investors are not thinking about until it becomes relevant. So I think there are a lot of things in the background which very easily could thrust themselves into the core of the debate.Paul Walsh: Well, let's talk a little bit about that and think about what we should be looking out for 2024. So how are you thinking about how the sort of themes and the landscape across the themes is going to develop into 2024 Ed, and what listeners should be thinking about? Ed Stanley: I think if you think on the top down three structural themes, there is very little to change our view that those remain pretty quarter to our thinking. If you think maybe geographically and then from a micro perspective, geographically, not much has changed on our view on the US, we're threading a needle on that. I think what is more of a shift is a much greater focus on Japan and India relative to China and the US. I think the debate will shift a bit, we won't leave generative A.I behind by any means, but we will shift probably more to talking about EDGE A.I. That is where A.I. is being done on your consumer device, in effect rather than in a data center. And this is something where we see many more catalysts. We see the prospect of killer apps emerging in 2024 to really thrust that debate into people's consciousness. So I think you'll be hearing more about EDGE. So now is the time to get clued up on that if it's not on your radar screen. I think if we're keeping up with the healthcare space, obesity will obviously carry on as a debate, but I think, you know, another piece is on smart chemo. And this is a great topic where there are more catalysts coming up. Not an awful lot is being priced into the underlying equities. Where I think there are exciting things to look forward to. And then the final one is what happens to decarbon renewables. This is a huge debate, but this is the question where you have highly polarized views on both sides. Paul Walsh: Ed, thanks for sharing your views and for all of your great insights through 2023. And we really look forward to what I'm sure will be an interesting and exciting 2024. Ed Stanley: Thank you. Paul Walsh: And to our listeners, thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and do share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

The auto industry is pivoting from big spending to capital discipline. Our analyst highlights possible areas where investors may find opportunities this year.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Adam Jonas, Morgan Stanley's Head of the Global Autos and Shared Mobility Team. Today I'll be talking about our U.S. autos outlook for 2024. It's Tuesday, January 2nd at 10 a.m. in New York. Heading into 2024, we remain concerned about the future of the U.S. auto industry, in some ways, even more so than during the great financial crisis of 2008 and 2009. But as the auto industry pivots away from big spending on EVs and autonomous vehicles to a relatively more parsimonious era of capital discipline, we see significant upside value unlock for investors. It's been a good run for the automakers. Just think how supportive the overall macroeconomic environment has been for the U.S. auto industry since 2010. U.S. GDP growth averaged well over 2%. Historically low interest rates helped consumers afford big ticket auto purchases. The Chinese auto consumers snapped up Western brands funding rich dividend streams for U.S. automakers. Used car prices were mostly stable or rising, supporting the auto lending complex. And COVID driven inventory scarcity lifted average transaction prices to all time highs, buoying auto companies margins. Looking back, the relatively strong performance of auto companies contributed to ever growing levels of CapEx and R&D in increasingly unfamiliar areas, ranging from battery cell development to software and A.I inference chips, to fully autonomous robotaxis. For years, investors largely supported Detroit's investments in Auto 2.0, with a glass half-full view of legacy car companies' ability to venture into profitable electric vehicle territory. But we're reaching a critical juncture now, and we believe the decisions that will be made over the next 12 months with respect to capital allocation and spending discipline will determine the overall industry and individual automakers performance. We forecast U.S. new car sales to reach 16 million units in 2024, an increase of around 2% from the November 2023 run rate of 15.7 million units. To achieve this growth, we believe car and truck prices need to fall materially. Given stubbornly high interest rates hampering affordability, a 16 million unit seasonally adjusted annual selling rate may require a combination of price cuts and transaction prices down on the order of 5% year-on-year, leaving the value of U.S. auto sales relatively stable year-on-year. We expect a continued melting in used car prices, but not a very sharp fall from here, owing to a continued low supply of certified pre-owned inventory in good condition coming off lease as we approach the third anniversary of the COVID lows. As new inventory continues to recover, we expect steady downward pressure on used prices on the order of 5 or 10% from December 23 to December 24. In terms of EV demand, we expect growth on the order of 15 to 20% in the U.S., keeping penetration in the 8% range. We continue to expect legacy automakers to pull back on EV offerings due largely to a lack of profitability. Startup EV carmakers will likely see constrained production, including by their own choice, into a slowing demand environment where we expect to see hybrid and plug-in hybrid volume making a comeback, potentially rising 40 to 50%. So what themes do we think investors should prepare for? First in an accelerating EV penetration world, we believe internal combustion exposed companies and suppliers may outperform EV exposed suppliers categorically. Secondly, we believe many companies in our coverage have an opportunity to greatly improve capital allocation and efficiency as they dial back expansionary CapEx and prioritize cash generating parts of the portfolio. And finally, we would be increasingly selective on picking winners exposed to long term secular trends like electrification and autonomy, focusing on those firms that can scale such technologies profitably. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Original Release on November 14th, 2023: Our roundtable discussion on the future of the global economy and markets continues, as our analysts preview what is ahead for government bonds, currencies, housing and more.----- Transcript -----Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. This is part two of our special roundtable discussion on what is ahead for the global economy and markets in 2024. It's Tuesday, November 14th at 10 a.m. in New York. Yesterday you heard from Seth Carpenter, our Global Chief Economist, and Mike Wilson, our Chief Investment Officer and the Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today, we will cover what is ahead for government bonds, corporate credit, currencies and housing. I am joined by Matt Hornbach, our Chief Macro Strategist, James Lord, the Global Head of Currency and Emerging Markets Strategy, Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Credit Research, and Jay Bacow, Co-Head of U.S. Securities Products.Vishy Tirupattur: Matt, 2023 was quite a year for long end government bond yields globally. We saw dramatic curve inversion and long end yields reaching levels we had not seen in well over a decade. We've also seen both dramatic sell offs and dramatic rallies, even just in the last few weeks. Against this background, how do you see the outlook for government bond yields in 2024? Matt Hornbach: So we're calling our 2024 outlook for government bond markets the land of confusion. And it's because bond markets were whipped around so much by central banks in 2023 and in 2022. In the end, what central banks gave in terms of accommodative monetary policy in 2020 and 2021, they more than took away in 2022 and this past year. At least when it came to interest rate related monetary policies. 2024, of course, is going to be a pretty confusing year for investors because, as you've heard, our economists do think that rates are going to be coming down, but so too will balance sheets. But for the past couple of years, both G10 and EM central banks have raised rates to levels that we haven't seen in decades. Considering the possibility that equilibrium rates have trended lower over the past few decades, central bank policy rates may be actually much more restricted today than at any point since the 1970s. But, you know, we can't say the same for central bank balance sheets, even though they've been shrinking for well over a year now. They're still larger than before the pandemic. Now, our economists forecast continued declines in the balance sheets of the Fed, the ECB, the Bank of England and the Bank of Japan. But nevertheless, in aggregate, the balance sheet sizes of these G4 central banks will remain above their pre-pandemic levels at the end of 2024 and 2025.Vishy Tirupattur: Matt, across the developed markets. Where do you see the best opportunity for investors in the government bond markets? Matt Hornbach: So Vishy we think most of the opportunities in 2024 will be in Europe given the diverging paths between eurozone countries. Germany, Austria and Portugal will benefit from supportive supply numbers, while another group, including Italy, Belgium and Ireland will likely witness a higher supply dynamic. Our call for a re widening of EGB spreads should actually last longer than we originally anticipated. Elsewhere in Europe, we're expecting the Bank of England to deliver 100 basis points of cumulative cuts by the end of 2024, and that compares to significantly less that's priced in by the market. Hence, our forecasts for gilts imply a much lower level of yields and a steeper yield curve than what you see implied in current forward rates. So the UK probably presents the best duration and curve opportunity set in 2024. Vishy Tirupattur: Thank you, Matt. James, a strong dollar driven by upside surprises to U.S. growth and higher for longer narrative that has a world during the year characterized the strong dollar view for much of the year. How do you assess 2024 to be? And what differences do you expect between developed markets and emerging market currency markets? James Lord: So we expect the recent strengthening of US dollar to continue for a while longer. This stronger for a longer view on the US dollar is driven by some familiar drivers to what we witnessed in 2023, but with a little bit of nuance. So first, growth. US growth, while slowing, is expected to outperform consensus expectations and remain near potential growth rates in the first half of 2024. This is going to contrast quite sharply with recessionary or near recessionary conditions in Europe and pretty uncompelling rates of growth in China. The second reason we see continued dollar strength is rate differentials. So when we look at our US and European rate strategy teams forecasts, they have rates moving in favor of the dollar. Final reason is defense, really. The dollar likely is going to keep outperforming other currencies around the world due to its pretty defensive characteristics in a world of continued low growth, and downside risks from very tight central bank monetary policy and geopolitical risks. The dollar not only offers liquidity and safe haven status, but also high yields, which is of course making it pretty appealing. We don't expect this early strength in US Dollar to last all year, though, as fiscal support for the US economy falls back and the impact of high rates takes over, US growth slows down and the Fed starts to cut around the middle of the year. And once it starts cutting, our U.S. econ team expects it to cut all the way back to 2.25 to 2.5% by the end of 2025. So a deep easing cycle. As that outlook gets increasingly priced into the US rates, market rate differentials start moving against the dollar to push the currency down. Vishy Tirupattur: Andrew, we are ending 2023 in a reasonably good setup for credit markets, especially at the higher quality end of the trade market. How do you expect this quality based divergence across global trade markets to play out in 2024? Andrew Sheets: That's right. We see a generally supportive environment for credit in 2024, aided by supportive fundamentals, supportive technicals and average valuations. Corporate credit, especially investment grade, is part of a constellation of high quality fixed income that we see putting up good returns next year, both outright and risk adjusted. When we talk about credit being part of this constellation of quality and looking attractive relative to other assets, it's important to appreciate the cross-asset valuations, especially relative to equities, really have moved. For most of the last 20 years the earnings yield on the S&P 500, that is the total earnings you get from the index relative to what you pay for it, has been much higher than the yield on U.S. triple B rated corporate bonds. But that's now flipped with the yield on corporate bonds now higher to one of the greatest extents we've seen outside of a crisis in 20 years. Theoretically, this higher yield on corporate bonds relative to the equity market should suggest a better relative valuation of the former. So what are we seeing now from companies? Well companies are buying back less stock and also issuing less debt than expected, exactly what you'd expect if companies saw the cost of their debt as high relative to where the equities are valued. A potential undershoot in corporate bonds supply could be met with higher bond demand. We've seen enormous year to date flows into money market funds that have absolutely dwarfed the flows into credit. But if the Fed really is done raising rates and is going to start to cut rates next year, as Morgan Stanley's economists expect, this could help push some of this money currently sitting in money market funds into bond funds, as investors look to lock in higher yields for longer. Against this backdrop, we think the credit valuations, for lack of a better word, are fine. With major markets in both the U.S. and Europe generally trading around their long term median and high yield looking a little bit expensive to investment grade within this. Valuations in Asia are the richest in our view, and that's especially true given the heightened economic uncertainty we see in the region. We think that credit curves offer an important way for investors to maximize the return of these kind of average spreads. And we like the 3 to 5 year part of the U.S. credit curve and the 5 to 10 year part of the investment grade curve in Europe the most. Vishy Tirupattur: Thanks, Andrew. Jay, 2023 was indeed a tough year for the agency in the US market, but for the US housing market it held up quite remarkably, despite the higher mortgage rates. As you look ahead to 2024, what is the outlook for US housing and the agency MBS markets and what are the key drivers of your expectations? Jay Bacow: Let's start off with the broader housing market before we get into the views for agency mortgages. Given our outlook for rates to rally next year, my co-head of securitized products research Jim Egan, who also runs US housing, thinks that we should expect affordability to improve and for sale inventory to increase. Both of these developments are constructive for housing activity, but the latter provides a potential counterbalance for home prices. Now, affordability will still be challenged, but the direction of travel matters. He expects housing activity to be stronger in the second half of '24 and for new home sales to increase more than existing home sales over the course of the full year. Home prices should see modest declines as the growth in inventory offsets the increased demand. But it's important to stress here that we believe homeowners retain strong hands in the cycle. We don't believe they will be forced sellers into materially weaker bids, and as such, we don't expect any sizable correction in prices. But we do see home prices down 3% by the end of 2024. Now, that pickup in housing activity means that issuance is going to pick up as well in the agency mortgage market modestly with an extra $50 billion versus where we think 2023 ends. We also think the Fed is going to be reducing their mortgage portfolio for the whole year, even as Q2 starts to taper in the fall, as the Fed allows their mortgage portfolio to run off unabated. And so the private market is going to have to digest about $510 billion mortgages next year, which is still a concerning amount but we think mortgages are priced for this. Vishy Tirupattur: Thanks, Jay. And thank you, Matt, James and Andrew as well. And thank you to our listeners for joining us for this 2 part roundtable discussion of our expectations for the global economy and the markets in 2024. As a reminder, if you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Original Release on November 13th, 2023: As global growth takes a hit and inflation begins to cool, how does the road ahead look for central banks and investors? Chief Fixed Income Strategist Vishy Tirupattur hosts a roundtable with Chief Economist Seth Carpenter and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson to discuss.----- Transcript -----Vishy Tirupattur:  Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Today on the podcast we'll be hosting a very special roundtable discussion on what is ahead for the global economy and markets by 2024. I am joined by my colleagues, Seth Carpenter, Global Chief Economist and Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. It's Monday, November 13th at 9 a.m. in New York. Vishy Tirupattur: Thanks to both of you for taking the time to talk. We have a lot to cover, so I am going to go right into it. Seth, I want to start with the global economy. As you look ahead to 2024, how do you see the global economy evolving in terms of growth, inflation and monetary policy? Seth Carpenter: Thanks, Vishy. As we look forward over the next couple of years, there are a few key themes that we're seeing in terms of growth, inflation and monetary policy. First, looks like global growth has stepped down this year relative to last year and we're expecting another modest step down in the global economy for 2024 and into 2025. Overall, what we're seeing in the developed market economies is restrictive monetary policy in general restraining growth, whereas we have much more mixed results in the emerging market world.Inflation, though, is a clear theme around the world. Overall, we see the surge in inflation. That has been a theme in global markets for the past couple of years as having peaked and starting to come down. It's coming down primarily through consumer goods, but we do see that trend continuing over the next several years. That backdrop of inflation having peaked and coming down along with weaker growth means that we're setting ourselves up for overall a bit of an easing cycle for monetary policy. We are looking for the Fed and the ECB each to start an easing cycle in June of this year. For the Fed, it's because we see growth slowing down and inflation continuing to track down along the path that we see and that the Fed will come around to seeing. I would say the stark exception to this among developed market economies is the Bank of Japan. We have seen them already get to the de facto end of yield curve control. We think by the time we get to the January policy meeting, they will completely eliminate yield curve control formally and go from negative interest rate policy to zero interest rate policy. And then over the course of the next year or so, we think we're going to see very gradual, very tentative increases in the policy rate for Japan. So for every story, there's a little bit of a cross current going on. Vishy Tirupattur: Can you talk about some of the vulnerabilities for the global economy? What worries you most about your central case, about the global economy? Seth Carpenter: We put into the outlook a downside scenario where the current challenges in China, the risks, as we've said, of a debt deflation cycle, they really take over. What this would mean is that the policy response in beijing is insufficient to overcome the underlying dynamics there as debt is coming down, as inflation is weak and those things build on themselves. Kind of a smaller version of the lost decade of Japan. We think from there we could see some of that weakness just exported around the globe. And for us, that's one of the key downside risks to the global economy. I'd say in the opposite direction, the upside risk is maybe some of the strength that we see in the United States is just more persistent than we realize. Maybe it's the case that monetary policy really hasn't done enough. And we just heard Chair Powell talk about the possibility that if inflation doesn't come down or the economy doesn't slow enough, they could do more. And so we built in an alternate scenario to the upside where the US economy is just fundamentally stronger. Let me pass it back to you Vishy. Vishy Tirupattur: Thank you Seth. Mike, next I'd like to go to you. 2023 was a challenging year for earnings growth, but we saw significant multiple expansion. How do you expect 2024 to turn out for the global equity markets? What are the key challenges and opportunities you see for equity markets in 2024? Mike Wilson: 2023 was obviously, you know, kind of a challenging year, I think, for a lot of equity managers because of this incredible dispersion that we saw between, kind of, how economies performed around the world and how that bled into company performance. And it was very different region by region. So, you know, first off, I would say US growth, the economic level was better than expected, better than the consensus expected for sure, and even better than our economists view, which was for a soft landing. China was, on the other hand, much worse than expected. The reopening really never materialized in any meaningful way, and that bled into both EM and European growth. I would say India and Japan surprised in the upside from a growth standpoint, and Japan was by far the star market this year. The index was up a lot, but also the average stock performed extremely well, which is very different than the US. India also had pretty good performance equity wise, but in the US we had this incredible divergence between the average stock and the S&P 500 benchmark index, with the average stock underperforming by as much as 12 or 1300 basis points. That's pretty unusual. So how do we explain that and what does that mean for next year? Well, look, we think that the fiscal support is starting to fade. It's in our forecast now. In other words, economic growth is likely to soften up, not a recession yet for 2024, but growth will be deteriorating. And we think that will bleed into further earnings deterioration. So for 2024, we continue to favor Japan, where the earnings of breadth has been the best looks to us, and that's in a new secular bull market. In the US, it's really a tale of two worlds. It's companies that have cost leadership or operational efficiency, a thing we've been espousing for the last two years. Those types of companies should continue to outperform into the first half of next year. And then eventually we suspect, will be flipping pretty aggressively to companies that have poor operational efficiency because we're going to want to catch the upside leverage as the economy kind of accelerates again in the back half of 2024 or maybe into 2025. But it's too early for that in our view.Vishy Tirupattur: How do you expect the market breadth to evolve over 2024? Can you elaborate on your vision for market correction first and then recovery in the later part of 2024? Mike Wilson: Yes. In terms of the market breadth, we do ultimately think market breadth will bottom and start to turn up. But, you know, we have to resolve, kind of, the index price first. And this is why we've continued to maintain our $3900 price target for the S&P 500 for, you know, roughly year end of this year. That, of course, would argue you're not going to get a big rally in the year-end. And the reason we feel that way, it's an important observation, is that market breadth has deteriorated again very significantly over the last three months. And breadth typically leads the overall index. So until breadth bottoms out, it's very difficult for us to get bullish at the index level as well. So the way we see it playing out is over the next 3 to 6 months, we think the overall index will catch down to what the market breadth has been telling us and should lead us out of what has been, I think a pretty, you know, persistent bear market for the last two years, particularly for the average stock. And so we suspect we're going to be making some significant changes in both our sector recommendations. New themes will emerge. Some of that will be around existing themes. Perhaps AI will start to actually have a meaningful impact on overall productivity, something we see really evolving in 2025, more than 2024. But the market will start to get ahead of that. And so I think it's going to be another year to be very flexible. I'd say the best news is that although 2023 has been somewhat challenging for the average stock, it's been a great year for dispersion, meaning stock picking. And we think that's really the key theme going into 2024, stick with that high dispersion and stock picking mentality. And then, of course, there'll be an opportunity to kind of flip the factors and kind of what's working into the second half of next year. Vishy Tirupattur: Thanks, Mike. We are going to take a pause here and we'll be back tomorrow with our special year ahead roundtable, where we'll share our forecasts for government bonds, corporate credit, currencies and housing. As a reminder, if you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Original Release on December 7th, 2023: Will India equities continue to outperform China equities in 2024? The two key factors investors should track.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the market. I'm Jonathan Garner, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia and Emerging Market Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'm going to be discussing our continued preference for Indian equities versus China equities. It's Thursday, December 7th at 9 a.m. in Singapore. MSCI India is tracking towards a third straight year of outperformance of MSCI China, and India is currently our number one pick. Indeed, we're running our largest overweight at 100 basis points versus benchmark. In contrast, we reduced China back to equal weight in the summer of this year. So going into 2024, we're currently anticipating a fourth straight year of India outperformance versus China. Central to our bullish view on India versus China, is the trend in earnings. Starting in early 2021, MSCI India earnings per share in US dollar terms has grown by 61% versus a decline of 18% for MSCI China. As a result, Indian earnings have powered ahead on a relative basis, and this is the best period for India earnings relative to China in the modern history of the two equity markets. There are two fundamental factors underpinning this trend in India's favor, both of which we expect to continue to be present in 2024. The first is India's relative economic growth, particularly in nominal GDP terms. Our economists have written frequently in recent months on China's persistent 3D challenges, that is its battle with debt, deflation and demographics. And they're forecasting another subdued year of around 5% nominal GDP growth in 2024. In contrast, their thesis on India's decade suggests nominal GDP growth will be well into double digits as both aggregate demand and crucially supply move ahead on multiple fronts. The second factor is currency stability. Our FX team anticipate that for India, prudent macro management, particularly on the fiscal deficit, geopolitical dynamics and inward multinational investment, can lead to continued Rupee stability in real effective terms versus volatility in previous cycles. For the Chinese Yuan, in contrast, the real effective exchange rates has begun to slide lower as foreign direct investment flows have turned negative for the first time and domestic capital flight begins to pick up. Push backs we get on continuing to prefer India to China in 2024, are firstly around potential volatility of the Indian markets in an election year. But secondly, a bigger concern is relative valuations. Now, as always, we feel it's important to contextualize valuations versus return on equity and return on equity trajectory. Currently, India is trading a little over 3.7x price to book for around 15% ROE. This means it has one of the highest ROE's in emerging markets, but is the most expensive market. And in price to book terms, second only to the US globally. China is trading on a much lower price to book of 1.3x, but its ROE is 10% and indeed on an ROE adjusted basis, it's not particularly cheap versus other emerging markets such as Korea or South Africa. Importantly for India, we expect ROE to remain high as earnings compound going forward, and corporate leverage can build from current levels as nominal and real interest rates remain low to history. So the outlook is positive. But for China, the outlook is very different. And in a recent detailed piece, drawing on sector inputs from our bottom up colleagues, we concluded that whilst the base case would be for ROE stabilization, if reflation is successful, there's also a bear case for ROE to fall further to around 7% over the medium term, or less than half that of India today. Finally, within the two markets we’re overweight India, financials, consumer discretionary and industrials. And these are sectors which typically do best in a strong underlying growth environment. They're the same sectors on which we're cautious in China. There our focus is on A-shares rather than large cap index names, and we like niche technology, hardware and clean energy plays which benefit from China's policy objectives. Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Original Release on December 6th, 2023: Although much will change before the elections, investors should watch for potential impacts on issues such as AI regulation, energy permitting, trade and tax policy.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, from the U.S. Public Policy Research Team. Michael Zezas: On this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll discuss our early views around the 2024 U.S. presidential election. It's Wednesday, December 6th at 10 a.m. in New York. Michael Zezas: With U.S. elections less than a year away now, it's likely much will change in terms of the drivers of the outcome and its market impact. Still, we believe early preparation will help investors navigate the campaign. And so starting now, we'll bring your updated views and forecasts until the U.S. elects its next president in November of 2024. Arianna, we've noted that this upcoming election will affect particular sectors rather than the broader macro market. What's driving this view? Ariana Salvatore: There are really two reasons that we've been pointing to. First, lawmakers have achieved a lot of their policy priorities that impact the deficit over the past few election cycles. If you think about the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act or the infrastructure bill back in 2021, for example. Now they're turning to policy that holds more sectoral impacts than macro. The second reason is that inflation is still a very high priority issue for voters. As we've noted, an elevated level of concern around inflation really disincentivizes politicians from pushing for legislation that could expand the deficit because it's seen as contrary to that mandate of fiscal austerity that comes in a high inflation environment. There is one exception to this. As we've noted before, lawmakers will have to deal with the expiring Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. We think the different configurations post 2024 each produce a unique outcome, but we expect in any scenario, that will only add modestly to the deficit. Michael Zezas: And digging into specific sectors. What policies are you watching and which sectors should investors keep an eye out for in the event these policies pass? Ariana Salvatore: Following the election, we think Congress will turn to legislative items like AI regulation, energy permitting, trade and tax policy. Obviously, each unique election outcome will facilitate its own level and type of policy transformation. But we think you could possibly see the biggest divergence from the status quo in a Republican sweep. In particular, in that case, we'd expect lawmakers to launch an effort to roll back, at least partially, the Inflation Reduction Act or the IRA, though we ultimately don't think a full scale repeal will be likely. We also expect to see something on AI regulation based on what's currently in party consensus, easing energy permitting requirements and probably extending the bulk of the expiring Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. That means sectors to watch out for would be clean tech, AI exposed stocks and sectors most sensitive to tax changes like tech and health care. Mike, as we mentioned, with this focus on legislation that impacts certain sectors, we don't expect this to be a macro election. So is there anything that would shift the balance toward greater macro concerns? Michael Zezas: Well, if it looks like a recession is getting more likely as the election gets close, it's going to be natural for investors to start thinking about whether or not the election outcome might catalyze a fiscal response to economic weakness. And in that situation, you'd expect that outcomes where one party doesn't control both Congress and the White House would lead to smaller and somewhat delayed responses. Whereas an outcome where one party controls both the White House and Congress, you would probably get a bigger fiscal response that comes faster. Those are two outcomes that would mean very different things to the interest rates market, for example, which would have to reflect differences in new bond supply to finance any fiscal response, and of course, the resulting difference in the growth trajectory. Ariana Salvatore: All right so, keeping with the macro theme for a moment. How do our expectations for geopolitics and foreign policy play into our assessment of the election outcomes? Michael Zezas: Yeah, this is a difficult one to answer, mostly because it's unclear how different election outcomes would net impact different geopolitical situations. So, for example, investors often ask us about what outcomes would matter for a place like Mexico, where they're concerned that some election outcomes might create economic challenges for Mexico around the US-Mexico border. However, those outcomes could also improve the prospects for near shoring, which improves foreign direct investment into Mexico. It's really unclear whether those cross-currents would be a net positive or a net negative. So we don't really think there's much specific to guide investors on, at least at the moment. Finally, Arianna, to sum up, how is the team tracking the presidential race and which indicators are particularly key, the focus on? Ariana Salvatore: Well, recent history suggests that it will be a close race. For context, the 2022 midterms marked the fourth time in four years that less than 1% of votes effectively determined which side would control the House, the Senate or the White House. That means that elections are nearly impossible to predict. But we think there are certain indicators that can tell us which outcomes are becoming more or less likely with time. For example, we think inflation could influence voters. As a top voter issue and a topic that the GOP is better perceived as equipped to handle, persistent concerns around inflation could signal potential upside for Republicans. Inflation also tracks very closely with the president's approval rating. So on the other hand, if you see decelerating inflation in conjunction with overall improving economic data, that might indicate some tailwinds for Democrats across the board. We're going to be tracking other indicators as well, like the generic ballot, President Biden's approval rating and prediction markets, which could signal that different outcomes are becoming more or less likely with time. Michael Zezas: Ariana, thanks for taking the time to talk. Ariana Salvatore: Great speaking with you, Mike. Michael Zezas: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show.

How has corporate credit fared through slow growth and high inflation? Here’s our view on what comes next for this market.----- Transcript -----[00:00:02] Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, December 22nd at 4 p.m. in London. [00:00:18] Sometimes it's hard to explain why a market is moving. This is not one of them. U.S. economic data has been unquestionably good over the last two months, delivering an unusual combination of better than expected growth with lower than expected inflation. In the U.K. and Euro area, inflation has been declining even faster. [00:00:35] Central banks, seeing this encouraging decline in inflationary pressure, have signaled an end to their recent rate hiking campaigns and hinted that next year will bring cuts. These shifts have been significant. The market's expectation of one year interest rates in the eurozone in one year's time have fallen almost 1% in the last month alone. In the U.S., they've fallen about 1.25% over the last two. [00:00:56] As you've heard us discuss on this program throughout the year, inflation is incredibly important to the current macroeconomic story. Much of the concerns this year, especially at the beginning, were based on a widespread view that in an economy near full employment, high inflation could only be brought down with much weaker growth, leaving investors with the unappetizing choice of either a recession or permanently higher inflation. [00:01:17] But the last two months have presented a notable glass half full, more optimistic challenge to that story. In the U.S., there are signs the economy is increasing capacity, which in economic terms allows for more output without higher prices. U.S. energy production has hit record levels, with the U.S. currently producing 40% more oil than Saudi Arabia. More workers are joining the labor force. New business formations are high and supply chain stresses are improving. All of that has helped reduce inflationary pressure and reinforce the idea that policy shifts in the Federal Reserve towards easier monetary policy can be credible over the next several years. [00:01:52] In Europe, growth has been weaker, but this has meant inflation is coming down even faster, bolstering the view that the European Central Bank has taken interest rates much higher than it needs to, and could also reverse these significantly over the next 12 months. [00:02:04] For a market that spent much of the last two years worried about being stuck between this rock and a hard place with growth and inflation, the data over the last two months is welcome news and we remain positive on corporate credit. While levels have rallied more than we expected, we think this is balanced, for now, with these better than expected economic developments. [00:02:22] Within the credit rally, however, we see dispersion. Long term U.S. investment grade bonds, a highly volatile sector, have done so well that spreads are now near the tightest levels in 20 years. We think this looks overdone. In contrast, performance in the lowest rated and also volatile cohort of triple C issuers has lagged significantly. While we've previously had a higher quality bias within credit, we think U.S. and European triple C's can now start to catch up, given some of the better macroeconomic developments we've been seeing in the recent months. [00:02:51] Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.

As mortgage rates come down from 8% closer to 6.5%, the 2024 housing market will see changes in inventory, home prices and sales.----- Transcript -----Jay Bacow: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jay Bacow, Co-Head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley. Jim Egan: And I'm Jim Egan, the other Co-Head of Securitized Products Research. Jay Bacow: And on this episode of the podcast we'll be discussing what the recent rally in mortgage rates means to the mortgage and housing Markets. It's Thursday, December 21st at 11 a.m. in New York. Jim Egan: Now, Jay, the last time that we were on this podcast, we talked about what an 8% mortgage rate can mean to the homeowner. Now, mortgage rates have come down. They're getting quoted with a 6% handle. What happened? And where do we see mortgage rates going from here? Jay Bacow: The combination of data and Fed speak made the markets expect a lot more cuts from the Fed in 2024. Markets are pricing in close to 150 basis points of cuts, and that's caused a pretty large rally in rates. Primary mortgage rates to the homeowner are generally based off of secondary mortgage rate execution in the market, along with treasury rates. And you've seen a little over a hundred basis point rally in Treasury rates and a little over 150 basis point rally and secondary market execution. Jim Egan: Okay, So mortgage rates are down 150 basis points. Jay Bacow: Not quite. Lenders don't really drop the primary rate as fast as a secondary rate goes down because they're not going to be able to deal with the added volume of inquiries until they add staffing. So we don't think primary rates are going to come down quite as much as secondary market rates have come down right now. But if rates stay here for some time, then we'd expect mortgage rates to settle in, in the context of about 6.5% or so. Jim Egan: Basically, what you're saying is when originators can hire enough officers to deal with the refinance and purchase inquiries, then they'll drop rates, effectively, don't cut profits if you can't make it up in volume. Jay Bacow: Exactly right. Now, what we would point out is there's only about 5% of the market that has a mortgage rate above 6.5%. So we wouldn't really expect a huge wave of refi activity. But what we would expect is that as market is pricing in more cuts, is that investors are going to feel more comfortable buying mortgages. For instance, right now the yields on mortgages that investors earn is similar to the yield that they can earn with Fed funds. However, the market is expecting that 150 basis point move lower in Fed funds next year, but they're not really expecting the back end of the yield curve to move that much. And so we think that investors like domestic banks, will be looking to move their cash out of the Fed's interest on reserves and into securities, and the probability of that happening is higher now than it was before all these cuts got priced in. But that's sort of investor behavior. What does this rally mean for the housing market writ large, in particular I guess I'm thinking like housing activity. You know, you put out a forecast a month ago. Do we think it's going to pick up now given the rally? Jim Egan: So when we published our year ahead forecast, we were expecting affordability to improve and to improve in line with the decreases in mortgage rates that you were discussing a little bit earlier in this podcast. But if interest rates were to stay here, that improvement would obviously be occurring far more quickly than we had originally anticipated. Jay Bacow: Now, I guess I would think that more affordable housing would equal a higher volume of home sales. But we moved up to that almost 8% mortgage rate so fast and then we've rallied so quickly, and a lot of this happened during this slower seasonal period. So what are you thinking about the implication for home sales in general? Jim Egan: As you're pointing out, it's not really that straightforward here. The affordability improvement that we were expecting to see over the entire course of 2024 is something that we've only seen seven or eight other times in the course of the past 40 years. In most of those instances, sales volumes actually fell during that first year of affordability improvement, and that is before they climbed significantly in the 12 to 24 months after, that affordability improved. When you combine that historical experience with the fact that, look, despite this improvement in affordability, it's still very stretched and inventories, for sale inventories, are still very low. Jay, As you just mentioned, 95% of mortgaged homeowners have a rate below 6.5%. We just don't think that that spells material increases in home sales from here. Jay Bacow: Okay. But there's a lot of room between no change and material increase, so what are you forecasting? Jim Egan: Despite the comments that I just made, an additional factor that we do need to consider is honestly, how much further can sales volumes really fall from here? There is some non-economic level of transaction volumes that has to occur. Think about people that need to move for jobs, in situations like that, and we think we're roughly there. Through the first three quarters of 2023, total sales volumes are at their lowest levels since 2011. But this is a much larger housing market than 2011. When we look at sales as a percentage of the total owned stock of housing, we're at the lows from the great financial crisis. That isn't to say that sales can't fall from these levels, but we think it's much more likely that they climb, especially considering this rate move and the affordability improvement that comes along with it. Our original forecast was for existing home sales to climb 2.5% in 2024 and for new home sales to climb 7.5%. If this affordability improvement were to really solidify here, we would expect sales volumes to be stronger than those forecasts. Jay Bacow: All right. More activity means more supply and I learned in Economics 101 that more supply generally means lower prices. But housing is more affordable, and I guess that means more demand. I learned in Jim Egan housing 101 that you have a four pillar framework. So how do you balance these four pillars and what does this mean for home prices next year? Jim Egan: For our listeners, our four pillar framework for the U.S. housing market is one, the demand for shelter. So we're looking at household formations as the marginal demand for both ownership and rentership shelter. Two, supply in the U.S. housing market. That's three fold; it's the listing of existing homes for sale, it's the building of new homes and it's distressed, so think of defaults and foreclosures in the housing market. The third pillar is the affordability of the U.S. housing market, which we've been discussing. And the fourth is the availability of mortgage credit. And Jay you're right, these factors influence home prices in different ways. While we do expect sales to increase, we're also expecting for sale inventory to increase next year, even if only at the margins. What our models are telling us is that increasing off of multi-decade lows from an inventory perspective is enough to push home prices down a little bit in 2024, despite the increase in demand that we're forecasting. We're calling for home prices to fall by about 3% year-over-year by the end of next year. Jay Bacow: That doesn't seem like a lot given that home prices are up about 45% since the start of the pandemic. Jim Egan: Right. And I would stress that we think this is a moderation, not a correction in home prices. We also don't think that there's a lot of downside below that 3% number, as homeowners do remain strong hands in this cycle. And by that, we mean we don't think that they're going to be forced to sell into materially weaker bids. That has and will continue to provide a lot of support to home prices in the cycle. We just don't think that that support means that home prices can't decline marginally on a year-over-year basis in 2024. Jay Bacow: All right, Jim, it's always great talking to you about the mortgage and housing market. Jim Egan: Great talking to you, too, Jay. Jay Bacow: And thank you all for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on the Apple Podcast app and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

While the U.S. debt ceiling challenge and the conflict in the Middle East left markets largely undisturbed this year, 2024 could tell a different story.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be looking ahead to geopolitical catalysts for markets in 2024. It's Wednesday, December 20th at 11 a.m. in New York. 2023 was a year that, in our view, stood out as one where geopolitics surprisingly impacted markets far less than in recent years. But investors shouldn't get complacent because 2024 is full of potential geopolitical catalysts for markets. Let's start by looking back. The year that was had plenty of potential catalysts that could have arisen from the political economy. The U.S. flirted again with default by taking a painfully long time to raise the debt ceiling. Its credit rating suffered a downgrade along the way, but the volatility was barely noticeable in the equity and bond markets. Later in the year, a major military conflict broke out in the Middle East, creating a threat of major escalation and confrontation among nations both inside and outside the region, as well as disruptions to the global supply of oil. Still, markets shrugged with the price of oil mostly keeping steady and major global equity indices continuing on their prior trend. How were markets immune to these events? There's explanations specific to each event. For the debt ceiling, despite the brinkmanship, the probability that Congress wouldn't actually lift the debt ceiling was always quite small. For the Middle East, disruptions of the supply of global oil was not in anyone's interest. But there was also a bigger explanation for investors who look past this. The more important debate all year was whether central banks could turn the tide on inflation, and if so, could they avoid recession along the way. 2024 should be a different story. The debate about inflation in developed markets looks increasingly settled, but the growth debate lingers. While our economists see the U.S. avoiding a recession or having a soft landing, recession remains a key risk. Meaning even small impacts from geopolitical events could meaningfully shift investors perceptions about whether positive or negative economic growth is the base case next year, with asset valuations shifting at the same time. And there will be plenty of events to watch. U.S. elections are clearly one area of focus with implications for Fed policy, global trade and ongoing assistance to Ukraine, whose conflict with Russia continues to carry risks to the European outlook. But it's not just the U.S. There are as many as 40 elections in key countries next year, including in India and Mexico, two secular growth stories our strategist favor. So stay tuned to geopolitics in 2024, we certainly will and we'll continue to share our insight into what it all means for markets. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show. 

Hear our perspective on market action following the Fed's change in direction, and what it means for our 2024 outlook. ----- Transcript -----Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. In this special episode I'm joined by my colleague and Global Head of Cross-Asset Strategy, Serena Tang. Along with our colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, we'll be talking about how our views have evolved since we published our 2024 outlook over a month ago. It's Tuesday, December 19th, at 10 a.m. in New York. Vishy Tirupattur: Hello, Serena. Thank you for joining me in the show. Serena Tang: Very happy to join you. Vishy Tirupattur: Since we published our 2024 outlook, we've had some big moves across markets. So how do you think our views have changed from your perch as the Head of Cross-Asset Strategy? Serena Tang: Markets have moved a lot and have moved very, very quickly. When we first published our outlook just a month ago, you and I both had investors push back on our macro strategy team's forecast of U.S. ten year Treasury yields at below 4%. And you know what? We are at those levels now. In a similar vein, MSCI EM, which is the broad index of emerging market equities that we track, that is at our equity strategies price target. And we are now also through our base case target for U.S. high grade corporate bonds. So I would say this has shifted our short term views. Our U.S. rate strategy team, they've recently gone tactically neutral on government bonds as the markets have repriced quickly, maybe a bit too quickly. Now, that being said, on a strategic horizon, my team and I have been arguing for a strong preference for high quality fixed income over higher beta assets going into 2024. In large part because risky assets like equities, like high yield corporate bonds, they have been pricing in a perfect landing and not paying investors enough premium for the risk that the world may be less than perfect. And the assets which have valuation cushion right now, especially after rally we've seen these past few weeks, is still high grade fixed income. You know U.S. yields are close to post global financial crisis highs, while equity risk premiums have been falling most of this past year. So, yes, markets have moved, but our strategic view of being overweight in high quality fixed income over higher beta markets have not changed. So for you Vishy, you know, when we published our year ahead outlook, we had some pushback, not just on the rates view but also on a forecast for the Fed to cut four times next year. The market is clearly moved beyond that now. What do you think has driven that rally? Vishy Tirupattur: Serena, the pushback we had was really about the motivation and timing of the Fed cuts. As you know, our economists are calling for cuts starting in June as the economy and inflation begin to decelerate. Some people initially pushed back on this idea, that the Fed starts cutting rates before we get to the 2% core PCE target rate. After the downward surprise in CPI last week and more so after the FOMC meeting, which came across more dovish than the markets as well as us expected, the market narrative, including the pushback we've been getting, have dramatically changed. Clearly, the markets interpreted the messaging from the FOMC statement, the dot plot and the press conference to be unequivocally dovish. The changes in the market narratives notwithstanding, we continue to expect 100 basis point cuts over 2024. I would note that in a world where inflation is falling, standard economic models would prescribe rate cuts and in 2024 inflation is projected to fall further. And because the Fed targets the level of real leads to maintain the same level of restraint, the Fed needs to cut nominal rates in line with falling inflation. This is the reasoning we see behind Fed's projection for cutting cycle to begin next year. Cutting the policy rate is not to stimulate the economy, but really to move monetary policy towards a more normalized level. While the real rate will be likely lower at the end of next year than it is today, it will still remain elevated above neutral, nevertheless. Serena Tang: So do you think the markets are right to go with the Fed pivot narrative at this point in time? What are the market's pricing in right now for what the Fed will do in 2024? And compared to our U.S. economist forecasts, do you see the market pricing as too bullish or bearish? Vishy Tirupattur: The market pricing now reflects about 140 basis points of rate cuts in 2024, and market is assigning a nearly two thirds probability of a cut materializing in March. In our view, for a march cut to be realized, we need to continue to see downward surprises in incoming inflation and growth data. To quote Chair Powell on inflation, "I'm not calling into question the progress. It's great. We just need to see more" end quote. So we don't think the Fed would be confident that enough progress has been achieved by March. So that means cuts arrive in June, if there are no further downside surprises to our inflation path. So we think market has gotten a bit ahead of itself and thus will remain tactically neutral on duration? So Serena, if the pivot is real, why are you not more bullish on equities or fixed income? Also, why are you not bullish on higher beta fixed income? Serena Tang: Right. As I mentioned earlier, there's a strong valuation case for fixed income over equities. The latter is pretty much priced to perfection, while the former is not. But also in an environment where the Fed pivot is real and I think you and I both believe the Fed will start easing policy next year, the rally we've seen is not entirely surprising. My team's done some work looking into past episodes of rate hikes and cuts and pauses and what it means for cross-asset performance. Now, 3 to 6 months after the last Fed hike, normally everything rallies, which makes sense. Equities rates, credit, all these markets are just very relieved there is no more policy tightening. But in 3 to 6 months going into that first Fed cut, that's when you see bonds outperform equities, investment grade bonds outperform lower quality and quality within equities outperforming as investors recognize that easing usually comes along with decelerating growth. And I think that moment of epiphany is still to come. Vishy Tirupattur: Thank you, Serena. Thank you for joining me. Vishy Tirupattur: Thank you for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Hear how the Fed’s announcement of upcoming rate cuts could affect equity markets—particularly small-cap stocks.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing me a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, December 18th at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. Going into last week, the key question for investors was whether Fed Chair Jay Powell would push back on the significant loosening of financial conditions over the prior six weeks. Not only did he not push back, his message was consistent with the notion that the Fed is likely done hiking and will begin cutting interest rates next year. Markets took the change in guidance as an all clear sign to ramp up risk further. Given that policy rates are well into restrictive territory, the Fed likely doesn't want to wait to shift to more accommodative policy until it's too late to achieve a soft landing. That's a bullish outcome for stocks because it means the odds of a soft landing outcome have gone up even if this dovish shift also increases the risk of inflation reaccelerating. Given the price reaction to the news last week, it appears that markets are of the view that the Fed isn't making a policy mistake by shifting more dovish too soon. For investors looking to capitalize on this shift, it's important to note that markets started to price this dovish tilt back in November, with one of the sharpest declines in interest rates and loosening of financial conditions. As discussed in prior podcast, this accounted for most of the 15% rally in equity valuations over the past six weeks. While Powell's dovish shift has given investors a catalyst to pursue higher valuations, the markets may have moved in advance of last week's dovish transition. We think equity prices will now be more dependent on the effect that this dovish shift has on growth rather than valuations alone. If growth doesn't improve, the rally will run out of steam. If it does improve, there could be further to go in the upside and we would also see a change in market leadership and a broadening of stock performance. On that note, since the lows in October, small cap stocks have done better and breadth has improved. However, when looking at past cycles we find that smallcaps underperform both before and after Fed rate cuts. This speaks to the notion that the Fed typically cuts rates as nominal growth is slowing and small caps tend to be quite economically sensitive. Thus, the introduction of rate cuts may not drive sustainable outperformance for small caps or lower quality stocks by itself. However, if the earlier than anticipated dovish shift in the context of a still healthy economic backdrop can drive a cyclical rebound in nominal growth next year, small caps look compelling over a longer investment horizon. In our view, the probability of this outcome has gone up given last week's Fed meeting, but it's far from a slam dunk after such a strong rally. From here it'll be important to watch relative earnings revisions, high frequency macro data and small business confidence for signs that a more durable period of cap outperformance is coming. For now, relative earnings revisions remain negative for small caps and relative margin estimates have just recently taken another turn lower. Meanwhile, purchasing manager indices remain below the expansion contraction line of fifty and small business confidence remains low in a historical context and is yet to turn convincingly higher. That said, these indicators may now start to turn in a more favorable manner given last week's events. The bottom line, small caps and lower quality stocks have rallied sharply with the S&P 500 since October. We believe most of this outperformance is due to short covering and the seasonal tendency for the year's laggards to do better into the end of the year in January. For this trend to continue beyond that, we will need to see nominal GDP reaccelerate and for inflation to stabilize at current levels rather than fall further toward the Fed's target of 2%. While this may seem counterintuitive, we remind listeners that the average stock does better when inflation is rising, not falling and that may be what the market is now anticipating. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show.

Join our first quarterly roundtable where Morgan Stanley’s chief economists discuss the outlook for the U.S., Europe, China, and Japan.----- Transcript -----Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. On this special episode of the podcast, we're going to hold a roundtable discussion focusing on Morgan Stanley's global economic outlook for 2024. It's Friday, December 15th at 4 p.m. in London. Ellen Zentner: 11 a.m. in New York. Jens Eisenschmidt: 5 p.m. in Frankfurt. Chetan Ahya: And midnight in Hong Kong. Seth Carpenter: So today I am joined by the leaders of the economics teams in key regions for a roundtable discussion that we're going to start to share each quarter. I'm with Ellen Zentner, our Chief U.S. Economist, Chetan Ahya, our Chief Asia Economist, and Jens Eisenschmidt, our Chief Europe economist. I want to talk with you three about the outlook for the global economy in 2024. Clearly, we're going to need to hit on growth, inflation, and we'll talk about how the various central banks are likely to respond. Let's start with the U.S., Ellen, how do you see the U.S. economy faring next year? What's just like the broad contours of that forecast? Ellen Zentner: Sure. Well, you know, the soft landing call that we've had since early 2022, we're rolling forward into a third year. I think what's important is why do we expect to finally get the slowing in the economy? We think that the fiscal impulse, which has been positive and made the Fed's job harder, is finally overcome by monetary policy lags that overcome and become more of a strain on the economy. We've got a slowing consumer. That's basically because labor demand is slowing and labor income is slowing. But again I think the whole view, the outlook is that the economy is slowing but not falling off a cliff. That's going to lead deflation in core goods to continue and disinflation in services so that inflation is coming down. So the Fed, after having remained on hold for quite some time, we think will start to cut in June of next year and ultimately deliver four rate cuts through the course of the year. And then another 200 basis points as we move through 2025. Jens Eisenschmidt: Yeah, if I can jump in here with a view from Europe. So it's striking how similar and at the same time different the views are here, in the sense that the starting point for Europe is much weaker growth. Yet we also get a big disinflation on the way we see actually euro area inflation ending at the ECBs target, or reaching the ECB target at the fourth quarter of 2024. Now for growth, we do have, as I said, a weak patch we are in. It's actually a technical recession with two negative quarters, Q3 and Q4 and 23. And then we are actually accelerating from there, but not an awful lot. So because we see potential growth very low, but consumption actually is picking up. So that's essentially the opposite in some sense, the flip side, but still very weak growth overall. Seth Carpenter: Okay, Jens. So against that backdrop of your outlook for Europe, what does that mean for the ECB? And in particular, it sort of looks like if the Fed's cutting in June, does the ECB have to wait until the Fed cuts or can it go before the Fed? How are you thinking about policy in Europe? Jens Eisenschmidt: No, I think that's a great question also, because we get that a lot from clients and we get a lot this sort of based on past regularities observation that the ECB will never cut before the Fed. And technically speaking, we have actually now forecast the ECB cutting before the Fed just one week. So they cut in June as well. And I think the issue here is really hardwired in the way we see the disinflation process and the information arriving at the doorstep of the ECB. They are really monitoring wages and are really worried about the wage developments. So they really want to have clarity about Q1 in particular wages, Q1 24. This clarity will only arrive late May, early June. And so June really for them is the first opportunity to cut in the face of weak inflation data. Seth Carpenter: Thanks, Jens. That makes a lot of sense. So if I'm reading you right, though, part of the weakness in Europe, especially in Germany, comes from the weakness in China, which is a  target for exports from Germany. So let's turn to you, Chetan. What is the baseline outlook for China? It's been a little bit disappointing. How do you see China evolving in 2024? Chetan Ahya: Well, in our base case, we expect China's GDP growth to improve marginally from an underlying base of 4% in 2023 to 4.2% in 2024, as the effects from coordinated monetary and fiscal easing kicks in. However, a part of the reason why we see only a modest improvement is because the economy is constrained by the three D challenges of high levels of debt, weakening demographics and deflationary pressures. And within that, what will influence the near-term outlook the most is how policymakers will address the deflation challenge. Jens Eisenschmidt: Chetan,  I get a lot of clients, though, questioning the outlook for China and thinking that this is quite optimistic. So what is the downside case for China that you have in your forecast? Chetan Ahya: Well in the downside case, we think the risk is China falls into that deflation loop. To recall, in our base case, we expect policymakers to stimulate domestic demand with coordinated monetary and fiscal easing. But if that does not materialize, deflationary pressures will persist, nominal GDP growth and corporate revenue growth will decelerate, Corporate profits will decline, forcing them to cut wage growth. This, against the backdrop of declining property prices, will mean consumers will turn risk averse, leading to the formation of a negative feedback loop. In this scenario, we could see real GDP growth at 2.7% and nominal GDP growth at just about 1%. Seth Carpenter: Wow. That would be a pretty bleak outcome in the downside scenario, Chetan. Maybe if we shift a little bit because we have a pretty compelling story for Japan that there's been a positive structural shift there. Why don't you walk us through the outlook for Japan for next year? Chetan Ahya: Well, we think Japan is entering a new era of higher nominal GDP growth. We expect Japan's nominal GDP growth to be at 3.8% in 2024, compared with the relatively flat trend for decades. The most important driver to this is policymakers concerted effort to deflate the economy with coordinated monetary and fiscal easing. We think Japan has decisively exited deflation, and its underlying inflation should be supported by sustained wage growth. Indeed, we are getting early signals that the wage increase in 2024 could be higher than the 2.1% that we saw in the 2023 spring wage negotiations. Seth Carpenter: Super helpful, Chetan. And it reminds me that a baseline forecast is critical, but thinking about the ways in which we can be wrong is just as important for markets as they think through where things are going to go. So, Ellen, let me turn to you. If we are going to be wrong about our Fed call, what's likely to drive that forecast error and which direction would it most likely be? Ellen Zentner: It's a great question because oftentimes you can get the narrative on the economy right, you can even get the numbers right sometimes, but you can get the Fed reaction function wrong. And so I think what we'll be looking for here is how well Chair Powell sends the message that you can cut rates in line with falling inflation and keep the policy stance just as restrictive. And if that's something that he really gives a full throated view around, then it could lead them to cutting in March, one quarter earlier than we've expected, because inflation has been coming down faster than expected. Jens Eisenschmidt: If I may chime in here for the ECB, I think we have essentially pretty high conviction that this will be June. And that has to do with what I explained before, that there is essentially a cascading of information and for the ECB, the biggest upside risk to inflation is wages. And they really want to have clarity on that. So it would take a much larger fall in inflation that we observe until, say, March for them to really move before June and we think June is it. But of course the latest is inflation that we are getting that was sort of a little bit more than was expected might have or is a risk actually to our 25 basis point cut calls. So it could well be a 50. In particular if we see more of these big prints. Seth Carpenter: Ellen, Chetan, Jens, thanks so much for joining and for everyone listening. Thank you for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today. 

The U.N. Climate Change Conference, COP28, delivered positive news around technology, clean energy and methane emissions. But investors should be wary about slower progress in other areas.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Sustainability Research. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss some takeaways from the recent UN Climate Change Conference. It's Thursday, December 14th at 10 a.m. in New York. Achieving net zero emissions is a top priority as the world moves into a new phase of climate urgency. Decarbonization, or energy transition, is one of the three big themes Morgan Stanley research has followed closely throughout this year. As we approach the end of 2023. I wanted to give you an update on the space, especially as the U.N. Climate Change Conference or COP 28 just concluded in Dubai. First, there have been multiple announcements from the conference around the issue of decarbonizing the energy sector, which accounts for about three-quarters of total greenhouse gas emissions. The first was a surprisingly broad effort to curb methane gas emissions. Fifty oil and gas producers, accounting for 40% of global oil production, signed an agreement to cut methane emissions to 0.2% by 2030 and to reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2050. Methane accounts for 45 to 50% of oil and gas emissions, and the energy sector is responsible for about 40% of human activity methane globally. Important to note, this agreement will be monitored for compliance by three entities, the U.N. International Methane Emissions Observatory, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the International Energy Agency. Second, 118 countries reached an agreement to commit to tripling renewable energy and doubling energy efficiency by 2030, an action that boosts the global effort to reduce the usage of fossil fuels. A smaller group of countries also agreed to triple nuclear power capacity by 2050. And third, several governments have reached an agreement on the Loss and Damage Startup Fund, designed to provide developing nations with the necessary resources to respond to climate disasters. The fund is especially important because it could alleviate the debt burden of countries that are under-resourced and overexposed to climate events and to improve their climate resiliency. So what do all of these developments mean for the energy transition theme? Overall, our outlook is mixed, and at a global level, we do see challenges on the way to achieving a range of emissions reductions goals. On the positive side, we see many data points indicating advances in energy transition technology and a more rapid scaling up of clean energy deployment. We are also encouraged to see a major focus on reducing methane emissions and a small but potentially growing focus on providing financial support for regions most exposed to climate change risks. On the negative side, however, we see multiple signs that fossil fuel demand is not likely to decline as rapidly as needed to reach a variety of emissions reduction goals. We see persistent challenges across the board, for instance, in raising capital to finance energy transition efforts, especially in emerging markets. This is in part driven by greater weather extremes stressing power grids, as well as a broad geopolitical focus favoring energy security. An example of this dynamic is India. Not only does India depend on coal for over 70% of its national power generation, but it intends to bolster further its coal power generation capacity despite the global efforts to move towards renewable energy, and this is really driven by a focus on energy security. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show. 

Investors are concerned about the potential impact of the upcoming U.S. presidential election in a number of sectors. Here’s what to watch.----- Transcript -----Welcome to the Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research from Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the impact of the U.S. elections on markets. It's Wednesday, December 13th at 10 a.m. in New York. Following our publication last week of our early look for investors at the U.S. election, we've had plenty of discussion with clients trying to sort out what the event might mean for markets. Here's the three most frequently asked questions we've received and of course, our answers. First, could the election be a catalyst to undo planned investment into the clean energy industry? This question often gets asked as, under what conditions could the Inflation Reduction Act be repealed? That Act allocated substantial sums to investment in clean energy alternatives, a boon for the industry. In our view, we don't see that act being repealed, even if Republicans who oppose the act take control of both Congress and the White House. We think there's too many negative local economic consequences to undoing that investment, to get a sufficient number of Republicans to vote for the repeal. However, clean energy investors should note that a Republican administration might be able to slow the spend of that money using the regulatory process. Second, should healthcare investors be concerned that there's an election outcome that could substantially change the U.S. healthcare system? This was a concern in prior elections where Republicans promised to repeal the Affordable Care Act, an outcome current President Trump has recommitted to in his current campaign. Republicans couldn't make good on that promise, despite unified government control in 2017 and 2018. And here we think history would repeat itself with even a Republican majority having difficulty finding sufficient votes if it means restricting health care delivery to some of their voters. That said, investors in sectors that would be negatively impacted by a repeal of the Affordable Care Act could see market effects if Republicans start surging in the polls, as markets would then have to account for the possibility, albeit modest, of repeal. Finally, when might political campaigns begin impacting markets? We don't have a clear answer here. In 2016 and 2020, health care stocks started reflecting campaign statements early in the year. Whereas macro market effects, such as the sensitivity of the Mexican peso to then candidate Trump's comments around renegotiating trade agreements, didn't kick in until much closer to November. The bottom line is that we don't really know, which is why we're here to help you prepare now. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

China continues to face the triple challenge of debt, deflation and demographics. But are investors missing an opportunity in China equities? ----- Transcript -----Laura Wang:] Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Laura Wang, Morgan Stanley's Chief China Equity Strategist. Robin Xing: And I'm Robin Xing, Morgan Stanley's Chief China Economist. Laura Wang: On this special episode of the podcast, we'll discuss our 2024 outlook for China's economy and equity market and what investors should focus on next year. It's Tuesday, December 12th, 9 a.m. in Hong Kong. Laura Wang: Robin, China's post reopening recovery has been lackluster in 2023, disappointing expectations. We've seen significant challenges in housing and local government financing vehicles, which are pressuring the Chinese economy to the verge of a debt deflation loop. Can you explain some of these current dynamics? Robin Xing: China is in this difficult battle against the it's 3D problems, namely debt, deflation and demographics. China has stepped up reflationary measures since the July Politburo meeting, including immediate budgetary expansion, kick start of local government debt resolution and easing on the housing sector. Growth also bottomed out from its second quarter trough. That said, the reflationary journey remains gradual and bumpy. In particular, the downturn in the housing sector and its spillover to local government are still lingering. And it might take some time until it converges to a new steady state. Against this backdrop, we expect China to continue to roll out stronger and more coordinated fiscal, monetary and housing easing policies. Laura Wang: What measures does China need to undertake to avoid a debt deflation loop? Robin Xing: Well, there is no easy way out. We think China needs a systematic macro solution, including both cyclical stimulus and structural reforms, to decisively fend off a debt deflation loop. In particular, we proposed a 5R action plan. Reflation, Rebalance, Restructuring, Reform and Rekindle. So that includes reflecting the economy with policy stimulus to support aggregate demand. Rebalancing the economy towards consumption with structural initiatives such as fiscal transfer to the households. Restructuring balance sheets of troubled sectors, including property and financing league of Local Government. Reforming the SOE's of the public sector and rekindle the private sectors animal spirit. So far, Beijing has only completed 25% of the 5R strategy, led by some stimulus in reflation sector and also restructuring its local debt. We expect the progress to reach 50% by end 2024, and China could lead to this debt deflation loop in about two years after 2025. Laura Wang: Debt and deflation are 2 of the 3D's in what you call China's 3D journey. Demographics is the third challenge on this list. Why are demographics an economic headwind and how is China handling this challenge now? Robin Xing: Well, Laura, there is a little dispute on China's aging population. This will diminish capital returns and drag growth. So in our long term growth forecast, labor quantity will lower overall GDP growth by 40 basis points every year between 2025 to 2030. Though the declining labor quantity is unlikely to be reversed, Beijing would make more efforts in better utilizing higher labor quality, which has been increasing steadily. On that front, Beijing could step up reviving private sector confidence, which will bring more jobs and translate to labor with higher education into stronger output. Detailed measures could include, they start to issue the financial license to FinTech and resumption of offshore IPO by firms with sensitive data. That could send a clearer message to the end of regulatory reset since 2021. Laura Wang: With all these macro backdrops, what are your expectations for GDP growth in 2024 and 2025, and what are some of the biggest economic challenges facing China over this forecast horizon? Robin Xing: Well, we expect a modest growth recovery next year. Real GDP growth could edge up mildly from 4% two year kegger in 2023 to a slightly better 4.2% in 24. And the GDP deflator, which is a broader defined inflation indicator, it could rebound from a -.8% in this year, to .6% in 2024. But this is still way below a 2 to 3%, the level of inflation. So China will continue to grow and reflate at a subpar rate next year. The biggest challenge here is stabilizing the aggregate demand amid continued housing and the local government deleveraging. That requires more debt initially, particularly by the central government, to cushion this downturn. We expect a 1.5% point widening in China's government deficit next year. Led by a rising official budget and some increase in local special purpose bond. Monetary policy will likely remain accommodative as well. We expect a 25 basis point cut and the cumulatively another 20 basis points interest rate cuts in 2024. Now, Laura, turning it over to you. Over the past the year, the debate on investing in China has shifted profoundly towards long term structural challenges, we just discussed. And you have argued that this would continue into 2024. So what is your outlook for Chinese equities within the global EM framework over the next year? Laura Wang: We see a largely range bound market at best in our base case for China equity market at the index level. For example, our price target for MSCI China by end of 2024 is 60, suggesting very limited upside from its current level. Such upside puts China very much on par with what we expect from the broader emerging market index, MSCI EM. Therefore, we retain our equal weight rating on China within our EM API allocation framework. There will still be quite strong headwinds on corporate earnings as we go through the earnings results season for the rest of the year and then into the first quarter of 2024. This could lead to continuous downward revisions of consensus estimates. For example, we Morgan Stanley expect 9% earnings growth for MSCI China in 2024 compared to consensus at 16%, which we think is overly positive. Such downward revisions could also cap the valuation rerating opportunities. Robin Xing: Given this backdrop, Laura, how should investors be positioned in 2024 in terms of Chinese equities? Laura Wang: The Asia market, if we use CSI 300 as a proxy, has been outperforming the offshore MSCI China index for five years in a row. We expect this trend to continue at least in the next 3 to 6 months, given that the top down easing policies are starting to pivot to further support economic growth. And Robin, you are still expecting some easing on the monetary side with PSI rate cuts and the triple R cuts. Those usually tend to have a bigger impact on the Asia market than on the offshore space. Plus, I think we're also expecting some further currency weakness in the first half of next year and A-shares tend to be more resilient in such a scenario. Robin Xing: Finally, Laura, what is the market missing right now when it comes to Chinese equities? Laura Wang: As investors are still debating over the beta opportunities being largely absent for the past couple of years. We think some investors may easily come to the conclusion that there are not good investment opportunities in China anymore. We disagree with that. There are still plenty of alpha generating opportunities and particularly high quality names in the growth categories who can offer a strong earnings and ROE track record, good management teams and limited reliance on foreign technology input or on domestic government policy support. We believe those names can offer strong downside protection and help minimize your portfolio's volatility, while also offer the upside from their respective growing sectors when the market turns around. We have put together selected names that we believe meeting these criteria, and we call them the China best business model. Laura Wang: Robin, thanks a lot for taking the time to talk. Robin Xing: Great speaking with you, Laura. Laura Wang: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Here’s how upcoming inflation data and this week’s Federal Open Market Committee meeting could affect the U.S. bond and equity markets. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, December 11th at 11am in New York. So let's get after it. Last week we discussed the increasing importance of interest rates in terms of dictating equity prices over the past six months. First, the sharp move higher in rates between July and October weighed heavily on stocks with the Russell 2000 selling up by 20% and the S&P 500 by 10%. Over the following six weeks, the opposite occurred as ten year yields fell by 90 basis points due to a perceived dovish pivot by the Fed and less longer dated bond issuance guidance from the Treasury. This move, lowering yields, helped the S&P 500 regain all of its losses from the prior three months, while several other indices, including the Russell 2000, clawed back 50% or more of their prior losses. This week, we remain focused on the bond market, which may be due for some consolidation after seeing such strong gains and that could weigh on equities in the near term. Friday's job data was important in this regard, with the stronger than expected release taking ten year U.S. Treasury yields higher by a modest 8 basis points. Though 135 basis points of Fed cuts that were priced into the bond market a week ago were now reduced to 110 basis points as of Friday's close. This reaction makes sense to us and there may be more to go in the near-term if inflation data released this week comes in a little hotter than consensus expects. Finally, the Fed is also meeting this week and will have taken notice of the data as well. With the unemployment rate falling by almost 2/10 in November, and inflation data potentially remaining bumpy over the next 3 to 6 months, the Fed may push back on the bond markets' more aggressive interest rate cuts. Given the severe underperformance of small caps this year, clients are more interested to know if the introduction of Fed rate cuts could reverse it. To address this question, we took a more in-depth look at small cap value and growth relative performance around prior Fed rate cuts. Interestingly, small cap value and growth underperformed large cap value and growth in the months before and after the Fed's first rate cut. Large cap growth is historically the best performing category following the first rate cut, and it also tends to see strong performance before the cut. We think these data reflect the notion that growth is typically slowing. When the Fed initially pivots to more accommodative policy. Given small caps greater sensitivity to economic activity, they tend to underperform in this context. Therefore, the more important determinant of small cap relative outperformance from here will be the rate of change on economic and earnings growth. Given our less optimistic growth outlook, we stick with a large cap defensive growth bias for one's portfolio. In addition to the recent fall in interest rates, the liquidity picture has also been a key driver of elevated equity valuations, in our view. More specifically, the draining of the reverse repo facility has continued to help fund the Treasuries elevated amount of issuance over the past six months. That issuance provided the financing for the fiscal deficit, which has been a key factor in stronger than expected GDP growth this year, especially in the third quarter. With over $800 billion remaining in a reverse repo facility, that balance should be drained towards zero next year and continue to play a supportive role both through Treasury funding and asset prices. Finally, our work suggests the Producer Price Index is a very good leading indicator for sales growth. Recent softness in the Producer Price Index does not yet point to a positive inflection in revenue growth. As a result we'll be closely watching this week's Producer Price Index release for signs that pricing trends are either stabilizing or decelerating further. Interestingly, small business surveys indicate that corporates intend to raise prices in 2024, a strategy that looks unlikely in our view. Our work leveraging company transcripts indicate that mentions of pricing power and related terms have been concentrated in hotels, restaurants, leisure, commercial services and supplies, household durables, specialty retailers and software over the last 90 days. And this is another area to watch closely for confirmation of inflation trends. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple podcast app. It helps more people to find the show.

Will the U.S. dollar weaken further as the economy slows? What will its value be compared to the Euro by spring 2024? Our analyst tackles those key currency questions and more.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Dave Adams, Head of G10 FX Strategy at Morgan Stanley. And today I'll be talking about our views on the US dollar. It's Friday, December 8th at 3 p.m. in London. The US dollar has fallen about 4% since it peaked in October and has retraced about half of its gains since July. We think this correction should be faded and we're affirming our call for Euro/Dollar to fall back to parity by the spring of next year, meaning the US dollar will rise a further 8% versus the Euro. This is a controversial and out of consensus call, but we think the market is still underpricing weakness in Europe and strength in the U.S., and a continued widening in growth and rate differentials should weigh on the pair. A lot of investors claim that the US dollar should weaken further as the US economy slows from its growth rate this summer. We agree US growth is likely to slow, but by far less than investors think. Our US economics team thinks the US growth will be about 1% stronger than consensus estimates, with the biggest gap for data leading into the second quarter of next year. This is a dollar-positive outcome. We also hear from investors a lot that weakness in Europe is fully priced, but we respectfully disagree. Sure, there's a lot of cuts priced in for the European Central Bank, but not as much as there should be once the ECB more formally acknowledges that cuts are coming.The real risk here is that markets begin to price in ECB rate cuts below the long-run estimate of the neutral rate of 2%, and in a world where the ECB is cutting, this is a real possibility. A fast and deep cutting cycle in Europe would sharply contrast with the Fed, whose rhetoric continues to emphasize higher for longer, a view amplified by strong domestic growth. Divergence in economic data between Europe and the US should keep the euro falling versus the greenback. Now, I'm the first to admit that an 8% move in a few months time is a pretty big move and moves that large don't happen that often. If we look at options pricing, the market is pricing in an even lower risk of such a move compared to historical frequencies. And it's worth remembering that large moves do happen. Eurodollar fell 10% in a four month window two different times last year. So while this call may be bold and buck consensus, we think the fundamental story still holds. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. 

Will India equities continue to outperform China equities in 2024? The two key factors investors should track.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the market. I'm Jonathan Garner, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia and Emerging Market Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'm going to be discussing our continued preference for Indian equities versus China equities. It's Thursday, December 7th at 9 a.m. in Singapore. MSCI India is tracking towards a third straight year of outperformance of MSCI China, and India is currently our number one pick. Indeed, we're running our largest overweight at 100 basis points versus benchmark. In contrast, we reduced China back to equal weight in the summer of this year. So going into 2024, we're currently anticipating a fourth straight year of India outperformance versus China. Central to our bullish view on India versus China, is the trend in earnings. Starting in early 2021, MSCI India earnings per share in US dollar terms has grown by 61% versus a decline of 18% for MSCI China. As a result, Indian earnings have powered ahead on a relative basis, and this is the best period for India earnings relative to China in the modern history of the two equity markets. There are two fundamental factors underpinning this trend in India's favor, both of which we expect to continue to be present in 2024. The first is India's relative economic growth, particularly in nominal GDP terms. Our economists have written frequently in recent months on China's persistent 3D challenges, that is its battle with debt, deflation and demographics. And they're forecasting another subdued year of around 5% nominal GDP growth in 2024. In contrast, their thesis on India's decade suggests nominal GDP growth will be well into double digits as both aggregate demand and crucially supply move ahead on multiple fronts. The second factor is currency stability. Our FX team anticipate that for India, prudent macro management, particularly on the fiscal deficit, geopolitical dynamics and inward multinational investment, can lead to continued Rupee stability in real effective terms versus volatility in previous cycles. For the Chinese Yuan, in contrast, the real effective exchange rates has begun to slide lower as foreign direct investment flows have turned negative for the first time and domestic capital flight begins to pick up. Push backs we get on continuing to prefer India to China in 2024, are firstly around potential volatility of the Indian markets in an election year. But secondly, a bigger concern is relative valuations. Now, as always, we feel it's important to contextualize valuations versus return on equity and return on equity trajectory. Currently, India is trading a little over 3.7x price to book for around 15% ROE. This means it has one of the highest ROE's in emerging markets, but is the most expensive market. And in price to book terms, second only to the US globally. China is trading on a much lower price to book of 1.3x, but its ROE is 10% and indeed on an ROE adjusted basis, it's not particularly cheap versus other emerging markets such as Korea or South Africa. Importantly for India, we expect ROE to remain high as earnings compound going forward, and corporate leverage can build from current levels as nominal and real interest rates remain low to history. So the outlook is positive. But for China, the outlook is very different. And in a recent detailed piece, drawing on sector inputs from our bottom up colleagues, we concluded that whilst the base case would be for ROE stabilization, if reflation is successful, there's also a bear case for ROE to fall further to around 7% over the medium term, or less than half that of India today. Finally, within the two markets we’re overweight India, financials, consumer discretionary and industrials. And these are sectors which typically do best in a strong underlying growth environment. They're the same sectors on which we're cautious in China. There our focus is on A-shares rather than large cap index names, and we like niche technology, hardware and clean energy plays which benefit from China's policy objectives. Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Although much will change before the elections, investors should watch for potential impacts on issues such as AI regulation, energy permitting, trade and tax policy.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, from the U.S. Public Policy Research Team. Michael Zezas: On this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll discuss our early views around the 2024 U.S. presidential election. It's Wednesday, December 6th at 10 a.m. in New York. Michael Zezas: With U.S. elections less than a year away now, it's likely much will change in terms of the drivers of the outcome and its market impact. Still, we believe early preparation will help investors navigate the campaign. And so starting now, we'll bring your updated views and forecasts until the U.S. elects its next president in November of 2024. Arianna, we've noted that this upcoming election will affect particular sectors rather than the broader macro market. What's driving this view? Ariana Salvatore: There are really two reasons that we've been pointing to. First, lawmakers have achieved a lot of their policy priorities that impact the deficit over the past few election cycles. If you think about the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act or the infrastructure bill back in 2021, for example. Now they're turning to policy that holds more sectoral impacts than macro. The second reason is that inflation is still a very high priority issue for voters. As we've noted, an elevated level of concern around inflation really disincentivizes politicians from pushing for legislation that could expand the deficit because it's seen as contrary to that mandate of fiscal austerity that comes in a high inflation environment. There is one exception to this. As we've noted before, lawmakers will have to deal with the expiring Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. We think the different configurations post 2024 each produce a unique outcome, but we expect in any scenario, that will only add modestly to the deficit. Michael Zezas: And digging into specific sectors. What policies are you watching and which sectors should investors keep an eye out for in the event these policies pass? Ariana Salvatore: Following the election, we think Congress will turn to legislative items like AI regulation, energy permitting, trade and tax policy. Obviously, each unique election outcome will facilitate its own level and type of policy transformation. But we think you could possibly see the biggest divergence from the status quo in a Republican sweep. In particular, in that case, we'd expect lawmakers to launch an effort to roll back, at least partially, the Inflation Reduction Act or the IRA, though we ultimately don't think a full scale repeal will be likely. We also expect to see something on AI regulation based on what's currently in party consensus, easing energy permitting requirements and probably extending the bulk of the expiring Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. That means sectors to watch out for would be clean tech, AI exposed stocks and sectors most sensitive to tax changes like tech and health care. Mike, as we mentioned, with this focus on legislation that impacts certain sectors, we don't expect this to be a macro election. So is there anything that would shift the balance toward greater macro concerns? Michael Zezas: Well, if it looks like a recession is getting more likely as the election gets close, it's going to be natural for investors to start thinking about whether or not the election outcome might catalyze a fiscal response to economic weakness. And in that situation, you'd expect that outcomes where one party doesn't control both Congress and the White House would lead to smaller and somewhat delayed responses. Whereas an outcome where one party controls both the White House and Congress, you would probably get a bigger fiscal response that comes faster. Those are two outcomes that would mean very different things to the interest rates market, for example, which would have to reflect differences in new bond supply to finance any fiscal response, and of course, the resulting difference in the growth trajectory. Ariana Salvatore: All right so, keeping with the macro theme for a moment. How do our expectations for geopolitics and foreign policy play into our assessment of the election outcomes? Michael Zezas: Yeah, this is a difficult one to answer, mostly because it's unclear how different election outcomes would net impact different geopolitical situations. So, for example, investors often ask us about what outcomes would matter for a place like Mexico, where they're concerned that some election outcomes might create economic challenges for Mexico around the US-Mexico border. However, those outcomes could also improve the prospects for near shoring, which improves foreign direct investment into Mexico. It's really unclear whether those cross-currents would be a net positive or a net negative. So we don't really think there's much specific to guide investors on, at least at the moment. Finally, Arianna, to sum up, how is the team tracking the presidential race and which indicators are particularly key, the focus on? Ariana Salvatore: Well, recent history suggests that it will be a close race. For context, the 2022 midterms marked the fourth time in four years that less than 1% of votes effectively determined which side would control the House, the Senate or the White House. That means that elections are nearly impossible to predict. But we think there are certain indicators that can tell us which outcomes are becoming more or less likely with time. For example, we think inflation could influence voters. As a top voter issue and a topic that the GOP is better perceived as equipped to handle, persistent concerns around inflation could signal potential upside for Republicans. Inflation also tracks very closely with the president's approval rating. So on the other hand, if you see decelerating inflation in conjunction with overall improving economic data, that might indicate some tailwinds for Democrats across the board. We're going to be tracking other indicators as well, like the generic ballot, President Biden's approval rating and prediction markets, which could signal that different outcomes are becoming more or less likely with time. Michael Zezas: Ariana, thanks for taking the time to talk. Ariana Salvatore: Great speaking with you, Mike. Michael Zezas: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show.

Asia’s economic recovery could continue to be out of step with the rest of the world. Hear which countries are positioned for growth and which might face challenges. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today, I'll discuss 2024 Economics Outlook for Asia. It's Tuesday, December 5 at 9 a.m. in Hong Kong. It used to be the case that business cycles across Asian economies were in sync. But after the Covid shock, global trade and global growth have moved out of sync. Growth in Asia has diverged at times from global growth momentum. Moreover, in this cycle, the inflation picture is very different across Asian economies. So in contrast to previous cycles, we have to be more focused on nominal GDP growth. Real GDP growth, which is nominal GDP growth, adjusted for inflation, has been divergent across Asian economies during this cycle. And we think Asia's recovery will remain asynchronous vis a vis the rest of the world. Looking at the three largest economies in the region, we are more constructive on the outlook for nominal GDP growth for India and Japan, while we think China's nominal GDP growth will be constrained. Why is this? First, we think China is facing a challenge in managing aggregate demand and inflationary pressures from deleveraging of local government and property companies balance sheets. Policymakers have embarked on coordinated monetary and fiscal easing, which would help to bring about a modest recovery in 2024. But the deleveraging challenges are intense, and so the path ahead will still be bumpy. Moreover, we believe that inflation will remain low, which means corporate pricing power will be weak, and that could present a challenge for corporate profitability. Second, we are seeing a momentous shift in Japan's nominal GDP growth trajectory. Japan has exited deflation decisively, supported mainly by its accommodative policy and with some help from global factors. Against this backdrop, nominal GDP growth reached a 30 year high in the second quarter of 2023. Improving inflation dynamics mean that we see that Bank of Japan exiting negative rates and removing yield curve control in early 2024. But we believe the BOJ will not tighten macro policies aggressively, which should ensure a robust nominal GDP growth of 3.8% in 2024. Finally, we believe that India remains the best opportunity within the region. Nominal GDP growth is expanding rapidly and we think a pickup in private capital investment cycle will sustain productivity growth. Policymakers have been implementing supply side reform and that has already boosted public CapEx. A virtuous cycle is already underway in India and nominal GDP growth will be expanding at double digit growth rates. To sum up, Asia's recovery remains asynchronous relative to the rest of the world, and idiosyncratic drivers still matter more during the cycle. We are constructive on the outlook for India and Japan, however, structural challenges will constrain China's growth path. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review and Apple podcast and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.

U.S. equities markets appear to be betting on an outdated playbook that worked when inflation was benign. But analysis of earnings and macro data suggests an updated playbook may be necessary. What investors should watch now.----- Transcript -----Welcome to thoughts of the market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, December 4th at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. After a very challenging three month stretch for stocks ending in October, the S&P 500 recouped all its losses in November, while the small cap and S&P 500 equal weight indices only regained about half. This left the performance gap between the average stock and the market cap weighted index near its widest level of the year as equity market performance remains historically narrow. In other words, the market accurately reflects today's challenging operating environment for most companies. In many ways, it's a reflection of how most consumers are suffering amid high absolute prices in most spending categories. On Friday, the equity markets took on a different complexion, with small caps and lower quality stocks outperforming significantly. This occurred as rates continued to fall sharply, despite Jay Powell's comments that it was premature for markets to price in rate cuts early next year. With 130 basis points of cuts now priced into the Fed's fund futures market through the year end of 2024, investors have set a high bar for cuts to be delivered. Our analysis on equity returns post prior peaks in the Fed funds rate shows a strong disparity in performance between cycles where inflation was historically elevated versus those where inflation was relatively benign. The equity market appears to be betting on the playbook from the last four cycles when inflation was benign, suggesting we are early to mid-cycle for this particular economic expansion. However, our analysis of the earnings and macro data continue to suggest we are late cycle, which argues for continued outperformance of our defensive growth and late cycle cyclicals barbell strategy. The primary argument supporting our position relates to the labor market, which appears to be short on supply at a price companies can afford. This is why labor demand continues to soften and why consumer spending is slowing. Having said that, we can stay in the late cycle regime for long periods of time with 2023 representing one of those classic late cycle periods. This is why large-cap quality is outperform and why Friday's rally in small caps and lower quality stocks is unlikely to be sustained. Recently, we have received an increasing amount of client questions on the relative performance of industry groups and factors around the Fed's first interest rate cut of the cycle. Value stocks tend to outperform growth into the cut and underperform post the cut. Quality tends to outperform meaningfully into the cut and then sees more volatile performance after. Interestingly, defenses tend to outperform cyclicals and small caps fairly persistently, both before and after the initial cut. This helps to support the notion at the beginning of the Fed cutting cycle is not typically the catalyst for a meaningful broadening out of leadership. Another topic of interest from investors more recently has been industry group performance around presidential elections. On an equal weighted basis, performance shows a modest bias towards value, quality and defensive large caps. Post-election, we do tend to see a broadening out in leadership with small caps and cyclicals generally showing better performance. Value maintains its outperformance. Financials tend to show strong relative performance both before and after elections. And interestingly, health care's relative performance tends to hold up until three months prior to the election. Within the health care sector, equipment and services tends to outperform pharma and biotech post the election. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple podcast app. It helps more people to find the show.

The market rally of the last few weeks is based on strong economic data, suggesting that the U.S. and Europe remain on track for a “soft landing.” ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Corporate Credit Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, December 1st at 2 p.m. in London. November 2023 is now in the history books. It was outstanding. US bonds rose 4.5%, the best month since 1985. Global stocks rose 9%, the best month in three years. Spreads on an investment grade and high yield bonds tightened significantly. With the exception of commodities and Chinese stocks, which both struggled, November was an early holiday gift to investors of many stripes. While the size of the rally in November was unusual, the direction didn't just spring from thin air. Generally speaking, economic data in November strongly endorsed the idea of a soft landing. Soft landing, where inflation falls without a sharp drop in economic activity are historically rare. But they are Morgan Stanley's economic forecast for the year ahead. And in November, investors unwrapped data suggesting the story remains on track. In the US, core consumer price inflation declined more than expected. Core PCE inflation, a slightly different measure that the Federal Reserve prefers, has fallen down to an annualized pace of just 2.5% over the last six months. Gas prices are down 16% since the summer, rental inflation has stalled and the U.S. auto production is normalizing, improving the trend in three big drivers of the higher inflation we've seen over the last two years. Go back 12 months and most forecasts, including our own, assume that lower inflation would be the result of higher interest rates driving a slowdown in growth. But the economy has been good. Over the last 12 months, the U.S. economy has grown 3%, .5% better than the average since 1990. The story in Europe is a little different from the one in America, but it still rhymes. In Europe, recent inflation data has also come in lower than expected. While economic data has been somewhat weaker. Still, we see signs that the worst of Europe's economic growth will be confined to 2023 and continue to forecast the weakest growth right now, with somewhat better European growth in 2024. Why does this matter? While the returns of November were unusual and unlikely to repeat, it's a good reminder not to overcomplicate things. Good data, by which we mean lower inflation and reasonable growth, is a good outcome that markets will reward, and remains the Morgan Stanley economic base case. Deviating on either variable is a risk, especially for an asset class like credit. Following the data and keeping an open mind, remains important. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.

The growing popularity of medicines that curb appetite is having an impact on consumption of less-healthy foods. Here’s what that could mean for packaged snacks, soda, alcohol and fast food.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Pamela Kaufman, Morgan Stanley's Tobacco and Packaged Food Analyst. Today I'll be talking about how obesity medicines are impacting food spending. It's Thursday, November 30th at 10 a.m. in New York. With Thanksgiving behind us, we've now entered the holiday season when many of us are focused on shopping, travel and, of course, food. The last 12 to 18 months have seen overwhelming growth in popularity for a glucagon-like peptide 1 or GLP-1 anti-obesity medications. These medications were first approved for the treatment of type two diabetes more than 15 years ago and for the treatment of obesity more than 8 years ago. But the inflection point came only recently when the formulation and delivery of GLP-1 drugs improved from once daily injections to once weekly injections, and even an oral formulation. There were also some key FDA approvals that opened the doors for widespread use. How effective are these new and improved GLP-1 drugs? Essentially, they target areas of the brain that regulate appetite and food consumption so that patients feel full longer, have a reduced appetite and consume less food. Studies show that patients taking the injectable GLP-1 medicines can lose approximately 10 to 20% of their body weight. One of the key debates in the market right now is how the growing use of GLP-1 drugs will affect various industries within the larger food ecosystem. The fact that patients on anti-obesity drugs experience a significant reduction in appetite impacts their food habits and consumption. The "Food Meets Pharma" debate is one we've been tracking closely, and our most recent work indicates that shoppers with obesity spend about 1% more on groceries compared to shoppers without obesity. But we see a larger difference across less healthy categories. Over the last year, obese shoppers spent more on candy, frozen meals and beverages, but less on produce, fish and beans and grains. In addition, shoppers with obesity spend more at large fast food chains. Our own survey data and various medical studies point to a drastic 60 to 70% reduction in consumption of less healthy categories in patients taking GLP-1 drugs, driven by the significant changes observed in their food consumption and preferences. As drug use grows, we can see an increasing impact across various food and beverage related industries in the U.S. For example, among our beverages coverage, U.S. shoppers with obesity spend more on carbonated soft drinks and salty snacks. Shoppers with obesity also spend more on fast food and on a relative basis, less at fast casual restaurants and casual diners. But obesity medicines are starting to change these habits. Furthermore, 62% of GLP-1 patients report consuming less alcohol since starting on the medications, with 56% of those consuming less reporting at least a 75% reduction in alcohol consumption. So what's our outlook for drug adoption? Morgan Stanley research estimates that the global obesity prescription market will reach $77 billion in the next decade, with $51 billion in the U.S. By 2035, my colleagues expect 7% of the U.S. population will be on anti-obesity medication. Given these projections, the "Food Meets Pharma" debate will remain relevant and something investors should watch closely. Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

With a strong holiday season expected, and a rise in U.S. passport issuance, there’s good reason to believe the travel industry will see durable growth in the year ahead.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ravi Shanker, Morgan Stanley's Freight Transportation and Airlines Analyst. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss our view on airline travel in 2024. It's Wednesday, November 29th at 10 a.m. in New York. Travel plans are in most people's minds over the holiday season, and many of us just experienced firsthand the hectic Thanksgiving holiday weekend. On the Sunday after Thanksgiving, the US Transportation Security Administration, or TSA, screened more than 2.9 million passengers, which was the most ever for a single day. Overall, the TSA's reported number of travelers last week was up 4.2% versus 2019 and has been tracking up nearly 6% versus 2019 for the month of November. This is impressive given that November is typically a slower leisure travel month. Furthermore, despite record travel over the last several weeks, airlines achieved record low cancellations over the Thanksgiving weekend as well. This all bodes well for the upcoming holidays. We continue to expect a strong holiday season ahead, as demand for air travel is showing no signs of slowing. And despite concerns around choppy macro conditions, we continue to see no signs of a cliff in demand. Meanwhile, our survey work indicates that holiday travel intentions remain robust among all consumers and not just high income households. At the same time, corporate travel budgets in 2024 are trending in line with expectations, and business travel is likely to mirror domestic leisure travel just on a delayed basis. Smaller enterprises continue to lead the way for corporate travel demand. Among companies with less than $1 billion in revenue, 41% are already back to pre 2020 travel volumes. Right now, the primary barriers to corporate travel appear to be cost concerns as well as the economic and market outlook. This suggests that constraints on corporate travel may be cyclical rather than structural. One final observation which relates to both international business and leisure travel is that US passport issuance is also up. According to US government data, as of early November, 2023 had already seen the issuance of over 24 million passports. That's 9% higher compared to 2022. This is a new record which demonstrates that people want to travel now more than ever, particularly internationally. Over the past 25 years, the number of US passports issued per year has noticeably increased after major economic events such as the dot-com bubble in the early 2000s, the global financial crisis in 2008-2009, with the latest being post-Covid in 2022. We continue to believe that this is not a one and done travel spike, but a durable growth trend. All told, it looks like we may be entering a new golden age of travel in the 2020s. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and shared Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Investors in the education sector have focused on threats from generative AI, but may be missing the potential for greater efficiency and new opportunities in workforce reskilling.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Brenda Duverce from the Morgan Stanley Sustainability Research Team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives. Today I'll discuss the potential impact of generative AI on the global education market. It's Tuesday, November 28th at 10 a.m. in New York. When ChatGPT was first introduced, it disrupted the education system with the threat of plagiarism and misinformation, and some school systems have banned it. Some companies in the educational technology space were initially affected by this, but have since recovered as the risks have become clearer. Still, investors appear to be overly focused on the risks GenAI poses to education companies, missing the potential upside GenAI can unlock. From a sustainability perspective, we view GenAI as an opportunity to drive improvements to society in general, with education being one core use case. We would highlight two areas where GenAI will be key. One, in improving the overall education experience and two, in helping to reskill or upskill an evolving workforce. Starting with the quality of the education experience, GenAI has the potential to transform learning and teaching, from automating tasks with chatbots to creating adaptive learning solutions. Applications such as auto grading, large language model based tutors and retention management can drive efficiencies and increase productivity. We see efficiencies driving $200 billion of value creation and education over the next three years. In the fragmented education market, we expect lower costs to flow through to prices as companies pass along cost savings to maximize volumes.  The second key area that we highlight from a sustainability angle is the reskilling and upskilling of the workforce. We think the market may be under appreciating the role education companies can have in this respect. Many fear that GenAI would lead to substantial job losses in various areas of the economy, and the market sometimes assumes that job loss leads to permanent displacement of workers long term. But we argue this isn't necessarily true. Workers typically re-enter the labor force with an updated skill set. Take, for instance, the introduction of ATMs and the concerns that ATMs would replace bank tellers and lead to significant job loss. This didn't prove to be the case. Over time, there were fewer tellers per bank branch, but the overall number of tellers continued to rise. Furthermore, the bank teller role evolved as customers sought a better experience and bank tellers responded by reskilling. Another example of this type of disruption was the introduction of the spreadsheet in the accounting industry. Many argued that spreadsheets would replace accounting jobs. However, data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates the opposite, the number of accountants and financial managers rose significantly. When it comes to reskilling or upskilling workers impacted by GenAI, we think this could cost somewhere around $16 billion within the next three years. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show.

Morgan Stanley published its 2024 macroeconomic and investment outlooks last week after spirited debates among our economists and strategists. Three topics animated much of this year’s discussion: lingering concerns about recession; China; and the challenging real estate market in the U.S.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about some of the key debates we engaged in during our year ahead outlook process. It's Monday, November 27th at 10 a.m. in New York. We published our Year Ahead Global Economics and Strategy Outlook last Sunday and more detailed asset class and country specific outlooks have been streaming out since. At Morgan Stanley Research the outlooks are the culmination of a process involving much deliberation and spirited debate among economists and strategists across all regions and asset classes we cover. While we strive for cohesion and consistency in our outlook across economies and markets, we are convinced that in a highly interconnected world, facing numerous uncertainties, challenging each other's views makes the final product much stronger. In that spirit, here are some of the key debates we engaged in along the way. Slowdown but not recession? In their baseline scenario, our economists expect a significant slowdown in developed market economies while inflation is tamed and outright recession is avoided. Unsurprisingly, the prospect of a substantial slowdown that does not devolve into a recession was debated at length. Our economists maintain that while recessions remain a risk everywhere, they expect any recession, such as the one in the United Kingdom, to be shallow. Since inflation is falling with full employment, real incomes should hold up, leaving consumption resilient despite more volatile investment spending. Our economists call for policy easing to start across several DM economies in the middle of 2024 was also much discussed. For the U.S., our economists call for 100 basis points of rate cuts starting around the second half of the year and the cuts begin even before inflation target has been achieved and without a spike in the unemployment rate. The motivation here is not that the Fed will cut to stimulate the economy, but the cuts are a move towards a more normalized monetary policy. As the economy begins to slow and net new jobs created fall below replacement levels, we think that the Fed sees the need to normalize policy instead of maintaining policy at very restrictive levels. The China question. Relative to the expectations in our mid-year outlook, China growth surprised to the downside. We clearly overestimated the ability and willingness of China policymakers to restore vigor to the economy. Thus, as we debated China, we spent time on the policy measures needed to offset the drag from the looming 3D trap of debt, deflation and demographics. We look for subpar improvement in both growth and inflation in 2024, with real GDP growth reaching a below consensus 4.2%. More central government led stimulus will only cushion the economy against continued deleveraging in the housing sector and local government financial vehicles.Real estate challenges. U.S. residential and commercial real estate markets diverged dramatically over the course of 2023, and their trajectory in the year ahead was an important debate. The dramatic affordability challenges posed by higher mortgage rates caused a significant pullback in existing home sales, renewing decreases in inventory that provided near-term support for home prices. On the other hand, the combination of challenges for key lenders such as regional banks and secular challenges to select property types such as offers coupled with an imminent and persistent wall of maturities that need to be refinanced, drove commercial real estate prices and sales meaningfully lower. Looking ahead, as rates come down, we expect affordability to improve and for sale inventory of homes to increase. U.S. home prices should see modest declines, about 3% as the growth in inventory offsets the increased demand, with fundamental stressors still largely unresolved, we expect the outlook for commercial real estate to remain challenging. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Original Release on November, 7th 2023: AI could help video game companies boost engagement and consumer spending, but could also introduce competition by making it easier for new companies to enter the industry.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matt Cost from the Morgan Stanley US Internet Team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss how A.I could change the video game industry. It's Tuesday, November 7th at 10 a.m. in New York. New A.I tools are starting to transform multiple industries, and it's hardly a surprise that the game industry could see a major impact as well. As manual tasks become more automated and the user experience becomes increasingly personalized, A.I. tools are starting to change the way that games are made and operated. Building video games involves many different disciplines, including software development, art and writing, among others. Many of these processes could become more automated over time, reducing the cost and complexity of making games and likely reducing barriers to entry. And since we expect the industry to spend over $100 billion this year building and operating games, there's a significant profit opportunity for the industry to become more efficient. Automated content creation could also offer more tailored experiences and purchase options to consumers in real time, potentially boosting engagement and consumer spending. Consider, for example, a game that not only makes offers when a consumer is most likely to spend money, but also generates in-game items designed to appeal to that specific person's preferences in real time. Beyond A.I generated content, we also need to consider the impact of user generated content. Some popular titles already depend on the users to shape the game around them, and this is another core area that could be transformed by A.I.. Faster and easier to use content creation tools could make it easier for games to tap into the creativity of their users. And as we've seen with major social platforms, relying on users to create content can be a big opportunity. With all that said, these transformational opportunities create downside risk as well. Today's large game publishers rely on their scale and domain expertise to differentiate their products from competitors. But while new A.I. tools could make game development more efficient, they could also lower barriers to entry for new competitors to jump into the fray and put pressure on the incumbents. Another risk is that A.I. tools could fail to drive the hope for efficiencies and cost savings in the first place. Not all technology breakthroughs in the past have helped the industry become more profitable. In some cases, industry leaders have decided to reinvest cost savings back into their products to make sure that they deliver bigger and better games to stay ahead of the competition. With that in mind, the biggest challenge for today's industry leaders could be making sure that they find ways to differentiate their products as A.I. tools make it easier for new firms to compete. Where does all of that leave us? Although a number of A.I. tools are already being used in the game industry today, adoption is just beginning to tick up and there's a lot of room for the tools to improve. With that in mind, we think we're just on the cusp of this A.I. driven revolution, and we may have to get through a few more castles to find the princess. Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. 

Original Release on November, 2nd 2023: Generative AI could transform the nature of work and boost productivity, but companies and governments will need to invest in reskilling.----- Transcript -----Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts in the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Sustainability Research. Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, the Global Chief Economist. Stephen Byrd: And on the special episode of the podcast, we'll discuss how generative A.I. could reshape the US economy and the labor market. It's Thursday, November 2nd at 10 a.m. in New York. Stephen Byrd: If we think back to the early 90's, few could have predicted just how revolutionary the Internet would become. Creating entirely new professions and industries with a wide ranging impact on labor and global economies. And yet with generative A.I. here we are again on the cusp of a revolution. So, Seth, as our global chief economist, you've been assessing the overarching macro implications of the Gen A.I. phenomenon. And while it's still early days, I know you've been thinking about the range of impacts Gen A.I could have on the global economy. I wondered if you could walk us through the broad parameters of your thinking around macro impacts and maybe starting with the productivity and the labor market side of things? Seth Carpenter: Absolutely, Stephen. And I agree with you, the possibilities here are immense. The hardest part of all of this is trying to gauge just how big the effects might be, when they might happen and how soon anyone is going to be able to pick up on the true changes and things. But let's talk a little bit about those two components, productivity and the labor market. They are very closely connected to each other. So one of the key things about generative A.I is it could make lots of types of processes, lots of types of jobs, things that are very knowledge base intensive. You could do the same amount of work with fewer people or, and I think this is an important thing to keep in mind, you could do lots more work with the same number of people. And I think that distinction is really critical, lots of people and I'm sure you've heard this before, lots of people have a fear that generative A.I is going to come in and destroy lots of jobs and so we'll just have lots of people who are out of work. And I guess I'm at the margin a lot more optimistic than that. I really do think what we're going to end up seeing is more output with the same amount of workers, and indeed, as you alluded to before, more types of jobs than we've seen before. That doesn't exactly answer your question so let's jump into those broad parameters. If productivity goes up, what that means is we should see faster growth in the economy than we're used to seeing and I think that means things like GDP should be growing faster and that should have implications for equities. In addition, because more can get done with the same inputs, we should see some of the inflationary pressures that we're seeing now dissipate even more quickly. And what does that mean? Well, that means that at least in the short run, the central bank, the Fed in the U.S., can allow the economy to run a little bit hotter than you would have thought otherwise, because the inflationary pressures aren't there after all. Those are the two for me, the key things one, faster growth in the economy with the same amount of inputs and some lower inflationary pressures, which makes the central bank's job a little bit easier. Stephen Byrd: And Seth, as you think about specific sectors and regions of the global economy that might be most impacted by the adoption of Gen A.I., does anything stand out to you? Seth Carpenter: I mean, I really do think if we're focusing just on generative A.I, it really comes down, I think a lot to what can generative A.I do better. It's a lot of these large language models, a lot of that sort of knowledge based side of things. So the services sector of the economy seems more ripe for turnover than, say, the plain old fashion manufacturing sector. Now, I don't want to push that too far because there are clearly going to be lots of ways that people in all sectors will learn how to apply these technology. But I think the first place we see adoption is in some of the knowledge based sectors. So some of the prime candidates people like to point to are things like the legal profession where review of documents can be done much more quickly and efficiently with Gen A.I. In our industry, Stephen in the financial services industry, I have spoken with clients who are working to find ways to consume lots more information on lots of different types of firms so that as they're assessing equity market investments, they have better information, faster information and can invest in a broader set of firms than they had before. I really look to the knowledge based sectors of the economy as the first target. You know, so that Stephen is mostly how I'm thinking about it, but one of the things I love about these conversations with you is that I get to start asking questions and so here it is right back at you. I said that I thought generative A.I is not going to leave large swaths of the population unemployed, but I've heard you say that generative A.I is really going to set the stage for an unprecedented demand in reskilling workers. What kind of private sector support from corporations and what sort of public sector support from governments do you expect to see? Stephen Byrd: Yeah Seth, I mean, that point about reskilling, I think, is one of the most important elements of the work that we've been doing together. This could be the biggest reskilling initiative that we'll ever see, given how broad generative A.I really is and how many different professions generative A.I could impact. Now, when we think about the job impacts, we do see potential benefits from private public partnerships. They would be really focused on reskilling and upskilling workers and respond to the changes to the very nature of work that's going to be driven by Gen A.I. And an example of some real promising efforts in that regard was the White House industry joint efforts in this regard to think about ways to reskill the workforce. That said, there really are multiple unknowns with respect to the pace and the depth of the employment impacts from A.I. So it's very challenging to really scope out the magnitude and cadence a nd that makes joint planning for reskilling and upskilling highly challenging. Seth Carpenter: I hear what you're saying, Stephen, and it is always hard looking into the future to try to suss out what's going on but when we think about the future of work, you talked about the possibility that Gen A.I could change the nature of work. Speculate here a little bit for me. What do you think? What could be those changes in terms of the actual nature of work? Stephen Byrd: Yeah, you know, that's what's really fascinating about Gen A.I and also potentially in terms of the nature of work and the need to be flexible. You know, I think job gains and losses will heavily depend on whether skills can be really transferred, whether new skills can be picked up. For those with skills that are easy to transfer to other tasks in occupations, you know, disruptions could be short lived. To this point the tech sector recently experienced heavy layoffs, but employees were quickly absorbed by the rest of the economy because of overall tight labor market, something you've written a lot about Seth. And in fact, the number of tech layoffs was around 170,000 in the first quarter of 2023. That's a 17 fold increase over the previous year. While most of these folks did find a new job within three months of being laid off, so we do see this potential for movements, reskilling, etc., to be significant. But it certainly depends a lot on the skill set and how transferable that skill set really is. Seth Carpenter: How do you start to hire people at the beginning of this sort of revolution? And so when you think about those changes in the labor market, do you think there are going to be changes in the way people hire folks? Once Gen A.I becomes more widespread. Do you think workers end up getting hired based on the skill set that they can demonstrate on some sort of credentials? Are we going to see somehow in either diplomas or other sorts of certificates, things that are labeled A.I? Stephen Byrd: You know, I think there is going to be a big shift away from credentials and more heavily towards skills, specific skill sets. Especially skills that involve creativity and also skills involving just complex human interactions, human negotiations as well. And it's going to be critical to prioritize skills over credentials going forward as, especially as we think about reskilling and retraining a number of workers, that's going to be such a broad effort. I think the future work will require hiring managers to prioritize these skills, especially these soft skills that I think are going to be more difficult for A.I models to replace. We highlight a number of skills that really will be more challenging to automate versus those that are less challenging. And I think that essentially is a guidepost to think about where reskilling should really be focused. Seth Carpenter: Well, Stephen, I have to say I'd be able to talk with you about these sorts of things all day long, but I think we've run out of time. So let me just say, thank you for taking some time to talk to me today. Stephen Byrd: It was great speaking with you, Seth.Seth Carpenter: And thanks to the listeners for listening. If you enjoyed Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Third-quarter consumer spending was strong, but a growing gap between middle- and higher-income consumers may affect the holiday shopping season.----- Transcript -----Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver from the Morgan Stanley U.S Equity Strategy Team. Sarah Wolfe: And I'm Sarah Wolfe and the U.S Economics Team. Michelle Weaver: On this special episode of the podcast, we wanted to give you an update on the U.S. consumer and a preview of our holiday spending expectations this year. It's Tuesday, November 21st at 10 a.m. in New York. Michelle Weaver: Sarah, recent data releases and your modeling suggests that U.S. consumer spending will begin to slow more meaningfully in 2024 and 2025. And you've argued that the slowdown in consumption is driven by a cooling labor market which weighs on real disposable income and elevated rates, putting further pressure on debt service costs. Given all this, would you say that the U.S. consumer is still healthy as we approach the holiday season and the end of the year? Sarah Wolfe: You're exactly right. Consumer spending in the third quarter was very strong, and we know that there's going to be some more of that underlying momentum pulled into the fourth quarter, which includes holiday shopping season. Just last week, we got the October retail sales report, which did show a notable deceleration in consumer spending from the third quarter into the fourth quarter, but still positive retail sales. There are a few reasons, however, that, you know, we take pause at saying that the holiday shopping season is going to be very strong. The first is that there is this growing discrepancy between the health of a struggling lower middle income household versus the solid higher income household. The second is the expiration of the student loan forbearance. We know that about half of borrowers have started making payments as of October. And the third is the wallet shift away from goods and toward services that will impact the type of holiday spending. I would like to hone in on this discrepancy between the health of the lower middle income household and higher income households. We've highlighted that lower middle income households have been pulling back more in discretionary and they've been trading down as they're disproportionately being hit by tighter lending standards, higher inflation, higher debt service costs. And that's likely going to reflect the type of holiday spending that we see this year. In particular, higher income households have just more buying power, they're more willing to spend on experiences. And so we could just see that holiday shopping that's more skewed towards higher income spenders and that's more experience oriented will be the winners of this holiday shopping season. Michelle Weaver: What specific trends have you seen in U.S. consumer spending in the third quarter? And what do you expect for the final quarter of this year? Sarah Wolfe: Consumer spending in the third quarter was really strong because the labor market largely was very resilient, and as a result, we saw that there was just more momentum for goods and services spending, so both reaccelerated into the third quarter. However, what we could see is that there still is this clear preference shift on experiences over goods in particular accommodations, travel, etc. And so I think that's going to feed through into the type of holiday shopping that we see this year. Michelle Weaver: And I know that during Covid, consumers were able to save a lot more money than usual. How are these excess savings balances looking now and what do you expect going forward? Sarah Wolfe: We estimate that about 40% of the excess savings stockpile has been spent down, so there's still a pretty hefty 60% of excess savings sitting among households. However, we do not expect much more drawdown in excess savings across 2024. The reason is that our work shows that the excess savings stockpile is increasingly being held by the highest income households. They, first of all, have a lower propensity to consume out of savings, but more importantly, they had been willing to spend down their excess savings over the past two years. But that was to fuel their pent up demand for the services, economy recovery. And now that we've seen a full recovery on that side of the economy, there's really just less desire, less willingness to spend out of excess savings. Further, we're seeing that there's been an increasing movement from liquid to less liquid assets. So more and more of that savings is not just sitting in cash under the bed and so it's less likely to make its way into consumer spending. Michelle, based on your recent survey work in collaboration with U.S. Equity Analyst, what are you seeing in terms of holiday spending intentions for U.S. consumers this year compared to last year? Michelle Weaver: So the majority of holiday shoppers are planning to keep their holiday budgets roughly the same this year. And this means that retailers will be competing for a similarly sized budget pool versus last year and have to offer competitive prices to get shoppers to choose their products. As consumers seek out deals and discounts, they're also likely to stagger their purchases throughout the holiday season. Sarah Wolfe: Can we dig a little bit more into what people plan to spend their money on for the holiday season? I talked about how we're seeing this clear preference away from goods and towards services in the economic data. Is that where you're hearing in the survey data about holiday spending intentions? Michelle Weaver: Definitely, the services over goods shift that's been playing out since the end of the pandemic is likely to remain relevant this holiday shopping season. Our analysts are expecting weaker results in goods oriented industries like clothing and apparel, toys and electronics, while airlines remain the one bright spot, with consumers continuing to prioritize holiday travel. The biggest spending declines are expected to come in luxury goods, sports equipment, home and kitchen products and electronics. Sarah Wolfe: And let's talk about e-commerce. I just feel like the promotions for online sales have just gotten earlier and earlier every year. How big is e-commerce going to be for this holiday shopping season? Michelle Weaver: Overall, the share of expected holiday spending is evenly split between in-store and online platforms. Lower income consumers expect to shop slightly more in store, though, while upper income consumers have a higher share allocated to online shopping. For e-commerce more broadly, the industry has decelerated since the summer, setting up for a slower holiday. Sarah, you've been following the disinflationary cycle that's been underway, mainly driven by core goods deflation and disinflation in housing Consumer Price Index. October's CPI came in below expectations. Is this a relief for the consumer wallet and where do you expect inflation to trend from here? Sarah Wolfe: This is definitely a relief for consumers. We're seeing that as inflation continues to step down with a tight labor market, real wages are rising and this is really a silver lining for households for next year. In particular, if you look at real wages, they were -3% year-over-year across 2022. I mean, deeply negative, really stripping away consumer buying power. And then if you look at today, because of all the progress we've got in inflation without a hit to the labor market, real wages are now up.  And we're expecting that real wages will continue to rise into 2024 as inflationary pressures abate and the labor market remains resilient. Michelle Weaver: Sarah, thanks for taking the time to talk. Sarah Wolfe: It was great speaking with you, Michelle. Michelle Weaver: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today. 

The next phase in artificial intelligence could be “edge AI,” which lowers costs and improves security by embedding AI capabilities directly in smartphones and other devices.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ed Stanley, Morgan Stanley's Head of Thematic Research in Europe. And along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss Edge A.I. It's Monday, the 20th of November at 2 p.m. in London. The last year has seen a surge in adoption of artificial intelligence, particularly for foundational model builders and consumer-facing chatbots. But we think the next big wave of A.I will be embedded in consumer devices, this is smartphones, notebooks, wearables, drones and autos, amongst others. Enter Edge A.I. This means running A.I algorithms locally rather than in centralized cloud computing facilities in order to power the killer apps of the A.I age. Generative A.I., cloud computing, GPUs and hyperscalers, that is, the large cloud service providers that run computing and storage for enterprises. They all remain central to the secular machine learning trend. However, as A.I continues to permeate through all aspects of consumer life and enterprise productivity, it will push workloads to hardware devices at the edge of networks. The US data firm Gartner estimates that by 2025, half of enterprise data will be created at the Edge, across billions of battery powered devices. The key benefits of A.I computation performed at the Edge are lower cost, lower latency personalization and importantly, higher security or privacy relative to centralized cloud computing. And the prize in moving these workloads to the Edge is large, we're talking some 30 billion devices by the end of the decade, but the hurdles are also significant. We think 2024 will be a catalyst year for this theme. And the companies that could benefit range from household name hardware vendors to key components suppliers around the world. But just as there are benefits to Edge A.I, there are constraints as well. Not all Edge devices are created equal, for example. The clearest limitations across hardware media are battery life and power consumption, processing capabilities and memory, as well as form factor, i.e. how they look. For example, mass market smartphones and notebooks today don't have the battery life or processing capability to run inferencing of the largest large language models. This will have to change over time, which will require investment predominantly in advanced proprietary silicon or custom ASICs as they're known, of which we've seen a number of announcements from big tech companies in recent weeks. The hardware arms race is really heating up in our view. It's important to note, though, that generative A.I. and Edge A.I are not mutually exclusive. In fact, Generative A.I. has reinforced the already growing need for edge A.I. Our consumer and investor trend analysis suggests that the theme is already moving into its upswing phase. Moreover, a slate of new product releases as soon as Q1 2024, such as Edge A.I enabled smartphones with embedded custom silicon, should drive further investor interest in this theme over the coming 12 months. And we think smartphones stand the best chance of breaking the bottleneck soonest and they also have the largest total addressable market potential in the short and medium term. This is an uncrowded theme which we think is in pole position for 2024. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave a review on Apple Podcasts and shared Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.

Our Chief U.S. Economist previews the key economic themes of 2024, including potential rate cuts, housing affordability, job growth and more. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the market. I'm Ellen Zentner. Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today, I'll discuss our 2024 outlook for the U.S. economy. It's Friday, November 17th at 10 a.m. in New York. You may remember that back in March 2022, we called for a soft landing for the U.S. economy. And we still maintain this view, even though strains in the economy are becoming more noticeable and recession fears remain alive. And that's because the Fed's monetary policy is weighing increasingly on growth and especially next year. High rates for longer are causing a persistent drag, bringing growth sustainably below potential over our forecast horizon. We forecast that U.S. GDP growth slows from an estimated 2.5% this year on a Q4 over Q4 basis to 1.6% in 2024 and 1.4% in 2025. We also expect U.S. consumer spending to begin to slow more meaningfully in 2024 and 2025, driven by a cooling labor market which weighs on real disposable income and elevated rates, putting further pressure on debt service costs. But there are some positive indicators for the year ahead as well. We think that business investment and equipment will finally turn positive by the second half of next year following two years of decline, while the surge in nonresidential construction should move to a lower but more sustainable pace. Bank lending conditions have tightened sharply for the past year, but in public credit markets, many businesses refinanced while rates were still low. Turning to the housing market, we expect home sales to be weak in the first half of next year, but activity should pick up in the second half and further into 2025. And that's primarily because affordability will improve. We also think homebuilding activity will be stronger in the second half of next year. Home prices should see modest declines as growth in inventory offsets the increase in demand. By 2025 with lower rates existing home sales should rise more convincingly. We see job growth slowing throughout the forecast horizon, although we expect the unemployment rate to remain low because companies will still be focused on retaining headcount. And the labor force participation rate should continue to recover, with real wage growth increasing in 2024 and 2025. Now, inflation, which was at record highs last year, has been decelerating, mainly driven by core goods deflation and disinflation in housing. We expect negative monthly data releases for core goods inflation through the forecast horizon. So we continue to think that the Fed is done to here, that back in July of this year, the funds rate peaked at 5.375% for this cycle, and we think they're on hold now until June 2024, when we expect the Fed to take its first cautious step with a 25 basis point cut, followed by a 25 basis point cut one quarter later in September. In the fourth quarter of 2024, the Fed will likely begin cutting 25 basis points every meeting, eventually bringing the real rate to .4% by the fourth quarter of 2025, when core inflation, GDP growth and unemployment are near neutral. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. 

After poor performance in 2022, a traditional 60/40 equity/bond portfolio could see an annual return around 8% over the next decade.----- Transcript -----Welcome to your Thoughts on the Market. I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's Chief Cross Asset Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today, I'll discuss our long run expectations for what markets will return in 2024. It's Thursday, November 16th at 10 a.m. in New York. 2023 has seen a relentless rise in government bond yields. This has hit total multi-asset returns this year, while also lifting nominal expected returns over the long run for fixed income and stocks above historical averages. U.S. equities are expected to return about 9.6% per year for the next decade, little change from the level last year. While ten year U.S. Treasuries are projected to be at 5.8%, up quite significantly from 4.7% in 2022. But the steeper climb in nominal long run expected returns for government bonds is also eroded risk premiums, that is the investment returns assets are expected to yield over and above risk free assets. For example, the equity risk premium for U.S. stocks sits at around 3.8%, down from 4.9% just a year ago. Given soaring yields over the last three months, it's understandable why some investors may be skeptical of fixed income. Except today's higher yields are a strong reason to buy bonds because they can better cushion fixed income returns. In fact, looking across assets, fixed income stands as being particularly cheap to equities relative to history. European and Japanese equities screen cheap to most other assets on an FX-hedged basis, and Euro-denominated assets look cheap to dollar denominated assets. Furthermore, our estimated optimal allocation to agency mortgage backed securities has increased at the expense of investment grade credit over the past year, reflecting how cheap mortgages are relative to other markets. Against this backdrop, a traditional 60/40 portfolio which allocates 60% to stocks and 40% to bonds and carries a moderate level of risk, looks viable once again despite its poor performance in 2022, when both stocks and bonds suffered greatly amid record inflation and aggressive interest rate hikes. From where we sit now, the high long run expected returns across most assets mean that a traditional 60/40 equity bond dollar portfolio would see about 8% per year over the next decade. The last time it was this high was in 2013 and surely a 60/40 equity bond euro portfolio could see 7.7% per year over the next 10 years, the most elevated since 2011.While long-run expected returns have climbed higher, unfortunately for 60/40 strategies correlation has surged. We still think there's some diversification benefits/volatility reduction in a 60/40 portfolio from bonds’ low risk rather than low correlation, but the rise in bond volatility has also challenged this fear. The big question here is whether the high correlation between stocks and bonds will normalize. There's an argument that it won't, and perhaps surprisingly, it's all to do with A.I. Now, for the last three decades or so, the positive relationship between growth and inflation has been an important factor on negative correlation between stocks and bonds. Higher inflation erodes bond returns, and that's offset by higher stock returns from rising growth and vice versa. But in the case of A.I technology diffusions, we can see a boost to growth and reduction in inflation in the short run, which in turn challenges assumptions that stock and bond returns will have low to negative correlations in the future. In other words, bonds, as was the case this year, would no longer be the good diversifier they have been over the last three decades. Timing and sequencing will matter, and how A.I. may impact growth inflation correlations is only one of many factors that can move multi-asset correlation over time. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

If you're a listener to Thoughts on the Market you may be interested in another of our podcasts: What Should I Do With My Money? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------This material has been prepared for informational purposes only. It does not provide individuallytailored investment advice. It has been prepared without regard to the individual financialcircumstances and objectives of persons who receive it. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC(“Morgan Stanley”) recommends that investors independently evaluate particular investmentsand strategies, and encourages investors to seek the advice of a Financial Advisor. Theappropriateness of a particular investment or strategy will depend on an investor’s individualcircumstances and objectives.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The team here at Thoughts on the Market is so excited for our friends at Morgan Stanley Wealth Management and their What Should I Do With My Money? podcast, which was recently chosen by listeners as their favorite money and investment podcast in the 2023 Signal Awards.Whether you're a seasoned investor or just venturing into the investment world for the first time, there's never been a better time to tune in as the team at What Should I Do With My Money? gears up for a new season. In each episode, we listen in on a conversation between a guest with money questions and a financial advisor from the team at Morgan Stanley. In this excerpt, Willow and Sarah talk about buying a property versus renting.For more information visit morganstanley.com/mymoney.  

Our roundtable discussion on the future of the global economy and markets continues, as our analysts preview what is ahead for government bonds, currencies, housing and more. ----- Transcript -----Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. This is part two of our special roundtable discussion on what is ahead for the global economy and markets in 2024. It's Tuesday, November 14th at 10 a.m. in New York. Yesterday you heard from Seth Carpenter, our Global Chief Economist, and Mike Wilson, our Chief Investment Officer and the Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today, we will cover what is ahead for government bonds, corporate credit, currencies and housing. I am joined by Matt Hornbach, our Chief Macro Strategist, James Lord, the Global Head of Currency and Emerging Markets Strategy, Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Credit Research, and Jay Bacow, Co-Head of U.S. Securities Products.Vishy Tirupattur: Matt, 2023 was quite a year for long end government bond yields globally. We saw dramatic curve inversion and long end yields reaching levels we had not seen in well over a decade. We've also seen both dramatic sell offs and dramatic rallies, even just in the last few weeks. Against this background, how do you see the outlook for government bond yields in 2024? Matt Hornbach: So we're calling our 2024 outlook for government bond markets the land of confusion. And it's because bond markets were whipped around so much by central banks in 2023 and in 2022. In the end, what central banks gave in terms of accommodative monetary policy in 2020 and 2021, they more than took away in 2022 and this past year. At least when it came to interest rate related monetary policies. 2024, of course, is going to be a pretty confusing year for investors because, as you've heard, our economists do think that rates are going to be coming down, but so too will balance sheets. But for the past couple of years, both G10 and EM central banks have raised rates to levels that we haven't seen in decades. Considering the possibility that equilibrium rates have trended lower over the past few decades, central bank policy rates may be actually much more restricted today than at any point since the 1970s. But, you know, we can't say the same for central bank balance sheets, even though they've been shrinking for well over a year now. They're still larger than before the pandemic. Now, our economists forecast continued declines in the balance sheets of the Fed, the ECB, the Bank of England and the Bank of Japan. But nevertheless, in aggregate, the balance sheet sizes of these G4 central banks will remain above their pre-pandemic levels at the end of 2024 and 2025.Vishy Tirupattur: Matt, across the developed markets. Where do you see the best opportunity for investors in the government bond markets? Matt Hornbach: So Vishy we think most of the opportunities in 2024 will be in Europe given the diverging paths between eurozone countries. Germany, Austria and Portugal will benefit from supportive supply numbers, while another group, including Italy, Belgium and Ireland will likely witness a higher supply dynamic. Our call for a re widening of EGB spreads should actually last longer than we originally anticipated. Elsewhere in Europe, we're expecting the Bank of England to deliver 100 basis points of cumulative cuts by the end of 2024, and that compares to significantly less that's priced in by the market. Hence, our forecasts for gilts imply a much lower level of yields and a steeper yield curve than what you see implied in current forward rates. So the UK probably presents the best duration and curve opportunity set in 2024. Vishy Tirupattur: Thank you, Matt. James, a strong dollar driven by upside surprises to U.S. growth and higher for longer narrative that has a world during the year characterized the strong dollar view for much of the year. How do you assess 2024 to be? And what differences do you expect between developed markets and emerging market currency markets? James Lord: So we expect the recent strengthening of US dollar to continue for a while longer. This stronger for a longer view on the US dollar is driven by some familiar drivers to what we witnessed in 2023, but with a little bit of nuance. So first, growth. US growth, while slowing, is expected to outperform consensus expectations and remain near potential growth rates in the first half of 2024. This is going to contrast quite sharply with recessionary or near recessionary conditions in Europe and pretty uncompelling rates of growth in China. The second reason we see continued dollar strength is rate differentials. So when we look at our US and European rate strategy teams forecasts, they have rates moving in favor of the dollar. Final reason is defense, really. The dollar likely is going to keep outperforming other currencies around the world due to its pretty defensive characteristics in a world of continued low growth, and downside risks from very tight central bank monetary policy and geopolitical risks. The dollar not only offers liquidity and safe haven status, but also high yields, which is of course making it pretty appealing. We don't expect this early strength in US Dollar to last all year, though, as fiscal support for the US economy falls back and the impact of high rates takes over, US growth slows down and the Fed starts to cut around the middle of the year. And once it starts cutting, our U.S. econ team expects it to cut all the way back to 2.25 to 2.5% by the end of 2025. So a deep easing cycle. As that outlook gets increasingly priced into the US rates, market rate differentials start moving against the dollar to push the currency down. Vishy Tirupattur: Andrew, we are ending 2023 in a reasonably good setup for credit markets, especially at the higher quality end of the trade market. How do you expect this quality based divergence across global trade markets to play out in 2024? Andrew Sheets: That's right. We see a generally supportive environment for credit in 2024, aided by supportive fundamentals, supportive technicals and average valuations. Corporate credit, especially investment grade, is part of a constellation of high quality fixed income that we see putting up good returns next year, both outright and risk adjusted. When we talk about credit being part of this constellation of quality and looking attractive relative to other assets, it's important to appreciate the cross-asset valuations, especially relative to equities, really have moved. For most of the last 20 years the earnings yield on the S&P 500, that is the total earnings you get from the index relative to what you pay for it, has been much higher than the yield on U.S. triple B rated corporate bonds. But that's now flipped with the yield on corporate bonds now higher to one of the greatest extents we've seen outside of a crisis in 20 years. Theoretically, this higher yield on corporate bonds relative to the equity market should suggest a better relative valuation of the former. So what are we seeing now from companies? Well companies are buying back less stock and also issuing less debt than expected, exactly what you'd expect if companies saw the cost of their debt as high relative to where the equities are valued. A potential undershoot in corporate bonds supply could be met with higher bond demand. We've seen enormous year to date flows into money market funds that have absolutely dwarfed the flows into credit. But if the Fed really is done raising rates and is going to start to cut rates next year, as Morgan Stanley's economists expect, this could help push some of this money currently sitting in money market funds into bond funds, as investors look to lock in higher yields for longer. Against this backdrop, we think the credit valuations, for lack of a better word, are fine. With major markets in both the U.S. and Europe generally trading around their long term median and high yield looking a little bit expensive to investment grade within this. Valuations in Asia are the richest in our view, and that's especially true given the heightened economic uncertainty we see in the region. We think that credit curves offer an important way for investors to maximize the return of these kind of average spreads. And we like the 3 to 5 year part of the U.S. credit curve and the 5 to 10 year part of the investment grade curve in Europe the most. Vishy Tirupattur: Thanks, Andrew. Jay, 2023 was indeed a tough year for the agency in the US market, but for the US housing market it held up quite remarkably, despite the higher mortgage rates. As you look ahead to 2024, what is the outlook for US housing and the agency MBS markets and what are the key drivers of your expectations? Jay Bacow: Let's start off with the broader housing market before we get into the views for agency mortgages. Given our outlook for rates to rally next year, my co-head of securitized products research Jim Egan, who also runs US housing, thinks that we should expect affordability to improve and for sale inventory to increase. Both of these developments are constructive for housing activity, but the latter provides a potential counterbalance for home prices. Now, affordability will still be challenged, but the direction of travel matters. He expects housing activity to be stronger in the second half of '24 and for new home sales to increase more than existing home sales over the course of the full year. Home prices should see modest declines as the growth in inventory offsets the increased demand. But it's important to stress here that we believe homeowners retain strong hands in the cycle. We don't believe they will be forced sellers into materially weaker bids, and as such, we don't expect any sizable correction in prices. But we do see home prices down 3% by the end of 2024. Now, that pickup in housing activity means that issuance is going to pick up as well in the agency mortgage market modestly with an extra $50 billion versus where we think 2023 ends. We also think the Fed is going to be reducing their mortgage portfolio for the whole year, even as Q2 starts to taper in the fall, as the Fed allows their mortgage portfolio to run off unabated. And so the private market is going to have to digest about $510 billion mortgages next year, which is still a concerning amount but we think mortgages are priced for this. Vishy Tirupattur: Thanks, Jay. And thank you, Matt, James and Andrew as well. And thank you to our listeners for joining us for this 2 part roundtable discussion of our expectations for the global economy and the markets in 2024. As a reminder, if you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

As global growth takes a hit and inflation begins to cool, how does the road ahead look for central banks and investors? Chief Fixed Income Strategist Vishy Tirupattur hosts a roundtable with Chief Economist Seth Carpenter and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson to discuss.----- Transcript -----Vishy Tirupattur:  Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Today on the podcast we'll be hosting a very special roundtable discussion on what is ahead for the global economy and markets by 2024. I am joined by my colleagues, Seth Carpenter, Global Chief Economist and Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. It's Monday, November 13th at 9 a.m. in New York. Vishy Tirupattur: Thanks to both of you for taking the time to talk. We have a lot to cover, so I am going to go right into it. Seth, I want to start with the global economy. As you look ahead to 2024, how do you see the global economy evolving in terms of growth, inflation and monetary policy? Seth Carpenter: Thanks, Vishy. As we look forward over the next couple of years, there are a few key themes that we're seeing in terms of growth, inflation and monetary policy. First, looks like global growth has stepped down this year relative to last year and we're expecting another modest step down in the global economy for 2024 and into 2025. Overall, what we're seeing in the developed market economies is restrictive monetary policy in general restraining growth, whereas we have much more mixed results in the emerging market world.Inflation, though, is a clear theme around the world. Overall, we see the surge in inflation. That has been a theme in global markets for the past couple of years as having peaked and starting to come down. It's coming down primarily through consumer goods, but we do see that trend continuing over the next several years. That backdrop of inflation having peaked and coming down along with weaker growth means that we're setting ourselves up for overall a bit of an easing cycle for monetary policy. We are looking for the Fed and the ECB each to start an easing cycle in June of this year. For the Fed, it's because we see growth slowing down and inflation continuing to track down along the path that we see and that the Fed will come around to seeing. I would say the stark exception to this among developed market economies is the Bank of Japan. We have seen them already get to the de facto end of yield curve control. We think by the time we get to the January policy meeting, they will completely eliminate yield curve control formally and go from negative interest rate policy to zero interest rate policy. And then over the course of the next year or so, we think we're going to see very gradual, very tentative increases in the policy rate for Japan. So for every story, there's a little bit of a cross current going on. Vishy Tirupattur: Can you talk about some of the vulnerabilities for the global economy? What worries you most about your central case, about the global economy? Seth Carpenter: We put into the outlook a downside scenario where the current challenges in China, the risks, as we've said, of a debt deflation cycle, they really take over. What this would mean is that the policy response in beijing is insufficient to overcome the underlying dynamics there as debt is coming down, as inflation is weak and those things build on themselves. Kind of a smaller version of the lost decade of Japan. We think from there we could see some of that weakness just exported around the globe. And for us, that's one of the key downside risks to the global economy. I'd say in the opposite direction, the upside risk is maybe some of the strength that we see in the United States is just more persistent than we realize. Maybe it's the case that monetary policy really hasn't done enough. And we just heard Chair Powell talk about the possibility that if inflation doesn't come down or the economy doesn't slow enough, they could do more. And so we built in an alternate scenario to the upside where the US economy is just fundamentally stronger. Let me pass it back to you Vishy. Vishy Tirupattur: Thank you Seth. Mike, next I'd like to go to you. 2023 was a challenging year for earnings growth, but we saw significant multiple expansion. How do you expect 2024 to turn out for the global equity markets? What are the key challenges and opportunities you see for equity markets in 2024? Mike Wilson: 2023 was obviously, you know, kind of a challenging year, I think, for a lot of equity managers because of this incredible dispersion that we saw between, kind of, how economies performed around the world and how that bled into company performance. And it was very different region by region. So, you know, first off, I would say US growth, the economic level was better than expected, better than the consensus expected for sure, and even better than our economists view, which was for a soft landing. China was, on the other hand, much worse than expected. The reopening really never materialized in any meaningful way, and that bled into both EM and European growth. I would say India and Japan surprised in the upside from a growth standpoint, and Japan was by far the star market this year. The index was up a lot, but also the average stock performed extremely well, which is very different than the US. India also had pretty good performance equity wise, but in the US we had this incredible divergence between the average stock and the S&P 500 benchmark index, with the average stock underperforming by as much as 12 or 1300 basis points. That's pretty unusual. So how do we explain that and what does that mean for next year? Well, look, we think that the fiscal support is starting to fade. It's in our forecast now. In other words, economic growth is likely to soften up, not a recession yet for 2024, but growth will be deteriorating. And we think that will bleed into further earnings deterioration. So for 2024, we continue to favor Japan, where the earnings of breadth has been the best looks to us, and that's in a new secular bull market. In the US, it's really a tale of two worlds. It's companies that have cost leadership or operational efficiency, a thing we've been espousing for the last two years. Those types of companies should continue to outperform into the first half of next year. And then eventually we suspect, will be flipping pretty aggressively to companies that have poor operational efficiency because we're going to want to catch the upside leverage as the economy kind of accelerates again in the back half of 2024 or maybe into 2025. But it's too early for that in our view.Vishy Tirupattur: How do you expect the market breadth to evolve over 2024? Can you elaborate on your vision for market correction first and then recovery in the later part of 2024? Mike Wilson: Yes. In terms of the market breadth, we do ultimately think market breadth will bottom and start to turn up. But, you know, we have to resolve, kind of, the index price first. And this is why we've continued to maintain our $3900 price target for the S&P 500 for, you know, roughly year end of this year. That, of course, would argue you're not going to get a big rally in the year-end. And the reason we feel that way, it's an important observation, is that market breadth has deteriorated again very significantly over the last three months. And breadth typically leads the overall index. So until breadth bottoms out, it's very difficult for us to get bullish at the index level as well. So the way we see it playing out is over the next 3 to 6 months, we think the overall index will catch down to what the market breadth has been telling us and should lead us out of what has been, I think a pretty, you know, persistent bear market for the last two years, particularly for the average stock. And so we suspect we're going to be making some significant changes in both our sector recommendations. New themes will emerge. Some of that will be around existing themes. Perhaps AI will start to actually have a meaningful impact on overall productivity, something we see really evolving in 2025, more than 2024. But the market will start to get ahead of that. And so I think it's going to be another year to be very flexible. I'd say the best news is that although 2023 has been somewhat challenging for the average stock, it's been a great year for dispersion, meaning stock picking. And we think that's really the key theme going into 2024, stick with that high dispersion and stock picking mentality. And then, of course, there'll be an opportunity to kind of flip the factors and kind of what's working into the second half of next year. Vishy Tirupattur: Thanks, Mike. We are going to take a pause here and we'll be back tomorrow with our special year ahead roundtable, where we'll share our forecasts for government bonds, corporate credit, currencies and housing. As a reminder, if you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Investors whose corporate bond holdings have lost value in 2023 could sell before the end of the year, locking in their losses to offset gains elsewhere. Here are three reasons that they probably won’t.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Corporate Credit Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, November 10th at 2 p.m. in London. One of the questions that's come up on my recent travels is the risk from so-called tax loss selling. Bonds of many stripes have had a tough year, and the concern would be that investors would like to sell now and crystallize any losses to offset other gains. Tax loss selling has been a recent driver of single stock performance, as often happens around this time of year, as noted by my colleague Michael Wilson, Morgan Stanley CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. But for corporate bonds, we think these risks look pretty modest. There are a few reasons why. First, while corporate bonds have had a tough year, the losses aren't particularly large and indeed have gotten a lot better in recent weeks, as yields have started to rally. US investment grade bonds or the U.S. aggregate bond index is plus or minus a couple of percentage points, and we're just not sure these are big enough losses for investors to take action. In equity markets, you generally need much larger drawdowns to generate year end tax selling. Second, the investor bases are different. Equity markets tend to see much more participation in individual stocks, which creates opportunities for tax loss harvesting. Investment credit, especially among individual investors, is more commonly done through funds, where the smaller drawdowns I just mentioned would mean less incentive to take action. These different investor bases also have different motivations. We think many individual investors, whether through funds or individual securities, invest in corporate bonds for a stable long term income. We think they're simply less likely to have the sort of trading mindset of the average investor holding stocks. Meanwhile, institutions who hold corporate bonds also face constraints. While some may sell for a capital gains offset, others face a penalty for realizing such a loss and thus are more incentivized to hold these securities they believe remain ultimately creditworthy. And for long dated corporate bonds, which have the largest year to date losses, well, those are certainly enjoying some of the strongest end-buyer demand. Finally, we think any tax related selling we do see in the credit market could wash at the overall market level. Similar to equities, investors selling losers at year end don't necessarily drive down the market overall, as these funds are often recycled into other securities. And indeed, October through December, when tax loss selling usually occurs, are seasonally strong months for the equity market or the credit market. And we think a similar thing could happen in corporate bonds, where investors who do sell a corporate bond fund for a tax loss may be likely to recycle this into another part of the bond market. Total returns for corporate bonds have been tough year-to-date, but we're skeptical that these would lead to tax loss selling and another like lower. The modest scale of year-to-date losses, the nature of the investor base and the potential for any such sales to be recycled into other parts of the market are all reasons why. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.

Despite some falloff in consumer interest, anti-obesity drugs are still likely to have profound implications at both the macro and sectoral level.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ed Stanley, Morgan Stanley's Head of Thematic Research in Europe. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll give you an update on the all important obesity theme and how it's impacting a wide range of industries. It's Thursday, November the 9th at 2 p.m. in London. GLP-1s, a type of anti-obesity medicine, have been on the market since 2010, but it's taken until 2023 for this theme to really come to life. We believe that GLP-1s will clearly have profound implications over the long term, both on a macro and micro level. Obesity has far reaching implications for the global economy as it leads to lost productivity and significant health care costs. We estimate the macro impact of obesity at 3.6% of US GDP, with potentially $1.24 trillion in lost productivity indirect costs. Anti-Obesity drugs have the potential to address at least some of this economic burden and at a reasonable cost. The micro implications on businesses year-to-date have seen about a $600 billion swing in market cap. That includes, to the upside, $340 billion for the GLP-1 makers and over $260 billion lost in market value for the stocks that are potentially disrupted. For context, that compares to a total US drug market of $430 billion annually. 2023 saw an impressive surge in investor interest in anti-obesity drugs. Yet and perhaps surprising to some based on hashtag and web traffic data we track, consumer interest appears to have waned in recent weeks. We think this notable dip from the peak in activity is driven in part by supply constraints, paused geographic expansion and curtailed promotional activity. Importantly though, this fade in initial consumer excitement is occurring at the same time that company transcript mentions of obesity or GLP-1 by non-pharma companies are reaching new highs. This disconnect between sain street moderation and excitement versus Wall Street's rise in excitement, is very typical of short term hype cycle tops in equity markets, particularly given the current environment of higher interest rates. But even as the initial buzz around obesity drugs is fading back to more moderate levels in the near term, we do believe there will be wide ranging implications over the long term that are hard to deny. And our global analysts have been all over this on a sector by sector basis. First off, we believe that US alcohol beverages per capita will correct due to abnormally high consumption in recent years and longer term structural challenges such as demographic, health and wellness. For beer growing adoption of obesity medication presents an incremental risk factor to consumption, although many of these companies are already working on healthier options. Across packaged foods, patients on anti-obesity medications have been cutting back the most on foods high in sugar and fat, such as confections, baked goods, salty snacks, sugary drinks and alcohol. Companies with a weight management or better for you portfolio appear to be better positioned for here. Within US food retail, we think dollar stores which target lower end consumers with outsized exposure to high calorie foods, will be the most adversely impacted in the context of increased adoption of these drugs. Separately, insulin pump makers should be only minimally impacted, we think, by GLPs by 2027, which suggests that the share price reaction to the downside for these stocks year-to-date may be materially overdone. Obesity has a direct impact on osteoarthritis, with about twice the prevalence of arthritis in obese versus non obese patients. A much higher need for arthroplasty with higher BMIs and obese patients having higher surgical complications. GLP-1 usage could have some complex effects on these ortho stocks. We also see longer term risk for most of the US and European fast food industry. The same goes for carbonated sugary drinks and for chocolate lovers out there, the rising GLP-1 adoption could pressure chocolate consumption longer term. But the magnitude of these impacts remains uncertain, as indulgence will still remain a core consumer need even in this new GLP-1 paradigm. All in all, we remain bullish on the anti-obesity drug market, particularly given the staggering 750 million people globally living with obesity, and this continues to be a dynamic space for investors to watch closely. Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed this show, please leave a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.

The recent treasury rally signals that perhaps the U.S. fiscal trajectory isn't as challenging as bond investors had feared.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the impact of U.S. fiscal policy on markets. It's Wednesday, November 8th at 10 p.m. in New York. As Congress gets back to work on funding the government and avoiding a government shutdown, investors' attention has turned back to public finances. In particular, as bond markets sold off much of the year, a common theory posited by clients to our team was that U.S. fiscal policy was to blame. Expanding deficits meant higher supply and could also mean higher inflation, growth and ultimately a higher peak Fed funds rate. But upon closer examination, maybe the U.S. fiscal trajectory isn't as challenging as feared, and the bond market may be finally noticing. Treasuries have rallied in the past week. Which makes sense to us as our assessment is that U.S. fiscal expansion at all levels has either peaked or is near its peak. Consider that the federal deficit this year rose largely based on lower revenues driven by factors that are unlikely to repeat. For example, Fed remittances zeroed out, and there's about $85 billion of deferred collection of tax revenue due to natural disasters. Together with other factors, we think this year's nearly 1% growth in deficits as a percentage of GDP will be followed next year by a decline of about 0.2%. Further downside is possible if a spending sequester kicks in, in April. Also, consider that major deficit expansion isn't likely to be on Congress's agenda. Between now and the 2024 election, there's little reason to expect deficit expanding bills beyond the current baseline. Government control is divided, and history shows that makeup rarely does fiscal expansion unless it's responding to an economic crisis. After Election Day, Republicans and Democrats do have deficit additive policies they say they want to pursue, but the numbers are relatively modest. Republicans' plan to extend parts of prior tax cuts would add about 0.3% to deficits as a percentage of GDP in the first year, and we estimate the consensus tax and spending plans of Democrats would add about 0.1%, both manageable numbers. Also worth noting is that state and local governments seem near their peak fiscal expansion. Their recent expansion appears tied to spending of prior COVID aid, which is quickly depleting, as well as hiring, which is nearly back to pre-COVID levels. So bottom line, if you're concerned about Treasury yields resuming their upward trend, look elsewhere for a catalyst. Consumption would be the most likely culprit but at the moment, our economists are still seeing downside there in the near term. This gives us confidence that the worst of U.S. government bond returns is probably behind us for this cycle. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

AI could help video game companies boost engagement and consumer spending, but could also introduce competition by making it easier for new companies to enter the industry.----- Transcription -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matt Cost from the Morgan Stanley US Internet Team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss how A.I could change the video game industry. It's Tuesday, November 7th at 10 a.m. in New York. New A.I tools are starting to transform multiple industries, and it's hardly a surprise that the game industry could see a major impact as well. As manual tasks become more automated and the user experience becomes increasingly personalized, A.I. tools are starting to change the way that games are made and operated. Building video games involves many different disciplines, including software development, art and writing, among others. Many of these processes could become more automated over time, reducing the cost and complexity of making games and likely reducing barriers to entry. And since we expect the industry to spend over $100 billion this year building and operating games, there's a significant profit opportunity for the industry to become more efficient. Automated content creation could also offer more tailored experiences and purchase options to consumers in real time, potentially boosting engagement and consumer spending. Consider, for example, a game that not only makes offers when a consumer is most likely to spend money, but also generates in-game items designed to appeal to that specific person's preferences in real time. Beyond A.I generated content, we also need to consider the impact of user generated content. Some popular titles already depend on the users to shape the game around them, and this is another core area that could be transformed by A.I.. Faster and easier to use content creation tools could make it easier for games to tap into the creativity of their users. And as we've seen with major social platforms, relying on users to create content can be a big opportunity. With all that said, these transformational opportunities create downside risk as well. Today's large game publishers rely on their scale and domain expertise to differentiate their products from competitors. But while new A.I. tools could make game development more efficient, they could also lower barriers to entry for new competitors to jump into the fray and put pressure on the incumbents. Another risk is that A.I. tools could fail to drive the hope for efficiencies and cost savings in the first place. Not all technology breakthroughs in the past have helped the industry become more profitable. In some cases, industry leaders have decided to reinvest cost savings back into their products to make sure that they deliver bigger and better games to stay ahead of the competition. With that in mind, the biggest challenge for today's industry leaders could be making sure that they find ways to differentiate their products as A.I. tools make it easier for new firms to compete. Where does all of that leave us? Although a number of A.I. tools are already being used in the game industry today, adoption is just beginning to tick up and there's a lot of room for the tools to improve. With that in mind, we think we're just on the cusp of this A.I. driven revolution, and we may have to get through a few more castles to find the princess. Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Last week’s uptick in stock prices, driven by a pullback in bond yields and the Fed’s decision to hold rates steady, is likely to fizzle over the coming weeks.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, November 6th, at 10 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. With many stocks down more than 20% from the July highs, a dynamic punctuated by tax loss selling from institutional managers at the end of October, equity markets were primed for some kind of a bounce. However, last week's rally in equities was the largest that we've seen all year, and it was led by many of the year-to-date laggards. Furthermore, both market cap and equal weight versions of the S&P 500 index were up 5.9%, as breadth showed its first signs of life since June. In our view, this move in equities was more about the strong rally in bonds than anything else. After an historic rise this past quarter, ten year Treasury yields reached an attractive level of 5% near the end of last month. Perhaps even more attractive for investors to ignore was that real ten year yields were at 2.5%. One factor driving bond yields lower last week was the Treasury's announcement of its planned longer term securities issuance that was below expectations. We also attribute the move to the weaker than expected economic data releases last week, more specifically, manufacturing and services purchasing manager surveys fell by much more than expected. The labor market data also showed further signs of cooling. Specifically, continuing jobless claims are now up more than 35% from the cycle trough, and the unemployment rate is now up 0.5% from the lows, both of these are important thresholds in past labor cycles. Finally, revisions to prior non-farm payroll data have consistently been negative this year, while the Household Labor survey indicated we lost 348,000 jobs last month. Given the absolute level of yields in a slowing growth and inflation backdrop, bonds may finally be attracting larger asset owners and allocators. Meanwhile, earnings revision breadth remains well into negative territory, with the big growth stocks earnings results providing only modest stability to this important leading indicator. This year's earnings recession continues to play out, particularly at the stock level. This is one reason why broader indices and the average stock's performance within the S&P 500 have been so much weaker than the very concentrated market cap weighted S&P 500 index this year. From a tactical perspective, the underlying performance breadth remains weak, while several broader and equal weighted indices remain flat on the year, with elevated volatility. A challenging risk reward set up in the context of 5% plus risk free yields that are currently available in money markets and T-bills. Yet the number one question we continue to get is whether there will be a rally into year end. For equity only asset managers, that's an important question and debate, but for asset owners and allocators, the prospect of adding additional equity risk at current levels seems unattractive given these other alternatives. The bottom line, we think the strong rally in rates drove stocks higher last week. Bulls have interpreted this move as a signal the Fed is done hiking rates and is likely to cut next year without any material deterioration to the labor market or some other negative event for growth. In contrast, we believe that the rate decline was mainly a function of less than expected, longer dated bond issuance guidance from the Treasury combined with some signs that the economy is slowing from the torrid pace of the third quarter. This is in line with our economists' tepid forecast for the fourth quarter and 2024 GDP growth and supports our view that the earnings recession is not yet over. Such an outcome suggests last week's rally should fizzle out over the coming week or two as it becomes clear the growth picture does not support either Fed cuts or a significant acceleration in EPS growth in the near term. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show. 

As the majority of the stress from higher rates falls on weaker borrowers, investors should consider moving up in quality.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Corporate Credit Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, November 3rd at 2 p.m. in London. Downgrades in the loan market are moderating after a spike in 2022. That's good news overall, but still suggests an environment that will reward a higher quality bias in high yield investing. After rising throughout last year, net downgrade activity for U.S. leveraged loans, which represent corporate loans to below investment grade borrowers, have declined about 50%. The most extreme downgrades where issuers fall to a triple C rating, have moderated the most, while triple C upgrades have become more frequent, as companies have successfully refinanced upcoming debt. Fewer net downgrades, and especially less movement into this riskiest triple C cohort, is good news. And we think it's consistent with the idea that despite a near doubling of borrowing costs over the last two years, default rates will only rise to about average levels and not something higher and more alarming. But within this activity, we think there's also a message, the majority of the stress from those higher rates is falling on weaker borrowers. Investors should look to move up in quality. Why do we think this? When interest rates rise, the impact on borrowers happens gradually, rather than all at once, since borrowers are still likely to have some debt outstanding that was taken out when rates were lower. That means that today's financial metrics and ratings may still not fully reflect the impact of the unusually fast rise in borrowing costs. That still to come impact, could fall most heavily on loan issuers rated B3/B-, the last step above the lowest triple C tier. My colleagues Vishwas Patkar and Joyce Jiang of the U.S. Credit Strategy team estimate that by the end of this year, over 1/3 of these issuers could have an interest coverage ratio, which represents the ratio of your cash flow to your borrowing costs, below 1.3x, even if their earnings are flat. In a scenario where growth is even weaker this year, that share would be even higher. And despite these low single B's facing the most risk from higher borrowing costs, in our view, markets aren't charging a particularly large premium to avoid them. The extra spread that an investor gets from moving down to a B- credit from the notches above, is near the lowest of the last ten years. And our up and quality bias isn't just about playing defense, as higher rated issuers are generally seeing better ratings transition trends. Double B rated credits are posting more upgrades than downgrades and outperforming lower rated single B's or triple C's. And even higher rated triple B credits are posting an even larger volume of upgrades relative to downgrades over the last 12 months. Ratings actions are stabilizing and suggest extreme outcomes for default rates are likely to be avoided. But given fundamentals and pricing, moving up in quality still makes sense. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you. 

Generative AI could transform the nature of work and boost productivity, but companies and governments will need to invest in reskilling.----- Transcript -----Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts in the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Sustainability Research. Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, the Global Chief Economist. Stephen Byrd: And on the special episode of the podcast, we'll discuss how generative A.I. could reshape the US economy and the labor market. It's Thursday, November 2nd at 10 a.m. in New York. Stephen Byrd: If we think back to the early 90's, few could have predicted just how revolutionary the Internet would become. Creating entirely new professions and industries with a wide ranging impact on labor and global economies. And yet with generative A.I. here we are again on the cusp of a revolution. So, Seth, as our global chief economist, you've been assessing the overarching macro implications of the Gen A.I. phenomenon. And while it's still early days, I know you've been thinking about the range of impacts Gen A.I could have on the global economy. I wondered if you could walk us through the broad parameters of your thinking around macro impacts and maybe starting with the productivity and the labor market side of things? Seth Carpenter: Absolutely, Stephen. And I agree with you, the possibilities here are immense. The hardest part of all of this is trying to gauge just how big the effects might be, when they might happen and how soon anyone is going to be able to pick up on the true changes and things. But let's talk a little bit about those two components, productivity and the labor market. They are very closely connected to each other. So one of the key things about generative A.I is it could make lots of types of processes, lots of types of jobs, things that are very knowledge base intensive. You could do the same amount of work with fewer people or, and I think this is an important thing to keep in mind, you could do lots more work with the same number of people. And I think that distinction is really critical, lots of people and I'm sure you've heard this before, lots of people have a fear that generative A.I is going to come in and destroy lots of jobs and so we'll just have lots of people who are out of work. And I guess I'm at the margin a lot more optimistic than that. I really do think what we're going to end up seeing is more output with the same amount of workers, and indeed, as you alluded to before, more types of jobs than we've seen before. That doesn't exactly answer your question so let's jump into those broad parameters. If productivity goes up, what that means is we should see faster growth in the economy than we're used to seeing and I think that means things like GDP should be growing faster and that should have implications for equities. In addition, because more can get done with the same inputs, we should see some of the inflationary pressures that we're seeing now dissipate even more quickly. And what does that mean? Well, that means that at least in the short run, the central bank, the Fed in the U.S., can allow the economy to run a little bit hotter than you would have thought otherwise, because the inflationary pressures aren't there after all. Those are the two for me, the key things one, faster growth in the economy with the same amount of inputs and some lower inflationary pressures, which makes the central bank's job a little bit easier. Stephen Byrd: And Seth, as you think about specific sectors and regions of the global economy that might be most impacted by the adoption of Gen A.I., does anything stand out to you? Seth Carpenter: I mean, I really do think if we're focusing just on generative A.I, it really comes down, I think a lot to what can generative A.I do better. It's a lot of these large language models, a lot of that sort of knowledge based side of things. So the services sector of the economy seems more ripe for turnover than, say, the plain old fashion manufacturing sector. Now, I don't want to push that too far because there are clearly going to be lots of ways that people in all sectors will learn how to apply these technology. But I think the first place we see adoption is in some of the knowledge based sectors. So some of the prime candidates people like to point to are things like the legal profession where review of documents can be done much more quickly and efficiently with Gen A.I. In our industry, Stephen in the financial services industry, I have spoken with clients who are working to find ways to consume lots more information on lots of different types of firms so that as they're assessing equity market investments, they have better information, faster information and can invest in a broader set of firms than they had before. I really look to the knowledge based sectors of the economy as the first target. You know, so that Stephen is mostly how I'm thinking about it, but one of the things I love about these conversations with you is that I get to start asking questions and so here it is right back at you. I said that I thought generative A.I is not going to leave large swaths of the population unemployed, but I've heard you say that generative A.I is really going to set the stage for an unprecedented demand in reskilling workers. What kind of private sector support from corporations and what sort of public sector support from governments do you expect to see? Stephen Byrd: Yeah Seth, I mean, that point about reskilling, I think, is one of the most important elements of the work that we've been doing together. This could be the biggest reskilling initiative that we'll ever see, given how broad generative A.I really is and how many different professions generative A.I could impact. Now, when we think about the job impacts, we do see potential benefits from private public partnerships. They would be really focused on reskilling and upskilling workers and respond to the changes to the very nature of work that's going to be driven by Gen A.I. And an example of some real promising efforts in that regard was the White House industry joint efforts in this regard to think about ways to reskill the workforce. That said, there really are multiple unknowns with respect to the pace and the depth of the employment impacts from A.I. So it's very challenging to really scope out the magnitude and cadence a nd that makes joint planning for reskilling and upskilling highly challenging. Seth Carpenter: I hear what you're saying, Stephen, and it is always hard looking into the future to try to suss out what's going on but when we think about the future of work, you talked about the possibility that Gen A.I could change the nature of work. Speculate here a little bit for me. What do you think? What could be those changes in terms of the actual nature of work? Stephen Byrd: Yeah, you know, that's what's really fascinating about Gen A.I and also potentially in terms of the nature of work and the need to be flexible. You know, I think job gains and losses will heavily depend on whether skills can be really transferred, whether new skills can be picked up. For those with skills that are easy to transfer to other tasks in occupations, you know, disruptions could be short lived. To this point the tech sector recently experienced heavy layoffs, but employees were quickly absorbed by the rest of the economy because of overall tight labor market, something you've written a lot about Seth. And in fact, the number of tech layoffs was around 170,000 in the first quarter of 2023. That's a 17 fold increase over the previous year. While most of these folks did find a new job within three months of being laid off, so we do see this potential for movements, reskilling, etc., to be significant. But it certainly depends a lot on the skill set and how transferable that skill set really is. Seth Carpenter: How do you start to hire people at the beginning of this sort of revolution? And so when you think about those changes in the labor market, do you think there are going to be changes in the way people hire folks? Once Gen A.I becomes more widespread. Do you think workers end up getting hired based on the skill set that they can demonstrate on some sort of credentials? Are we going to see somehow in either diplomas or other sorts of certificates, things that are labeled A.I? Stephen Byrd: You know, I think there is going to be a big shift away from credentials and more heavily towards skills, specific skill sets. Especially skills that involve creativity and also skills involving just complex human interactions, human negotiations as well. And it's going to be critical to prioritize skills over credentials going forward as, especially as we think about reskilling and retraining a number of workers, that's going to be such a broad effort. I think the future work will require hiring managers to prioritize these skills, especially these soft skills that I think are going to be more difficult for A.I models to replace. We highlight a number of skills that really will be more challenging to automate versus those that are less challenging. And I think that essentially is a guidepost to think about where reskilling should really be focused. Seth Carpenter: Well, Stephen, I have to say I'd be able to talk with you about these sorts of things all day long, but I think we've run out of time. So let me just say, thank you for taking some time to talk to me today. Stephen Byrd: It was great speaking with you, Seth. Seth Carpenter: And thanks to the listeners for listening. If you enjoyed Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Investors are questioning whether a new U.S. Speaker in the House of Representatives will push for fresh legislation, and whether a potential government shutdown is on the horizon.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the impact to markets from Congress's agenda. It's Wednesday, November 1st at 10 a.m. in New York. Last week in D.C., following a few weeks of Republicans failing to coalesce around a nominee, the House of Representatives chose a speaker, Republican Mike Johnson. So, with a new speaker in place, does that mean investors need to rethink their expectations about legislation that could impact markets? Not exactly. At least not before the next presidential election. Here's three takeaways from us to keep in mind. First, a new speaker doesn't mean new momentum for most of the legislation that investors tell us they care about. For example, fresh regulations for social media or cryptocurrency are no closer as a result of having a new speaker. Those are issues both parties are keen to tackle but are still working out exactly how they'd like to tackle them. Second, a government shutdown still remains a possibility. Speaker Johnson has said avoiding a shutdown is a priority for him, stating he would allow a vote on another stopgap spending measure to give Congress more time to agree on longer term funding levels. But such a stopgap measure could also reflect that House Republicans haven't yet solved for their own internal disagreement on key funding measures, such as aid for Ukraine. If that's the case, then a shutdown later this year or early next year remains a possibility. And, while on its own, a brief shutdown wouldn’t meaningfully affect the economy, markets will reflect a higher probability of weaker growth on the horizon, particularly as failure to agree on longer term funding would put in play an automatic government spending cut under current law. Third and finally, military aid and funding is likely to be a source of intense debate in Congress but we still expect defense spending to rise, supporting the aerospace and defense sectors in the equity market. Two factors give us comfort here. First, the Fiscal Responsibility Act, which was the bill that was passed to raise the debt ceiling, also laid out multi-year government spending targets that include an increase in defense spending. Being already passed by Congress, we expect this is the template they'll work within. Second, while a sufficient minority of the House Republican caucus is skeptical of further aid to Ukraine, such aid enjoys broader bipartisan support across all of Congress. So we expect any spending bill that makes its way through Congress is likely to have that aid. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

With mortgage rates at their highest level in 20 years, housing affordability may deteriorate to levels not seen in decades.----- Transcript -----Jim Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, Co-Head of Securitized Products Research here at Morgan Stanley. Jay Bacow: And I'm Jay Bacow, the other Co-Head of Securitized Products Research. Jim Egan: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing U.S. home prices. It's Tuesday, October 31st at 11 a.m. in New York. Happy Halloween. Jay Bacow: Jim. Mortgage rates are close to 8%. They haven't been this high since the year 2000. Now, you've pointed out in this podcast before, home prices have been incredibly resilient. So what is this combination of mortgage rates being at the highs over the last 20 years versus resilient home prices mean for housing affordability? Jim Egan: Well, not good. Now, one of the statements that you and I have made on prior episodes of this podcast is that affordability remains incredibly challenged. But at least throughout the first half of 2023, it really wasn't getting any worse. If mortgage rates stay at these levels, we can no longer make the second half of that statement. In fact, affordability deterioration would return to the most severe that we've seen in decades, 2022 experience notwithstanding. Jay Bacow: Okay. But what does that mean for the housing market? You know, at first blush, it doesn't sound great, but we've done a lot of these podcasts, and the story that you're talking about sounds kind of similar to what we saw last year in 2022. Home sales and housing starts could fall, but home prices would remain protected as homeowners are effectively locked in to their current low mortgage rate and there's not a lot of for sellers. Jim Egan: Those dynamics certainly continue to play a role in our thinking. But in our view, with mortgage rates at these levels, that requires us to think about both the short term impacts but also the longer term impacts if we were to stay here. Jay Bacow: All right, Jim, you said shorter term first. So what do we think happens in the near future? Jim Egan: Basically, what you just described, look, the immediate reaction to the recent climb in mortgage rates has been on the supply side. Existing listings have begun falling again, as of August we can now say that we have the fewest listings on record, controlling for time of year, the housing market is very seasonal and homebuilder confidence has also retreated. Now it increased in every single month of 2023 from January through July. In the past three months, it's down over 30% from that peak, and the NAHB attributes a lot of this u-turn to higher mortgage rates. At least when it comes to home prices, we think that the impact from these renewed decreases in the supply of homes is going to have a greater impact on prices than any decrease in demand. In fact, that did cause us to move our home price forecast a couple of months ago. We were flat at the end of this year and again, we're saying short term, this is October, the end of this year is pretty close. Our bull case was plus five. We're not moving all the way to that plus five, but we're moving towards that plus five from our 0% base case. Jay Bacow: All right. So over the next few months, you're a little bit more constructive on home prices, but people own homes for many years. So longer term, what do you expect the outlook to be? Jim Egan: Well, the answer there is, you know, more predicated on how long mortgage rates stay at these levels. We do think that a higher for a longer environment requires a different outlook today than it did in late 2021 and early 2022, and there are a number of reasons for that, but I think one of the bigger ones, Jay, is kind of the distribution of outstanding mortgage rates today. What does that look like? Jay Bacow: The average outstanding mortgage rate today is roughly three and 5/8%. But if you look at the distribution of homeowners, because we spent basically all of 2020 and 2021 at really low mortgage rates and many homeowners were stuck in their house, they spent a lot of time refinancing. And so there isn't that many mortgages that have a much higher rate than that. And so if we look at, for instance, the universe of mortgages between 7% and 8%, that's less than 2% of the outstanding mortgages. Jim Egan: And this is an important point, because not that many borrowers are falling out of the money with this move, we don't think that supply is going to see the sharp, sharp drops that we experienced throughout 2022. There's also some level of transaction volumes that need to take place regardless of economic incentive. If we look at home sales versus the stock of own homes is one example here. We're already at the lows from the great financial crisis. So instead of sharp declines in home sales moving forward, we think it's more accurate to describe a higher for a longer rate environment as more preventing sales from increasing going forward. Jay Bacow: All right. So the sales outlook, I guess, feels a little better than the sharp drops that we saw last year. But what about home prices? Jim Egan: If home sales were to remain at these levels, then we become even more reliant on the supply of for sale housing, staying at historic lows, or at least the lowest levels we have on record going back over 40 years, to prevent home prices from falling. As a scenario analysis, let's just say that inventory were to grow just 5% next year. For context, inventory was growing for May of 2022 through the middle of this year. If we just get 5% growth and that comes alongside zero increase in sales because of the affordability challenge, our model says that would lead to a drop in home prices by the end of 2024, that rounds to about 5%. But Jay, that's all predicated on where mortgage rates go from here. So are we staying at these levels? Jay Bacow: The biggest driver of where mortgage rates go is where treasury rates are going to be. However, there's certainly a secondary component which has to do with the spread between where Treasury rates are and the spread where the originators can sell their mortgage exposure to investors. And that spread looks way too wide to us over the longer term. Now, you talked about short term versus long term. Short term, we're not really sure what happens to spread, longer term we do think that spreads will compress, which would bring mortgage rates lower. Jim Egan: Surely at some point these levels become attractive? Jay Bacow: Absolutely. And we think longer term, that point is now we're talking about owning a government guaranteed asset at about 6.75% yield that picks roughly 180 basis points the Treasury curve. That's not a level that things normally trade at. We think next year as the Fed cuts rates, vol comes down,  the curve steepened and mortgages would tighten under that scenario. But near-term over the next couple of months, as you're talking through the end of the year, it's hard to have much conviction and there's risks certainly to further liquidity pressures and spread widening. Jay Bacow: All right, Jim, it's always great talking to you. Jim Egan: Great talking to you, too, Jay. Jay Bacow: And thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on the Apple Podcast app and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

As we head into the end of the year, investors are again worrying about the impact that higher interest rates will have on growth.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, October 30th at 10 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 2023 has been a year of big swings for stock investors. Coming into the year, the consensus agreed that domestic growth is going to disappoint as recession risk appeared much higher than normal. The primary culprit was the record setting pace of tightening from the Federal Reserve and other central banks in 2022. In addition to this concern, earnings for the mega-cap leaders had disappointed expectations during the second half of 2022. As a result, sentiment was low and expectations about a recovery were pessimistic. Stocks had reflected some of that pessimism, even though they had rallied about 10% from the October '22 lows.The other distinguishing feature of the consensus view at the beginning of the year is that the bullish pitch was predicated on a Fed pivot and China's long awaited reopening from its lengthy pandemic lockdowns. This meant that many investors were overweight banks, industrials and commodity oriented stocks like energy and materials and longer duration bonds rather than mega-cap growth stocks. Such positioning could not have been worse for what has transpired this year. Domestic economic growth and interest rates have surprised on the upside, keeping the Fed more hawkish on its rate policy while commodity prices have been weak due to disappointing global economic growth despite China's reopening. The regional bank failures in March spurred a different kind of pivot from the Fed, as they decided to reverse a good portion of its balance sheet reduction when it bailed out the uninsured deposits of these failing institutions. That liquidity injection spurred a big rally in companies with the highest quality balance sheets. Newfound excitement then around artificial intelligence provided another reason for mega-cap growth stocks to trade so well since the March lows. This summer, that rally tried to broaden out as investors began to think artificial intelligence may save us from the margin squeeze being felt across the economy, especially smaller cap companies that don't have the scale or access to capital to thrive in such a challenging environment to grow profits. But now, even the higher quality mega-cap growth stocks are suffering. Since reporting second quarter earnings, these stocks are lower by 12% on average. Third quarter earnings were supposed to reverse these new down trends, but last week that didn't happen. Instead, most of these company stocks traded lower, even though several of them posted very strong earnings results. In our experience, this is a bearish signal for what the market thinks about the business and earnings trends going into 2024. In other words, the market is suggesting earnings expectations are too high next year, even for the best companies. Our take is that given the significant weaknesses already apparent in the average company earnings and the average household finances, we think it will be very difficult for these mega-cap companies to avoid these headwinds too, given these small companies and households are their customers. Finally, with interest rates so much higher than almost anyone predicted six months ago, the market is starting to call into question the big valuations at which these large cap winners trade. From our perspective, it appears that 2023 is coming full circle, with markets worrying again about the impact that higher interest rates will have on growth rather than just valuations. The delayed impact and reaction on the economy is normal, but once it starts, it's hard to reverse. While we were early and wrong in calling for this outcome in the spring, we think it's now upon us. For equity investors, what that really means is that this year is unlikely to see the typical fourth quarter rally. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show.

Corporate credit continues to outperform other class assets, due in part to U.S. economic growth in the third quarter.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Corporate Credit Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, October 27, at 2 p.m. in London. Credit has a reputation of being the scouts of financial markets, sniffing out and detecting danger well ahead of others. In 2000, 2007 and 2011, to name a few, credit markets started to weaken well before other asset classes in flagging danger. The Federal Reserve used credit spreads as one of their most important measures of financial stress. While we’d like to think that this is because credit investors are smarter than their peers, a more realistic answer lies in the nature of the asset class. Because credit offers a generally limited premium if things go right, relative to larger losses if things go wrong, credit investors are often incentivized to price in a rising probability of danger early. And so it's notable that amidst the current market weakness, credit is pretty well behaved, with benchmark spreads on U.S. investment grade credit roughly unchanged since October 3rd. Credit is very much a passenger, not a driver, of the proverbial financial market bus that in recent weeks has been swaying back and forth. We think credit continues to be a relative outperformer across assets, and for that to be true, two things need to continue. First, credit is very sensitive to the likelihood of a deep recession. Recent data has been good, with the U.S. economy growing a whopping 4.9% in the third quarter. While our US economists expect slower growth in the fourth quarter, we think a generally stronger than expected U.S. economic story has, and should continue to be, helpful to corporate credit. Second, credit has managed to avoid some of the bigger headaches surrounding other asset classes. Credit valuations are less expensive and closer to average than U.S. equity markets. Credit is less sensitive to volatile interest rates and enjoys a more stable base of demand than U.S. mortgages. And the outlook for future supply in corporate bonds looks lower than, say, U.S. Treasury bonds, as companies are starting to react to higher rates by borrowing less. Credit has a well-deserved history as an early warning signal for markets. But for now, we think it is better to view it as a financial markets passenger. Government bond yields and earnings are in the driver's seat and are much more likely to be important for driving overall direction. For now, we think this can suit credit just fine and continue to expect it to be a relative outperformer. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you. 

With China at risk of falling into a debt deflation loop, lessons from Japan's deflation journey could provide some insight.----- Transcript -----Daniel Blake: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Daniel Blake from the Morgan Stanley Asia and Emerging Market Equity Strategy Team. Laura Wang: And I'm Laura Wang, Chief China Equity Strategist. Daniel Blake: And on this special episode of the podcast, we'll discuss what lessons Japan's deflation journey can offer for China. It's Thursday, October 26th at 10 a.m. in Singapore and Hong Kong.  Daniel Blake: So in the period from 1991 to 2001, known as Japan's lost decade, Japan suffered through a prolonged economic stagnation and price deflation. While the corporate sector stopped deleveraging in the early 2000’s. It wasn't until the Abenomics program, introduced under Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in 2013, that Japan emerged from deflation and started the process of a gradual recovery in corporate profitability. China's economic trajectory has been very different from Japan's over the last 30 years, but we now see some parallels emerging. Indeed, the risk of falling into a Japanese style stagnation is becoming more acute over the past year as a deep cyclical downturn in the property sector combines with the structural challenge that our economists call the 3D journey of debt, demographics and deflation. So, Laura, before we dig into the comparison between China and Japan's respective journeys to set the stage, can you give us a quick snapshot of where China's equity market is right now and what you expect for the rest of the year? Laura Wang: Sure, Daniel. China market has been through a quite volatile ten months so far this year with a very exciting start given the post COVID reopening. However, the strong macro momentum didn't sustain. Property sales is still falling somewhere between 30 to 50% each month on a year over year basis. And challenges from local government debt issue and early signs of deflationary pressure suggest that turn around for corporate earnings growth could still take longer to happen. We had downgraded China within the global emerging market context at the beginning of August, mainly out of these concerns, and we think more patience is needed at this point. We would like to see more meaningful easing measures to stimulate the demand and help reflate the economy, as well as clear a road map to address some of the structural issues, particularly around the local government debt problem. In contrast to China, Japan's equity market is very strong right now, and Morgan Stanley's outlook continues to be bullish from here. So, Daniel, why is it valuable to compare Japan's deflationary journey since the 1990s and China's recent challenges? What are some of the bigger similarities? Daniel Blake: I think we'll come back to the 3D's. So on the first to them, on debt we do have China's aggregate total debt around 290% of GDP. So that compares with Japan, which was about 265% of GDP back in 1990. So this is similar in the sense that we do have this aggregate debt burden sitting and needs to be managed. Secondly, on demographics, we've got a long expected but now very evident downturn in the share of the labor force that is in working age and an outright decline in working age population in China. And this is going to be a factor for many years ahead. China's birth rate or total number of births is looking to come down to around 8 million this year, compared with 28 million in 1990. And then a third would be deflation. And so we are seeing this broaden out in China, particularly the aggregate GDP level. So in Japan's case, that deflation was mainly around asset price bubbles. In China's case, we're seeing this more broadly with excess capacity in a number of industrial sectors, including new economy sectors. And then this one 4th D which is similar in both Japan's case and China now, and that's the globalization or de-risking of supply chains, as you prefer. When we're looking at this in Japan's case, Japan did face a more hostile trade environment in the late 1980s, particularly with protectionism coming through from the US. And we've seen that play out in the multipolar world for China. So a number of similarities which we can group under 4D's here. Laura Wang: And what are some of the key differences between Japan/China? Daniel Blake: So the first key difference is we think the asset price bubble was more extreme in Japan. Secondly, in China, most of the debt is held by local governments and state owned enterprises rather than the private corporate sector. And thirdly, China is at a lower stage of development than Japan in terms of per capita incomes and the potential for underlying growth. So, Laura, when you're looking ahead, what would you like to see from Chinese policymakers here, both in the near term as well as the longer term? Laura Wang: As far as what we can observe, Chinese policymakers has already started to roll out a suite of measures on the fronts of capital markets, monetary and fiscal policy side over the past 12 months. And we do expect more to come. Particularly on the capital market reform side, there are additional efforts that we think policymakers can help enforce. In our view, those actions could include capital market restructuring, funds flow and liquidity support, as well as further efforts encouraging enhancement of shareholder returns. To be more specific, for example, introducing more benchmark indices with a focus on corporate governance and shareholder returns, further tightening and enforcing the listing rules for public companies, m ore incentives for long term institutional participation, improving capital flow management for foreign investors, and implementing incentives to encourage dividend payouts and share buybacks. Those could all work quite well. Regulatory and even legislative support to help implement these measures would be extremely crucial. Daniel Blake: And what is your outlook for China's medium to long term return on equity path from here? And what are the key catalysts you're watching for that? Laura Wang: Given some of the structure challenges we discussed earlier, we do see a much wider forked path for China's long term growth ROE trajectory. We see MSCI China's long term ROE stabilizing at around 11% in the next 5 to 7 years in our base case. This means there should still be up to around two percentage point of recovery upside from the current levels, thanks to a combination of corporate self-help, the product cycle, policy support from the top and the low base effect. However, further upside above 11% will require a significant reflationary effort from the policymakers, both short term cyclical and long term structural, in combination with a more favorable geopolitical environment. Therefore, we believe prompt and forceful actions from policymakers to stabilize the economy to avoid more permanent negative impact on corporate and consumer behaviors are absolutely needed at this point. Now, let me turn this back to you, Daniel. What is your outlook for Japan's return on equity journey from here, and are there any risks to your bullish view? Daniel Blake: So we have seen Japan looking back from 2013 to now move from below book value in terms of aggregate valuations and a return on equity of just 4%, so much lower than even your bear case. So it's moved up from that level to 9% currently and we're seeing valuations moving up accordingly. We think that's further to go and we think Japan can actually reach 12% sustainable return on equity by 2025 and that's helped by return of nominal GDP growth in Japan and further implementation of governance improvements at the corporate level. So in terms of the risks, I think they are primarily external. We do see Japan's domestic economy in a pretty good place. We think BOJ can exit yield curve control and negative rates without a major shock. So externally we are watching China's risks of moving into a debt deflation loop, as we're discussing here, but also the potential impacts if the US or a global recession were to play out. So clearly we're watching very closely the Fed's efforts and global central bank efforts to achieve a soft landing here. Daniel Blake: So, Laura, thanks for taking the time to talk. Laura Wang: Sure. It's been great speaking with you, Daniel. Daniel Blake: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

The rise in Treasury yields, among other factors, has caused significantly tighter financial conditions. If these conditions slow growth in the fourth quarter, another rate hike this year seems unlikely.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I will be talking about the implications of the continued selloff in the Treasury market. It's Wednesday, October 25th at 10 a.m. in New York. The grueling selloff in U.S. treasuries that began in the summer continues, most notably in the longer end of the yield curve. The ten year Treasury yield breached 5% on Monday, a level not seen since 2007 and an increase of about 125 basis points since the trough in July. Almost all of this move higher in the ten year yield has occurred in real yields. In our view, the Treasury market has honed its reaction to incoming data on the hawkish reaction function that the FOMC communicated in its September meeting, which was subsequently reiterated by multiple Fed speakers. Over the last several weeks, the asymmetry in the market's reaction to incoming data has been noteworthy. Upside surprises growth have brought up sharp increases in long end yields, while downside surprises inflation have met with muted rallies. To us, this means that for market participants, upside surprises to growth fuel doubts whether the pace of deceleration inflation is sustainable. In this context, it is no surprise that upside growth surprises have mattered more to long in yields than downside inflation surprises. We've indeed seen a spate of upside surprises. The 336,000 new jobs in the September employment report were nearly double the Bloomberg survey of economists. Month over month changes in retail sales at 0.7% were more than double the consensus expectation of about 0.3%, and triple if you exclude auto sales. We saw similar upside surprises in industrial production, factory orders, building permits as well. The rise in Treasury yields has further implications. The spike has contributed significantly to tighter financial conditions. As measured by Morgan Stanley Financial Conditions Index, conditions have tightened by the equivalent of about three 25 basis point hikes in the policy rate since the September FOMC meeting. As Morgan Stanley's Chief Global Economist Seth Carpenter highlighted, the implications of tighter financial conditions for growth and inflation depend critically on whether the tightening is caused by exogenous or endogenous factors. A persistent exogenous rise in rates should slow the economy, requiring the Fed to adjust the path of policy rates lower over time to offset the drag from higher rates. If instead, the higher rates on an endogenous reaction, reflecting a persistently stronger economy driven by more fiscal support, higher productivity or both, the Fed may not see the need to adjust its policy path lower. We lean towards the formal explanation, than the latter. In our view, it is unlikely that the third quarter strength in growth will persist. In fact, third quarter consumer spending benefited from large one off expenditures. Combine that with the expiration of student loan moratorium, we think will weigh heavily on real personal consumption in the fourth quarter and by extension, on economic growth. Tighter financial conditions driven by higher long end yields will only add to this drag. Therefore, we expect incoming data in the fourth quarter to show decelerating growth, which we expect will lead to a reversal of the recent yield spikes driven by term premiums moving lower. The subtle shift in the tone of Fed speak over the past two weeks suggests a similar interpretation, indicating a waning appetite for an additional hike this year in the wake of tighter financial conditions while retaining the optionality for future hikes. They think that the yield curve is doing the job of the Fed. This jibes with our view that there will be no further rate hikes this year. While our conviction on fourth quarter growth slowdown is strong, it will take time to become evident in the incoming data. Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

As the U.S. Federal Reserve keeps rates elevated, investors are selling off bonds in anticipation of new issues with higher yields, triggering a historic rout in the world's biggest bond markets.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Macro Strategy. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today, I'll discuss the ongoing U.S. Treasury bond market route. It's Tuesday, October 24th, at 10 a.m. in New York. The world's biggest bond markets are in the midst of a historic route, and an increasing number of experts are referring to this as the deepest bond bear market of all time. Simply put, it works like this. When the central bank policy rate increases, investors' expectations for yields on bonds go up. This prompts investors to sell the bonds they currently own in order to buy newly issued ones that promise higher yields. So in this higher for longer interest rate environment, investors have been selling bonds, resulting in serious declines in bond prices and simultaneous surges in bond yields. In the U.S. Treasury market, which is considered the bedrock of the global financial system, the yield on the 30 year U.S. government bond recently hit 5% for the first time since 2007. German and Japanese bond yields are also reaching significantly elevated levels. Why does the turmoil in the bond market matter so much for consumers? For one thing, the yields on local government bonds impacts how banks priced mortgages. In the U.S. Specifically, mortgage rates tend to track the yield on ten year treasuries. Government backed mortgage provider Freddie Mac recently announced that the average interest rate on the 30 year fixed rate mortgage hit 7.3% in the week ending September 28th. That's the highest level since 2000. The ripple effects from the bond market route stretch further than mortgages. For instance, higher U.S. yields also means an even stronger U.S. dollar, which puts downward pressure on other currencies. The equity markets also can't escape the impact of higher bond yields. Those higher yields compete for money that might otherwise get invested in the stock market. As yields surged in September, the S&P 500 fell about 4.5%, despite relatively positive economic data. Against this backdrop, consensus explanations for the bond market sell off have been focusing on technical drivers, like U.S. Treasury market supply and investor positioning adjustments, as well as fundamental drivers, like fiscal sustainability concerns, Bank of Japan policy changes and stronger than expected growth. What surprises us is that the Fed rarely enters the discussion, specifically its reactions to data and its subsequent forward guidance. But we do believe the Fed's involvement is one of the major drivers behind the current bond market rout. Without the Fed's more hawkish reaction to recent growth and inflation data, other technical and fundamental drivers would not have contributed as much to higher Treasury yields, in our view. As things stand, markets will need to continue to come to grips with interest rates staying high. The U.S. economy remains resilient, despite still elevated inflation. Our U.S. economist now thinks the Fed's December Federal Open Market Committee meeting is a live meeting. The September U.S. Consumer Price Index and payrolls data met our economists' bar for a potential additional hike later this year. And so these most recent data releases make the next round of monthly data even more important, as policymakers deliberate what to do in December. And these decisions by the Fed will continue to have a significant impact on the bond market. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people find the show.

As investor sentiment recovers this month in anticipation of a strong year end, it’s important to acknowledge the factors that make this year’s fundamentals different.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, October 23rd at 10 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. In our recent research, we’ve been arguing that the odds of a fourth quarter rally have fallen considerably. Our observations on narrowing breadth, cautious factor leadership, falling earnings revisions and fading consumer confidence tell a different story than the consensus view for a rally in the year end that's more centered on sentiment and seasonal tendencies. While we acknowledge that sentiment deteriorated in September, it's recovered this month on the expectation of seasonal strength in the year-end. In our view, the fundamental setup is different this year than normal, with earnings expectations likely too high for the fourth quarter and 2024. Meanwhile, both monetary and fiscal policy are unlikely to provide any relief and could tighten further. More specifically, while the Federal Reserve has not raised rates any further, it is likely far from cutting. Furthermore, the tightening the Fed has done over the past 18 months is just now starting to be felt across the economy. To that end, the stock market has taken notice with some of the more economic and interest rate sensitive sectors like autos, banks, transportation stocks, semiconductors, real estate and consumer durables significantly underperforming over the past three months. More recently, many defensive sectors and stocks have started to outperform with energy, which supports our late cycle view that the barbell of defensive growth plus late cycle cyclicals we've been recommending. In our view, this performance backdrop reflects a market that is incrementally more concerned about growth than higher interest rates. Even though the Fed has tightened monetary policy at the fastest rate in 40 years, it's confronted with sticky labor and inflation data that has prevented it from signaling a definitive end to the tightening cycle or when they will begin to ease policy. At the same time, the fiscal deficit has expanded to levels rarely seen with full employment. This is precisely why the Fed has indicated a higher for longer stance. In our view, the strength in the headline labor data masks the headwinds faced by the average company and household that the Fed can't proactively address. In addition to the performance deterioration and interest rate sensitive sectors, the breadth of the market continues to exhibit notable weakness. While some may interpret this as a bullish signal, meaning oversold conditions, we believe it's more a reflection of our longstanding view that we remain in a late cycle backdrop where earnings risk remain high. Further support for that view can be seen in earnings revision breadth, which is breaking lower again into negative territory. As another sign this negative revision breadth is an early warning for fourth quarter and 2024 earnings, stocks are trading very poorly post earnings reports whether they are good or bad. Third quarter earnings season is eliciting even weaker performance reactions than the 'sell the news' reaction during the second quarter earnings season. More specifically, the median next day price reaction is -1.6% thus far, versus -0.5% last quarter. We also note that the percentage of positive reactions is notably lower as well, at 38% versus 47% last quarter. With several of the megacap leaders reporting this week, this trend will need to reverse if the broader index is going to hold key tactical levels and rally in the year end as the consensus is now expecting. Instead, we think the S&P 500 price action into year end is more likely to mirror the average stock's performance rather than the average stock catching up to the market cap weighted index. Based on our fundamental and technical analysis, we remain comfortable with our 3900 year end price target for the S&P 500, which implies a very generous 17x multiple on our 2024 earnings per share forecast of approximately $230. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show.

Demographic changes are making women in the U.S. more powerful economic agents, driving spending and GDP.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ellen Zentner, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today, I'll take a closer look at women's role in the economy and the impact they could have over the next decade. It's Friday, October 20th, at 10 a.m. in New York. Last week, Harvard economist Claudia Goldin won the Nobel Prize for her work identifying the causes of wage and labor market inequality. Not only is her work notable for its subject matter, it is also because Claudia is the first woman to win the Nobel in economics by herself. In other words, all of the credit goes to her. Golden's body of work has included the role of contraception in helping women with family and career planning, something we studied as well. The rise of what we have dubbed the "SHEconomy" is a topic we at Morgan Stanley Research first covered in 2019 and continue to follow closely. For some context. Today, women are having fewer children and earning more bachelor's degrees than men. The median marriage age for women has increased, as has the age at which we first start bearing children. These shifting lifestyle norms are enabling more women to work full time, which should continue to increase participation in the labor force among single females. In 2019, we estimated that the number of single women in the U.S. would grow 1.2% annually through 2030, and that compares with 0.8% for the overall population. Based on these calculations, by 2030, 45% of prime working age women will be single, the largest share in history. Now, data show that women outspend the average household and are the principal shoppers and more than 70% of households. So women are very powerful economic agents. They contribute an estimated $7 trillion to U.S. GDP per year. They are the breadwinners in nearly 30% of married households and nearly 40% of total U.S. households. In the last decade, single prime working age women from 30 to 34 years old have seen the most pronounced rise in female headship rates, and that's followed by 25 to 29 year olds. Now, if we look back as far as 1985, female homeownership as a share of total homeownership has risen from 25% to 50%. And our projection suggests that with rising female labor force participation and further closing of the wage gap, female homeownership should rise as well. So the profile of the average American woman is also changing, whereas the average American woman in 2017 was white, married and in her 50's, holding a bachelor's degree and employed in education or health services. We think that by 2030 she is more likely to be younger, single and a racial minority, holding a bachelor's degree and employed in business and professional services. Indeed, over the last several years, gender diversity, the male-female wage gap and women's role in the workplace have rightly been a key media and social topic and something that we at Morgan Stanley are very passionate about. And for women, these public discussions have set the stage for equality in areas like education, professional advancement, income growth and consumer buying power. We've come a long way, but it's important to underscore that more work remains to be done. Looking ahead, women are in a position to drive the economic conversation from both the inside as a workforce propelling company performance, and the outside as consumers powering discretionary spending and GDP. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

The automotive industry’s steady transition to “software-defined vehicles” could offer new entrants advantages against established incumbents.----- Transcript -----Lee Simpson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Lee Simpson, Head of Morgan Stanley's European Technology Hardware Team. Shaqeal Kirunda: And I'm Shaqeal Kirunda, from Morgan Stanley's European Autos Team. Lee Simpson: On this special episode of the podcast, we will discuss the evolution of autos in the direction of software defined vehicles. It's Thursday, 19th October at 10 a.m. in London. Lee Simpson: Cars are in the process of transforming from electromechanical terminals to intelligent mobile devices, and we think the emergence of software defined vehicles or SDVs, is a sign we're approaching the car smartphone moment. The migration to SDVs is part of a broader transformation in autos that could even redefine the economics of the car itself. The implications for this are deep and far reaching. So Shaqeal, what is an SDV and how is it different from most cars on the road today? Shaqeal Kirunda: Thanks Lee, so most people are aware of one of the global megatrends in autos to transition to electric vehicles, was less well understood as a transition to the software defined vehicle. An SDV can be defined as any vehicle that manages its operations or adds new functionality, mainly through software. What that actually means to the consumer is a car that features an operating system which is upgradable over the air, not just for apps and infotainment of a whole software upgrades, safety improvements and new functions such as autonomous driving. So for a future SDV, the functions will be defined by the software and not the hardware. This dynamic mirrors how we use apps and software in phones today. Lee, how does this change the whole architecture of the car? Lee Simpson: Yeah, I think computing needs to change. We've seen that in other devices before and here for the car, it's transitioning really from this distributed area of lots of independent microcontrollers or simple chips in the car,ix notes towards something a little more orchestrated or a centralized compute is perhaps the best way to think of this. Now, there will not be a set path. Different OEMs and different platforms will be built along different lines, a logical path, a physical rewiring path. Some will move through domain clusters, others will move to zonal compute. But in the end, the journey will be the same. We'll move to this sort of server on wheels type of architecture, at least from the point of view of compute. And along the way will introduce new players to the automotive space, those larger chip makers who are champions in the systems on CHIP or SOC environment today. And perhaps for them they'll be attracted to this perhaps large silicon TAM that we'll see in the car. We think perhaps $15 billion of extra semiconductor building materials by the end of the decade. So with that in mind, in essence, we think the evolution towards SDVs involves a decoupling of the hardware and software in a vehicle. So, Shaqeal, where are we in this complicated process right now? And what are some of the paths to the future? Shaqeal Kirunda: Interesting question. We're certainly seeing different rates of progress. The key distinction here is between legacy players and new market entrants. New market entrants have embraced the transition to both EVs and SDVs. Through this they can offer over the air upgrades and safety features as well as new functions, creating new software based revenue streams. Legacy manufacturers have taken note of the major transition they're facing, but as incumbents have taken slightly longer to put this into action. Whereas the new market entrants started from scratch, the incumbents are redesigning manufacturing processes they've been executing on for years. They are making progress however, the first newly designed software defined vehicles are scheduled to be released between 2024 and 2026. But if we take a step back for a moment, pandemic caused a major disruption to the semiconductor supply chains that are so central to the auto industry. How will the migrations to SDVs change the use of and reliance on auto related semiconductors? Lee Simpson: Well, I think from a reliance perspective, we've already seen that in cars. There's quite a considerable reliance on those microcontrollers we've mentioned already. But if anything, this will increase. And I think you'll see that a lot of the main consideration of how a car works running through this myriad of new semiconductor chips. I think the key consideration here, however, is this is a safety critical environment and this is not something that compute is normally structured for. If you take, for instance, the cloud or even your mobile phone, the consideration here is far different. Sometimes it's about performance as in the cloud. Sometimes it's about low power or power efficiency as in your smartphone. Here the paramount feature is safety criticality. And so I think silicon here will need to have real time compute. So zero latency in its and its ability to deliver a decision maker to the decision to the driver and will also have to be secure. So I have to ensure that no new threat surface is introduced to the safety critical vehicle. So with that all in mind, what are some of the benefits of SDVs for both the auto industry and the consumer? Shaqeal Kirunda: Thanks Lee, the benefits for the auto industry are clear. Legacy OEMs face competitive threats from new entrants focused on SDVs. If legacy players don't transition towards SDVs on time, they will continue to lose global and local market share. Of course, the opportunity for OEMs is that the new software features could come with new software margins. Potential benefits for customers centered more towards new features and residual value. New features could be anything from safety improvements based on driver data to completely new apps from third party developers, downloaded straight to the car. Also with much better software comes much better data collection. This opens the door to predictive maintenance and improved reliability, which reduces repair costs and supports residual values. The question with all these benefits is whether customers will really value them. It will take a change in consumer behavior to shift from buying a car with all functions upfront to buying new functions later down the road. So clearly there are also a number of challenges on the road to adoption. Lee, what are some of the hurdles and downside risks of right now and looking towards the future? Lee Simpson: Well, I think the key thing here is software testing. This is something that, again, really leans on that safety, criticality environment of the vehicle. So before you can introduce software into a car, probably needs to be certified as safe for this environment. Now, that's a non-trivial task to overcome. Creating a certification process needs a Cross-Industry  agreement and needs someone to drive this through, and probably someone also to drive some standards that will impact in the hardware space equally as well. This will all have to be done with commercial considerations as well, so you'll have to ensure that this is consistently delivered so that the user experiences is the same car after car. This will ensure that the OEMs can deliver on their specs and the SDVs themself will start to grow as a possible value proposition for them. So finally, Shaqeal, what are some of the key milestones that investors should watch for in the migration to SDVs? Shaqeal Kirunda: Absolutely. Over the next few years, we'll start to see legacy players release their own version of newly updated, fully software defined vehicles. We're still at the early stages and it may take some time, but I expect we'll see further partnerships with start up automotive software players as legacy manufacturers recognize they are the best app developers. OEMs may also open their app stores to third party developers and invite them to create new applications for consumers. We've seen this with everything from smartphones to blockchain, and this could also be important for SDVs. Now, once things really take off, OEMs are sharing data and software based revenues. The key focus here will be the split between embedded and standalone revenues, i.e. those software features sold at the point of sale versus those sold during the life of the car. Lee Simpson: Thank you, Shaqeal. Thanks for taking the time to talk to me today. Shaqeal Kirunda: Great speaking with you Lee. Lee Simpson: And thanks for listening, everyone. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

In the continuing transition to a multipolar world, geopolitical uncertainty is on the rise and new government policies could rewire global commerce.----- Transcript -----Welcome the Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the impact of recent geopolitical tensions. It's Wednesday at 8 a.m. in New York. As tragedy continues to unfold in the Middle East, we continue, along with our clients, to care greatly about these events. And there's been no shortage of prognostication in the media about if the conflict escalates, how other countries might get involved, and what the effects would be on the global economy and markets. Not surprisingly, this has been the most common topic of discussion for me with clients this week. And as a strategist, who's practice relies on unraveling geopolitical complexities, what I can say with confidence is this: there's no obvious path from here, and so we need to be humble and flexible in our thinking. While that might not be the clear guidance you're hoping for, let me suggest that accepting this uncertainty can itself be clarifying. As we've discussed many times in our work on the transition to a multipolar world, geopolitical uncertainty has been on the rise for some time. Governments are implementing policies that support economic and political security and in the process, rewiring global commerce to avoid empowering geopolitical rivals. The situation is obviously complicated, but here's a couple conclusions we feel confident in today. First, security spending is rising as an investment theme. We believe that U.S. and EU companies will spend up to one and a half trillion dollars to de-risk supply chains. Critical infrastructure stocks could be at the center of this. Additionally, oil prices may rise, but investors should resist the assumption that this alone would lead rates higher. An oil supply shock from security disruptions in the region could be possible after several more steps of escalation. But as our economists have noted, higher oil prices, while they clearly mean higher gasoline prices, the effects may be more muted and temporary across goods and services broadly. In prior oil supply shocks, a 10% jump in price on average added 0.35% to headline U.S. CPI for three months, but just 0.03% to core CPI. Further, higher gasoline prices can meaningfully crimp lower income consumers behavior, weakening demand in the economy and mitigating overall inflationary pressures. Then one shouldn't assume higher oil prices translate to a more hawkish central bank posture. So the situation overall is obviously evolving and complex. We'll keep tracking it and keep you informed. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

The asset management and wealth management sectors could see AI boost efficiency in the short term and drive alpha in the medium to long term.----- Transcript -----Mike Cyprys: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Cyprys, Morgan Stanley's Head of U.S. Brokers, Asset Managers and Exchanges Team. Bruce Hamilton: And I'm Bruce Hamilton, Head of European Asset Management and Diversified Financials Research. Mike Cyprys: And on this special episode of the podcast, we'll talk about what the Generative A.I Revolution might mean for asset and wealth managers. It's Tuesday, October 17th at 10 a.m. in New York. Bruce Hamilton: And 3 p.m. in London. Mike Cyprys: My colleagues and I believe that Generative A.I is a revolution rather than simply an evolution and one that is well underway. We think Gen A.I, which differs from traditional A.I in that it uses data to create new content, will fundamentally transform how we live and work. This is certainly the case for asset and wealth management, where leading firms have already started deploying it and extracting tangible benefits from Gen A.I across an array of use cases. Bruce, what has been the initial focus among firms that have successfully deployed Gen A.I so far? And, something that has been top of mind for most of us, is Gen A.I replacing human resources? Bruce Hamilton: So Mike, clearly it's early days, but from our conversations with more than 20 firms managing over $20 trillion in assets, it seems clear that the immediate opportunities are mainly around efficiency gains rather than top-line improvements. However over time, as these evolve, we expect that this can drive opportunity for top-line also. All firms we spoke with see the importance of humans in the loop given risks, so A.I as copilot and freeing up resource for more value added activities rather than replacing humans. Mike Cyprys: What are some of the top most priorities for firms already implementing Gen A.I? And in broad terms, how are they thinking about integrating Gen A.I within their business models? Bruce Hamilton: So opportunities are seen across the value chain in sales and client service, product development, investment in research and middle and back office. Initial efficiency use cases would include drafting customized pitch or RFP reports and sales, synthesis of research and extraction of data in research, and coding in I.T.. Now Mike, specifically within the asset management space, there are two primary ways Gen A.I is disrupting. One is through efficiencies and two revenue opportunities. Can you speak to the latter? How would Gen A.I change or improve asset management? And do you believe it will truly transform the industry? Mike Cyprys: Absolutely. I think it can transform the industry because what's going to change how we live, how we work, and that will have implications across business models and the competitive landscape. I believe we're now at a A.I tipping point, just in terms of its ability to be deployed on a widespread basis across asset managers. The initial focus is overwhelmingly on driving efficiency gains and at the moment there's skepticism if Gen A.I can drive product alpha, but it should help with some of the maintenance tax around collecting and summarizing information and cleaning data. This should help release PM's of time to focus more on higher value idea generation and testing their ideas, which should help performance generation. I don't think it hurts. All in, we think this could result in up to 30% productivity gains across the investment functions. Bruce Hamilton: We've talked about how Gen A.I affects asset management. Do you think it can transform how financial advisers do their job and what kind of productivity gains are you expecting to see? Mike Cyprys: Financial advisors stand to benefit the most from Gen A.I because it should help liberate advisors time spent on routine or administrative tasks and allow them to focus more of their time on building deeper connections with clients and allowing them to service more clients with the same resources. And so that's how you get the revenue opportunity, by serving more clients and more assets. It's more of a copilot or tool that enhances human capabilities as opposed to replacing the human advisor. So on the wealth side, we do see more of a revenue opportunity for Gen A.I than we do on the asset management side in the near-to-medium-term. Use cases include collecting client information and interactive ways and summarizing those insights as well as proposing the next best actions and drafting engagement plans and talking points. All in, Gen A.I should help drive productivity improvements between 30 to 40% in the wealth sleeve. Bruce Hamilton: So Mike, what's your outlook for the next 3 to 5 years when it comes to the impact of Gen A.I on asset management? Mike Cyprys: It's really an expense efficiency play in the near to medium term for asset managers. But as you look out over the next 3-to-5 years, we could see a situation where A.I is embedded in a broader range of activities, from product development to portfolio management and trading areas, including trade optimization strategies, as well as brainstorming new product ideas tailored to client needs. Now in terms of assessing firms that are best placed, our qualitative assessment considers four main areas. First, there's firm scale and resources to allocate to both profitability and balance sheet capacity. Secondly, we consider a firm's in-house data and technology resources to drive change. Thirdly, are firms’ access to proprietary datasets where it can leverage A.I capabilities. And finally, there's the strategic priority assigned to A.I. by management. Bruce Hamilton: But Mike, what are some of the risks and limitations of A.I technology when it comes to wealth management and specifically to financial advisors rather than to back office functions? Mike Cyprys: We see the risks falling into two categories. There's technological risks on one side that includes hallucinations that can result in poor decisions, as well as inability to trace underlying logic and the threat of cyber attack and fraud. Then on the other side, there's usage risks, which include data privacy, improperly trained models, as well as copyright concerns. We're seeing firms respond to these challenges by maintaining a ‘human in the loop’ approach to A.I. adoption. That is a human is involved in the decision making process such that A.I operates with human oversight and intervention. Mike Cyprys: Bruce, thanks so much for taking the time to talk. Bruce Hamilton: Great speaking with you, Mike. Mike Cyprys: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or calling today.

The recent rise in long term yields and economic tightening raises the question of how restrictive U.S. financial conditions have become.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Chief Global Economist, and along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives. Today, I'll be talking about the tightening of financial conditions. It's Monday, October 16th at 10 a.m. in New York. The net selloff in U.S. interest rates since May prompts the question of how restrictive financial conditions have become in the United States. Federal Reserve leaders highlighted the tightening in conditions in recent speeches, with emphasis on the recent rise in long term yields. One lens on this issue is the Financial Conditions index, and the Morgan Stanley version suggests that the recent rate move is the equivalent of just under two Fed hikes since the September FOMC meeting. Taken at face value, it sustained these tight conditions will restrain economic activity over time. Put differently, the market is doing additional tightening for the Fed. Before the rally in rates this week, the Morgan Stanley Financial Conditions Index reached the highest level since November 2022, and the move was the equivalent of more than 2 25 basis point hikes since the September FOMC meeting. Of course, the mapping to Fed funds equivalence is just one approximation among many. When Fed staff tried to map QE effects into Fed funds equivalence, they would have assessed the 50 basis point move in term premiums we have seen as a 200 basis point move in hiking the Fed funds rate. What does the FCI mean for inflation and growth? Well, Morgan Stanley forecasts have been fairly accurate on the inflation trend throughout 2023, although we have underestimated growth. We think that core PCE inflation gets below 3% by the first quarter of next year. For growth, the key question is whether the sell off is exogenous, that is if it's unrelated to the fundamentals of the economy and whether it persists. A persistent exogenous rise in rates should slow the economy, and over time the Fed would need to adjust the path of policy lower in order to offset that drag. The more drag that comes from markets, the less drag the Fed would do with policy. But if instead the sell off is endogenous, that is, the higher rates reflect just a fundamentally stronger economy, either because of more fiscal policy or higher productivity growth or both, the growth need not slow at all and rates can stay high forever. Well, what does the FCI mean then, for the Fed? Bond yields have contributed about 2/3's of the rise in the Financial conditions index, and the Fed seems to have taken note. In a panel moderated by our own Ellen Zentner last Monday, Vice Chair Jefferson was a key voice suggesting that the rate move could forestall another hike. The Fed, however, must confront the same two questions. Is the tightening endogenous or exogenous, and will it persist? If rates continued their rally over the next several weeks and offset the tightening, then there's no material effect. But the second question of exogeneity is also critical. If the selloff was exogenous, then the tightening should hurt growth and the Fed will have to adjust policy in response. If instead the higher rates are an endogenous reaction, then there may be more underlying strength in the economy than our models imply and the shift higher in rates could be permanent. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave a review on Apple Podcasts or share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. 

On the heels of a midsummer spike, long-end treasury yields have picked up further momentum, which has created complex implications for the Fed, the corporate credit market, and emerging market bonds.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about our views on the back of moves higher in Treasury yields. It's Friday, October 13th at 3 pm. in New York. The midsummer move higher in long-end treasury yields picked up further momentum in September, spiking to levels last seen over 15 years ago. Market narratives explaining these moves have revolved largely around upside surprises to growth and concerns about large federal fiscal deficits. The September employment report was unequivocally strong, perhaps too strong for policymakers to relax their tightening bias. While inflation has been decelerating faster than the Fed forecasts, continued strength in job gains could fuel doubts about the sustainability of the pace of deceleration. On the other hand, the rise in long-end yields have led financial conditions tighter. By our economists’ measure, since the September FOMC meeting, financial conditions have tightened to the equivalent of about two 25 basis point hikes, bringing the degree of tightness more in line with the Fed's intent. Thus, our economists see no need for further hikes in the Fed's policy rates this year. In effect, the move higher in Treasury yields is doing the job of additional hikes. It's worth highlighting that there has been a subtle shift in the tone of Fed speak in the past two weeks, indicating that the appetite for additional hike this year is waning. Given the moves in Treasury yields, we felt the need to reassess our Treasury yield forecasts and move them higher relative to our previous forecasts. Our interest rate strategists now expect ten-year Treasury yields to end year 2023 at 4.3% and mid-2024 at 3.9%. The effects of higher treasury yields are different in the corporate credit market. Unlike the Treasury market, the concentration of yield buyers in investment grade corporate credit bonds is much higher, especially at the back end of the curve. These yield buyers offer an important counterbalance. In fact, for longer duration buyers, there are not that many competing alternatives to IG corporate credit. While spreads look low relative to Treasury yields, growth optimism is likely to keep demand skewed towards credit over government bonds. Insurance companies and pension funds may have room to add corporate credit exposure, although stability in yields is certainly important. Higher treasury yields have implications to other markets as well, notably on emerging market bonds. Considering the move in U.S. Treasury yields, we think EM credit bonds cannot absorb any further move higher. In a higher for longer scenario, we expect EM high yield bonds to struggle. Therefore, we no longer think that EM high-yield credit will outperform EM investment grade credit. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Although inflation is largely under control in Asian economies, central banks could be pushed to respond if high U.S. yields meet rising oil prices.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today, I'll discuss how higher U.S. rates environment could affect Asia. It's Thursday, October 12th, at 9 a.m. in Hong Kong. Real rates in the U.S. have risen rapidly since mid-May and remain at elevated levels. Against this backdrop, investors are asking if Asian central banks will have to restart their rate hiking cycles. We think Asia should be less affected this time around, mainly because of the difference in inflation dynamics. As we've highlighted before on this show when compared to the U.S., Asia's inflation challenge is not as intense. In fact, for 80% of the economies in the region inflation is already back in the respective central bank's comfort zone. Real policy rates are already high and so against this backdrop, we believe central banks will not have to hike. However, we do think that the central banks will delay cutting rates. Previously, we had expected that the first rate cut in the region could come in the fourth quarter of 2023, but now we believe that cuts will be delayed and only start in first quarter of 2024. So what can trigger renewed rate hikes across Asia? We think that central banks will respond if high U.S. yields are accompanied by Brent crude oil prices rising in a sustained manner, above $110 per barrels versus $85 today. Under this scenario, the region's macro stability indicators of inflation and current account balances could become stretched and currencies may face further weakness. In thinking about which central banks might face more pressures to hike, we consider three key factors, economies with lower yields at the starting point, economies running a current account deficit or just about a mile surplus and the oil trade deficit. This suggests that economies like India, Korea, Philippines and Thailand, may be more exposed and so this means that the central banks in these countries may be prompted to begin raising rates. In contrast, the economies of China and Taiwan are less exposed, and so their central banks would be able to stay put.  Thanks for listening, and if you enjoy  the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. 

With Congress still without a Speaker of the House, investors should keep an eye on the impact that another potential government shutdown would have on the markets.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the impact of Congress on financial markets. It's Wednesday, October 11th, at 10 a.m. in New York. As of this recording, the U.S. House of Representatives still does not have a speaker following Representative McCarthy's ouster a little over a week ago. Republicans are scheduled to meet today to attempt to nominate the speaker, but until one is chosen, it's unclear that Congress can do any other business. But does that actually matter for investors? Here's two signals from these events that we think are important. First, it signals that Congress is unlikely to deliver any substantial legislation between now and the 2024 election outside of funding bills. Republicans' difficulty choosing a speaker reflects their lack of consensus on many policy issues, including regulation, social spending and more. That further impedes the government's ability to legislate, which was already hampered by different parties controlling the White House and Congress. So for investors who have credited the rise in bond yields and stock prices to expanded fiscal support from the federal government in recent years, you shouldn't expect there to be more on the horizon. The exception to this could be an economic crisis that prompts a fiscal response. But for investors, that means you'd likely see bonds rally and stocks sell off before fiscal support would again become a stock market positive. The second signal, which also cuts against the narrative of government policy support for markets, is that a government shutdown is still a distinct possibility. Congress recently avoided the government shutdown at the beginning of the month by passing a temporary extension of funding into November. But that move only delayed the resolution of key policy disagreements within the House Republican caucus that nearly led to the shutdown in the first place. With the clock ticking toward another shutdown deadline, Republicans are spending precious time selecting a new speaker, and it's not clear they're any closer to resolving their disagreements on key issues such as funding aid to Ukraine. Without that resolution, the risk remains that the House could fail to consider funding bills in time to avoid another shutdown. Now, to put it in context, our economists expect that downward growth pressures from a shutdown event should be modest, and so there are more meaningful factors to consider for markets out there, but certainly this condition doesn't help investors' confidence in the U.S. growth trajectory. And generally speaking, a Congress stunted in its ability to legislate has the potential to become a bigger challenge, particularly if geopolitical events create greater global growth risks. So bottom line, this situation is worth keeping tabs on, but isn't yet something we think should principally drive investors decision making. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

As companies integrate generative AI into enterprise software, a wide variety of jobs that depend on requesting or distributing data could be automated.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Keith Weiss, Head of Morgan Stanley's U.S. Software Team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss the significant potential impact from generative A.I on enterprises. It's Tuesday, October 10th, at 10 a.m. in New York. You may remember the generative A.I powered chat app that reached 1 million users in only five days after its launch late last year. While much of the early discussion on the use of generative A.I focused on the consumer opportunity, we see perhaps an even bigger opportunity in enterprise software. The advantages from traditional A.I to generative A.I are rapidly broadening the scope of the types of work and business processes that enterprise software can automate, and this could ultimately have an impact on industries across the entire economy. Of course, one of the biggest questions everyone seems to have is how will generative A.I impact jobs? We forecast 25% of labor could be impacted by generative A.I capabilities available today, likely rising to 44% of labor in three years. Further, by looking at the wages associated with those jobs, our analysis suggests generative and A.I technologies can impact the $2.1 trillion of labor costs attached to those jobs today, expanding to $4.1 trillion in three years in the U.S. alone. This drives an approximately $150 billion revenue opportunity for software companies in our view. An important caveat here, we believe it's too early to make any definitive claims on the number of jobs that will be replaced by generative A.I. So we used the term impact to denote the potential for either an augmentation or further automation of these jobs on a go forward basis. So what are the jobs we think are most likely to be impacted? Based on the current capabilities of generative A.I technologies like large language models, we believe the common characteristics are skills amongst the jobs most impacted are the need to retrieve or distribute information. For example, billing clerks, proofreaders, switchboard operators, general office workers and brokerage clerks. On the other side of the equation, jobs that are least impacted today are those that require some aspect of physical labor, including ophthalmologists, extraction workers, choreographers, firefighters and manufactured building and mobile home installers. Over the next three years, as this more generalized A.I. technology focuses in on more specific use cases, we believe the impact of generative A.I will shift into more specialized jobs, such as general and operations managers, as well as registered nurses, software developers, accountants and auditors, and customer service reps. Of these, the General and Operations Manager jobs could experience the highest potential cumulative wage impact. In fact, our analysis suggests a $83 billion impact amongst general and operations managers today. The magnitude of the enterprise impact marks only one side of the equation, as the timing of the realizable opportunity becomes increasingly important for investors to navigate this evolving technology cycle. To be clear, the rapid adoption of these consumer technologies are not going to be indicative of the pace of adoption we're likely to see amongst the enterprise. There are several notable frictions to enterprise adoption related to items such as finding a good return on investment, enabling good data protection, the skill sets necessary to run and operate these new technologies and legal and regulatory considerations, all which necessitate significantly longer adoption cycles for the enterprise. For this reason, we think generative A.I remains in the early stages of the opportunity. Thank you for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

While U.S. consumer sentiment is on the decline, there are some categories that have remained stable as purse strings tighten.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver from the Morgan Stanley U.S. Equity Strategy Team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll give you an update on the U.S. consumer. It's Monday, October 9th at 10 a.m. in New York. As we get into the fall season and close out the third quarter of this year, investors are paying attention to the state of the U.S. consumer. Our recent survey work reveals that inflation continues to be a primary concern for consumers and that the U.S. political environment is the second most significant concern. Furthermore, consumers continue to worry about their payment obligations, and 30% of people we surveyed expressed concern over their potential inability to repay debts. Low income consumers are generally more worried about their inability to pay rent, while upper income consumers are concerned about their investments, U.S. politics and geopolitics. Overall, consumer confidence in the U.S. economy and household finances worsened modestly in September. More than half of U.S. consumers are expecting the economy to get worse in the next six months, while less than a quarter of consumers are expecting the economy to get better. This worsening sentiment is also consistent across different income cohorts. Additionally, savings rates continue to trend lower versus earlier this year. Consumers report having an average savings reserve of 4.2 months, the average over the past few months has been trending lower compared to earlier in the year. Of course, savings reserves vary significantly by income though, with upper income consumers having on average around 6 to 7 months worth of expenses in savings compared to about 3 months for low income cohorts. Positively fewer consumers reported missing or being late on a loan or bill payment, with 34% missing a payment last month versus 38% in August. Low income consumers are more likely to have missed or been late on payments versus middle and high income consumers. Consumer spending intentions across income cohorts for the next month are similar to last month, with 31% of consumers expecting to spend more next month and 19% expecting to spend less. Consumers continue to prioritize essential categories like groceries and household items, but plan to spend less on more discretionary products like electronics, leisure and entertainment, small appliances and food away from home. Interesting to note, cell phone bills continue to be a clear priority for consumers. Travel intentions have also remained relatively stable. Over half of consumers are planning to travel over the next six months, mostly to visit friends and family, which is slightly up from last year. Not surprisingly, travel spending is higher for high income consumers than for low and middle income ones. However, we have seen plans for international travel start to decline. Thank you for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

As bond yields continue to rise, credit has been more of a passenger than the driver of recent market volatility.-----Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts in the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Morgan Stanley's Head of Corporate Credit Research. Serena Tang: And I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's Chief Global Cross-Asset Strategist. Andrew Sheets: And on the special episode of the podcast, we'll discuss Morgan Stanley's updated cross-asset and corporate credit views. It's Friday, October 6th at 3 p.m. in London. Serena Tang: And 10 a.m. in New York. Andrew Sheets: Before we get into our discussion, let me introduce Serena Tang as Morgan Stanley's new Global Cross-Asset Strategist. Serena has been working with me for the last 15 years and together we initiated our cross-asset effort nearly a decade ago. Serena was responsible for building the team's investment framework, specializing in multi asset allocation, portfolio optimization, and long run capital market assumptions. So I can confidently say that Morgan Stanley's cross-asset effort is in very capable hands. As for me, I'm now Morgan Stanley's Head of Corporate Credit Research, but I'll continue to host my colleagues as we look forward to bringing you key debates from across asset classes and regions. So, Serena, welcome and let's jump right into what's going on in markets. Over the last several weeks, as everybody in the U.S. has returned from summer, the debate among Morgan Stanley's economists and strategists is centered on two main issues, the outperformance of the U.S. economy and the underperformance of China's economy, as well as the spike of government bond yields, especially at the longer end of the curve. So where has this left our views across asset classes? Serena Tang: Yeah, yields and real yields have indeed moved a lot higher in a very short amount of time, you know, on that narrative that rates will stay higher for longer. And I would say that, you know, while the market has been going against our current call for government bond yields to fall over the next 6 to 9 months or so, we’re steadfast on our preference for high quality fixed income over risk assets like global equities, like high yield corporate bonds. And the reason really comes down to how higher real yields mean the discount rate for equities is also higher, leading to lower stock prices. And we've kind of seen this over the past few weeks or so. I think this is especially true in today's environment where the rise in yields and the rise in real yields isn't really driven by a rise in growth expectations, which you know traditionally have been great for equities thinking about future growth. But rather today's move in yields is really much a function of what the markets think the Fed would do over the coming few months. And all this largely explains the nearly 9% selloff we've seen in global equities since the start of August. But Andrew, you know, such dynamics must also be very similar in the credit world. In your view, how do rising government bond yields affect your outlook for global credit? Andrew Sheets: So I think credit finds itself in a pretty interesting place as bond yields have risen. You know, I would safely say that I think credit as a passenger in recent market volatility, it's not the driver. And, you know, if I think very simply about why bond yields have been selling off and there are a lot of different theories of why that's been happening, maybe a simple explanation would be that bond yields offer pretty poor so-called carry, a government bond, a ten year government bond yields less than just holding cash. They offer poor momentum, they're moving in the wrong direction and they have difficult technicals, i.e., there's a lot of supply of government bonds forecast over the coming years. And across a lot of those metrics, I do think credit looks somewhat better. Credit yields are higher, that carry is better. Credit compensates you more for taking on a longer maturity corporate bond, which is the opposite of what you see in the government bond market. And as yields have risen, companies have looked at those higher yields and done, I think, a very understandable thing, they are borrowing less money because it's more expensive to borrow that money. So we've seen less supply of corporate bonds into the market, which means there's less supply that needs to be absorbed and bought by investors. So credit can't ignore what's going on in this environment and we're broadly forecasting this to be worse for weaker companies, as the effect of potentially slower growth and higher rates we think will weigh more heavily on the more levered type of capital structure. But overall, I think within this kind of challenging environment, I think credit has been an outperformer and I think it can remain an outperformer given it has some advantages on these key metrics. Serena Tang: So you touched on lower quality companies. One of the very interesting forecasts from your team is that we still think default rates can go higher over the next 12 months. Now, how do I square this with everything that you just said, but also our U.S. economics team’s continued forecast for a soft landing? Andrew Sheets: It's a great question. I'd say our default forecast, which is that US default rates rise to a little bit under 5% over the next 12 months, is quite divisive. I’d say there's a group of investors who say, well, it doesn't make a lot of sense that default rates would rise given that our base case does call for a soft landing of the US economy, no recession. And another group that says, well, that seems like too low of a default rate because interest rates have just risen at one of the fastest paces we've seen in 150 years. Of course, that's going to put stress on weaker companies. And I guess we see the markets splitting the difference a little bit between that. I think the fact that you are seeing a clearly outperforming US economy, I think that does really reduce the risk of an above average default rate. It would be very unusual to see an above average default rate with anything like what we're forecasting in our base case economically. And then at the same time, you do have, thanks to the low rates we're coming from, an unusually large share of borrowers who borrowed a lot relative to the amount of income that they generate because they could do that at lower interest rates, and now that's going to be a struggle at higher interest rates. So I think the combination of those two factors gets you something that's in the middle. I think you do have a more robust than expected US economy, but you do have this tail of more heavily indebted issuers that is just, I think, going to struggle with the math of how do you pay for that debt when the interest rate is effectively doubled from where it was just 18 months ago? Serena Tang: And you described just now our credit being in the middle, so to speak. And, you know, being in the middle is much better than what we're projecting for equity returns, and hence one of the reasons we like high quality credit and we like high quality bonds. But then my question to you is, what might the market be missing right now? But also importantly, what do you think we might be wrong? Andrew Sheets: So I think there are a couple of important things to follow. I think there has been over the last several years an advent of alternative forms of capital, some of this is kind of rolled up into the general classification of private credit. But, you know, there have been a lot of new entrants, new investors who are willing to lend to companies under nontraditional terms. And I think it's a big open question around, does that presence of additional investors actually make defaults a lot less likely because there's a new outlet for companies that need to raise funds from this new investor pool, or does that pool not have that effect? And if anything, maybe it is a source of some additional risk. It's a group of lending that's hard to observe by design, by its nature. I think another important thing to watch will be what do companies do? Part of our thinking on the research side is that companies will view current yields as expensive and they will react like any actor would act. When it's more expensive to borrow, they will borrow less. They will try to improve their balance sheet and maybe in the process they'll buy back less stock or do other types of things. That might be wrong. You know, we might see a different reaction from companies. Companies might view that debt cost as different. Maybe they view it as more reasonable than we think they will. So at the moment, we're thinking that companies will view that debt is expensive and respond accordingly and do more bondholder friendly things, so to speak. But we'll have to see. And we could be wrong about how corporate treasurers and management are thinking about those trade offs. Andrew Sheets: Serena, thanks for taking the time to talk. Serena Tang: As always, great. Speaking of you, Andrew. Andrew Sheets: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today. 

Here’s why convertible bonds, an often overlooked asset class, are becoming more attractive as an alternative to common stock.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Todd Castagno, head of Morgan Stanley's Global Valuation Accounting Research Team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be discussing the increasing attractiveness of the convertible debt market. It's Thursday, October 5th at 10 a.m. in New York. Rising interest rates have increased borrowing costs for everybody, and that includes companies looking to raise or refinance debt. And that generates a renewed appetite for an oft overlooked asset class called convertible bonds. But what are convertible bonds? To start, convertible bonds are what we call a hybrid instrument, combining the features of a traditional corporate debt and common equity. Similar to corporate bonds, convertibles offer guaranteed income via interest of the initial investment. The reason they are called "convertible" is because they offer investors the option to convert that bond to common stock when a company's share price hits a certain threshold. These hybrid features provide investors with downside protection and upside equity appreciation. There are many reasons why companies choose to issue convertible debt. First, they offer a strategic financial flexibility for high growth in early stage companies, a quick time to market execution time. Second, convertible debt provides an alternative path for companies that would find it difficult to access straight debt in the market. Third, they offer a way to raise equity without issuing more stock directly through secondary offerings. And this is a big plus for corporates because investors often perceive a secondary offering as a negative signal. And finally, a lower cash coupon and lower interest expense is very attractive in a high-rate environment. Why is that? Convertible bonds have lost market share from traditional corporate debt over the last 15 years. The convertibles market size has remained largely unchanged, while the traditional corporate debt market in the U.S. has roughly doubled. Convertibles are relatively less attractive at lower interest rates and accommodating capital markets for traditional alternatives. As it stands, 2023 is on track to double last year's issuance, as likely to be the highest post global financial crisis issuance outside of COVID. Important to note, the nature of issuance this year is different from recent history. In the last decade or so, issuance has been led by smaller market cap and growth companies, who don't have established debt markets or ratings and thus don't have easy access to straight debt capital. However, this year, 65% of issuers have had a credit rating and thus have had easy access to the straight debt market. They're coming to the convertibles market, not as a necessity, but are instead actively choosing to issue converts because of the favorable economics, through interest expense savings, and a last wrinkle, new favorable accounting. Accounting rules recently changed that reduce complexity for both issuers and investors. While accounting typically does not drive economics, on the margin, the recent change improves transparency and reduces cost to issue. Utilities have been especially large convertible issuers this year in the market. 75% of convertible offerings in 2023 year-to-date have been refinancing, which are likely to be one of the areas primed for growth in the capital markets. Looking ahead, we believe the convertibles market is poised for growth. We will likely see more convertible issuances, given a higher interest rate environment, tighter capital markets and a wall maturities, that is coming due in the next 2 to 3 years. Convertibles are a particularly suitable instrument in this context as they offer defensive income enhanced alternative to investing in the underlying common stock. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Fundamentals for investment-grade credit remain resilient and steady, while below-grade credit continues to deteriorate. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about our views on corporate credit markets. It's Wednesday, October 4th at 10 a.m. in New York. With the second quarter earnings now in the rearview mirror, we look at how credit fundamentals have evolved and what that means for credit investors. Quality based divergence in credit fundamental performance continues to bear out, reinforcing our preference for higher quality within the credit universe. Investment grade credit fundamentals remain resilient. Overall, issuers have held up reasonably well despite moving past the peak in the strength of balance sheet metrics. While certain metrics have started to deteriorate, most notably interest coverage as a result of higher interest rates, leverage ratios have stayed well-contained despite the uptick in debt levels. We are calling for wider spreads in investment grade credit, as the market might be overly discounting the odds of a recession, and we had already priced for a smooth soft landing. While current spread levels do not leave much room for further compression, current yield levels remain attractive at multi year highs. These levels present both a source of attractive income and potential price upside as growth and inflation cool, particularly heading into a Fed pause and potential rate cutting cycle, which our economists expect will start in March 2024. While one could argue that with spreads at tight levels, the yield demand could simply shift to treasuries. However, with very low dollar prices on most investment grade bonds and the macro optimism around a soft landing, we think investment grade credit will remain well placed for some time to come. In-place fundamentals remain strong and thus far are not flashing signs of alarm to argue for long-duration buyers of credit to shift into treasuries. On the other end of the grade spectrum, in the below investment grade segment, fundamentals have continued to deteriorate. Earnings growth turned negative, coverage metrics fell, cash to debt ratios declined, and leverage rose. The weakness was widespread across sectors, with materials and consumer discretionary sectors seeing the largest year-over-year increase in leverage. Within our high yield fundamental sample, median interest coverage dropped for a third consecutive quarter, now more than a turn below its peak in 2022. The trend was similar for loans as well, while surging interest costs were the primary driver, weaker earnings were also at play. The concentration of "tail" cohorts is rising. In high yield, the vulnerable cohort, that is companies with low coverage and low cash debt ratios, reached 5% in size, which is record high post global financial crisis. In loans, the coverage tail inflected higher for the first time in two years. Clearly, quality based divergence continues to play out in credit fundamentals, which aligns with our recommendation to be defensive and stay invested in the higher quality segments of the credit markets. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

With online grocery shopping growing in popularity, artificial intelligence can improve the customer experience while increasing efficiency.----- Transcript -----Brian Nowak: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Brian Nowak, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Internet Analyst. Simeon Gutman: And I'm Simeon Gutman, Hard lines, Broad Lines and Food Retail Analyst. Brian Nowak: On this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll discuss the significant opportunities in online grocery. It's Tuesday, October 3rd at 10 a.m. in New York. Brian Nowak: Simeon, our work suggests that online grocery is the largest remaining category of offline spend, which makes it the biggest opportunity in e-commerce. When we talk about online grocery, do you think of it as pure dot-com? Do you think of it as omnichannel? How do you define online grocery and how do you think about the growth outlook for the industry the next few years? Simeon Gutman: To settle that debate we think of it as omnichannel. The online market includes both delivery and pickup, which we actually think is a 50/50 mix. The market today, we think, is about 11.5% penetrated. That equates to roughly $190 billion of online and pickup sales. It's growing low double digits and we think over time it reaches about the high teens by 2027. Brian Nowak: So 11% adoption now heading to teens penetration a few years from now. That's quite a bit below a lot of other categories in the United States. So let me ask a sort of obvious question. What new types of technologies or innovations have you seen in online grocery that you think are going to really drive faster, more durable adoption going forward? Simeon Gutman: It's likely in the micro and macro fulfillment. I mean, online grocery is complicated. There's a lot of SKUs to pick. There's labor involved. We're seeing better ways that grocers are able picking and packing the groceries. I think still getting it to the end user remains a challenge and that's what we're going to see probably evolve over the next, call it, decade. Brian Nowak: That's helpful. What are some of the other key debates in the online grocery space and what aspects do you think the market is missing or underappreciated right now? Simeon Gutman: I think two key debates are the path to profitability, and if online grocery can reach that profitability threshold and two whether an online only player will encroach on the traditional share and disrupt the market. As for the path to profitability, we think eventually we'll see it. We don't have a lot of examples because we don't think we're there with scale today. But over time we think these models will show some level of profitability. It may not be a fully online model. It'll still be a holistic omni channel model. And then the second piece is we do think there is going to be an encroachment from e-tail or e-commerce only players. The market's big. It's one piece of the market that online only hasn't conquered, but it's such a big TAM, we think everyone has their attention on it. What are some of the most significant advertising opportunities when it comes to online grocery Brian?Brian Nowak: To your point on profitability within online grocery, we think advertising is likely to be a key lever to drive profitability across the space. Historically, we have seen traditional grocers and retailers benefit from trade spend, advertising dollars spent essentially for NCAP placements, shelf space and really in-store marketing. As consumer wallets move online with an online grocery, we expect those dollars to shift toward the online players. And given the high incremental margin of advertising dollars compared to traditional grocery spend. We think that the advertising business is likely to be an important lever in online grocers, both traditional players moving online as well as e-commerce first players growing their business and their ability to build profitable long term ecommerce businesses. Now Simeon online grocery, to your point earlier, is an industry where the unit economics are quite tight and margins are thin. With that as a backdrop, what in your mind are the keys to driving long term durable profitability beyond advertising? Simeon Gutman: Two things. First scale and then second capability. In terms of scale, the more densely populated or the more densely penetrated a grocer can be in a market, the more money we think they can make. And we think the same is true with online grocery. You have to have a high market share in a concentrated place, and that's happening slowly. And some companies are stronger in certain markets than others, but that needs to happen more broadly. Second is the capabilities. And as I mentioned earlier, we're starting to see the emergence of newer technologies, macro fulfillment methodologies, meaning automation in a large scale, micro fulfillment, automation at the local level. And these type of technologies remove the human element, the labor element, from picking a relatively large basket of items and can save a significant amount of money. And eventually the last mile needs to be figured out as well, whether the customer picks it up in store or who knows, one day a self-driving car brings it to someone's house. And of course, Brian, Online grocery will likely experience the impact of A.I., how do you see the role of A.I in this space? Brian Nowak: We think artificial intelligence has the potential to create a better consumer experience with an online grocery and drive higher efficiency in the backend for the delivery companies as well. On the consumer front the capability for large language models and artificial intelligence to analyze more consumer data and essentially create what we think will be A.I powered personal shoppers with better suggestion, recommendation engines, recipe recommendations, auto replenish, auto reorder, we think is going to remove some of the friction that historically has held back online grocery adoption. On the back end, the use of artificial intelligence and large language models can be important in creating more effective driver routes for all the online grocery delivery companies, as well as ways to better manage inventory and supply in their logistics and fulfillment centers in order to operate more efficiently. So we do think artificial intelligence is going to be important to driving online grocery adoption on the front end and efficiency and profitability on the back end. Simeon, thanks so much for taking the time to talk. Simeon Gutman: Great speaking with you, Brian. Brian Nowak: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show.

Although Congress agreed on a short-term deal to avoid a shutdown, the increase in the deficit and lack of fiscal discipline may concern investors in the long run.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, October 2nd at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. This past weekend, Congress agreed to a last minute deal to keep the government open for the next six weeks. On one hand, avoiding a government shutdown is a net positive for the equity markets. However, on the other hand, the government is showing very little fiscal discipline will likely weigh on bond markets, which could then reverberate through stocks. This past August, I wrote a note and recorded a podcast asking if the U.S government may have hit a fiscal wall. One of the biggest surprises this year for investors has been the monumental increase in the fiscal deficit. More specifically, over the past 12 months, the fiscal deficit has increased by $1.3 trillion. This has supported better economic growth and may have kept the U.S. economy from entering a recession that many thought was unavoidable earlier this year. But now the piper must be paid. With the U.S. Treasury expected to issue close to $2 trillion in new supply in the second half of the year, the bond market has taken notice. While front end interest rates have been generally stable over the past several months on the expectation the Fed is very close to ending its rate hikes, the longer end of the Treasury market continues to trade very poorly, with ten year yields reaching 4.7%. With inflation expectations relatively stable and economic growth showing signs of slowing, we think this move in ten year yields is directly related to an earlier question. Has the US government pushed a limit of its ability to spend without proper long term fiscal discipline and funding in place? I think it's a reasonable question to ask even though we all know the Fed will likely provide the money necessary for the government to meet its obligations, especially in the short term. But now there is some growing doubt on the sustainability of such programs. The bond term premium has been suppressed over the past decade through quantitative easing and insatiable demand from foreigners looking to store their savings in a reliable place. But with the Fed no longer doing QE and even shrinking its balance sheet, banks unable to step up and buy and foreigners starting to diversify away from the US dollar, it's unclear who will be the natural buyer of this significant new supply. Lack of funding is a risk that markets have not had to think about when budget deficits get a bit out of control. In fact, the last time this happened was 1994, when ten year Treasury yields increased to 8%. The result was one of the biggest belt tightening exercises enacted in a bipartisan manner. Congress really had no choice at that time but to acquiesce to the demands of the bond markets. Could we be looking at a similar response this time? Like many Americans and investors, I have my doubts any real fiscal discipline will be enacted proactively. This just means the bond market may have to push back even harder to get legislators attention. Of course, that would not be good for already elevated equity valuations. The alternative is that Congress gets ahead of it and cuts spending, raises taxes or both, which would arguably be bad for growth. Bottom line, this conflict between markets and policy is nothing new, but this time it's centered around fiscal rather than monetary policy. More importantly, both potential outcomes, higher rates or smaller budget deficits, are likely bad news for stocks in the short term. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show.

The number of U.S. workers with multiple income streams is increasing steadily, with earnings of $200 billion today poised to double by 2030. Generative AI could help these “multi-earners” hold down their many jobs.----- Transcript -----Ed Stanley: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ed Stanley, Morgan Stanley's Head of Thematic Research in Europe. Ellen Zentner: And I'm Ellen Zentner, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Ed Stanley: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll discuss the impact of A.I. on the multi earning trend we've been observing over the last year. It's Friday, September 29th at 3 p.m. in London. Ellen Zentner: And 10 a.m. in New York. Ed Stanley: You'll remember that the pandemic created the conditions for many people to start pursuing multiple income streams, and post-COVID this need has shifted to an opportunity. And little over a year ago, we first wrote about the rise of multi earners, a large and growing class of workers who, we argued, whose marginal hour was better spent multi-earning than staying in a low paying traditional corporate role, for example. And not surprisingly, Gen Z, a group our economist team have studied in detail, is leading this paradigm shift, and that is clearly underway in our latest survey. Ellen, before we get into some of the current specifics on the fast moving multi-earner and A.I. Trends, can you set the stage for us by giving us a sense of where the US labor market is right now and how things have evolved since the great resignation that we heard so much about during COVID? Ellen Zentner: Sure Ed. Participation in the workforce dropped like a rock around COVID and government subsidies helped folks take time away, and particularly those that work in high risk areas of services where face to face contact is a necessary work requirement. Now, at the same time, the percentage of employees that shifted to some amount of work from home arrangements soared from about 15% to over 50%, and it's remained pretty sticky even as COVID has moved further into the rearview mirror. So while prime age labor force participation has fully recovered and continues to climb, the share of workers with some amount of work from home has remained elevated, as well as those that the Bureau of Labor Statistics here in the US has identified as holding multiple part time jobs. So it turns out it skews toward younger workers. In other words, Generation Z, as you noted, which is a growing share of the prime age workforce. And for many workers, COVID was a wake up call, a call to action, if you will, that multi-earning might better balance a sense of freedom and flexibility while still earning a living wage. Ed Stanley: To expand our lens even more in order to understand the economic backdrop of multi-earning, can you give us a quick overview of the rise of the so-called worker economy over the last two decades? Ellen Zentner: So here's a brief history lesson. Wage growth, when adjusted for inflation, has been falling for decades in the U.S. and is a reflection of factors such as waning presence of unions, the rise of mega companies and the like that reduced worker bargaining power over time. Wage growth should have kept up with gains in productivity, and it just didn't. And as a result, the labor share of corporate profits has been falling. COVID created the labor scarcity needed to reverse that secular decline in labor income by raising bargaining power. In a sense, it galvanized the demand for higher wages that we think is durable. Now Ed, as you mentioned, you first started publishing on the Multi-Earner Trend a year ago, and this trend has been developing by leaps and bounds, it seems, especially when you overlay the fast and furious development of generative A.I. So can you tell us what you're observing and how your thesis is evolving? Ed Stanley: Yeah. So there are three ways that we keep track of to triangulate how this thesis is evolving. The first is official data, and you touched on this. The BLS shows a modest 1 in 20 multi-earners as a portion of the US population, for example, and growing pro-cyclically. So that is one data set we look at. The second is Google Trends. So it's a less well-captured metric in official data, but we can see less about how many people are doing it and more about the growth rate, which we can see is about 18% compound and actually growing counter cyclically. When life gets more challenging from a macro unemployment perspective, people seem to turn to these earnings streams, which inherently make sense. And then the third is to look at our Alphawise survey, the second of which we have that just came out, which shows multi-earning growing 8% year on year and as much as over 15% for Gen Z, which we talked about. So in essence, we don't rely on one dataset to estimate the size or growth of the market. The real addition this year is around generative A.I., where we showed, for those people using A.I. to enhance their multi earning, they are earning as much as 21% more than those who are not using generative A.I. tools. Ellen Zentner: Okay. So let's get into some of the key debates. You've had some investor feedback to this thesis. So what do you think are some of the key debates on multi earning in the era of generative A.I. that investors should pay attention to? Ed Stanley: I think there are two that remain the most unanswered, so to speak. The first one, I think the biggest issue is it can't be proven or disproven in terms of what happens during a recession. And given that the gig-working multi-earning economy is a relatively new phenomenon, the only recession we have data for was, as you say, distorted by stimulus checks, furlough schemes and other things which forced or allowed people to take much more risk than they otherwise would have. So a proper hard landing recession would certainly challenge this multi-earning thesis, and that remains to be seen. On the second point, I think it's actually a more positive one, the goalposts keep changing as it relates to these models. The speed and capability of new generative A.I. models, and particularly multimodal ones where you can deal with text and images, for example, all in one place is moving at pace still. And that is going to make content creation, e-commerce, gaming, web hosting much easier to scale and monetize for the individual. So if anything, we think we're underestimating the impact of A.I. will have on the multi earning economy over the long run. But those are the two debates that have captivated most investors. Ellen Zentner: So clearly there are unknowns around these key debates, but you have an estimate of the current market size of the income generated by individuals through multi earning platforms. Can you give us an idea of that? And given the speed at which A.I. is developing, what's your outlook for the next 3 to 5 years? Ed Stanley: So our base case currently is about $200 billion and that increases to $400 billion in 2030, of which we expect a 20% uplift from generative A.I.'s productivity gains. So about $83 billion of that $400 billion number. And that figure came from our survey, which I've already mentioned in terms of earning uplift with those using it versus those that aren't. And just to put that figure in context, that is only 4% of the wider gig economy market values, so really quite modest, actually, in view of the uncertainties that we have. And we actually expect these figures to get beaten in time, but it's always better to be more conservative early on.  Ellen Zentner: Okay so, you know, last one from me, we haven't talked about regionally what's happening. So do you think there are any notable regional differences when you look at the intersection of multi-earning and A.I.? Ed Stanley: Yes, there are certainly that come out of our Alphawise survey. The highest earnings in dollar terms are in the US, the highest growth is in Europe but from a lower base. And then the one that jumped out at us and several of the investors we've spoken to is the higher than expected level of multi earning in India, which is new to our survey and particularly in the invest-to-earn category. And this is skewed by the fact that it was largely a survey for urban India, but it's also mirrored by a survey we did earlier in the year for Saudi Arabia, which showed much higher multi-earning engagement than we had expected. So that emerging market element has certainly taken us and some of our investors by surprise. But Ellen, turning back to you and to the US, what portion of the total US workforce are multi-earners and how do you see that evolving over time? Ellen Zentner: Multiple job holders has always been a feature of the labor market, but it's also always skewed towards younger workers and we have an incredibly young workforce today. So Gens Y and Z are moving through their prime working years in their greatest numbers as we speak, and the official data show that about 5% of the population hold multiple jobs. But, you've mentioned our surveys, our survey suggests that's an undercount and point to something closer to 8 to 10% of the workforce that are multi-earning. Our surveys also capture the skew toward younger workers where the labor force is growing more rapidly. So overall we find that multi-earning is growing by about 8% per year and that jumps to 15% per year if you isolate it to low earners. And the bottom line for me is that the stars align for this secular trend. Our demographic work has shown that the U.S. is an increasingly younger demographic and it really sets the U.S. apart on the global stage. Ed Stanley: Well, Ellen, thanks for taking the time to talk. Ellen Zentner: Great speaking with you, Ed. Ed Stanley: And as a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show.

With volatility in Asia and emerging markets causing both upswings and downswings, certain markets will be critical as uncertainty continues.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jonathan Garner, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia and Emerging Market Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be discussing why we turned more cautious on our coverage recently. It's Thursday, September the 28th at 9 a.m. in Singapore. We turned more cautious on our coverage in early August, downgrading Taiwan and China to equal weight and Australia to underweight, whilst raising India, which we view as defensive, to a major overweight. For India, multi-polar world trends are supporting a surge in inward foreign direct investment in manufacturing, and portfolio flows into both bonds and equities. The country's reforms and macro stability agenda, particularly in fiscal policy, is underpinning a strong capital expenditure and profits outlook. We also maintain Japan equities, currency hedged, as our top pick in global equity markets. Japan has strong nominal GDP growth, positive earnings per share revisions and valuations which remain reasonable in our view, at a little over 14x forward price to earnings. However, the continued debate on China's growth slowdown and now a sudden further rise in US real yields are, in our view, likely to pressure markets lower generally, in what is seasonally a difficult period for our asset class. Volatility is now and generally has been a feature of Asia and emerging equity markets. Hence the intense interest in market timing and hedging strategies in an asset class which has, with the recent exception of Japan, failed to deliver attractive, sustained compound returns for the US-dollar-based investor. Indeed, we've made the point before that on a risk adjusted basis, Asia and emerging equity markets are what is known as Sharpe ratio inefficient in a multi asset sense, that is returns have not compensated for volatility compared to other benchmarks.All of our coverage markets have higher volatility than the S&P 500, and in many cases significantly so. In particular, China A shares, the Hang Seng China Enterprise Index and until recently, the India benchmark Sensex. In terms of why this is the case it probably has to do with the following characteristics. Firstly, more volatility in earnings cycles. Secondly, less developed domestic institutional investor bases than in many developed markets. And thirdly, greater reliance on foreign flows, which are inherently less sticky than domestic flows. However, this is changing now for the India market. Combining data allows us to develop a simple scoring framework to assess complacency versus fear in relation to drawdown risk. It suggests a somewhat complacent mode in general, but particularly for China A, Australian equities, that's the ASX 200, and the overall MSCI EM benchmark, much less so for Topix, Nikkei and the Hang Seng Index. And this reinforces our view that Japan equities are a key holding to maintain currently. Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

If government funding expires next week, the shutdown combined with other economic issues could make for a weak fourth quarter. Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research Michael Zezas and U.S. Public Policy Analyst Ariana Salvatore discuss.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore from our U.S. Public Policy Research Team. Michael Zezas: Along with our colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, we'll be talking about the market and economic impacts of a potential government shutdown later this week. It's Wednesday, September 27th at 10 a.m. in New York. Michael Zezas: So, Ariana, let's get right into it. Congress is up against a tight deadline with government funding set to expire on the first day of the next fiscal year, which is October 1st. What's the state of play? Ariana Salvatore: So the first thing I'll say is that the situation is very fluid at the moment with lots of uncertainty between now and Sunday. Last night, the Senate voted to advance a bipartisan clean C.R. or continuing resolution, which could eventually serve as the legislative vehicle to avoid a lapse in appropriations. Clean, in this sense, means that the bill includes little to no funding for Ukraine aid or disaster relief, two items that Republicans had previously taken opposition to. Right now, the ball's in Speaker McCarthy's court. He can choose one of three options, first, to bring the Senate C.R. to the floor and rely on moderates, and perhaps even some Democrats, to cross the aisle and pass the bill. Second, he can ignore it and try to continue with the House-led funding process. Or third, he can take the C.R. out on some Republican policy items like border funding, for example, and send it back to the Senate where it's almost certainly dead on arrival. Options two and three, because of that, increase the likelihood of a shutdown. But option number one really doesn't solve the problem either, as it would just punt the issue until later in the Fall, and in our view, increase the chances of McCarthy facing a motion to vacate the chair or a motion to oust him as speaker. So all of this is to say that a shutdown seems pretty likely at the time we're recording this. The question is, of course, how long it could last. Michael, how are you thinking about the possible duration of a shutdown, assuming we do, in fact, get to Sunday without significant progress being made here? Michael Zezas: So there's a few scenarios to consider here. One is a pretty brief shutdown, one that lasts for less than a week and ultimately ends with a continuing resolution. Perhaps Speaker McCarthy agrees to put the Senate pass continuing resolution on the floor for a vote. Another scenario is one that lasts for a few weeks. And here you might have a situation where House Republicans continue to oppose any continuing resolution. And after enduring a shutdown for enough time, federal employees' paychecks begin to lapse, economic pressure begins to build and all of a sudden there's just more acceptance around the idea of a continuing resolution to allow more time for negotiation. And then another scenario would be something that lasts quite a bit longer, several weeks. And here, you clearly have a breakdown in negotiation positions, members of the Republican caucus perhaps refusing to vote for any type of continuing resolution, there being major roadblocks on the issues you spoke about already, Ariana. And the potential way to fix this would have to be through something like a discharge petition where members of the House of Representatives work around Speaker McCarthy using procedural rules. But that's something that takes a long time to play out and could take several weeks to play out. So given all this uncertainty, sometimes it helps to look back at history as a guide. Ariana, what can we learn from similarities or differences between this and prior shutdown episodes? Ariana Salvatore: Well, for starters, while shutdowns are not necessarily routine, they're also not without precedent. There have been about 20 in total in U.S. history, but more recent ones have lasted longer. For example, the most recent in 2019 under President Trump, was also the longest clocking in at just over a month. However, that case was also unique to what we're seeing today because it was a partial shutdown, meaning that there were some agencies that had already received full-year funding. We've actually never had a full shutdown last more than about a week like we're seeing right now. This time around, because no agencies have received funding, we think there could be a broader based impact relative to the last shutdown that we saw. Michael, given that your focus is across all of fixed income, how are you thinking about the impact of a shutdown across our strategists market views? Michael Zezas: Yeah, well, our economists have flagged that a shutdown could shave about 0.05 percentage points off of fourth quarter growth every single week. That's not a substantial enough number on its own to necessarily impact markets, but it's coming at a time when there's other pieces of data coming in around the economy and other events in the economy that our economists have flagged that are pretty meaningful. The UAW strike, if it lasts for a long time and expands big enough, could have a substantial impact on GDP. There's the beginning of repayment of student loans that could crimp consumer behavior. And so, if you combine all those effects together, then it could make for a fourth quarter where the economic data is looking quite a bit weaker and inflation pressure is looking like it's cooling meaningfully. Those are the types of things that our strategists think should limit increases in bond yields from here. And that in turn means that total returns for bonds, both Treasury bonds and corporate bonds, look pretty attractive to us and it's one of the reasons that we continue to favor bonds over equities. Michael Zezas: So obviously, we'll continue to track this closely as the debate evolves. And Arianna, thanks for taking the time to talk. Ariana Salvatore: Great speaking with you, Michael. Michael Zezas: And thank you for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show. 

Corporate credit is likely to continue outperforming, even if downward revisions to GDP, sticky inflation data and a potential government shutdown could mean a less restrictive approach from the Fed.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Corporate Credit Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Tuesday, September 26th at 2 p.m. in London. September has seen widespread market weakness, with both stocks and bonds lower. Several of the big questions behind this move, however, could become much clearer by the end of this week. One area of market concern remains central banks and the idea that they may continue to raise interest rates to tamp down on inflation. While the Federal Reserve decided not to raise rates at its meeting last week, the first time it's done so since 2022, investors nevertheless left that meeting worried the Fed may have more work to do. We hold a different view and think that the Fed will not raise interest rates further. But we'll get an important data point to this view on Friday, with the release of PCE, or Personal Consumption Expenditure inflation. This is the inflation gauge that the Fed cares about most, and on Morgan Stanley's forecast, it will fall to just 2.3%, on a three month annualized basis. That's a large, encouraging step down that would show the Fed that inflation is headed in the right direction. Another area of market concern, somewhat paradoxically, is that the U.S. economy has been quite strong, which in theory would encourage further rate hikes from the Fed. Not only has the US economy shown good GDP numbers so far this year, but unemployment remains near a 50 year low. Fed Chair Powell repeatedly referred to the strength of the economic data in last week's press conference, and some leading economic indicators of industrial activity have actually started to look marginally better. But two other events this week might change that perception. Thursday will see regular revisions to measurements of U.S. economic growth, and Morgan Stanley's economists think U.S. GDP is more likely to be revised downwards, perhaps significantly. A few days later, the US government faces a shutdown as key appropriations bills have failed to clear the U.S. House of Representatives. That shutdown will act as a drag on the economy, potentially to the tune of about 0.2% of GDP per week. Both nominal and real yields have risen as the market remains concerned that the Fed will keep policy restrictive for a longer period of time, given still elevated inflation and robust U.S. economic growth. But it's possible, the GDP revisions, inflation data and a government shutdown all this week could change that perception. For credit, it's worth noting that corporate credit has been a relative outperformer during this rough September. As we discussed on this program last week, higher yields are also meaning fewer bonds are being issued for investors to buy as companies balk at the higher yields they're now being charged to borrow. And in a world where government bonds and equities all yield less than cash does, a so-called negative carry asset, credit again has a marginal advantage. It's a tough backdrop, but we think the credit will continue to be a relative outperformer. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.

With the economy late in its current cycle, early-cycle performers such as consumer and housing stocks are underperforming while energy and industrials should continue to outperform.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, September 25th at 11am in New York. So let's get after it. Since mid-July, stocks have taken on a different personality. As we've previously noted, second quarter earnings season proved to be a "sell the news event" with the day after reporting stock performance as poor as we've witnessed in over a decade. In retrospect, this makes sense given weakening earnings quality and negative year over year growth for many industry groups, coupled with the strong price run up in the mid-July which extended valuations. Those valuations continue to look elevated at 18-times earnings, especially given the recent further rise in interest rates and signs from the Fed that it may be adopting a higher for longer posture. On that score, the real rate equity return correlation has fallen further into negative territory, signaling that interest rates are an increasingly important determinant of equity performance. Furthermore, one could argue that the post-Fed-meeting response from equity markets was outsized for the rate move we experienced. One potential explanation for this dynamic is that the equity market is beginning to question the higher for longer backdrop in the context of a macro environment that looks more late-cycle than mid-cycle. As discussed over the past several weeks, equity market internals have been supportive of the notion that we're in a late cycle backdrop with high quality balance sheet factors outperforming. Defensives have also resumed their outperformance, while cyclicals have underperformed. The value factor has been further aided by strong performance from the energy sector, while growth has underperformed recently due to higher interest rates. Given our relative preference for defensives, we looked at valuations across these sectors. In terms of absolute multiples, utilities trade the cheapest at 16 times earnings, while staples trade the richest at 19 times. That said, relative to the market in history, utilities and staples still look the cheapest, both are at the bottom quartile of the historical relative valuation levels, while health care relative valuation is a bit more elevated, but still in the bottom 50% of historical relative valuation levels. Overall valuations remain undemanding for defensive sectors in stocks, which is why we like them. To the contrary, the technicals and breadth for consumer discretionary stocks look particularly challenged right now. We believe this price action is reflecting slower consumer spending trends, student loan payments resuming, rising delinquencies in certain household cohorts, higher gas prices and weakening demand and data in the housing sector. Our economists who avoided making the recession call earlier this year when it was a consensus view see a weakening consumer spending backdrop from here. Specifically, they forecast negative real personal consumption expenditure growth in the fourth quarter and a muted recovery thereafter. Meanwhile, travel and leisure has been a bright spot for consumption, but that dynamic may now be changing to some extent. As evidence, our most recent AlphaWise survey shows that consumers want to keep traveling and 58% of respondents are planning to travel over the next six months. However, net spending plans for international travel declined from 0% last month to -8% this month, indicating consumers are planning fewer overseas trips. Domestic travel plans without a flight move higher. This indicates that consumers want to keep traveling, but are increasingly looking to taking cheaper trips and are choosing destinations to which they can either drive or take a train, rather than fly which is more expensive. All these dynamics fit well with our late cycle playbook. In our view, investors may want to avoid rotating into early cycle winners like consumer cyclicals, housing related and interest rate sensitive sectors and small caps. Instead, a barbell of large cap defensive growth with late cycle cyclical winners like energy and industrials should continue to outperform as it has for the past month. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps for people to find the show.

September historically has been a big month for corporate bond issuance, but borrowing looks less attractive to companies due to the large rise in yields.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Corporate Credit Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, September 22nd at 2 p.m. in London. Credit has outperformed equities recently, with spreads modestly tighter, even as stocks are modestly lower. We think that credit outperformance continues. Supply, demand and income are all part of the story. September is usually a big month for corporate bond issuance as people return from the summer, and all that supply often means somewhat weaker credit performance. But so far, that supply is underwhelmed. While many factors may be at play, we think one is that borrowing is looking less attractive given the large rise of corporate bond yields. Not only are investment grade bond yields at some of their highest non crisis levels in the last 20 years, they're unusually high relative to the earnings or dividend yield offered on company stock. Now, if a company views their equities attractive relative to debt, one way they can express this is to borrow more while buying back or retiring those shares in the market. But conversely, if companies start to view borrowing as expensive, relative to their shares, borrowing and buybacks should both slow. And year-to-date that's exactly what we've seen from non-financial investment grade companies. Meanwhile, those same higher yields that are making companies more reluctant to borrow are keeping demand for bonds solid. And if both the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank are now finished raising interest rates, as my colleagues in Morgan Stanley economics expect, it could mean that investors are even more willing to allocate to these high grade bonds, while simultaneously encouraging companies to display even more patience with borrowing now that rates are no longer rising. But there's another even more mechanical advantage that credit enjoys. The significant rate hikes from the Fed, and the European Central Bank have meant very high yields on safe short term cash. That, in turn, has made the cost of holding almost any asset more expensive by comparison. Due to these very high cash yields and the fact that short term interest rates are higher than long term interest rates, owning equities or government bonds in the U.S. and Europe is a so-called negative carry position, costing money to halt. The passage of time if nothing changes, is currently working against many of these asset classes. But this isn't the case in credit, where both the level of spreads and the shape of the credit curve mean that the passage of time works in favor of the holder. And it's worth noting that two other assets that have this so-called positive carry property, the U.S. dollar and oil, are also currently being well supported by the market. We think the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank are now done raising interest rates for the foreseeable future. We think this could modestly discourage borrowing by investment grade companies as they wait for more favorable rates and encourage buying as investors hope to now lock in these higher yields. Moreover, we think that this pause by central banks could help reduce overall bond market volatility, working to the relative advantage of assets that pay investors to hold them like corporate credit does. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts of the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.

Even with the possibility of a fourth-quarter slowdown in consumer spending, positive data across the board suggests the U.S. economy is still on track for a soft landing.----- Transcripts -----Ellen Zentner: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ellen Zentner, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Sarah Wolfe: And I'm Sarah Wolfe, also on Morgan Stanley's U.S. Economics Team. Sarah Wolfe: And today on the podcast, we'll be discussing our updated U.S. economic outlook for the final quarter of 2023. It's Thursday, September 21, at 10 a.m. in New York. Sarah Wolfe: Ellen, since early 2022, you and our team have had a conviction that the U.S. economy would slow without a crash and experienced a soft landing. We maintained that view in our mid-year outlook four months ago, but we've recently revised it with an expectation for even stronger growth in the U.S.. Can you highlight some of the main drivers behind our team's more upbeat outlook? Ellen Zentner: Yes, so I think for me, the most exciting thing about the upward revisions we've made to GDP is that there's a real manufacturing renaissance going on in the U.S. and according to our equity analysts, it is durable and organic. So it's not just being driven by fiscal policy around the CHIPS Act and the IRA, but this is de-risking of supply chains, it's happening across semiconductors, our industrials teams have noted it, our construction teams and our LATAM teams around what's going on in terms of on-shoring, nearshoring with Mexico being the biggest beneficiary. So I think that's a really exciting development that is durable and then the consumer has been more resilient than expected. And I know that, Sara, you've been writing about Taylor Swift effect, Beyoncé effect, Barbenheime, you know, and it's just added to a very robust consumer this year than we had initially expected. Sarah Wolfe: Ellen, and what about inflation? What role does inflation continue to play at this point? Is the disinflationary process still underway and what are our expectations for the rest of this year and next? Ellen Zentner: Yes, So I think the disinflationary process has actually played out faster than expected. Well, let me say it's coming in line with our forecast, but much faster than, say, the Fed had expected. And we do expect that to continue. I think some of the concerns have been that the economy has been so strong this year and so would that interrupt that disinflationary process? And we don't think that's the case. The upward revisions that we've taken to GDP that reflect things like the manufacturing renaissance also come with stronger productivity, and they're not necessarily inflationary. But Sara, since your focus is on the U.S. consumer, let me turn it to you and ask you about oil prices. So oil prices have rallied here, you've spent a good deal of time looking at the impact that rising prices might have on real consumer spending, so how do you go about analyzing that? Sarah Wolfe: You're correct. Energy prices do impact consumer spending and in particular, when the price jumps are driven by supply side factor. So supply coming offline, that acts like a tax on households and we see a decline in real spending. We in particular see real spending impacted in the durable goods sector and in autos in particular. We have seen quite a rally recently in oil prices. It's definitely not to the extent of what we saw last year, but what we're going to be watching is how sustained the rally in oil prices are. The higher prices stay for longer, the more it impacts real consumer spending. Ellen Zentner: So retail sales have been strong, when are they going to be slowing? I mean we're going into the fourth quarter here, all on the consumer it looks like it's been stronger than expected. And I know this is sort of a maybe too broad of a question, but are consumers still in good health? Sarah Wolfe: As you mentioned earlier, consumer spending has been more resilient than expected. In part, it's been due to the fact that we've seen a full rebound in discretionary services spending, but it was not paired with a one for one payback in discretionary goods, which we've seen in the retail sales report, have held up better. And so while the consumer remains fairly healthy, we do expect to still see that pretty notable spending slowdown in the fourth quarter and part of that is being driven by the fundamentals. We have a cooling labor market, a rising savings rate, higher debt service obligations. But then as you also mentioned earlier, we had the roll off of some of these one off lifts like Barbenheimer, Beyoncé and Taylor Swift. Ellen Zentner: So why doesn't the consumer just fall off a cliff then? Sarah Wolfe: Because part of our big call for the soft landing is that the labor market is going to be relatively resilient. We do have jobs slowing, but we do not have a substantial rise in the unemployment rate because we think this labor hoarding thesis is going to help support the labor market. So at the end of the day, while there's pressure mounting on consumer wallets, if they have a job, they will continue to spend, though at a slower pace. Ellen Zentner: All right. So if labor income and healthy job growth is the key to consumer spending, you know, what are we telling investors about the UAW strike? Because that really muddies the picture for how strong the labor market is. Sarah Wolfe: The UAW strike is definitely worth watching, there's 146,000 union workers that work for the big three. At this point, the impacts should be fairly contained, we only have 13,000 workers on strike at three different plants. However, if we see a large-scale strike of all the union workers, that lasts for some time, I mean that's definitely going to take a hit to the labor market. It would be a one off hit because when the strikers come back, you see them re-added to payrolls. But it definitely will be a more sustained hit to economic activity and motor vehicle production. It's very hard to make up all the production that is lost when workers are on strike. So we're definitely watching this very closely and it's definitely a risk factor to economic growth in the fourth quarter. Ellen, I'm turning it back to you, with all these various factors in play has anything changed in our Fed path? Ellen Zentner: No, it hasn't. In fact, as the data comes in and what we're looking for ahead, it tells me even more so that the Fed is done here. So they're sitting on a federal funds rate of 5.25% to 5.50%, and there are a lot of pitfalls possibly ahead with the incoming data. So you have GDP benchmark revisions, which will be significant by our estimate, that are released on September 28th, so later this month. Two days later, government shutdown possible. You talked about the UAW strike that's gonna, again, muddy the picture for job gains. And so there's a lot on the horizon here. You know, in the environment of inflation falling and question mark around how much policy lags still have to come through, I think it's just a recipe for the Fed to go ahead and hold rates steady and so we think that they're done here. All right. So we'll leave it there. Sarah, thanks for taking the time to talk. Sarah Wolfe: As always, great speaking with you, Ellen. Ellen Zentner: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

A potential debt-deflation cycle in China could spell opportunity for U.S. Treasuries and Asia corporate bonds outside of China.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the impact of China's economy on fixed income markets. It's Wednesday, September 20th, at 10 a.m. in New York. We spend a lot of time on this podcast talking about the market ramifications of the evolving US-China relationship, and understandably so, as they are the world's biggest economies. But today, I want to focus more on the evolving economy inside of China and how it has implications for global fixed income markets. A few weeks ago on Thoughts on the Market, my colleague Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter, detailed how our Asia economics team is increasingly calling attention to what they term China's 3D challenge of debt, demographics and deflation. In short, there's a risk that servicing high levels of debt in China's economy could strain its weak demographic profile and dampen demand in the economy, all leading to a debt deflation cycle. While such an adverse outcome currently is in our economists base case, there's been material slowing in China's economic growth. So in either case, China, at least for the moment, is a weaker consumer on the global stage, meaning they may effectively export disinflation to developed market countries. And while our economists flag this weakness may not translate to substantial disinflation pressures, they also note directionally it may help already cooling inflation in places like the United States. Understandably, our team in fixed income research across the globe is focused on many potential impacts from the spillover effects of China's 3D challenge. But there's two that stand out to me as most relevant to investors. First, for investors in U.S. Treasury bonds, this disinflation pressure, even if modest, could help push yields lower in line with our preference for owning bonds over equities. That disinflation pressure could add to other more meaningful pressures in the U.S. in the fourth quarter, as student loan repayments start in the absence of major entertainment events that were a one time shot to consumption this past summer. Second, if you're an investor in corporate bonds, our Asia corporate credit team sees opportunities to diversify away from China Credit, which has been struggling to deliver solid risk adjusted returns and remains concentrated in the property sector, with our team seeing opportunities in Japan, Australia and New Zealand in particular. Credit markets in these countries not only provide geographical diversification but also diversification into sectors like financials and materials. This is a developing story that's sure to impact the global outlook for the foreseeable future, and you can be sure we'll keep you updated on how it will influence markets. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

A number of U.S. industries rely heavily on critical minerals that must be imported from other countries. Policymakers and business leaders are calling for investment and reshoring to manage that risk. U.S. Public Policy Research Team member Ariana Salvatore and Head of the Metals and Mining Team in North America Carlos De Alba discuss.----- Transcript -----Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore from our U.S. Public Policy Research Team. Carlos De Alba: And I am Carlos De Alba, Head of the Metals and Mining Team in North America. Ariana Salvatore: On this special episode of the podcast, we'll discuss what we see as an inflection point for the U.S. metals and mining industry. It's Tuesday, September 19th, at 10 a.m. in New York. Ariana Salvatore: Since 1990, the U.S. has seen a significant increase in both the variety of imported minerals and the level of dependance on these imports. As of right now, U.S. reliance on imported critical minerals has reached a 30 year high, and simultaneously, investment in the industry is near its lowest point in decades. But as we're seeing the world transition to a multipolar model where supply chains are more regional than global, it's becoming ever more obvious that the U.S. needs to turn to reshoring in order to satisfy its growing need for these critical minerals. So, Carlos, before we get too deep in the weeds, let's start off with something simple. Can you define critical minerals for our audience? Carlos De Alba: Yeah. So the Energy Act of 2020 defined critical minerals as those which are essential to the economy and the national security of the United States. They also have a supply chain that is vulnerable to disruption and serve an essential function in the manufacturing of a product, the absence of which would have significant consequences for the economic and national security of the country. The Act also specified that critical minerals do not include fuel minerals, water, ice or snow, or common varieties of sand, gravel, stone and clay. The U.S. Geological Survey, or USGS, is a government agency in charge of creating the official list of critical minerals that are meet that criteria that I just mentioned. Ariana Salvatore: So given the importance of these critical minerals, what are some of the factors that led to this prolonged underinvestment in the metals and mining industry? And who have been the major exporters of critical minerals to the U.S. over the last three decades? Carlos De Alba: It is quite a complex issue, but the bottom line is that the US has scaled back its mineral extraction, processing and refining capabilities since the 1950s, because of environmental concerns and economic considerations like higher labor costs and lower economies of scale. As mining activities decline in the U.S., the country has increasingly relied on imports from China, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, Indonesia, Canada and Australia, among others. Ariana Salvatore: So it's obvious that China is clearly in a powerful position to influence the global mineral markets. It's the first one on the list that you just mentioned. What is China to doing right now with respect to its exports of minerals and what is your outlook when you're thinking about the future? Carlos De Alba: Well, over the last 4 to 5 decades, China gradually took over the industry by heavily investing in exploration, mineral extraction, and more importantly, refining and processing capabilities. China's dominance over the world minerals processing supply chains has created, as you would expect, geopolitical and economic uncertainties can cause supply disruptions to crucial end markets such as green technologies and national security. A recent example of export curbs took place in July of this year, when China imposed export restrictions on two chipmaking minerals, gallium and uranium, citing national security concerns. The move was widely interpreted as a retaliation against the US and its allies for having imposed restrictions that caught China's access to Chipmaking technologies. Now this move by China was particularly relevant because the country produces over 80% of the world's gallium supply and 60% of germanium, and it is the primary supplier to the US representing more than 50% of these two minerals imports to the United States. But since we're on this topic Ariana, how are the US policymakers trying to help the strengthening of domestic supply chains? Ariana Salvatore: Right. So most things that involve building up the domestic sphere in order to kind of build resiliency or counter China's influence are quite popular bipartisan priorities. So we're seeing policymakers on both sides of the aisle indicating support for reshoring the critical mineral supply chain. That's mainly accomplished through legislation that targets things like tax incentives, or subsidies for corporates. On the regulatory front, it really comes down to easing the permitting process, which can be quite backlogged and delay the project pipeline. For some more context on that point, permitting on average takes about 7 to 10 years in the U.S. without taking into account the time spent on litigation, compared to about 2 to 3 years in other countries. So relaxing the permitting process, we think, is one key way that lawmakers can try to accelerate this reshoring of critical minerals in an increasingly insecure geopolitical world. Carlos De Alba: Now, the mining sector obviously has implications from an environmental point of view, and some of the aspects of the mining industry are at odds with sustainability business goals. So what would a significant increase in mining activity in the US will look like from a sustainability perspective? Ariana Salvatore: So this is really just a question of opposing factors. We do think that there are some clear benefits from a sustainability perspective when it comes to onshoring. For example, you have better oversight and reduced risks relating to human and labor rights violations, a reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions, assuming the extraction process here in the U.S. is held to higher ESG standards, and shortened transportation or supply chain routes. However, there's also a flipside which contains some obvious ESG concerns. First, you've seen the mining industry in the past be associated with human rights concerns, specifically related to impacts to local communities and of course, the hard to ignore implications of mining on nature and biodiversity. So at the end of the day, as I said, it's really a question of where that net effect is, and we think it's more in the positive column specifically because of that better oversight around the ESG pillars that is facilitated by onshoreing. But putting that to the side for a second, Carlos, when all is said and done, assuming the U.S. is actually able to do this, does it even have enough of its own mineral supplies in order to satisfy all its needs domestically? Carlos De Alba: Well, that's an interesting point, because in 24 of 50 minerals deemed critical by the USGS, the US either report less than 1% of the total global reserves or lack sufficient reserve data, which highlights the need for more comprehensive exploration and mining efforts. In the case of some battery making minerals like cobalt, nickel or vanadium, the US holds an average reserve level of only .5% of total global reserves. Now, on the positive side, the US ranks ninth in copper reserves, accounting for about 5% of total global reserves, and the country ranks sixth in rare earths reserves. Ariana, if we consider yet another relevant aspect for the discussion, what about the workforce? How is the US government addressing labor shortages in the mining industry? Ariana Salvatore: When it comes to the sector there's definitely a shortage of skilled workers in particular, which is being tackled I'd say through two distinct avenues. First of all, you have corporates which are trying to change the public perception of mining, and they're doing that primarily by elevating their operating standards and focusing on reducing possible environmental impacts. And then to your point, the you just mentioned, you also have the government doing its part by launching workforce initiatives. Those are basically programs that are set up to incentivize higher education institutions to develop critical minerals education programs and research and training efforts. Those are funneled through legislation like the CHIPS and Science Act, which was signed into law late last year. A popular saying within the mining industry is, 'if you can't grow it, you mine it'. Given that mining is a critical source of raw materials which touch upon nearly every supply chain, Carlos, can you sketch out some of the broader industrial and economic implications of a potential mining boom? Carlos De Alba: You're absolutely right. The development of a new domestic mine supply and the required processing capabilities will influence multiple industries here in the US. Beyond obviously, miners and exploration companies, a potential mining boom in the country will generate significant demand for equipment and machinery manufacturers, as well as engineering and environmental firms. It would also foster a more rapid and secure development of supply chains that rely heavily on minerals like batteries and electric vehicles companies. Ariana Salvatore: Carlos, thanks for taking the time to talk. Carlos De Alba: Thank you, it was great speaking with you Ariana. Ariana Salvatore: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today. 

While the ECB followed headline inflation with raised policy rates yet again last week, the Fed meeting this week may be more focused on core inflation and a hiking pause.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Global Chief Economist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the debate around oil price effects on inflation and growth, and what it means for central banks. It's Monday, September 18th at 10 a.m. in New York. Last week, the European Central Bank raised its policy rate again. We had expected them to leave rates unchanged, but President Lagarde reiterated that inflation is too high and that the Governing Council is committed to returning inflation to target. She specifically referenced oil among rising commodity prices that pose an upside risk to inflation. From the summer lows of around $70 per barrel, the price of Brent oil has risen to over $93 a barrel. How much should oil prices figure in to the macro debate? In previous research our economics team has tried to quantify the pass through of oil prices to inflation and different economies. Our takeaway is that for developed market economies, the pass through from oil prices to even headline inflation tends to be modest on average. In the quarter, following a 10% increase in oil prices, headline inflation rises about 20 basis points on average. For the euro area in particular, we have estimated that an increase like we have seen of $20 a barrel should result in about a 50 basis point increase in headline inflation. For core inflation the pass through tends to be less, about 35 basis points. Especially given the starting point though, such a rise is not negligible, but the effect should fade over time. Either the price of oil will retreat or over the next year the base effects will fall out. But energy prices can also affect spending. Recent research from the Fed estimates the effects of oil prices on consumption and GDP across countries. They estimate that a 10% increase in oil prices depresses consumption spending in the euro area by about 23 basis points. What's the mechanism through which oil price shocks affect consumption? Consumer demand for energy tends to be somewhat inelastic. That is, it's harder to substitute away from buying energy than other categories of spending. So back to the ECB, we had not expected them to hike rates, but we did think it was a close call. Core inflation had started to come down, and when it became clear that core services inflation that peaked and was drifting lower against a backdrop of signs pointing to a weaker euro area economy, we revised our call to no hike. So from our perspective, the ECB has increased the risk of hiking perhaps too much based on headline inflation. The ECB statement last week noted that inflation "is still expected to remain high for too long", but because it seems that they are now done hiking, the debate is going to turn to the duration of this so-called "higher for longer" with the policy rate. With the effects of inflation passing over time, but the drag of GDP showing up over the next few quarters, we get more comfortable expecting rate cuts there as early as June next year. The Fed is meeting this week and the last US CPI print showed headline inflation boosted by higher gasoline prices. Sound familiar? Well, our colleagues in the U.S. team have stressed that the Fed will likely look through the non core inflation. And, as in Europe, the increases in oil prices should lower purchasing power for consumers in the near term, further limiting economic activity and that is part of the objective of higher policy rates right now. With the Fed's focus on core rather than headline inflation, the last data print gives more reason to think the Fed is done hiking. Taking the last CPI print and combining it with last week's data from the Producer Price Index, you can infer a monthly rate of 0.14% for core PCE inflation in August. When the Federal Open Market Committee revisits its June economic projections, they will essentially be forced to revise down their forecasts for core inflation for this year. Thanks for listening and if you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

With more companies using artificial intelligence to enhance their travel websites, AI could become the industry norm.----- Transcript -----Ed Stanley: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ed Stanley, Head of Thematic Research in Europe. And along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today we'll be taking deep dive into the ways A.I can revolutionize the travel and booking experience. It's Friday, September the 15th at 3 p.m. in London. Ed Stanley: A.I and the company's most advantaged and likely disrupted have been the hot topic of 2023 for equity markets so far. However, the long term impacts and downstream winners and challenged companies remain fairly ambiguous for some sectors, and travel, hotels, OTAs certainly sit in that more hotly debated camp. We also have on the line our US gaming, lodging and leisure analyst Stephen Grambling with Brian Nowak, US head of Internet research. So Brian, if we could start with you to set the scene a little bit. Investors have been wondering about disrupting online travel for years. What does the hotel booking experience of the future look like, do you think? And what does that mean for travel agencies? And then, Stephen, if you want to follow up with your thoughts on the booking evolution and how that looks. So, Brian, first, please. Brian Nowak: Yeah, artificial intelligence, I think, is going to really change the overall online travel experience. I think it's going to become a lot more conversational, interactive, personalized and visual, and probably even video based in nature. You know, I think that right now you think about the travel research process where you might be looking for a hotel in Miami the week of the holidays in December that will sleep four people that has access to a beach and a golf course. That experience, the search for that right now is pretty low quality and requires a lot of multiple searches and tabs and apps, and it takes a while. You know, with the way in which these large language models and applications on top of these large language models can search through unstructured data, I think that these online travel agencies and other emerging A.I travel apps are going to really leverage these capabilities and actually just make the entire travel research process much faster, more interactive and more comprehensive. The other thing I would say on the interactive point is I think we are going to move toward having A.I powered online travel agents. Where if I am looking for that one example of a place to stay in Miami the week of the holidays today, but there are no hotels that fit my criteria, two weeks from now and inventory becomes available I may have an A.I travel agent say, Brian, are you still looking to travel in December? Look at the inventory that popped up. So I would just expect the overall travel research and booking process to become much more conversational, efficient and just high quality for all users, which should drive conversion higher and pull a larger share of wallets from offline to online. I don't know, Stephen, how do you think about the potential impacts on the brands from that? Stephen Grambling: I think to set the stage there, the most sizable place consumers start their booking process has been historically by researching hotels across price, amenities, location, etc. From the brand's perspective, the key was how do you get a consumer to book with you direct, even if the research was done via another channel? And that is what bore out the stop clicking around campaigns that started in 2016. The brands all launched marketing to tell consumers to stop price comparison all over and leverage loyalty to get the cheapest rate plus certain benefits that they could only get if they booked direct. So what happened? In some ways, the jury is still out due to the pandemic. Where do we go from here? I think, as you described, A.I has the ability to perhaps magnify some of the unique aspects of these brand loyalty programs that were so important to that direct booking campaign, that they can harness both business and consumer travel data that tends to have higher frequency, even if they have lower breadth relative to the OTAs. And as we look right now at the current landscape, when you do these queries that Brian was describing, booking channels are still effectively leveraging whatever the output was from search engine optimization, SEO. And so I think that the opportunity there is if you can train these large language models, either from the consumer dictating it via their preferences, whether it's for loyalty, the amenities they want, the experience they want, or the brands can train them by using the data that they have that's differentiated across both business and leisure. That's where they have an opportunity to actually move a little bit up in the funnel. Ed Stanley: Perfect. And you touched on marketing there, you gave some great color on the booking process of the future. Where do you think A.I could have other impacts across the PNL for your names? Stephen Grambling: So we outlined five areas A.I can impact hotels. First is obviously personalization of content, whether that's the room food, amenities being offered via video or otherwise. Second is the marketing efficiencies as offers could be more targeted based on feedback. The third is enhanced engagement during and post trip, as you continually interact with these effectively personal assistants throughout the process, not just travel planning but engagement throughout. Fourth is automated customer service, essentially chatbots and virtual assistants. And the fifth is yield and revenue management, where hotels can maximize price and occupancy by better predicting demand patterns using various sources of data. And based on other industries' success in some of these areas, we think that they could add up to hundreds of millions of dollars in benefits to the branded hotel systems across various levels of the PNL. Ed Stanley: Perfect. And one of the other things you mentioned with loyalty programs, which are pretty important, you also want to use loyalty programs for your airline hotels. Can you tell us how these work from a consumer brand perspective and why they're so important? Stephen Grambling: A number of studies suggest both business and leisure customers pick loyalty programs primarily for the perceived points value. But this is then followed by personalized experience and partnerships, that's what the consumer values when they're picking a loyalty program. A.I has the opportunity to really differentiate beyond just points back or a coupon by leveraging, as I said, the unique data that they have across both that business travel and then leisure to drive again, tailored offers experiences. These loyalty programs importantly are essentially pools of funds across all the owners of hotels deployed by the brands. And so when they're investing in A.I, the same kind of thing will happen where they'll be spreading across all of their owners. At the same time, the brands can leverage partners such as credit card companies, in the past they've also done other travel partners, to subsidize these funds and drive even greater scale. And another thing is that they can also get some fees  from these loyalty programs that they charge back to these partners. And currently that can represent over 10% of the EBITDA, these companies, as we think about co-brand credit card fees alone. Ed Stanley: Brian, you've done an AlphaWise survey or two maybe, what of the high level survey findings shown you on travel particularly? Brian Nowak: We are already seeing travel leisure research migrating over to these new platforms where, you know, something around 20% of people we think are already researching leisure travel and using those tools to research travel. So to me, it's interesting, it is an encouraging early signal for the tech companies that you are seeing this user behavior move from the traditional search products over to the next generation A.I power tools. Ed Stanley: Then just to round things off. From a topics order of preference perspective, after all the work you've done, the winners and the more challenge names you think they come out of this piece of work. Stephen Grambling: So we think about this across both the scale of the system and then their investment already in technology and we see in the cross-section there, probably the best position would be folks who have effectively already spent on a connected room. So they have the tech ability and they also have the scale. Folks who are smaller scale are just not going to have quite as much data to work with, and they're not going to have the same system size and system funds that they can invest in the technology behind it. Ed Stanley: Stephen, Brian, that's been really insightful. Thank you for taking the time to talk. Ed Stanley: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please be sure to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people find the show.

With the global demand of oil reaching a new high, the spillover in performance is changing the fortune for energy equities and oil markets.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley's Global Commodity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, Today I'll discuss the recent changes in oil markets and why recently we turned bullish on energy equities once again. It's Thursday, September 14th at 2 p.m. in London. Prices of both crude oil and refined product have risen substantially over the last two months. Brent crude oil is trading once again a little over $90 a barrel, up 20% since the middle of the year. Diesel prices have rallied even more, up 50% since the mid year point and recently surpassing the $1,000 per tonne mark again. After a fairly lackluster first half, this begs the question what has brought about this sudden change in fortune. For starters, oil demand is simply robust. In June, global oil demand reached 103 million barrels a day, a new all time high. But on top of that, the recent crude price rally has been supported by strong production cuts from OPEC, particularly Saudi Arabia. In April, Saudi Arabia still exported 7.4 million barrels per day of crude oil. By August, this had fallen to just 5.4 million barrels a day, that is an unusually sharp drop in a very short space time. On a 100 million barrel per day market, that may not look like much, but this is enough to drive the market into deficits, cause inventories to decline and prices to rise. What has given refined product prices, like diesel, a further boost has been tightness in the global refining system. Capacity closures during COVID, logistical difficulties in replacing Russian crude in European refineries and an unexpectedly large number of unplanned outages, partly because of a hot summer, have effectively curtailed refining capacity. Like last year, it has been all hands on deck in global refining this summer. Whether oil prices and refining margins will still rally a lot further is hard to know, but prices seem well underpinned at current levels. As long as Saudi Arabia and the rest of OPEC continue their current oil policy, the oil market is simply tight and the current cuts have all the hallmarks of lasting well into next year. On top, we think it will take some time before the current constraints in refining are resolved. Margins may decline somewhat from their current very elevated levels, but we would expect them to remain high by historical standards for some time to come. Then we would also argue that risks to natural gas prices in Europe are once again skewed higher. Prices have fallen substantially this year, and of course, they could fall somewhat further. However, if some tightness returns, they can rally a lot more, skewing that price outlook higher too. Putting this all together creates a favorable outlook for energy equities and that is where our true conviction lies. At the start of the year, we argued that earnings expectations for the energy sector were high and that market sentiment was already bullish and that valuations were stretched. After two years of rating the sector attractive, we downgraded our sector view back in January. However, pretty much all these factors have changed once again. Consensus earnings forecasts have fallen, but given our commodity outlook, we would now expect upgrades to consensus estimates to start coming through once again, making energy possibly the only sector for which this argument can be made. With strong free cash flow ahead, we expect robust dividend growth, strong share buybacks and declining net debt. Combining that with market sentiment that is no longer so buoyant for energy and valuations that have corrected quite a lot, we think energy is once again an attractive sector. Especially for those seeking high income and protection against inflation, against an uncertain geopolitical backdrop. Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Even though mortgage rates are up 100 points since the beginning of 2023, home prices are likely to stay flat or increase due to tight housing supply.----- Transcript -----Jim Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, co-head of U.S. Securitized Products Research here at Morgan Stanley. Jay Bacow: And I'm Jay Bacow, the other Co-Head of U.S. Securities Products Research. Jim Egan: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing U.S. home prices. It's Wednesday, September 13th at 11 a.m. in New York. Jay Bacow: Jim, mortgage rates are up over 100 basis points since the beginning of the year, but I hear you were turning more optimistic on home prices. What gives? Jim Egan: Well, the first thing that I would say is that home price data is pretty lagged and that an increase in mortgage rates is not going to be felt immediately in the data. For instance, let's assume the last week of August ends up being the peak in mortgage rates for this cycle. When would you expect that rate to start showing up in actual purchase mortgages? Jay Bacow: So, if the peak in mortgage rates is the end of August, we will get data on people applying for the mortgage the following week from the Mortgage Bankers Association. But it takes about seven weeks right now to close a mortgage. If the peak was at the end of August, the mortgages are probably closing towards the end of October, almost at Halloween. But if it closes in October, Jim, when will we actually get that data? Jim Egan: Right. The home price data is even more lagged than that. The Case-Shiller prints that we forecast and that we've talked about on this podcast, those come out with a two month delay. So those October sales, we're not going to see until December. Again, for instance, the print we just got at the end of August, that was for home prices in June. Jay Bacow: So in other words, we haven't seen the full impact of this increase in rates yet on the housing market and the data that we can see. But when we do, what's the impact going to be on home prices? Jim Egan: Well, we think the immediate impact is going to be on a few other aspects of the housing market, and then those aspects are going to potentially impact home prices. The most straightforward level here is affordability, right? That's an equation that includes prices, mortgage rates, as well as incomes, and so we're talking about the mortgage rate component. Now, one thing that you and I have said on this podcast before, Jay, is that affordability in the U.S. housing market, it's still challenged, but at least so far this year it really hasn't been getting any worse. That's not the case anymore. Affordability is still very challenged and now it's started to get worse again. By our calculations, the monthly payment on the median priced home is up 18% over the past year, and that's the first time that deterioration has accelerated since October of 2022. Three month and six month changes in affordability have also resumed deteriorating after those were actually improving earlier this year. Jay Bacow: So if homes are getting less affordable, presumably home sales should fall? Jim Egan: We think that would be kind of the probable impact there and it is something that we're seeing. To be clear, affordability is not deteriorating anywhere near as rapidly as it did in 2022, and we don't expect the same sharp declines in home sales. But this really does give us further confidence in our L-shaped forecast, and if anything it could provide a little more pressure on existing home sales. But we're also seeing the impact on the supply side of the equation. Jay Bacow: But wasn't the supply side already incredibly low? For instance, our truly refinanceable index calculates what percent of the universe has at least 25 basis points of incentive to refinance. It's at less than 1% right now. The average outstanding mortgage rate for the agency market is 3.68%. Are we really expecting the supply to fall further? Jim Egan: So that wasn't part of our original forecast and we had been seeing existing inventories really start to climb off of recorded lows. For context, our data there goes back about 40 years, but that's taken an abrupt about face in recent months. The 13% year-over-year decrease in inventory that we just saw this past month, that's the sharpest drop since June 2021, with a contraction coming through both new and existing listings. As affordability has resumed its deterioration with this increase in mortgage rates, homebuilder confidence actually fell month over month for the first time this year. Now, tight supply should continue to provide support to home prices, even as affordability has become more challenged. Jay Bacow: And so what does that support for home prices end up looking like? Jim Egan: The short answer, we expect a return to year-over-year growth with the next print that we're going to get here at the end of September. Case-Shiller year-over-year has actually fallen for each of the past three months. We think that ends now. We have a forecast of plus 0.7% year-over-year with a print that's just about to come out and that would be a new record high. With home prices then surpassing their levels in June of 2022, at least for that index. Our base case forecast for year end has been 0% growth, with our bull case at plus 5%. The evolution of the inputs since particularly the supply point here continues to be tighter than what was already pretty tepid expectations on our part. That has us expecting HPA to finish the year between these two levels, that base case and that bull case level. Jay Bacow: All right, Jim, it's always great talking to you. Jim Egan: Great talking to you, too, Jay. Jay Bacow: And thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on the Apple Podcast app and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Economic growth data from the summer has bolstered belief in a possible soft landing in the U.S., while China has experienced a faster-than-expected deterioration in the macro environment.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about our views on the markets as we head into the fall. It's Tuesday, September 12th at 10 a.m. in New York. As many of us head back to school, Morgan Stanley Global economics and strategy teams look back on how the economy and the markets have evolved over the summer and look ahead to what changing narratives mean for the economic outlook and asset markets. Our debate centered on two key issues. One, the outperformance of the U.S. economy and the underperformance of China economy. And two, the recent spike in government bond yields at the longer end of the curve. The U.S. economy has been outperforming our expectations and has led markets over the summer to push out the first expected cut into 2024. The concern is that a still hot economy means that the Fed can keep policy restrictive for longer. Acknowledging the strong incoming data, our economists have revised their 2023 growth expectations significantly higher for the U.S. from 0.4% to 1.7%, even as they maintain that the Fed is done hiking and will be on hold until first quarter of 2024. On the other hand, in China, the trajectory of economic growth has been different. Over the summer, data have been pointing to a faster than expected deterioration in the macro environment. We have seen successive and incremental property and infrastructure easing measures, but market confidence has not returned and debates around earnings, spillover effects on global growth and the impact on commodities are growing. Noting the macro and policy challenges since the mid-year outlook, our China economists have revised their 2023 growth expectations lower for China from 5.7% to 4.7% for 2023. And our emerging market equity strategists have moved to equal weight on China and revise down their MSCI Emerging Market Index target. What about our call to be long duration? Ten year Treasury yields have sold off by about 65 basis points since our mid-year outlook on better than expected U.S. growth data, among other factors. Can this continue? Our strategists make modest changes to their rates forecast, but still see a path for low yields, countering the market narrative of growth reacceleration or a higher treasury supply technical. Thus, we reaffirm our conviction to be long duration, despite the rates  market moving away from us. Overall, our conviction on a U.S. soft landing has strengthened. But with monetary policy remaining restrictive, late cycle risks, growth, earnings and defaults remain. We maintain a defensive stance. We prefer bonds over equities and equal-weight stocks, overweight fixed income, underweight commodities, and equal weight cash. Combined with rich valuations, this makes us stay equal-weight equities, with a preference for rest of the world stocks over US stocks. In all, high carry and late cycle environment favor an overweight in fixed income. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Heading into the end of the year, questions remain around Treasury yields and the neutral interest rate.----- Transcript -----Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Chief Global Economist. Guneet Dhingra: And I'm Guneet Dhingra, Morgan Stanley's Head of U.S. Trade Strategies. Seth Carpenter: And today on the podcast, we'll be discussing our updated economic and rates outlook for the rest of the year and into 2024. It's Monday, September 11th, at 10 a.m. in New York. Seth Carpenter: All right, Guneet. We are now about a week into September and we can take stock of what we've learned over the summer. For macroeconomists like me we care about growth, inflation, monetary policy, and I'll say this summer spending indicators came in strong, inflation continued to fall, and we had Jackson Hole, the sort of nerd temple for monetary policy. And I have to say we didn't learn quite as much as I hoped, but we kind of know the Fed has done hiking, or at least very close. But I have to say, in your domain, the Treasury yield is trading roughly 4.25%. On the last day of June, when summer began, it was around 380. Can we just attribute the higher rate to thin liquidity and move on? Guneet Dhingra: You're right Seth, it's not just thin liquidity, but the conditions of August definitely played a meaningful part in sending yields higher. Typically, as investors look to go away for August, positive carry trades are the easiest trades to have on, and playing for higher yields has been positive carry. Which is why I think in August this year and even the last year, yields tended to go higher. But beyond August, seasonality, which might be the simplest explanation, investors have 4 major narratives out there that R-star, the so-called neutral rate of interest has increased, the end of yield curve control in Japan, more Treasury supply and more recently at the end of the summer, and increased supply of corporate debt. Guneet Dhingra: So before we go there Seth, you mentioned Jackson Hole at the end of the summer. The idea that some investors have that because the economy has held up so well, despite the Fed's rate hikes, that the underlying neutral rate or R-star must be higher and so will have higher interest rates not just now, but into the future. What is your take on this whole R* debate and what have you learned from Jackson Hole? Seth Carpenter: Absolutely. So I have to say Jackson Hole was very interesting, but this time there were a lot of very academic minded papers there that were very important to talk about. I can see how they can spur debate, but I'm not sure they provide that much that's actionable in the near term for the Fed or even for markets. And when it comes specifically to R-star, color me a bit skeptical and I say that for a few reasons. One, alternate explanations just abound. We could have got stronger spending because there's more residual impetus from the fiscal policy that's already in the pipeline. And in particular, if we look at where we missed our GDP forecast, a really big part of that was nonresidential structures investment. So that could go a long way to explain it. Second, if R-star really was higher, I think that would mean that the Fed would have to raise the peak rate during this hiking cycle even higher, not just rates off in the future. And so what does that mean? That means that I at least would have expected a parallel shift higher in rates, not just along in selling off. And in fact, you might even see a steeper inversion of the curve as the rate goes higher in the near term, but then has to come down later. So take all of that together, and I guess I'm just really not convinced that there's enough evidence to conclude that R-star is higher. Guneet Dhingra: Yeah, makes a lot of sense, Seth. And listening to you about the growth and economic picture, I'm even more convinced that this R-star story doesn't quite hold water. Seth Carpenter: All right, so then there is the yield curve control story. And I will say, at the risk of patting myself on the back, our Japan team had been expecting a tweak to yield curve control in Japan, and we got it. But I know that you're skeptical that that's really the story here. Why do you push back? Guneet Dhingra: Yeah, I think one of the ways you can actually verify the impact of the yield curve control on the U.S Treasury market, is just break down the price action into different time zones. And what you saw is in the Tokyo time zone, where you would expect a lot of the so-called repatriation flows to play out, we haven't really seen much of a movement in U.S Treasury yields ever since the YCC change announcement. So I would say based on the time zone analysis, it doesn't look like YCC changes are really impacting Treasury yields. Seth Carpenter: Okay Guneet, I get it. So it wasn't from trading happening in Tokyo, but these sort of markets are global. There could have been traders in London, traders in New York who were reacting to the change in yield curve control and selling their JGBs. And then the traders in Tokyo wake up and go, oh, nothing to do here. What do you make of that story? Why couldn't that be the explanation that it really was yield curve control? Guneet Dhingra: So if you break it down in the London Time Zone, it actually turns out that Treasury yields have actually gone lower since the YCC announcement in the London Time Zone. To my mind, that speaks to the idea that maybe investors in those time zones are more focused on the weakness in the European economy than any changes to YCC. And speaking of the New York time zone, yes, it is true that the bulk of the sell off in Treasury yields has happened in the New York time zone. But keep in mind, if hedge funds are the only major player selling yields on the back of the YCC, and it's not quite backed up by repatriation flows, it's probably not likely going to be sustainable. Seth Carpenter: Then let's turn to the last one, increased supply of debt, both Treasury debt and corporate debt. So we know that the U.S deficit is high, Issuance will have to continue for some time. We've heard all of the stories about corporates starting to stir in capital markets and issue more. Shouldn't it be logical that if demand for assets is roughly unchanged but the supply goes up, the price will fall, which should lead to a sell off in rates? What do you make of that story? Guneet Dhingra: Yeah, the story is pretty logical, but I don't think it still answers the question. If supply was really the main driver, I would expect to see more of a substantial tightening in so-called swap spreads, which is the gap between Treasury yields and the equivalent swap rates. We haven't really seen much of a tightening in swap spreads, which really undercuts the idea that Treasury supply is already on investors minds. Seth Carpenter: All right. So I think we've gone through a bunch of the narratives, pushd back on a lot of them, maybe debunked them a little bit. I guess the one other question I would have for you is, could it be that markets are waking up to the higher for longer narrative? The Fed's been trying to say that they're going to keep interest rates as high as they need to for as long as they need to in order to bring inflation back to target. Maybe the market's putting more probability on that sort of outcome. Guneet Dhingra: Just to pretend I'm smarter than the economists, I will use the word bear steepening of the curve here. So in my view, the recent bear steepening of the 2s/10s curve is a combination of two things. Number one, there has been very little change in the market implied Fed funds path through the end of 2024. And number two, the back end has moved higher with some combination of August seasonality and belief around a higher R-star. So I would say it is less about the quote unquote higher for longer expectation, but more about the idea that the Fed fund eventually settles at a higher level in the medium term. Seth Carpenter: Okay. I guess that's fair. Let's take a step back, though, and take stock of what it is that we've learned. You and I and our colleagues have published work recently, basically saying, here's the mid-year outlook we published in May, here are the data that we got over the course of the summer. What did we get right and what did we get wrong? I econ, I'd say we got right the continued and pretty rapid fall in inflation in the U.S. and the slowing in the labor market, and I'm pretty proud of that. But boy, we got wrong just how strong the U.S. economy would be. And in very stark contrast, we missed just how weak the Chinese economy would be. Boy, we really thought that there'd be a stronger, more vigorous policy response that would get better traction and we'd see a bigger cyclical rebound. What are your key takeaways from what you and your colleagues in strategy have learned over the summer? Guneet Dhingra: To start with some numbers, we had ten year yields ending at 3.5% by the end of 2023. Currently there are 4.25%. We think we missed two things. First, the market focuses on upside and growth rather than the cooling of inflation. And number two, we missed the investors and how they're behaving, once bitten twice shy, about adding duration until every data point cools down convincingly. Having said that, your forecast is for more cooling and growth and inflation through the year. And so we have only marginally raised our ten year forecast to 3.65% by the end of this year. Seth Carpenter: I have to say, Guneet, every time I talk to you, I learn something new. So thank you for taking the time to talk. Guneet Dhingra: Great speaking with you, Seth. Seth Carpenter: And thanks to the listeners for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Both equities and high-yield bonds could benefit from an end to ratings hikes, but may still face risks from company earnings revisions, a potential U.S. government shutdown and other events on the horizon.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, September 8th at 2 p.m. in London. The week after Labor Day is both a refreshing return to more normal market conditions, and a rush. As investors head back to school, so to speak, here are a few big issues that we think they should be focused on. First and most importantly, we think the next few months will be about cementing the idea that both the Fed and the ECB are done raising interest rates for the foreseeable future. Given better than expected core inflation data in the U.S. and worse than expected growth data in Europe, we think neither central bank will raise rates at their meetings this month. And then further out, we think they stay on hold as lowered levels of bank loan growth, slower job growth and a continued decline in core inflation will reinforce the idea that central banks have raised rates enough. For markets, the end of a central bank rate hiking cycle tends to be pretty good for high grade bonds. Indeed, going back over the last 40 years, the dates of the last Fed funds rate increase and the local high point for yields on the U.S. aggregate bond index, line up almost to the month. The logic in this relationship also feels intuitive. If the Fed is done raising rates, one of two things has probably happened. It stopped raising rates at the correct level to bring inflation down without a recession and bonds like that lower inflation and more certainty, or they stopped because they've raised rates too much, slowing growth in inflation much more, a scenario where investors like the safety of bonds. But in riskier markets, the picture greeting investors in September is more murky. Like August, September also tends to see below average returns and above average volatility, and that seasonality doesn't turn helpful until mid-October. Company earnings revisions tend to be weak around this time of year, something our equity strategists believe could repeat. Investors got a lot more optimistic over the summer, raising the hurdle for good news. And there are some specific risk events on the near-term horizon, from a potential shutdown of the US government to a strike in the auto industry. For equities and high yield bonds, we therefore think investors should exercise more patience. A third issue investors will be watching is supply. September is historically one of the heaviest months of the year for corporate bond issuance, but with corporate bond yields now at some of their highest levels in nearly 20 years, will that reduce the incentive for companies to borrow? And meanwhile, one of the reasons assigned to the recent rise in US government bond yields has been the high levels of government borrowing. The next few weeks will give a much better idea of the true impact of that potential supply. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.

A strong El Niño event in the coming months could have negative effects for food inflation, commodities markets and climate change.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Sustainability Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives today, I'll discuss the global risks and impact from a potential El Niño event later this year. It's Thursday, September 7th at 10 a.m. in New York. Over the last few months, as you've been doing your backyard grilling or taking a well-deserved summertime vacation, you may have heard a passing news reference to a climate pattern called El Niño. And although I'm an equity analyst and not a meteorologist, I'm going to talk about El Niño today because it could have some significant impacts for investors. To explain, El Niño refers to a warming of the ocean surface or above average sea surface temperatures in the central and eastern tropical Pacific. It's the counterpart to La Niña, which refers to the cooling effect of the same ocean surfaces. Essentially, El Niño and La Niña represent opposite extremes in the El Niño Southern Oscillation or ENSO. ENSO follows cyclical patterns that repeat at a 2 to 7 year cadence and tend to peak in the November to February window. Current conditions imply about a 70% probability that we could be facing a moderate to strong El Niño event later this year with a range of potentially significant impacts across regions and industries. First, although El Niño starts in the Pacific equator area, it has a significant impact on global weather. El Niño tends to peak around year end, impacting global rains and temperatures. El Niño driven seasonal patterns in the U.S., Argentina and the Andes tend to be wet, while those in Southeast Asia, Australia, Brazil, Colombia and Africa tend to be dry. This dynamic creates conditions that move wildfires and hurricanes from the Atlantic into the Pacific area. El Niño events also impact the global economy and the environmental, social and governance, or ESG, factors for businesses worldwide. More specifically, a moderate to strong El Niño in combination with the Russia-Ukraine war could impact food inflation, raising questions about the emerging markets central banks easing cycles. It could also impact trade and GDP in agro-related economies such as Argentina, India, Australia, Brazil and Colombia, among others. It may also impact several commodities, including sugar, grains, animal meal, proteins, electricity, lithium, copper, iron ore, aluminum and coal. El Niño’s effects can be positive or negative for different sectors and regions. For example, El Niño tends to be a negative in emerging markets. In Latin America, given the size of the agricultural sector and the spillover effect of agriculture into other industries, growth could be affected significantly. The recession we expect in Argentina this year is partially driven by La Niña, which generated an unprecedented drought. We expect El Niño to help grain yields in Argentina and to provide significant positive base effects to GDP in 2024. Finally, when it comes to ESG, El Niño can exacerbate climate change impacts and increase concentrations of greenhouse gasses. Since this is a global issue and impacts all sectors to various degrees, we believe investors should pay close attention. Furthermore, the humanitarian impact of El Niño lasts long after the phenomenon itself, be it through impacts on food security and malnutrition, disease outbreaks, disrupted basic services and sanitation or significant impacts on livelihoods around the world. Typically, extreme weather events hit the poorest communities the hardest. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show.

Investors anticipate new legislation on tech regulation, AI and defense, amid speculation about a potential government shutdown.-----Transcription -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about Congress coming back in the session and its impact on markets. It's Wednesday, September 6th, at 10 a.m. in New York. Congress returns from summer break this week with a full agenda. Expect to see tons of headlines on various policies that markets care about. Tech regulation, artificial intelligence regulation, defense spending, disaster relief aid and the risk of a government shutdown, are just some of the issues that should be tackled. It can be a bit overwhelming, so here's our cheat sheet for September in D.C. to help cut through the noise and understand why this could be a good set up for U.S bonds. On tech regulation and A.I, don't expect any meaningful movement here. New versions of legislative proposals on data privacy and liability for spreading misinformation may come, but there's still no comprehensive bipartisan agreement that could turn proposals into law. So we continue to expect that this only becomes possible after the 2024 election delivers a new government makeup. On defense spending, we expect that aid to Ukraine will continue and the Congress will approve overall defense spending levels in excess of the cap set by the agreement put in place alongside the hike of the debt ceiling. There's bipartisan agreement here, with the exception of House Republicans. Resolving issues with those holdouts will likely take brinkmanship over a government shutdown and perhaps even an actual government shutdown, but ultimately we see a deal that should be positive for a defense sector which has benefited recently by elevated spending by Western governments. The biggest story to track, though, is that risk of a government shutdown. As we previously discussed on this podcast, a shutdown is a real risk because House Republicans are not in sync with the rest of the House of Representatives and Senate on spending levels for fiscal 2024. Further, there's the sense that both sides may rightly or wrongly perceive political value in a shutdown. So there's both motive and opportunity here. And while a shutdown on its own is not sufficient to ruin our economists' expectation of a soft landing for the U.S. economy, it does add some fresh downside risk to growth in the 4th quarter, which economists already expect would be challenged. Major entertainment events in the U.S. boosted consumption above expectations this summer, and those effects should start to wane at the same time that the student loan moratorium rolls off, meaning many households will again have to direct some level of their income away from consumption toward servicing loans come October 1st. Put it all together, and it's a strong rationale for our view that high grade bonds have value here. U.S. government bond yields should be near their peak, with the market moving beyond the notion that the Fed may have to hike substantially more this economic cycle. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

While valuations may be on the rise, fears around the resiliency of the economy could return and leave unguarded investors on uneven footing.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Tuesday,  September 5th at 10 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. In a world of price momentum, opinions about the fundamentals are often driven by the direction of price. Some of this is due to the view that markets are all knowing and often the best leading indicator for the fundamentals. After all, stocks are discounting machines and tell us what's likely to happen in the future rather than what is happening today. The old adage "buy the rumor and sell the news", is another way to think about this relationship. Using this philosophy, the move higher in stocks this year has provided the confidence for many to turn fundamentally bullish from what was an overly bearish consensus backdrop in the first quarter. The entire move in the major U.S. equity averages this year has been the result of higher valuations. However, with forward price earnings multiples reaching 20 times on the S&P 500 last month, not only are stocks anticipating higher earnings and growth, but they now require it. The other reason price momentum works has little to do with the fundamental outlook. Instead, price momentum often leads investors to chase or sell that momentum. It's human nature to want to go with the trend both up and down. Most were too negative on the economy at the beginning of the year, including us. The failure of a few large regional banks and negative price reaction in the stock market reinforced that view. However, when the recession didn't arrive, there was a fundamental reason to reverse that view. The price action in April and May supported that pivot, further feeding the bullish narrative. However, the move in price was very narrow, led by just a handful of Mega-cap growth stocks. In June, breadth improved, dragging investor confidence toward the optimistic fundamental outcome. But since then, breath has rolled over again and remains weak. We recommend maintaining a late cycle mindset, which means a barbell of growth stocks and defensive, not cyclicals or smaller stocks. Going into the second quarter earnings season we suggested it would be a "sell the news event", mainly because stocks had rallied in the mid-July, which was a change from the past several quarters where stocks trended weaker into results. Now that earnings season is over, we know that the price reaction post reporting was some of the weakest we've witnessed in the past decade. We think stocks may be starting to question the sustainability of the economic resiliency we experienced in the first half of the year. Defensives and growth stocks have done better than cyclicals. As an aside, the earnings results have not kept pace with the economy this year outside of a few areas which have been driven mostly by cost cutting rather than top line growth which furthers the idea we are still late cycle, not early or mid. This past week, equity prices have rebounded sharply, led once again by growth stocks. With softer economic data weighing on Treasury yields, stock market participants seem willing to bid valuations back up on the view the late cycle environment is being extended once again. With inadequate evidence to affirm or contradict that view, price continues to be the governing factor for many investors' conclusions about where we are in the cycle. Bottom line price momentum is a key driver of sentiment, especially in a late cycle environment when uncertainty about the outcome is high. We continue to recommend a more defensive growth posture in one's portfolio given that the fears of recession or financial distress could return at any moment in the late cycle environment in which we find ourselves, particularly as we enter September. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It help's more people to find the show.

Although back-to-school spending appears to be trending higher than in 2022, there are signs that U.S. consumers could feel pinched before the holiday season.----- Transcript -----Sarah Wolfe: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Sarah Wolfe from Morgan Stanley's U.S. Economics Team. Simeon Gutman: And I'm Simeon Gutman, an Equity Analyst covering the U.S. Hard Lines, Broad Lines and Food Retail Industries. Sarah Wolfe: And on this special episode of the podcast, we'll focus on back to school shopping trends and what they suggest for the U.S. consumer outlook for the rest of the year. It's Friday, September 1st at 10 a.m. in New York. Simeon Gutman: Sarah, back to school shopping is in full swing as we go into the Labor Day weekend and end of the summer. As an economist who focuses on the U.S. consumer. I know you track it closely. Why is back to school shopping such an important indicator in general, and what is it suggesting about the overall health of the U.S. consumer? Sarah Wolfe: Back to school is a large shopping event across July and August each year, which is an event that is only as strong as the strength of the U.S. household. If households feel good about job prospects and inflation is not eating away at their buying power, you should see that reflected in back to school sales. If we go back to summer 2022, headline inflation was 8% going into back to school shopping, and there were lingering concerns about COVID disrupting school. In 2023, certain headwinds to the consumer are risks to spend, these include higher debt service costs, tighter lending standards and a student loan moratorium expiring in October, but a still strong labor market and abating inflationary pressures that have supported a recovery in real wages should outweigh the downside risk and lead to a moderate back to school spending year. So what does this all mean for what we're seeing in the data? Our early read on July back to school shopping and in-store sales is that they're going to be weaker than the historical average, however, August matters most. If we see August sales in line with the historical average, then back to school sales for 2023 on a year-over-year basis would be quite a bit stronger than 2022 still, but roughly in line with the historical run rate from 2011 to 2019. This jives with our early readings from our AlphaWise Consumer Poll survey that this year back to school shopping is looking stronger than last year, but it is not a blowout. Simeon Gutman: And how about end of year holiday spending? Is back to school a predictor of holiday spending trends? Sarah Wolfe: Back to school shopping is indeed a predictor of holiday shopping trends. However, the early read through to holiday shopping points to a holiday season that's actually weaker than 2022, but in line with the historical run rate as well. Total retail sales on a non seasonally adjusted basis across November and December have been 8% year-over-year from 2011 to 2019 in 2021, the growth was 33% and 2022 was 12%. This was due to stronger than usual demand for goods as a result of COVID and stimulus. So while the consumer remains relatively healthy and is spending more on back to school shopping than last year, it'll be tough to beat 2022 holiday shopping growth. The preliminary forecast for holiday shopping is to see growth in line with the historical run rate, but weaker than next year. We still get a couple more retail sales reports that are going to help us fine tune our holiday shopping forecast. Simeon, turning it over to you, what specific trends are you observing during this back to school shopping season? Simeon Gutman: So far, it's mixed. On the surface, it looks like the consumer is healthy. If we look at durable goods spending the last couple of months, we have June and now July, low 2% range. That's decent. But under the surface, it's a bit of a different story. If you look at the Q2 comps across the coverage universe, they were roughly flat. That's not a great indicator of spending. And we see a shift towards consumables and supplies and must haves. Consumers are not prioritizing discretionary items. Big ticket items are under pressure. The companies that are growing and doing well, they look like they're taking market share, there's a shift towards value, so discount stores, dollar stores, off price stores, and it looks like it's a story of product categories, beauty and auto parts. What we've seen specifically for back to school, July was a strong month, but there was potentially some pull forward from earlier in the season. August seems to be good, but may have slowed a little and we'll see about September. But consumers are definitely shopping more on occasion and it's been a little bit choppy. Sarah Wolfe: These are great insights, Simeon, on how consumer behavior is slowly evolving as the macro backdrop becomes a little bit tougher. You've also highlighted electronics as one particular area that appears most at risk. What exactly does that mean and what's driving it? Simeon Gutman: So we conducted an AlphaWise survey, that Morgan Stanley did about a month ago, that suggests electronics have the most risk. We had a net neutral spending intention from consumers year-over-year. In contrast to other categories, we asked about clothing and apparel had a 21% net positive spending intention while school supplies was also positive 12%. The largest public company in the electronics space, they posted a -6% same store sales number in their recent quarter on top of a pretty big negative number the prior year. So it underscores the survey. The only caveat, and maybe a silver lining is, there is chatter about units in electronics beginning to bottom, so there could be some silver lining. Sarah Wolfe: Finally, Simeon, if we were to widen the lens a bit, how have back to school shopping trends evolved over the last 5 to 10 years? And what is your longer term outlook for what lies ahead in terms of potential future trends? Simeon Gutman: Drum roll, please. Not much. It doesn't seem that we've gotten a big shift in spending. So we looked back over the last ten years at the percentage of spend that consumers have made over the July, August and September timeframe, which captures the back to school season. As a percentage of retail sales, it's surprisingly consistent in the 24 to 25% range. In this kind of COVID post-COVID era, we've seen it tick up a bit, but this makes sense because the consumer has shifted spend from services to goods. So it's run rating around 25%, but as we've seen reversion in other categories, we think this will moderate as well. So our future prediction would be consistent with the prior trend line; it doesn't seem to be trading off sales with other periods, including the holiday. The one trend we have seen is e-commerce penetration is rising, in this timeframe for both non store retailers and for physical retailers who have seen a higher mix of online sales. But as far as the future goes, we don't expect a big change. Sarah Wolfe: Simeon, thanks for taking the time to talk. Simeon Gutman: Great speaking with you, Sarah. Sarah Wolfe: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

While recent news of a potential debt deflation loop in China’s equity market is causing concern for investors, Japan’s equity market resilience may bring optimism.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Daniel Blake from Morgan Stanley's Asia and Emerging Markets Equity Strategy team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss the Japanese equity market vis-a-vis China. It's Thursday, August 31st at 9 a.m. in Singapore. We recently did a three part series on this show focusing on our economic and market outlook for Japan. We discussed a bullish view on Japan equities, which is driven by three powerful drivers of outperformance coming together, namely macro, micro and the transition to a multipolar world. Recently, however, there's been investor concern about the potential impact on Japan from a Chinese debt-deflation loop, that is a scenario where prices fall, debt rises and economic growth stagnates, and this is the risk that I will discuss today. As a reminder, our economists came into 2023 flagging Japan as a standout developed market for growth momentum. In contrast to a U.S and European slowdown, as Japan continues to benefit from COVID reopening, ongoing stimulatory policy and a competitive currency. Since then, we have seen upside surprises, such as in wages and capital investments amid what we see as confirmation of a move into a structurally higher nominal GDP growth path. Indeed, Japan's recent second quarter GDP figures confirmed that trend, with a surge in real and nominal GDP to 6% and 12% annualized respectively. Following this result, our economists have doubled their 2023 GDP forecast to 2.2%, and this stands in contrast to China's GDP growth trend, where our economists have been reducing forecasts and will see nominal GDP growth slow below that of Japan to 4.8% over the last year. So the key exception to a generally bullish picture for Japan has been its linkages to China. While this may appear to be a legitimate investor concern for the market as a whole, it's important to note that Japanese revenues are driven much more by the U.S and Europe, which together make up a quarter of total sales. Instead, China makes up just 5% less than many assume, and far lower than that of Singapore, Taiwan, Australia or South Korea. However, there are some pockets of China exposure that we note, including in semis and semi-cap equipment, electronic components and factory automation. Another reason for our optimism about Japan's equity market resilience amid the slowdown in China is that China exposed Stocks in Japan have almost fully unwound the outperformance seen during the early COVID zero and post-COVID reopening phases. In contrast, Asia-Pacific ex-Japan companies with high exposures to China, many of them in the technology or resources sector, stand close to their relative highs. So while we do see from here less upside to the aggregate MSCI Emerging Markets Index and the Tokyo Stock Price Index, known as TOPIX, after the post October rally, we do see good reason for Japanese equities to continue to outperform. Valuations on a 12 month forward basis are in line or slightly below their ten year historical averages, and we expect 10% earnings growth in 2023 and 2024 as that nominal GDP growth recovery and corporate reform rolls through the market. The key downside risk will, of course, be not just the Chinese debt deflation loop, but adding on top a US recession, which ironically would be similar to what happened in the 1990s, when in Japan, imbalances, excess leverage and insufficient policy stimulus tipped the economy into structural deflation and stagnation. So while that risk is more relevant for China and Japan is in a completely different situation now, we are closely monitoring the risks of this bear case scenario and what that would mean for parts of the Asia and emerging markets universe. So thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Although Europe has been the global leader when it comes to greening its economy, recent challenges may be a cause for concern.----- Transcript -----Rob Pulleyn: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Rob Pulleyn, Morgan Stanley's Head of Utilities of Clean Energy Research in Europe. Jens Eisenschmidt: And I'm Jens Eisenschmidt, Morgan Stanley's Chief Europe Economist. Rob Pulleyn: On this special episode of this podcast, we'll be discussing the future of Europe's energy transition, including whether its clean energy goals are realistic and the implications for investors and Europe's broader economy. It's the 30th of August, 10 a.m. in London. Rob Pulleyn: Europe has long been a global leader when it comes to greening its economy. Strong societal and political support has bolstered the region's transition to clean sources of energy, with a European Green Deal and climate target plan aiming to reduce CO2 emissions by at least 55% by 2030 and achieve net zero by 2050. While substantial progress has been made over the previous decades, the region is now facing several challenges. Jens, can you give us the backdrop to Europe's energy transition and some of what's changed recently? Jens Eisenschmidt: Yes Rob, I mean, you have explained it already. There are big change targets, climate change related targets to the energy transition that Europe has subscribed to. These targets were in place already before the 24th of February in 22, when we saw the Russian invasion in Ukraine that changed the European energy set up profoundly. Now, why is this important? It's important because these targets were done in sort of a plan that relied on a certain energy source that is no longer existing. So let me give you an example. Let's take Germany, which was anyway already quite progressed in its journey onto increasing the share of renewables in electricity production. If you take Germany, they have been turning their back on nuclear power generation, which is another source of emission free power generation, and have embraced as a flex load provider, so as a provider of electricity when renewables are unavailable to natural gas. Now this natural gas supply from Russia is no longer available, as we all know, and of course, that implies that the Germans and other member states of the European Union as well have to change the plan by which they transit to a carbon free economy. And, you know, this is very complicated because it's not only switching one energy source for the other or exchanging one for the other. You also have to look about the infrastructure, you have to see what is essentially giving your energy mix the stability, as I said before, when we don't have sun shining and wind blowing, you need to have a source that's about the question about storage technologies, that's not entirely independent of the energy sources that you have available. And so the last year provided a profound challenge to the way Europe had planned its energy transition, so they have to replan it, and the complexity of that is huge. Essentially, it's something you want to ideally plan at the European level in order to harness all the comparative advantages all the countries have, given example, you have a lot of sun hours in Spain, less so in Germany, so ideally you want to put solar for Europe somewhere south and not so much somewhere north. But that of course means something for the grid, you have to deploy around it. So all that complexity is huge, all the coordination needs are huge and so this is the new situation we are in. Rob Pulleyn: Yeah, that new situation clearly puts increased pressure on Europe, if electricity prices remain elevated, Europe's large industrial base and you mentioned Germany would continue to shoulder this burden. You know margins, pricing, competitiveness would all suffer and the region's place in the global value chain might be at risk. Now, renewables are increasingly cost competitive, but even when the solar power is still very intermittent and that requires either a  stable baseload or at least flexible generation. And as you mentioned, this previously was facilitated partly by Russian gas. Now, with all that in mind Jens, how much investment is needed to fund the transition and is there economic risk associated with this? Jens Eisenschmidt: So the numbers are huge. We have said that number could be around $5 trillion, other sources estimate this to be slightly higher, but more or less the ballpark is the same. We also know that already $1.4 trillion is earmarked from public funds, so EU budget, meaning that $3.6 are left for the private sector to deploy or for member states to come up from national budgets. So the figure itself boiling down to somewhere between $5 to $600 billion a year until at least 2030 and maybe beyond, these figures are not in itself the problem. The problem is how do you, according to which plan, do you deploy this and what is the sort of economic backdrop in which this investment happens? So ideally, from an economist perspective, this is a productivity increasing undertaking, and if it's done in that way, it won't be necessarily inflationary, it would be mildly growth enhancing. But of course there is a risk that all that investment in particularly being driven by the public sector, crowds out other productive investment. And in that case, it would be less productivity enhancing and more inflationary, which we think is the more realistic case here for Europe. We don't think that this is the end of the world in terms of inflation, but we do estimate a sizable impact of around 20 basis points per year that inflation could turn out to be higher. That all being said, if electricity prices can be reliably and durably lowered, that would have the potential to generate more innovation. Rob, you have your finger on the pulse of new technology, what do you see emerging that may advance the progress of Europe's transition? Rob Pulleyn: Yeah, thanks Jens. So historically, we've been positively surprised by the pace of levelized cost of energy coming down, particularly in renewables. And we've also been positively surprised by technological developments elsewhere. As we think about the key challenge of this new wind and solar capacity ambitions, the key is intermittency, and therefore industrial scale batteries are going to be key, fuel cells should also be, green gas, which is also needed for industrial abatement, could also be part of that solution. I also think we need to talk about behind the meter, which is really rooftop solar, whether it's solar panels but more crucially one of the parts of the value chain is the inverters. More efficient inverters are one of the most key components for reducing the cost of solar. As we think about electrification of the home in terms of heat pumps, you know, there's another technology which will develop and also passenger vehicles moving to electric, this behind the meter rooftop solar generation will be important combined with batteries and as I said, the inverters are a key part of that. Also will be software, how to manage all of this demand side response, I think is something you're going to hear much more from many of the retail companies we cover and innovating in the space. Now, as we think about the sequence and the steps of decarbonization here, step one, decarbonize the existing power system, step two electrify as much as possible, step three move to green gasses. We will eventually reach an area whereby we cannot decarbonize any further, and that's where carbon capture and storage comes in, for which we're already seeing significant improvement. So, there's many technologies which I think will play a significant role in this. And I suspect despite the current pressures we're seeing at the moment, we will continue to see significant positive surprises over the coming decade and thereafter, notwithstanding that the cost of capital is, of course, higher than it was over the last decade. Jens Eisenschmidt: So which sectors are likely to benefit the near-term and in the longer term? Rob Pulleyn: So the obvious answer, and somewhat self-serving, is utilities. To that number you mentioned earlier of $5 billion spent, we also think that the utilities could probably contribute around a European utility in Europe around $1.5 to $2 trillion of this. That still leaves a sizable gap versus what you were talking and perhaps there is upside risk to these investment spends. But within utilities, the obvious route is renewables. Having a tough time, I would say in 2023, trapped within higher costs and capital costs, but also, you know, policy impasse. But if we separate the wood for the trees under the vast majority of scenarios out to 2030 and 2050, the increase in green electricity is going to be substantial and utilities are the natural developers of those assets as they migrate away from coal and some degree gas, into clean energy. But it's not the only area. There's also networks. We need to invest in distribution and transmission, in electricity to actually accommodate these renewables and connect the new areas of upstream electricity generation to the areas of demand, which is primarily the cities and industry. Speaking about industry, there's also a need for green gas, and I actually think other sectors are going to contribute here, most notably oil and gas, which has the technical expertise and of course the industrial plant for industrial gasses. As we look into the supply chains, another area that's been in focus this year, both the OEMs in terms of turbines and solar manufacturers, the cabling, the software, the heat pumps, I think there are many aspects within equity stories which are ancillary to utilities but could create different risk rewards and different opportunities to what you may find in my sector. I think we can both agree that while significant progress has been made, Europe still has a long way to go for the next step of this journey. Jens Eisenschmidt: I fully agree. I would say that not all hope is lost that current targets will be met, but there are headwinds that cannot be denied. Rob Pulleyn: Jens, thank you very much for taking the time to talk today. Jens Eisenschmidt: Thanks, Rob. It was great to speak with you. Rob Pulleyn: And thank you all for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market, on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen, and please leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.

If China economic woes become a true debt deflation cycle, it could export some of that disinflation to the global economy.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Global Chief Economist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today, I'll be talking about the global implications of China's economic slowdown. It's Tuesday, August 29th, at 10 a.m. in New York. China's economic woes continue to be center stage. Our Asia team has outlined the risks of a debt deflation cycle there and how policy is needed to avert the possibility of a lost decade. As always, big economic news from China will get global attention. That said, when we turned bullish on China's economic growth last year, we flagged that the typical positive spillovers from China were likely to be smaller this cycle than in the past. We expected growth to be heavily skewed towards domestic consumption, especially of services, and thus the pull into China from the rest of the world would be smaller than usual. We also published empirical analysis on the importance of the manufacturing sector to these global spillovers, and the very strong Chinese growth and yet modest global effects that we saw in the first quarter of this year vindicated that view. Now the world has changed and Chinese growth has slumped, with no recovery apparent so far. The global implications, however, are somewhat asymmetric here. Because we are seeing the weakness now show through to the industrial sector and especially CapEx spending, we cannot assume that the rest of the world will be as insulated as it was in the first quarter. Although we have recently marked down our view for Chinese economic growth, we still think a lost decade can be avoided. Nevertheless, with Chinese inflation turning negative, the prospect of China exporting disinflation is now getting discussed in markets. Much of the discussion about China exporting this inflation started when China's CPI went into deflation in the past couple of months. Although the connection is intuitive, it is not obvious that domestic consumer price numbers translate into the pricing that, say, U.S. consumers will eventually see. Indeed, even before China's prices turned negative, U.S. goods inflation had already turned to deflation because supply chains had healed and consumer spending patterns were starting to normalize. For China to export meaningful disinflation, they will likely have to come through one of three channels. Reduced Chinese demand for commodities that leads to a retreat in global commodities prices, currency depreciation or exporters cutting their prices. On the first, oil prices are actually at the same levels roughly that they were in the first quarter after Chinese goods surged. And they're well off the lows for this year. And despite the slump in economic activity, transportation metrics for China remain healthy, so to date, that first channel is far from clear. The renminbi is much weaker than it was at the beginning of the year. But recent policy announcements from the People's Bank of China imply that they are not eager to see a substantial further depreciation from here, limiting the extent of further disinflation through that channel. So that leaves exporters cutting prices, which could happen, but again, it need not be directly connected to the broader domestic prices within China coming down. So all of that said, the direction of the effect on the rest of the world is clear. Even if the magnitude is not huge, there is a disinflationary force from China to the rest of the world. For the Fed and ECB, other developed market central bankers, such an impulse may be almost welcome. Central banks have tightened policy intentionally to slow their economies and pulled down inflation. Despite progress to date, we are nowhere near done with this hiking cycle. If we're wrong about China, however, should we start to worry about a global slump? Probably not. The Fed is currently trying to restrain growth in the US with high interest rates. If the drag comes more from China, well then the Fed will make less of the drag come from monetary policy. Thanks for listening and if you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Proposed regulations for smaller banks show that turmoil in the banking sector may still have an impact on the broader economy.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the links between regulations and the real economy. It's Monday, August 28, at 11 a.m. in New York. In the euphoria of buoyant equity markets over the last few months, the many challenges facing regional banks have receded into the background. While it certainly has not been our view, a narrative has clearly emerged that the issues in the sector that erupted in March are largely behind us. The ratings downgrades by both Moody's and Standard & Poor's of multiple U.S. banks in the last few weeks provide a reminder that the headwinds of increasing capital requirements, higher cost of funding and rising loan losses continue to challenge the business models of the regional banking sector. The rating agency actions come on the heels of proposed rules to modify capital requirements for banks with total assets of 100 billion or more. Separately, the Fed has proposed a capital rule on implementing capital surcharge for the eight U.S. global systemically important banks. Further proposed regulations on new long term debt requirements for banks with assets of $100-700 billion are due to be announced tomorrow. It is early in the rulemaking process for all of these proposals. They may change after the comment period and the rules will be phased in over several years once they are finalized. Nevertheless, they outline the framework of the regulatory regime ahead of us. While we won't go into the detailed discussion of thousands of pages of proposals here, suffice to say that the documents envisage significantly higher capital requirement for much of the U.S. banking sector, and extends several large bank requirements to much smaller banks. One such requirement pertains to the impact on capital of unrealized losses in available for sale securities. Currently, this provision applies only to Category one and Category two banks, that is banks with greater than $700 billion in total assets. But the proposal now expands it to Category three and Category four banks, that is banks with greater than $100 billion in total assets. A recent paper from the San Francisco Fed shows how the regulatory framework of the banking system affects the real economy. Specifically, the paper demonstrates that banks, which experienced larger market value losses on their securities during the 2022 monetary tightening cycle extended less credit to firms. Given the experience of the last 18 months across fixed income markets, extending the impact of such mark-to-market losses to smaller banks, as is being proposed now, would exasperate the potential challenges to credit formation. Against this background, we look at the near term prospects for bank lending. In the latest Senior Loan Officer Opinion survey, reflecting 2Q23 lending conditions, lending standards tightened across nearly all categories for the fourth consecutive quarter. Banks expect to tighten lending standards further across all categories through the year end, with the most tightening coming in commercial real estate, followed by credit card and commercial and industrial loans to small firms. The survey also asked banks to describe current lending standards relative to the midpoint of the standards since 2005. Most banks indicated the lending standards are tighter than the historical midpoint for all categories of commercial real estate and commercial and industrial loans to small firms. The bottom line is that more tightening lies ahead for the broader economy. This survey shows how the evolution of regulatory policy can weigh on credit formation and overall economic growth. Given the disproportionate exposure of the regional banks to commercial real estate debt that needs to be refinanced, commercial real estate is likely to be the arena where pressure has become most evident, another reason why we are skeptical that the turmoil in the regional banking sector is behind us. While the proposed regulatory changes can open doors for non-bank lenders, such as private credit, it is important to note that such lending will likely come at higher cost. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

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

Inspiring change through informed and inclusive innovation. On Access & Opportunity, host Carla Harris, Senior Client Advisor at Morgan Stanley, explores the lived experiences of the people who face systemic inequities and sits down with founders, investors, developers, activists, and educators who are building a more equitable future today.

As debate season begins among Republican presidential candidates, can investors hope to glean market insights for 2025 and beyond?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the impact of presidential debates on markets. It's Wednesday, August 23rd at 10 a.m. in New York. Several candidates seeking the Republican Party's nomination for president take the stage in the debate tonight. Coverage of the event in traditional and financial media has escalated in anticipation of the debate. And while it's a good idea for voters looking to understand the candidates better and make an informed choice to tune in to the debate, for those tuning in looking for something that might guide their perception of how the 2024 election might impact financial markets, our guidance is this: lower your expectations. This debate, the first among many, is likely to tell us a lot less about who the nominee will be than traditional polls. Those polls show former President Trump with solid support that surpasses his main rivals. And while, of course, there's plenty of time for that to change, debates this early in the process haven't historically been reliable indicators of changes in support that may follow. This may be even more true this time around, since President Trump is not attending this debate. And so it will be more difficult to get a read as to which candidates might be better suited than others to make a more persuasive argument to Republican voters than the former president. Additionally, debates this early in the process generally tell us little about potential policy changes that could result from any one of these candidates ultimately being elected in 2024. Stock and corporate bond investors, in theory, might be very interested in what these candidates have to say about a variety of pending corporate tax code changes starting in 2025. But one shouldn't expect candidates to get into that level of detail on the debate stage. General comments about making sure the tax code doesn't work against the economy are far more likely. Further, the ability of any candidate to execute on their policy vision is going to be a function of the makeup of Congress, which again, this debate is unlikely to give us much information about. Bottom line, the 2024 election will be consequential to the markets, but tune in to the debate to inform yourself as a voter. As we've said in previous podcasts, it's too early to expect to learn anything that will help you as an investor.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show. 

Original Release on August, 1st 2023: While the U.S. economy appears on track to avoid a recession, investors should still consider the implications of an upcoming wave of maturities in corporate credit.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I will be talking about potential risk to the economy. It's Tuesday, August 1st at 10 a.m. in New York. Another FOMC meeting came and went. To nobody's surprise the Fed hiked the target Fed funds rate by 25 basis points. Beyond the hike, the July FOMC statement had nearly no changes. While data on inflation and jobs are moving in the right direction, the Fed remains far from its 2% inflation goal. That said, Fed Chair Powell stressed that the Fed is closer to its destination, that monetary policies is in restrictive territory and is likely to stay there for some time. Broadly, the outcome of the market was in line with our economists expectation that the federal funds rate has peaked, will remain unchanged for an extended period, and the first 25 basis point cut will be delivered in March 2024. Powell sounded more confident in a soft landing, citing the gradual adjustment in the labor market and noting that despite 525 basis point policy tightening, the unemployment rate remains at the same level it was pre-COVID. The fact that the Fed has been able to bring inflation down without a meaningful rise in unemployment, he described as quote unquote "blessing". He noted that the Fed staff are no longer forecasting a recession, given the resilience in the economy. This specter of soft landing, meaning a recession is not imminent, is something our economists have been calling for some time. This has now become more broadly accepted across market participants, albeit somewhat reluctantly. The obvious question, therefore, is what are the risks ahead and what are the paths for such risks to materialize? One such potential risk emanates from the rising wave of credit maturities from the corporate credit markets. While company balance sheets, by and large, are in a good shape now, given how far interest rates have risen and how quickly they have done so, as that debt begins to mature and needs to be refinanced, it will happen at sharply higher rates. From now through the end of 2024, almost a trillion of corporate debt will mature. Sim ply by holding rates constant, that refinancing will represent a tightening of financial conditions. Fortunately, a high proportion of the debt comes from investment grade borrowers and does not appear to be particularly challenging. However, below investment grade debt has a tougher path ahead for refinancing. As we continue through 2024 and get into 2025, more and more high yield bonds and leveraged loans will need to be refinanced. All else equal, the default rates in high yield bonds and leveraged loans currently  hovering around 2.5% may double to over 5% in the next 12 months. The forecasts of our economists point to a further slowdown in the economy from here, as the rest of the standard lags of policy are felt. We continue to think that such a slowing could necessitate a re-examination of the lower end of the credit spectrum. The ongoing challenges in the regional banking sector only add to this problem. In our view, in the list of risks to the U.S. economy, the rising wave of maturities in the corporate debt markets is notable. Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Original Release on July, 27th 2023: With higher quality and lower costs, China’s electric vehicles could lead a shift in the global auto industry.----- Transcript -----Adam Jonas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Adam Jonas, Head of Morgan Stanley's Global Autos and Share Mobility Team. Tim Hsaio: And Tim Hsaio Greater China Auto Analyst. Adam Jonas: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we're going to discuss how China Electric vehicles are reshaping the global auto market. It's Thursday, July 27th at 8 a.m. in New York. Tim Hsaio: And 8 p.m in Hong Kong. Adam Jonas: For decades, global autos have been dominated by established, developed market brands with little focus on electric vehicles or EVs, particularly for the mass market. As things stand today, affordable EVs are few and far between, and this undersupply presents a major global challenge. At Morgan Stanley Equity Research, we think the auto industry will undergo a major reshuffling in the next decade as affordable EVs from emerging markets capture significant global market share. Tim, you believe China made EVs will be at the center of this upcoming shakeup of the global auto industry, are we at an inflection point and how did we get here? Tim Hsaio: Thanks, Adam. Yeah, we are definitely at a very critical inflection point at the moment. Firstly, since last year, as you may notice that China has outsized Germany car export and soon surpassed Japan in the first half of this year as the world's largest auto exporter. So now we believe China made EVs infiltrating the West, challenging their global peers, backed by not just cheaper prices but the improving variety and quality. And separately, we believe that affordability remains the key mitigating factors to global EV adoption, as Rastan brands have been slow to advance their EV strategy for their mass market. A lack of affordable models actually challenged global adoption, but we believe that that creates a great opportunity to EV from China where a lot of affordable EVs will soon fill in the vacuum and effectively meet the need for cheaper EV. So we believe that we are definitely at an inflection point. Adam Jonas: So Tim, it's safe to say that the expansionary strategy of China EVs is not just a fad, but real solid trend here? Tim Hsaio: Totally agree. We think it's going to be a long lasting trend because you think about what's happened over the past ten years. China has been a major growth engine to curb auto demands, contributing more than 300% of a sales increment. And now we believe China will transport itself into the key supply driver to the world, they initially by exporting cheaper EV and over time shifting course to transplant and foreign production just similar to Japan and Korea autos back to 1970 to 1990. And we believe China EVs are making inroads into more than 40 countries globally. Just a few years ago, the products made by China were poorly designed, but today they surpass rival foreign models on affordability, quality and even detector event user experience. So Adam, essentially, we are trying to forecast the future of EVs in China and the rest of the world, and this topic sits right at the heart of all three big things Morgan Stanley Research is exploring this year, the multipolar world, decarbonization and technology diffusion. So if we take a step back to look at the broader picture of what happens to supply chain, what potential scenarios for an auto industry realignment do you foresee? And which regions other than China stand to benefit or be negatively impacted? Adam Jonas: So, Tim, look, I think there's certainly room to diversify and rebalance at the margin away from China, which has such a dominant position in electric vehicles today, and it was their strategy to fulfill that. But you also got to make room for them. Okay. And there's precedent here because, you know, we saw with the Japanese auto manufacturers in the 1970s and 1980s, a lot of people doubted them and they became dominant in foreign markets. Then you had the Korean auto companies in the 1990s and 2000s. So, again, China's lead is going to be long lasting, but room for on-shoring and near-shoring, friend shoring. And we would look to regions like ASEAN, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, also the Middle East, such as Morocco, which has an FTA agreement with the U.S. and Saudi, parts of Scandinavia and Central Europe, and of course our trade partners in North America, Mexico and Canada. So, we’ re witnessing an historic re-industrialization of some parts of the world that where we thought we lost some of our heavy industry. Tim Hsaio: So in a context of a multipolar trends, we are discussing Adam, how do you think a global original equipment manufacturers or OEM or the car makers and the policymakers will react to China's growing importance in the auto industry? Adam Jonas: So I think the challenge is how do you re-architect supply chains and still have skin in the game and still be relevant in these markets? It's going to take time. We think you're going to see the established auto companies, the so-called legacy car companies, seek partnerships in areas where they would otherwise struggle to bring scale. Look to diversify and de-risk their supply chains by having a dual source both on-shore and near-shore, in addition to their established China exposed supply chains. Some might choose to vertically integrate, and we've seen some striking partners upstream with mining companies and direct investments. Others might find that futile and work with battery firms and other structures without necessarily owning the technology. But we think most importantly, the theme is you're not going to be cutting out the world's second largest GDP, which already has such a dominant position in this important market, so the Western firms are going to work with the Chinese players. And the ones that can do that we think will be successful. And I'd bring our listeners attention to a recent precedent of a large German OEM and a state sponsored Chinese car company that are working together on electric vehicle architecture, which is predominantly the Chinese architecture. We think that's quite telling and you're going to see more of that kind of thing. Tim Hsaio: So Adam, is there anything the market is missing right now? Adam Jonas: A few things, Tim, but I think the most obvious one to me is just how good these Chinese EVs are. We think the market's really underestimating that, in terms of quality safety features, design. You know, you're seeing Chinese car companies hiring the best engineers from the German automakers coming, making these beautiful, beautiful vehicles, high quality. Another thing that we think is underestimated are the environmental externalities from battery manufacturing, batteries are an important technology for decarbonization. But the supply chain itself has some very inconvenient ESG externalities, labor to emissions and others. And I would say, final thing that we think the market is missing is there's an assumption that just because the electric vehicle and the supporting battery business, because it's a large and fast growing, that it has to be a high return business. And we are skeptical of that. Precedents from the solar polysilicon and LED TVs and others where when you get capital working and you've got state governments all around the world providing incentives that you get the growth, but you don't necessarily get great returns for shareholders, so it's a bit of a warning to investors to be cautious, be opportunistic, but growth doesn't necessarily mean great returns. Tim, let's return to China for a minute and as I ask you one final question, where will growing China's EV exports go and what is your outlook for the next one or two years as well as the next decade? Tim Hsaio: Eventually, I think China EVs will definitely want to grow their presence worldwide. But initially, we believe that there are two major markets they want to focus on. First one would be Europe. I think the China's export or the local brands there will want to leverage their BEV portfolio, battery EV, to grow their presence in Europe. And the other key market would be ASEAN country, Southeast Asia. I think the Chinese brands where the China EV can leverage their plug-in hybrid models to grow their presence in ASEAN. The major reason is that we noticed that in Southeast Asia the charging infrastructure is still underdeveloped, so the plug-in hybrid would be the more ideal solution to that market. And for the next 1 to 2 years, we are currently looking for the China the EV export to grow by like 50 to 60% every year. And in that long-terms, as you may notice that currently China made vehicles account for only 3% of cars sold outside China. But in the next decade we are looking for one third of EVs sold in overseas would be China made, so they are going to be the leader of the EV sold globally. Adam Jonas: Tim, thanks for taking the time to talk. Tim Hsaio: Great speaking with you Adam.Adam Jonas: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show.

Bond yields have seen a surprising increase as a result of real interest rates, which could mean both good and bad news for other asset types.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, a Senior Fixed Income Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, August 18th at 2 p.m. in London. August is a month in financial markets that is often all or nothing. Sometimes it's quiet, a self-reinforcing state where investors desire to recharge and enjoy the nicer weather means fewer deals and lower activity, reinforcing the desire to enjoy the nicer weather. But there's a flip side. The fact that so many investors' are away in August can also amplify market moves, especially if worries mount, and we see that in the historical data. August has seen the largest average rise in stock market volatility of any month, if we go back to 2010, where it's seen higher volatility in 10 out of the last 14 years. So far, this August is off to another volatile start. The culprits are plenty. Equity markets have been having a great run based almost entirely on expanding valuations, an unusual occurrence, as Lisa Shalett, the CIO of Morgan Stanley Wealth Management and I discussed on this program last week. Data in China has been weaker than expected and across the U.S., Europe and Japan, bond yields have been rising significantly. The bond move is especially notable given how it's been happening. Yields aren't rising because of inflation, as last week's U.S. consumer price inflation reading was a little better than expected, and longer run expectations of U.S. inflation are actually lower on the month. The market also has increased its expectation of further rate hikes from the Federal Reserve or the ECB, although it has added another expected hike for the Bank of England. Rather, the increase in yields this month has been almost entirely due to the so-called real interest rate, that is the yield on bonds over and above expected inflation. In the U.S., ten year real rates are now about 1.9% above expected inflation, which is a similar level to what we saw from 2003 to 2005. There's both bad and good news here. The bad news is that if investors can get a higher guaranteed return over inflation from government bonds, other assets are going to look less attractive by comparison. We continue to hold a more cautious view on U.S. equity markets as well as commodities. But there's also some good news. Higher real rates have made TIPS or Treasury inflation-protected securities more attractive and my colleagues in interest rate strategy like them. The recent volatility in bond markets has cheapend mortgage backed securities, where my colleague Jay Bacow, Morgan Stanley's co-head of securitized products research, has recently moved back to a positive view. And higher yields are improving the funding ratio for many pension funds, encouraging them to buy safer, longer term investment grade bonds. More broadly, higher long term real rates could be a sign that the market is more confident about the long term outlook for the U.S. economy. If we think back to the 1990s, it was a period of higher expected potential growth and higher rates relative to expected inflation. If we think about the sluggish 2010s, it was the opposite with very low rates relative to inflation as the market worried that growth could not achieve escape velocity. It will take years to know if the bond market is really endorsing a stronger long run economic view, but as we hope to emphasize, higher rates aren't necessarily all bad. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.

Although China’s economy faces challenges in terms of debt, demographics and deflation, the right policy approach could ward off a debt deflation loop.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia Economist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be discussing the journey ahead for China as it faces the triple challenge of debt, demographics and deflation. It's Thursday, August 17, at 9 a.m. in Hong Kong. Before we get into China, I want to take you back to the oft-told tale from the 1990s when Japan experienced what we now refer to as the ‘Lost Decade.’ During this period, the combination of economic stagnation and price deflation transformed a bustling economy in the 1980s, into an economy that grew at a little more than 1% annually over a decade. Fast forward to today, where China is confronted with the triple challenge of debt, demographics and deflation, what we are calling the 3Ds. As a result, many investors are now concerned that China will be stuck in a debt deflation loop, just like Japan was in the 1990s. But is China better placed to manage these headwinds even though the risks of falling into debt deflation loop remain high? We think at the starting point, the answer is yes, but with a few historical lessons that I'll get into in a moment. For context, China compares better with the Japan of the 1990s in the following four aspects. First, asset prices in China have not run up as much. Second, per capita incomes are still lower in China, implying a higher potential growth runway. Third, unlike Japan, China has not experienced a big currency appreciation shock. And finally, perhaps the most crucial difference is policy setting. Back in the 90s, the Bank of Japan kept real interest rates higher than real GDP growth between 1991 and 1995. But in contrast to Japan, China's real rates are below real GDP growth currently. To explain, historically, when economies are seeking to stabilize or reduce debt, the key element is to ensure that there is adequate gap between real interest rates and real GDP growth. In Japan's case, real interest rates were maintained about real GDP growth for the first four years. A similar situation occurred in the US post the 1929 stock market crash. As real rates were kept high, it laid the ground for the beginnings of the Great Depression. From both of these examples, the historical track shows two policy missteps. First, policymakers' concern about reigniting misallocation leads them to gravitate towards a hawkish bias. Second, policymakers tend to turn hawkish too quickly at the first signs of a recovery. During the Great Depression, easing of policies had led to recovery from 1933 onwards, but a premature tightening of policies in 1936 led to the double dip in 1937/38. Contrast this with the US after 2008, when the Fed was quick to bring rates to zero and embark on successive rounds of quantitative easing while fiscal policy was deployed in tandem. Sustaining real interest rates 2 percentage points below real GDP growth is key to deleveraging. Why? Because if you think about it, deleveraging will not be possible if the interest rate on your debt is growing faster than the increase in your income. In this context, while China's real interest rates are below real GDP growth currently, we still see the risk that policymakers will not take up reflationary policies to sustain the rates minus growth gap, which keeps the risk of China falling into debt deflation loop alive. So what is the potential outcome? China's policymakers will need to act forcefully. If they don't, the economy could fall into debt deflation loop, persistent deflation would take hold, debt to GDP would keep rising, and GDP per capita in USD terms would stagnate, just as it happened in Japan in the 1990s. But, as history has shown us, that doesn't have to be the outcome. Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.

Although Congress has avoided previous shutdowns with last-minute resolutions, investors shouldn’t get complacent in assuming the same outcome again in the fall.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about what investors need to know about the risk of the U.S. government shutdown. It's Wednesday, August 16th at 10 a.m. in New York. Congress is in recess until September. When they return, they'll have just a few weeks to pass several funding bills in order to avoid a government shutdown. And while it certainly seems like dramatic deadlines and last minute resolutions are all too common in D.C. these days, investors shouldn't get complacent on this one. Let's start with why investors should take seriously the risk of a government shutdown, which happens when Congress fails to authorize spending to keep most government functions open. When that happens, there are both direct economic impacts, such as government workers and contractors not getting paid on time and indirect impacts, such as the economic activity of those workers and contractors being crimped given that they're going without pay. In the 2019 shutdown, for example, 800,000 government workers were affected by this disruption. Our economists estimate that for every week the government is shut down, we should expect a 0.05% point reduction in GDP, with that impact compounding and increasing over time. While that's not a huge number, in the context of an already softening economic growth and profit outlook for stocks, it doesn't help. So if a shutdown presents economic downside, why is that even a possibility? Here's four reasons why. First, Congress faces several challenging negotiations in September, which elevates the complexity of the legislative process ahead of the shutdown deadline. Second, there are disagreements within the Republican Party on what the right level of funding is for the government, meaning one of the two parties has yet to firm up its position to get negotiations going in earnest. Third, there's also disagreement within the Republican Party on aid levels for Ukraine. Finally, there appears to be greater willingness on the part of lawmakers to engage in policy standoffs, as evidenced by the recent debt ceiling negotiation. While history shows that approval ratings for both parties fared poorly following a shutdown, shutdowns happen nonetheless, and quotes from key members of both parties suggest little concern with the political impact of such an event. So what's an investor to do from here? For the moment, not much. We're not expecting much news on this or market reaction until September. Until then, we'll, of course, keep you updated on anything relevant. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

With the rupee appreciating, manufacturing and services in a consistent rally and demographic trends on an upswing, India may be better poised for a long-term boom than other markets in Asia.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jonathan Garner, Chief Asia and Emerging Market Equity Strategist at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about why India is now our preferred market in Asian equities. It's Tuesday, August 15th at 8am in Singapore. Before we dive into the details of some important changes in view that we've recently published, let's take a step back and set the scene for today's changes in a broader thematic context. Firstly, a reminder that we think we began a new bull market in Asia and EM last October. And from the trough in late October, the MSCI Emerging Markets Index is up around 25%. So the changes we're making are about identifying leadership at the market level as we transition towards a midcycle environment. Secondly, we continue to prefer Japan within our coverage, which remains Morgan Stanley's top pick in global equities but is a developed market. In terms of the changes that we've made on the downgrades side, for Taiwan, it has led the way off the bottom, rising almost 40% since last October. It's a market dominated by technology and export earnings, where the structural trend in return on equity has been positive in recent years as those firms have succeeded globally. Our upgrade last October was a simple cyclical story of distressed valuations at a time of depressed sentiment about underlying demand trends in semiconductors. The situation is very different today. Valuations are back to mid-cycle levels, and while demand remains weak in key areas such as smartphones and conventional cloud, a path to recovery is becoming more evident. Moreover, as has been the case in many prior cycles, a new end use category AI service is generating significant excitement. Our China downgrade, which is linked to our Australia downgrade via the Australian mining stocks, has a different structural set up. The China market, unlike Taiwan, is overwhelmingly dominated by domestic demand stocks and its domestic demand which has failed to recover convincingly in the post-COVID environment. Indeed, the current investor debate is centered on whether China's demographic transition, high domestic debt to GDP ratio and over-investment in property and infrastructure are starting to generate a balance sheet recession. Core inflation is stuck close to zero, with evidence of high unemployment in the young population and weak wages, with households and private firms no longer willing to lever up. Now, recent statements from the Politburo have begun to acknowledge the need to reverse some of the measures that have pressured the property market. But there is no easy way out of the intertwined property and local government financing debt burdens that have built up in the years when the growth model did not transition fast enough. And at the same time, China faces the new challenge of coping with multi-polar world pressures from the US in particular, which is generating new restrictions on inward technology transfers. All that said, we do not rule out moving back to a more positive stance on China, should policy implementation be more aggressive than hitherto. For India, the situation is in stark contrast to that in China, as was borne out to me by a recent visit in June to the Morgan Stanley annual Investment Summit in Mumbai. With GDP per capita, only $2,500 versus $13,000 for China and positive demographic trends, India is arguably at the start of a long wave boom at the same time as China may be ending one. Manufacturing and services PMIs have rallied consistently since the end of COVID restrictions, in contrast to the rapid fade seen in China. Also, real estate transaction volumes in construction have broken out to the upside. Moreover, India's ability to leverage multi-polar world dynamics is a significant advantage. Simply put, India's future looks to a significant extent like China's past, and in this context, it's particularly relevant to note long run trends in exchange rates now show the Indian rupee more stable and actually appreciating whilst the renminbi is depreciating. So considering Indian equities and Chinese equities as a pair in dollar terms, we appear to be at the beginning of a new era of Indian outperformance compared to China. From early 2021, India has broken out dramatically to the upside in performance. And whilst reversion to the mean is often a powerful force in finance, we think this represents a structural break in India's favor. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and recommend Thoughts on the Market to a friend or colleague today.

While the Fed fights generationally high inflation, the U.S. economy continues to grow, supported by high levels of spending. This has affected both the bond and equity markets.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, August 14, at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. At the trough of the pandemic recession in April 2020, we first introduced our thesis that the health care emergency would usher in a new era of fiscal policy. The result would be higher inflation than monetary policy was able to attain on its own over the prior decade. In the first phase of this new policy regime, we referred to it as helicopter money, as described by Milton Friedman in the early 1970s and then highlighted by Ben Bernanke after the tech bubble as a policy that could always be employed to avoid a deflationary bust. Handing out checks to people is a fairly radical policy, however, the COVID pandemic was the perfect emergency to try it. The policy shift worked so well to keep the economy afloat during the lockdowns that the government decided to double down on the strategy by doing an additional $3 trillion of direct fiscal spending in the first quarter of 2021. This excessive fiscal policy is why money supply growth increased to a record level at 25% year-over-year in early 2021, and why we finally got the inflation central banks had been trying so hard to achieve post the great financial crisis. After the financial crisis, the velocity of money collapsed, while the Fed's balance sheet ballooned to levels never seen before. The reason we didn't get inflation in that initial episode of quantitative easing is because the money created remained trapped in bank reserves rather than in a real economy where it could drive excess demand in higher prices, a dynamic that's been obviously very different this time. Fortunately, the Fed is responding to this generationally high inflation with the most aggressive tightening of monetary policy in 40 years. But this is the definition of fiscal dominance, monetary policy is beholden to the whims of fiscal policy. First, it had to be overly supportive and fund the record deficits in 2020 and 21, and then it had to react with historically tighter policy once inflation got out of control. Back in 2020, we turned very bullish on equities on this shift of fiscal dominance and also subsequently indicated it would lead to a period of hotter but shorter economic earning cycles, mainly because the Fed would not have the same flexibility to proactively try to extend economic expansions. We also argued that catching these cycles on both the upside and downside would be critical for equity investors to outperform. From 2020 to 2022, we found ourselves on the right side of that dynamic both up and down, this year, not so much. Part of the reason we found ourselves offsides this year is due to the very large fiscal impulse restarting last year and remaining quite strong in 2023. In fact, we have rarely ever seen such large deficits when the unemployment rate is so low and inflation well above target. If fiscal policy is showing little constraint in good times, what happens to the deficit when the next recession arrives? The main takeaway for the equity market this year is that fiscal policy has allowed the economy to grow faster than forecasted and has given rise to the consensus view that the risk of recession has faded considerably. Furthermore, with the recent lifting of the debt ceiling until 2025, this aggressive fiscal spending could continue. However, the sustainability of such fiscal policy is the primary reason why Fitch recently downgraded the U.S. Treasury debt. Combined with the substantial increase in the supply of Treasury notes and bonds expected to fund these government expenditures, bond markets have sold off considerably this past month. This should start to call into question the valuations of equities, which were already high even before this recent rise in yields. Furthermore, if fiscal spending must be curtailed due to either higher political or funding costs, the unfinished earnings decline that began last year is more likely to resume as our forecast is still predicting. Equity markets seem to have noticed, with many of the best performing stocks correcting by 10% or more. Even if one is bullish on stocks, such a correction was necessary to reset investor exuberance. The challenge will come this fall if growth fails to materialize as now expected. In that case, a healthy 5 to 10% pullback may turn into the much more significant correction we were expecting to occur in the first half of this year. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show.

While the Fed navigates a soft landing for the U.S. economy and stock valuations remain high, how can investors navigate the risks and rewards of a surprisingly strong equity market? Lisa Shalett is Morgan Stanley Wealth Management’s Chief Investment Officer. She is not a member of Morgan Stanley Research.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts in the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Fixed Income Strategist at Morgan Stanley. Lisa Shalett: And I'm Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management. Andrew Sheets: And today on the podcast, we'll be discussing what's been happening year to date in markets and what might lie ahead. It's Friday, August 11th at 1 p.m. in London. Lisa Shalett: And it's 8am here in New York City. Andrew Sheets: So, Lisa, it's great to have you here. I think it's safe to say that as a strategy group, we at Morgan Stanley have been cautious on this year. But I also think this is a pretty remarkable year. As you look back at your experience with investing, can you kind of help put 2023 in context of just how unusual and maybe surprising this year has been? Lisa Shalett: You know, I think one of the the key attributes of 2023 is, quite frankly, not only the extraordinarily low odds that history would put on the United States Federal Reserve being able to, quote unquote, thread the needle and deliver what appears to be an economic soft landing where the vast and most rapid increase in rates alongside quantitative tightening has exacted essentially no toll on the unemployment rate in the United States or, quite frankly, average economic vigor. United States GDP in the second quarter of this year looked to accelerate from the first quarter and came in at a real rate of 2.4%, which most folks would probably describe as average to slightly above average in terms of the long run real growth of the US economy over the last decade. So, you know, in many ways this was such a low odds event just from the jump. I think the second thing that has been perplexing is for folks that are deeply steeped in, kind of, traditional analytic frameworks and long run correlative and predictive variables, the degree to which the number of models have failed is, quite frankly,  the most profound in my career. So we've seen some real differences between how the S&P 500 has been valued, the multiple expansion that we have seen and things like real rates, real rates have traditionally pushed overall valuation multiples down. And that has not been the case. And, you know, I think markets always do, quote unquote climb the wall of worry. But I think as we, you know, get some distance from this period, I think we're also going to understand the unique backdrop against which this cycle is playing out and, you know, perhaps gaining a little bit more of an understanding around how did the crisis and the economic shocks of COVID change the labor markets perhaps permanently. How did the degree to which stimulus came into the system create a sequencing, if you will, between the manufacturing side of the economy and the services side of the economy that has created what we might call rolling slowdowns or rolling recessions, that when mathematically summed together obscure some of those trends and absorb them and kind of create a flat, flattish, or soft landing as we've experienced. Andrew Sheets: How are you thinking about the valuation picture in the market right now? And then I kind of want to get your thoughts about how you think valuations should determine strategy going forward. Lisa Shalett: So this is a fantastic question because, you know, very often I'm sitting in front of clients who are, you know, very anxious about the next quarter, the next year. And while I think you and I can agree that there certainly are these anomalous periods where valuations do appear to be disconnecting from both interest rates and even earnings trends, they don't tend to be persistent states. And so when we look at current valuations just in the United States, if you said you're looking at a market that is trading at 20x earnings the implication is that the earnings yield or your earnings return from that investment is estimated at roughly 5%. In a world where fixed income instruments and credit instruments are delivering that plus at historic volatilities that are potentially half or even a third of what equities are, you can kind of make the argument that on a sharp ratio basis, stocks don't look great. Now, that's not all stocks. Clearly, all stocks are not selling at 20x forward multiples. But the point is we do have to think about valuation because in the long run, it does matter. Andrew Sheets: I guess looking ahead, as you think about the more highly valued parts of the market, where do you think that thinking might most likely apply, as in the current valuation, even if it looks expensive, might be more defendable? And where would you be most concerned? Lisa Shalett: I think we have to, you know, take a step back and think about where some of the richest valuations are sitting. And they're sitting in, you know, some of the megacap consumer tech companies that have really dominated the cycle over the last, you know, 14, 15 years. So we have to think about a couple of things. The first is we have to think about, you know, the law of large numbers and how hard it is, as companies get bigger and bigger, for them to sustain the growth rates that they have. There will never be companies as dominant as, you know, certain banks. There will never be companies that are as dominant as the industrials. There will never be companies that are as dominant as health care. I mean, there's always this view that winners who achieve this kind of incumbent status are incumbent forever. And yet history radically dispels that notion, right? I think the second thing that we need to understand is very often when you get these type of valuations on megacap companies, they become, you know, the increased subject of government and regulatory scrutiny, not only for their market power and their dominance, but quite frankly for things around their pricing power, etc. The last thing that I would say is that, you know, what's unique about some of the megacap consumer tech companies today that I don't hear anyone talking about, is this idea that increasingly they're bumping up against each other. It's one thing when, you know, you are an e-commerce innovator who is rolling up retail against smaller, fragmented operators. It's quite another when it's, you know, three companies own the cloud, seven companies own streaming. And I don't hear anyone really talking about it head on. It's as if these markets grow inexorably and there's, you know, room for everyone to gain share. And I push back on some of those notions.Andrew Sheets: So, Lisa, I'd like to ask you in closing about what we think investors should do going forward. And to start, within one's equity portfolio, where do you currently see the better risk reward? Lisa Shalett: So we're looking at where are the areas where earnings have the potential to surprise on the upside, and where perhaps the multiples are a little bit more forgiving. So where are we finding some of that? Number one, we're finding it in energy right now. I think while there's been a lot of high fiving and enthusiasm around the degree to which headline inflation has been tamed, I think that if you, you know, kind of look underneath the surface, dynamics for supply and demand in the energy complex are beginning to stabilize and may in fact be showing some strength, especially if the global economy is stronger in 2024. A second area is in some of the large cap financials. I think that some of the large cap financials are underestimated for not only their diversity, but their ability to actually have some leverage if in fact global growth is somewhat stronger. We also think that there may be opportunities in things like residential REITs. There's been, you know, concern about that area, but we also know that the supply demand dynamics in US housing are in fact quite different this cycle. And last but certainly not least, I think that there are a series of themes around fiscal spending, around infrastructure, around decarbonization, around some of the the reconfiguration of supply chains that involves some of the less glamorous parts of the market, like utilities, like, you know, some of the industrials companies that have some very interesting potential growth attributes to them that that may not be fully priced as well. Andrew Sheets: Lisa, thanks for taking the time to talk.   Lisa Shalett: Absolutely, Andrew. Always a pleasure. Andrew Sheets: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

A recent landmark study around weight-loss medicine could spark near-term growth opportunities in pharmaceuticals.----- Transcript -----Mark Purcell: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mark Purcell, Head of Morgan Stanley's European Pharmaceuticals Team. Terence Flynn: And I'm Terence Flynn, Head of the U.S. Biopharma Team. Mark Purcell: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll give you an update on the global obesity challenge. It's Thursday, the 10th of August, and it's 1 p.m. in London. Terence Flynn: And 8 a.m. in New York. Terence Flynn: Now, a year ago, we came on the show to discuss our views on the global obesity challenge, and the problem has since received significant media attention. We believe that the narrative around obesity has indeed changed, with a more empathetic media tone, exponential social media growth and increased recognition across health care professionals and policymakers. Mark, what exactly happened over the last year? Mark Purcell: Well, Terence I mean the uptake of obesity medicines in the US has been much stronger than we anticipated. In fact, obesity drug demand has outstripped supply, as you said, driven by social media activity, but also a rapid expansion in reimbursement. When we look back, about 12 million individuals suffering with obesity were covered by insurance and employee opt-ins for the first generation of these appetite suppressing medicines. For newer, higher efficacy GLP-1 medicines, about 40 million lives are covered, and that is more than the estimated number of individuals living with diabetes in the US, which is projected to be about 37 million. Terence Flynn: Great. Thanks, Mark. Now the greater focus on weight management has spilled over into an increasingly weight centric approach to treating diabetes. What changes are you seeing and how are they impacting the industry? Mark Purcell: Terence you're absolutely right. Look, for many years, treatment guidelines for diabetes focused on blood sugar control only. Just before the pandemic, there was an increasing focus on controlling cardiovascular risks as w ell, such as preventing heart attacks. In the past 12 months, there's been increased focus on weight management for diabetes, which can help prevent the progression of diabetes and potentially reverse the course of the disease if you catch it early enough. It's estimated about 40% of GLP-1 prescriptions in the US are for patients early in the course of their disease. These dynamics have driven a profound acceleration in the uptake of GLP-1 medicines in diabetes, and we now project GLP-1 sales in diabetes alone to exceed $56 billion in 2030. Terence Flynn: Mark, I know this SELECT trial has been a focus and this was the first large randomized trial to test whether long term treatment with a weight loss drug can meaningfully improve patients cardiovascular health. Now, this trial appears just to be the tip of the iceberg when it comes to market expansion. Maybe you could walk us through your thoughts on the recent data. Mark Purcell: Yeah, thanks Terence. I mean, SELECT is a really important obesity landmark study. It addresses the question does weight management save lives? The trial was designed to show a 17% reduction in the risk of heart attacks and strokes and cardiovascular deaths in non-diabetic individuals suffering from obesity who are treated with GLP-1 medicines. And we just got the data top line the other day, and in fact, these medicines are showing a 20% reduction in heart attacks, strokes and cardiovascular death. As you said, I mean, this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to new growth opportunities for weight loss medicines, with positive data to be presented at the American Heart Association meeting in November, the SELECT data and also data in heart failure, and then next year we get exciting data in obstructive sleep apnea, in chronic kidney disease and also in peripheral arterial disease. Back to you, Terence. What is your outlook for the size of the obesity market in the US and globally over the next 5 to 10 years? Terence Flynn: Thanks, Mark. As you mentioned earlier, the uptake of obesity medicines in the US over the last year has been stronger than we anticipated. There have been some supply chain shortages that have capped an acceleration uptake in the US, and delayed the rollout of these medicines outside of the US. But a number of companies are making significant manufacturing investments today which will help improve supply on a global basis, but also create barriers to entry in the future. We're projecting that sales of the new obesity medicines in the US would have exceeded $7 billion this year, if the supply challenges had not been an issue. But if we extrapolate these strong early dynamics in the US, we project the global obesity market could reach over $70 billion in 2030. Our prior estimate was over $50 billion. Mark Purcell: And Terence, are there any regional differences between Europe and the US and possibly other parts of the world? Terence Flynn: Now, the majority of the upgrade, Mark, to our forecasts really centered on our US assumption. And this reflects the limited rollout of these drugs in other countries, in part due to supply constraints I mentioned, but also lack of visibility with respect to demand and payer dynamics across different regions. In the future, we do expect this to change, as I mentioned, given improving supply dynamics, improving reimbursement and the rollout of newer oral options that could also help improve global access. Mark Purcell: So where are we in terms of GLP-1 obesity medicine prices, when it comes to the consumer and when it comes to insurance reimbursement? Terence Flynn: Yeah, thanks, Mark. I mean, the injectable GLP medicines right now for diabetes are priced at about $900 to $1000 per month here in the US, but net prices are more in the $500 per month range. Now, in obesity, these drugs do cost somewhat more, but over time prices could converge lower. Now, insurance coverage, as you mentioned, Mark, is still a work in progress with over 40 million people now covered. But in our view, the SELECT data, in conjunction with legislation, could really help to expand coverage further. Going back to you, Mark, what's next in the pipeline for these GLP-1 medicines? Mark Purcell: The key focus is if the industry's pipeline at the moment are combination approaches and new ways to deliver these medicines. We've previously drawn parallels between how the high blood pressure market evolved in the 1980s and how we expect the obesity market to develop in the future, where combining different mechanisms can lead to better and more consistent treatment approaches. In obesity, targeting liver fat and lean body mass, these are things that can improve the quality of weight loss. There are a number of oral treatment approaches in development as well now, which we expect to broaden the appeal of GLP-1 medicines to a new audience, so really, it's an exciting time in the obesity global challenge. Mark Purcell: Terence, thanks for taking the time to talk. Terence Flynn: Great speaking with you, Mark. Mark Purcell: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Forthcoming U.S. restrictions on some tech investments in China may present new opportunities as companies adapt to these constraints.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about developments in the US-China economic relationship. It's Wednesday, August 9th at 10 a.m. in New York. News this week broke that the U.S. government is close to finalizing rules that would limit U.S. investment into China related to cutting edge tech sectors, such as quantum computing and artificial intelligence. The long awaited move, which we've discussed many times on this podcast, is yet another sign that the rewiring of the global economic system continues, transitioning from one of globalization to that of a multipolar world. But when news breaks like this, it's helpful to remember that the headlines can sound worse than the reality. Yes, it's likely that the global economy, and therefore markets, would be better off if the U.S. and China could find a way to deepen their economic ties, but the fraying of those ties need not be a substantial negative either. And these new outbound investment restrictions are a great example of that point. The proposed rule will, reportedly, restrict investment in companies who derive more than half their revenue from the sensitive technologies in question. Effectively, that means the U.S. will mostly be concerned with U.S. investors not funding development of new technology through startups. It could potentially leave the door open for more traditional forms of U.S. investment into China, namely through working with larger companies on market access and supply chain solutions. So while many companies are still likely to seek diversification away from China for their supply chains, they still have the ability to do this over time, as opposed to an abrupt decoupling that investors would likely see as carrying much greater risk to the global economy and markets. So, this gives investors a better chance to identify the opportunities that emerge as companies and governments spend money to adopt to these new constraints. Security as an investment theme is something we see potential in, with the defense sector and many industrial subsectors as beneficiaries. Geographically, we see Mexico, India and broader Asia as best positioned to capture investment and jobs from supply chain realignment, given their labor costs and proximity to key end markets. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

The profound demographic changes underway in countries around the world will require innovative, socially focused solutions in sectors including health care, finance and infrastructure.----- Transcript -----Stephen Bryd: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Bryd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Sustainability Research. Mike Camfield: And I'm Mike Camfield, Head of EMEA Sustainability Research. Stephen Bryd: On this special episode of the podcast, we'll discuss the social factors within the environmental, social and governance framework, or ESG, as a source of compelling opportunities for investors. It's Tuesday, August 8th, at 10 a.m. in New York. Mike Camfield: And 3 p.m. in London. Stephen Bryd: At Morgan Stanley Research. We believe that investing in social impact is critical to addressing some of the most pressing challenges facing our world today, such as inequality, poverty, lack of access to health care and education, and the repercussions of climate change. Traditional methods like philanthropy and government aid are a piece of the puzzle, but alone they can't address with the breadth and scale of these issues. So, Mike, looking back over the last couple of decades, investors have sometimes struggled with the social component of ESG investing. Some of the main challenges have been around data availability, the potential for social washing and the capacity to influence systemic change. How are market views on social investing changing right now, and what's driving this shift? Mike Camfield: It has historically been quite easy for investors to dismiss social, it's too subjective, too hard to measure, overly qualitative, and perhaps not even material in moving share prices. Increasingly, we do find investors recognize the vast and intractable social problems we face, whether that's structural shifts in workforces with countries like Korea, Japan and large parts of Europe projecting working age population decline by double digit percentage in the next 15 to 20 years, significant growth in urbanization or growing middle class populations in countries around the world. Investors also increasingly understand the interconnectivity of stakeholders across society, be that supranational organizations or governments or the corporate world, or even citizens themselves. Concurrently, it's becoming clear that corporate purpose and culture are critical considerations for prospective and current employees, as well as end customers themselves who are prepared to vote with both their wallets and their feet. All that said, we do note the overall impact at EM has garnered in 18% kagger over the last five years to nearly $213 billion with the Global Impact Investing Network pointing out that over 60% of impact investors are targeting some of the UN's socially focused SDGs. Notably goal eight around decent growth, goal five, around gender equality, goal ten around reduced inequalities broadly and goal three good health and well-being. In terms of drivers, we're seeing the realization rapidly dawning amongst investors that the profound changes underway in society and the climate will drive the need for innovative, socially focused solutions in a number of sectors, from health care to finance to infrastructure, as well as significant challenges to resilience and adaptation for industries around the world. With huge shifts in demographics coming whether through urbanization or migration, aging populations in some countries or declining fertility rates, the investing landscape is set to change dramatically across sectors, with change manifesting in anything from shifting consumer preferences to education access and outcomes to greater need for assistive technologies, to substantial food production issues, to financial system access and inclusion, or even simply addressing rapidly increasing demand for basic services and clean energy. Stephen Bryd: Thanks, Mike. So what are some of the core themes in social investing? Mike Camfield: Yeah in our recent social skills notes, we did identify five truly global, fast growing and compelling investment themes you can focus on under the broad umbrella of what we would call social investing. Firstly, access to health care, which includes but obviously not limited to pharmaceuticals, vaccines, orthopedics, medical devices, elderly care, sanitation and hygiene, women's health and sexual health. Secondly, nutrition and fitness, which encompasses things like infant nutrition, healthy or healthier food and beverage options, alternative proteins, food safety and food packaging. Thirdly, social infrastructure, which includes mobility, digital and communication systems, connectivity, health care and education facilities, community and affordable housing and access to clean energy. Fourthly, education and reskilling, which includes everything from pre-K, K-12, higher education, corporate and lifelong learning. Our colleague Brenda recently wrote on the potential $8 trillion opportunity in these markets. And finally, right inclusive finance, which encompasses microfinance, financial infrastructure, mobile digital banking, banking for underserved communities, fintech solutions and provision of financial services to SMEs. So Stephen, do you think any industries or regions stand out as leaders or laggards perhaps when it comes to social investing? Stephen Bryd: You know, Mike, when I think about industries leading, I do think education really stands out. And I think we all recognize that education is really one of the pillars of a productive, well-functioning society, but it does face an array of challenges. A quality education can promote democracy, help communities elevate their social and economic status, and drive innovation in the economy, and yet, over the past few years, multiple issues in education, which were really exacerbated by the COVID 19 pandemic, have hampered equitable progress in society across markets, regions and communities. In our note this past May on education innovators, we really focus on these issues as fields of opportunity for investment in innovation. An example would be improving the quality of the learning experience. The pandemic was an especially disruptive period for K-12 education, leaving a learning deficit that could linger for an entire generation, especially for groups that were already disadvantaged. The pandemic also highlighted the need for more robust lifelong learning opportunities beyond the traditional classroom. We expect to see players that are able to service these needs, best meet market demand. And Mike, in terms of reasons that stand out. A key issue that you highlighted before is data availability. And I would note that really Europe has led the way in terms of best in class disclosure. So Mike, social considerations have historically been viewed as overly qualitative rather than quantitative, but our research has shown a variety of ways in which the S-pillar can closely link to company fundamentals. Could you walk through some of these? Mike Camfield: Yeah, absolutely, Stephen, I think the starting point for our research was this notion that you can both do good and do well. The values in value based investing can be combined to deliver alpha and positive social impact at the same time. So one of the ways we think to approach this is to assess the corporate culture and its that that forms the first pillar of our forces social investing framework. At its heart, company culture pertains to the shared values, attitudes, practices and standards that shape a work environment and the strategy for business. In our analysis, we want to establish a holistic view of why a company exists, what it's doing to contribute positively towards society, how it's managed, and where its most material social related opportunities and risks lie. In doing that, we've established a data driven, objective process to evaluate culture using eight core components across five performance linked indicators, which are Glassdoor ratings, shareholder voting against management or proprietary, her school employee turnover and board gender diversity. And three engagement focus indicators. The trend in employee diversity, whether the company has a supplier code of conduct in place, and violations of the UN's Global Compact. These data sets are readily available and repeatable, giving a clear view of companies relationship with both its internal and its external stakeholders. Steven, How do you think investors can think about social investing more systematically, can you elaborate a little more on the 4 C's framework? Stephen Bryd: Yeah happy to Mike, I think you really touched on culture in a very comprehensive way. I really do think it's important that the performance related KPIs that you laid out really do show very clear performance differential between top and bottom quartiles. I want to move on to the second of the C's. This is Cultivate. And here we really focus on three so-called AIM lenses. The first is additionality. This is really the notion of generating positive social outcomes or impacts that otherwise would not have materialized. So finally, Mike, how does A.I play into social investing? Mike Camfield: Everyone's favorite acronym at the moment, clearly something that we can't ignore. We do believe there's a very real potential for us to be at the start of another economic revolution, driven by rapid technological evolution in AI. The so-called third industrial revolution, otherwise known as the digital revolution, brought with it transformational technologies in cell phones and the Internet, increased interconnectivity, greater industrial productivity and vastly greater accessibility of information. AI looks to play a central role in the fourth Industrial Revolution. Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum, popularized that term back in 2015 when he suggested that AI and advanced robotics could herald a substantial shift in industrial capitalism and the so-called knowledge economy. This evolution could fundamentally change employment and geopolitical landscapes. Just as in the early 19th century, when Luddites found machines left weaving skills obsolete. AI could well prove just as disruptive, but technology on a grander scale, across everything from manufacturing to search engines to media content creation. We do see significant AI opportunities in areas like drug development, in education outcomes and access and significant benefits across efficiencies and resource management, whether that's in power grid optimization or in weather prediction, for example. We do suggest a three pronged approach to evaluating AI driven opportunities which focus on areas including reducing harm to the environment, enhancing people's lives through biotech, cybersecurity and life sciences, for example, and enabling technological advancements. Simultaneously, given a relative lack of regulation for the industry at the moment, we do think consistent investor engagement is key to driving responsible A.I practices. Stephen Bryd: Mike, thanks for taking the time to talk. Mike Camfield: Great to speak to you, Stephen. Stephen Bryd: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

The residential housing market continues to face limited inventory, low affordability and high mortgage rates, but the worst may have passed.----- Transcript -----Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver from the Morgan Stanley U.S. Equity Strategy Team. Jim Egan: And I'm Jim Egan, Co-Head of U.S. Securities Products Research. Michelle Weaver: On this special episode of the podcast, we'll discuss the state of the housing market. It's Monday, August 7th at 10 a.m. in New York. Michelle Weaver: We recently did a deep dive into the global housing market and found that cyclical housing headwinds are significant but approaching a peak globally. And there are a few important things to keep in mind when thinking about this housing cycle. First is that higher interest rates and high home prices have kept affordability low. Second, housing is undersupplied in most economies. And third, there is a big gap between new and existing mortgages. Jim, can you start by talking us through how the structure of U.S. mortgages are different from what's common in other parts of the world? Jim Egan: Absolutely. So the structure of various mortgage markets has important implications for the pass through of monetary policy changes. And average mortgage terms vary significantly across the globe, from roughly 70% adjustable rate in Australia on one end to nearly all 30 year fixed rate mortgages here in the United States. Though we would say the duration has generally lengthened post the great financial crisis for most economies. Longer duration mortgages lower the sensitivity of housing markets to the policy rate, both in terms of timing and cyclicality. But for the U.S., that 30 year fixed rate, fully amortizing mortgage that's freely repayable at any point in time with no penalty to the borrower, that's a unique feature for our mortgage market. And it's something that's made possible by the fact that roughly 2/3 of that $13 trillion mortgage market is guaranteed by the U.S. government. And that in turn contributes to the sizable and relatively liquid securitization market, which effectively democratizes the risk across a much broader range of investors than just the lenders themselves. Michelle Weaver: And how have high mortgage rates impacted home sales in the U.S.? If someone's looking to buy a home, are they able to even find listings? Jim Egan: I think that's an important question, and that's really contributed to our bifurcated housing narrative that we've discussed on this podcast in the past. Mortgage rates go up, affordability deteriorates, but not for current homeowners. They become very locked in at that lower rate and disincentivized to really list their home for sale, and that's why we've seen existing listings fall to 40 year lows. We say 40 year lows because that's just as far back as the data goes, this is the lowest we've seen that. If they're not listing their homes for sale, that means that they're also not buying homes on the follow, and that really brings sales volumes down. That's why in the cycle, existing home sales have fallen twice as fast as they did during the great financial crisis, despite the fact that home prices have remained incredibly protected at near those peaks. Now, let me turn it to you, Michelle. You cover U.S. equities and the housing market has many different links to the equity market. When someone buys a new home, they make a lot of associative purchases, like buying new furniture or making improvements around the house. How have home improvement companies fared? Michelle Weaver: Sure, so a lot of people made improvements to their houses during COVID to make staying indoors a little bit more comfortable. And post-COVID demand reversion has been a really important driver for the past few years. If you make home improvements one year, you're not going to need to make them again for, you know, several years. And so we think that the reversion of COVID driven overconsumption is largely complete now. Housing prices and housing turnover, these fundamental metrics governing the housing market are likely to resume being the core drivers for the home improvement space from here. Jim Egan: Now, banks also have a relationship with the housing market through mortgage lending. What've these higher mortgage rates meant for banks? Michelle Weaver: Interest rates are very high and consequently mortgage rates are also very high. And this has put a damper on demand for new mortgages at banks. There's also a large gap between existing mortgage rates and new mortgage rates, like we were discussing earlier. And in the U.S., homeowners refinanced and masked during COVID when mortgage rates were extremely, extremely low and locked in these rates. Now, less than 1% of American mortgages would be considered in the money to refinance or essentially make sense to refinance. So mortgage originations are expected to continue to stay very low. And this means that banks won't be getting this source of revenue from mortgages. Jim Egan: Now, that all makes sense on the homeownership side, the mortgage side, but let's think about the reciprocal here a little bit, the rental space. How have high mortgage rates and the lack of supply that we're describing impacted the rental market? Michelle Weaver: Definitely, high home prices and lack of availability have made it really tough for first time homebuyers. So people that are on the margin between buying their first house or staying in a rental have had to remain renters. And this has increased rents and been a big tailwind for rentership rates that are the owners of these rental properties. Jim, what do you think is going to happen with affordability in the United States, it's been very poor, are you expecting that to improve and what's going to go on with home prices? Jim Egan: Sure. So affordability remains very challenged, but it's not getting worse. On the margin that's probably going to improve a little bit from here, but remain challenged. Supply remains incredibly tight, but it's not getting tighter. We think that we're in a range bound environment here now, Case-Shiller just turned negative on a year-over-year basis for the first time since 2012. And while we expect that to persist for another couple of months, we expect home prices to basically be unchanged from these levels over the coming year. Michelle Weaver: Jim, thank you for taking the time to talk. Jim Egan: Great speaking with you, Michelle. Michelle Weaver: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Moves by the Bank of Japan, the downgrade of the U.S. credit rating and new economic data may all have contributed to a spike in bond yields and fall in stock prices.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts in the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Fixed Income Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, August 4th at 2 p.m. in London. After a placid July, August has opened with a bout of volatility. In one sense, this isn't unusual. July is historically one of the best months of the year for global equity performance, August and September are two of the worst. But the way markets have weakened has been more striking. Long term bond yields rose sharply this week, with the U.S. 30 year bond yield rising 27 basis points over the course of the last five days. Long term rates in the UK and Germany also rose sharply. Equity markets fell. Those facts are clear and indisputable. But why interest rates rose so much, and whether they're responsible for equity weakness? That, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is a lot less clear. Indeed, there's more than one driver of last week's events. Maybe it's the Bank of Japan, which late last week raised the effective cap on Japanese government bond yields, which went on to rise sharply over the course of this week. Maybe it's the Fitch rating agency, which on Tuesday downgraded the credit rating of the United States by one notch to AA+. And maybe it's the US economic data, which has been quite strong, something that usually corresponds to higher rates. There's also the way that yields have risen. While long term U.S. interest rates rose sharply, shorter two year yields barely budged over the last week and in the UK and Germany, those two year yields actually fell. The large move higher in U.S. rates has also occurred while the market's actually lowered its assumption about long run inflation, another unusual occurrence. In reality, the drivers of these recent events might be all of the above. The initial rise in U.S. yields matched the move higher in Japanese rates, almost one for one. But we do think that move in Japanese rates is now mostly complete. The timing of Fitch's downgrade, which was somewhat unusual, given that there hasn't been any recent legislation to change fiscal policy and the fact that it happened at the start of August, a month that often sees less liquidity, might have given it an outsized impact. And the economic data has been good, suggesting that the U.S. economy for now is handling higher rates, a development that would generally support higher yields and a steeper curve. And in terms of the global equity reaction, some perspective is probably helpful. While last week saw higher yields and lower prices, since early April, both nominal yields, real yields and global stock prices have all risen together and by quite a bit. Now, it's possible that this relationship between stocks and bonds shifted some this week based on simply how much equity valuations have appreciated, as my colleague Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley's Chief Equity Strategist, has noted recently. Higher yields make a focus on valuation more important and also make it more essential that good data, the best version of that higher yield story, continues to come through. In bonds, meanwhile, the recent rise in yields is boosting expected returns going forward. On Morgan Stanley's base case forecast, the U.S. ten year Treasury through the middle of 2024 will return over 10%. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts of the Market on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.

While rate hikes and work from home are depressing office real estate in the U.S., the market is vast globally, and there are clear differences across regions and asset types, ranging from occupancy to design to financing.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ron Kamdem, Head of Morgan Stanley's U.S. Real Estate Investment Trust and Commercial Real Estate Research. Today, I'll be talking about our outlook for the future of the global office real estate market. It's Thursday, August 3rd at 10 a.m. in New York. There is more than 6 billion square feet of office space across the globe with value of more than 4 trillion U.S. dollars. Within this vast market, there are clear differences across the regions, ranging from occupancy to design to financing. In the U.S., office real estate fundamentals this cycle appear worse than they were during the great financial crisis of 2008 in terms of occupancy, subleasing activity and office utilization. In fact, overall, U.S. office utilization seems to be stalling at 20 to 55% compared to other regional markets in the 60 to 80% range. This trend will likely remain in place as key U.S. tenants are looking to reduce office space by about 10% over the next three years. Work from home and hybrid arrangements are the biggest drivers, particularly with business services and technology focused firms on the West Coast. In addition, sharp rate hikes and regional bank weakness have driven up loan-to-value ratios in the U.S. versus global peers. Looking at other countries, Australia and Mexico may be having similar problems as far as work from home is concerned, but average loan-to-value ratios are much lower, which lenders typically consider a good sign. Mainland China is unique among our coverage markets for having declining rates. Hong Kong seems to be the most undervalued and closer to bottoming, and we prefer it over Singapore, Japan and Australia. In Latin America, we remain on the sidelines. Despite the increase in net absorption growth, the office real estate market is still showing a slow paced recovery from pandemic levels, especially in Mexico. All in all, global office markets remain 10 to 15% oversupplied. While higher vacancy is an issue impacting all countries, an important emerging theme across the various region as a bias towards newer and greener buildings. Our channel checks with tenants and landlords suggests that as employees, especially the younger cohorts, choose to work for organizations with strong climate change values, employers will seek to establish offices and more energy efficient buildings. Also, in an effort to encourage office attendance and in-person collaboration, occupiers are gravitating toward younger buildings with more attractive amenities. Overall, as we look across regions and countries, one common thread is what we call "bifurcation", that is a widening gap between the class-A prime assets and the rest of the commodity B&C space, which is happening at an accelerating pace. We believe it would take 5 to 13 years for the global office market to return to pre-COVID occupancy levels. However, the class A prime assets can recover in half the time as the rest of the market and newer, greener buildings in particular are likely to be most favored. Bottom line for the U.S looking at fundamentals is that New York and Boston on the East Coast are showing the most resilient trends. Downtown L.A., downtown San Francisco, downtown Seattle and even Chicago are showing the most headwinds, sunbelt markets are somewhere in between but have been lowing. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the market with a friend or colleague today.

The recent downgrade to Fitch's U.S. credit rating should have less of an impact on demand for bonds than the ongoing trajectory of inflation.----- Transcript -----Welcome to the Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the impact of the U.S. downgrade to bond markets. It's Wednesday, August 2nd at 11 a.m. in New York. Yesterday, one of the three main rating agencies, Fitch, downgraded the U.S's credit rating to AA+ from AAA. The U.S. now only has one AAA rating left. Fitch attributed the change to the US's growing debt burden and a, quote, "erosion of governance", unquote, specifically referring to debt ceiling standoffs over the past decade as a cause for concern. The tone of this language may understandably elicit concern from investors, but practically speaking, does it actually matter? In our view, in the short term, probably not. First off, the downgrade doesn't communicate anything investors didn't already know about the level and trajectory of U.S. debt and deficits. Second, it doesn't tell us anything forward looking about arguably the biggest factor influencing whether or not investors want to own bonds at their current prices, inflation. Third, a ratings downgrade doesn't appear to trigger any structural change in bond demand. Unpacking that last point a bit more, let's look at the main holders of U.S. Treasuries, the Fed, banks, overseas holders and households. The Fed is under no obligation to adjust Treasury holdings based on credit ratings. It's a similar situation for banks whose incentive to own treasuries is based on risk weightings determined by U.S. regulators, we view as very unlikely to adjust regulations to align with a ratings opinion they likely don't agree with. Overseas holders typically own treasuries because they have U.S. dollars from doing business with U.S. customers, and we don't see their desire to do business with U.S. companies and consumers changing because of a ratings opinion. As for households, it's possible that some mutual funds and separately managed accounts could want to sell treasuries if they're under a mandate to only own assets rated AAA, but we suspect this type of vulnerability is small and easily absorbable by the market. It's also possible there could be some selling of lower rated bonds, given some portfolios have to maintain an average credit rating, which could be lessened on this downgrade if they own treasuries. But those portfolios could just as easily restore an average credit rating by buying more treasuries versus selling lower rated bonds. Bottom line, we think investors should look beyond the downgrade and stay focused on the U.S. macro debates that have and continue to matter to markets this year, the trajectory of inflation and whether or not the Fed can control it without a recession resulting. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

While the U.S. economy appears on track to avoid a recession, investors should still consider the implications of an upcoming wave of maturities in corporate credit.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I will be talking about potential risk to the economy. It's Tuesday, August 1st at 10 a.m. in New York. Another FOMC meeting came and went. To nobody's surprise the Fed hiked the target Fed funds rate by 25 basis points. Beyond the hike, the July FOMC statement had nearly no changes. While data on inflation and jobs are moving in the right direction, the Fed remains far from its 2% inflation goal. That said, Fed Chair Powell stressed that the Fed is closer to its destination, that monetary policies is in restrictive territory and is likely to stay there for some time. Broadly, the outcome of the market was in line with our economists expectation that the federal funds rate has peaked, will remain unchanged for an extended period, and the first 25 basis point cut will be delivered in March 2024. Powell sounded more confident in a soft landing, citing the gradual adjustment in the labor market and noting that despite 525 basis point policy tightening, the unemployment rate remains at the same level it was pre-COVID. The fact that the Fed has been able to bring inflation down without a meaningful rise in unemployment, he described as quote unquote "blessing". He noted that the Fed staff are no longer forecasting a recession, given the resilience in the economy. This specter of soft landing, meaning a recession is not imminent, is something our economists have been calling for some time. This has now become more broadly accepted across market participants, albeit somewhat reluctantly. The obvious question, therefore, is what are the risks ahead and what are the paths for such risks to materialize? One such potential risk emanates from the rising wave of credit maturities from the corporate credit markets. While company balance sheets, by and large, are in a good shape now, given how far interest rates have risen and how quickly they have done so, as that debt begins to mature and needs to be refinanced, it will happen at sharply higher rates. From now through the end of 2024, almost a trillion of corporate debt will mature. Sim ply by holding rates constant, that refinancing will represent a tightening of financial conditions. Fortunately, a high proportion of the debt comes from investment grade borrowers and does not appear to be particularly challenging. However, below investment grade debt has a tougher path ahead for refinancing. As we continue through 2024 and get into 2025, more and more high yield bonds and leveraged loans will need to be refinanced. All else equal, the default rates in high yield bonds and leveraged loans currently  hovering around 2.5% may double to over 5% in the next 12 months. The forecasts of our economists point to a further slowdown in the economy from here, as the rest of the standard lags of policy are felt. We continue to think that such a slowing could necessitate a re-examination of the lower end of the credit spectrum. The ongoing challenges in the regional banking sector only add to this problem. In our view, in the list of risks to the U.S. economy, the rising wave of maturities in the corporate debt markets is notable. Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

With uncertainty around the effects of new central bank policy, investors should be on the lookout for sales growth, cost cutting and sectors that might be turning a corner on performance.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, July 31st, 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. This past week was an extremely busy one for global central banks, with the Fed and European Central Bank raising interest rates again by 25 basis points, while leaving the door open to either more hikes or pausing indefinitely. They remain data dependent. However, the biggest change may have come from the Bank of Japan. More specifically, the Bank of Japan decided to get the ball rolling on ending its long standing policy of yield curve control, a policy under which it maintains a cap on interest rates across the curve. This is an important pivot in our view, as it signals the Bank of Japan's willingness to join the fight against inflation. In short, it's incrementally hawkish for global bond markets. For U.S. equity investors, the main focus has been on the Fed getting closer to the end of its tightening campaign. The key question from investors is whether that means the Fed has orchestrated a soft landing or if a recession is unavoidable. While many investors remain skeptical of the soft landing outcome, equity markets have traded so well this year that these same investors have been swayed into thinking a soft landing is now the highest probability outcome. We believe equity markets are in a classic policy driven late cycle rally. Furthermore, the excitement over a Fed pause has been supported by very strong fiscal impulse and a still supportive global liquidity backdrop, even with central banks tightening. The latest example of a similar late cycle period occurred in 2019. Back then, a robust rally in equities was driven almost exclusively by valuations rather than earnings, like this year. Both then and now, Mega- cap growth stocks were the best performers as equity market internals processed a path to easier monetary policy and lower interest rates. The 2019 analogy suggests more index level upside from here, however, we would note that the Fed was already cutting interest rates for a good portion of 2019, leaving ten year Treasury yields 200 basis points lower than they are today. Nevertheless, equity valuations are 5% higher now than in 2019. The other scenario is that we are in a new cyclical upturn and growth is about to reaccelerate sharply for both the economy and earnings. While we're open minded to this new view materializing next year, we'd like to see a broader swath of business cycle indicators inflect, higher, breadth improve and short term interest rates come down before adjusting our stance in this regard. In other words, the current progression of these factors does not yet look like prior new cyclical upturns. Meanwhile, earnings season has been a fade the news so far, with the average stock down about 1% post results. This is worse than the past eight quarters where stocks are flat to up. While hardly a disaster, we think companies will have to start delivering better sales growth to outperform from here. On that score, even the large cap growth stocks have been mostly cost cutting stories to date. Another interesting observation over the past month is that the worst performing sectors are starting to exhibit the best breadth of performance, namely energy, utilities and health care. Industrials is the only leading sector with improving breath. Given the uncertainty there remains about the economic outcome in central bank policy, investors should look to the laggards with good breadth for relative performance catch up. Our top picks are healthcare, utilities and energy. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show.

Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets explains why it’s increasingly more favorable to be a lender than an asset owner.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, July 28th at 2 p.m. in London. Markets have been stronger than we expected. Some of the story is straight forward, some of it is not. Indeed across asset classes, the capital structure increasingly looks upside down. Our investment strategy has been based on the assumption that strong developed market growth was set to slow sharply as post-COVID stimulus waned and policy tightened at the fastest pace in 40 years. Sharp slowing, from an elevated base, has often rewarded more defensive investment positioning. But our assumption about this growth backdrop has simply been wrong. Growth has been good, with the U.S. printing yet another set of better than expected economic data this week. 20 years from now, an investor looking back on the first half of 2023 might find nothing particularly out of place. The economic data was good and surprisingly so, stocks, especially more cyclical ones, outperform bonds. Yet that straightforward story has happened alongside something more unusual. Across markets, we can observe a capital structure, that is how much investors are expected to earn as the owner of an asset, a company, an office building and so on, relative to being the lender to the asset. The lender should get a lower return since they're taking less risk, and over the last decade, very low borrowing rates have meant that that very much is the case. But it's been shifting. To varying degrees, the capital structure now looks almost upside down, with high yields on debt relative to more junior exposure, or the yield on the underlying asset. And we see this in several areas. In U.S. corporates, higher equity valuations have meant that the forward earnings yield for the Russell 1000, at about 4.8%, is now below the yield on US investment grade corporate debt at about 5.5%, and the difference between these two is only been more extreme in about 2% of observations over the last 20 years. In real estate, yields on debt have risen much faster than capitalization rates, that is the yield on the underlying real estate asset, and that's happened across both commercial and residential segments. And across leveraged loans and collateralized loan obligations, or CLO's, the so-called CLO ARB, which is the difference between the yield on the CLO loan collateral and the weighted cost of its liabilities, are unusually low. And we've also seen this in the loan market.For much of the last decade, the economics of borrowing to buy assets has been attractive. As the examples I've mentioned try to show, these economics are changing. Across scenarios where growth stays solid or especially if it slows, we think being the lender to an asset rather than its owner, is now often the better risk/reward. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.

With higher quality and lower costs, China’s electric vehicles could lead a shift in the global auto industry.----- Transcript -----Adam Jonas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Adam Jonas, Head of Morgan Stanley's Global Autos and Share Mobility Team. Tim Hsaio: And Tim Hsaio Greater China Auto Analyst. Adam Jonas: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we're going to discuss how China Electric vehicles are reshaping the global auto market. It's Thursday, July 27th at 8 a.m. in New York. Tim Hsaio: And 8 p.m in Hong Kong. Adam Jonas: For decades, global autos have been dominated by established, developed market brands with little focus on electric vehicles or EVs, particularly for the mass market. As things stand today, affordable EVs are few and far between, and this undersupply presents a major global challenge. At Morgan Stanley Equity Research, we think the auto industry will undergo a major reshuffling in the next decade as affordable EVs from emerging markets capture significant global market share. Tim, you believe China made EVs will be at the center of this upcoming shakeup of the global auto industry, are we at an inflection point and how did we get here? Tim Hsaio: Thanks, Adam. Yeah, we are definitely at a very critical inflection point at the moment. Firstly, since last year, as you may notice that China has outsized Germany car export and soon surpassed Japan in the first half of this year as the world's largest auto exporter. So now we believe China made EVs infiltrating the West, challenging their global peers, backed by not just cheaper prices but the improving variety and quality. And separately, we believe that affordability remains the key mitigating factors to global EV adoption, as Rastan brands have been slow to advance their EV strategy for their mass market. A lack of affordable models actually challenged global adoption, but we believe that that creates a great opportunity to EV from China where a lot of affordable EVs will soon fill in the vacuum and effectively meet the need for cheaper EV. So we believe that we are definitely at an inflection point. Adam Jonas: So Tim, it's safe to say that the expansionary strategy of China EVs is not just a fad, but real solid trend here? Tim Hsaio: Totally agree. We think it's going to be a long lasting trend because you think about what's happened over the past ten years. China has been a major growth engine to curb auto demands, contributing more than 300% of a sales increment. And now we believe China will transport itself into the key supply driver to the world, they initially by exporting cheaper EV and over time shifting course to transplant and foreign production just similar to Japan and Korea autos back to 1970 to 1990. And we believe China EVs are making inroads into more than 40 countries globally. Just a few years ago, the products made by China were poorly designed, but today they surpass rival foreign models on affordability, quality and even detector event user experience. So Adam, essentially, we are trying to forecast the future of EVs in China and the rest of the world, and this topic sits right at the heart of all three big things Morgan Stanley Research is exploring this year, the multipolar world, decarbonization and technology diffusion. So if we take a step back to look at the broader picture of what happens to supply chain, what potential scenarios for an auto industry realignment do you foresee? And which regions other than China stand to benefit or be negatively impacted? Adam Jonas: So, Tim, look, I think there's certainly room to diversify and rebalance at the margin away from China, which has such a dominant position in electric vehicles today, and it was their strategy to fulfill that. But you also got to make room for them. Okay. And there's precedent here because, you know, we saw with the Japanese auto manufacturers in the 1970s and 1980s, a lot of people doubted them and they became dominant in foreign markets. Then you had the Korean auto companies in the 1990s and 2000s. So, again, China's lead is going to be long lasting, but room for on-shoring and near-shoring, friend shoring. And we would look to regions like ASEAN, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, also the Middle East, such as Morocco, which has an FTA agreement with the U.S. and Saudi, parts of Scandinavia and Central Europe, and of course our trade partners in North America, Mexico and Canada. So, we’ re witnessing an historic re-industrialization of some parts of the world that where we thought we lost some of our heavy industry. Tim Hsaio: So in a context of a multipolar trends, we are discussing Adam, how do you think a global original equipment manufacturers or OEM or the car makers and the policymakers will react to China's growing importance in the auto industry? Adam Jonas: So I think the challenge is how do you re-architect supply chains and still have skin in the game and still be relevant in these markets? It's going to take time. We think you're going to see the established auto companies, the so-called legacy car companies, seek partnerships in areas where they would otherwise struggle to bring scale. Look to diversify and de-risk their supply chains by having a dual source both on-shore and near-shore, in addition to their established China exposed supply chains. Some might choose to vertically integrate, and we've seen some striking partners upstream with mining companies and direct investments. Others might find that futile and work with battery firms and other structures without necessarily owning the technology. But we think most importantly, the theme is you're not going to be cutting out the world's second largest GDP, which already has such a dominant position in this important market, so the Western firms are going to work with the Chinese players. And the ones that can do that we think will be successful. And I'd bring our listeners attention to a recent precedent of a large German OEM and a state sponsored Chinese car company that are working together on electric vehicle architecture, which is predominantly the Chinese architecture. We think that's quite telling and you're going to see more of that kind of thing. Tim Hsaio: So Adam, is there anything the market is missing right now? Adam Jonas: A few things, Tim, but I think the most obvious one to me is just how good these Chinese EVs are. We think the market's really underestimating that, in terms of quality safety features, design. You know, you're seeing Chinese car companies hiring the best engineers from the German automakers coming, making these beautiful, beautiful vehicles, high quality. Another thing that we think is underestimated are the environmental externalities from battery manufacturing, batteries are an important technology for decarbonization. But the supply chain itself has some very inconvenient ESG externalities, labor to emissions and others. And I would say, final thing that we think the market is missing is there's an assumption that just because the electric vehicle and the supporting battery business, because it's a large and fast growing, that it has to be a high return business. And we are skeptical of that. Precedents from the solar polysilicon and LED TVs and others where when you get capital working and you've got state governments all around the world providing incentives that you get the growth, but you don't necessarily get great returns for shareholders, so it's a bit of a warning to investors to be cautious, be opportunistic, but growth doesn't necessarily mean great returns. Tim, let's return to China for a minute and as I ask you one final question, where will growing China's EV exports go and what is your outlook for the next one or two years as well as the next decade? Tim Hsaio: Eventually, I think China EVs will definitely want to grow their presence worldwide. But initially, we believe that there are two major markets they want to focus on. First one would be Europe. I think the China's export or the local brands there will want to leverage their BEV portfolio, battery EV, to grow their presence in Europe. And the other key market would be ASEAN country, Southeast Asia. I think the Chinese brands where the China EV can leverage their plug-in hybrid models to grow their presence in ASEAN. The major reason is that we noticed that in Southeast Asia the charging infrastructure is still underdeveloped, so the plug-in hybrid would be the more ideal solution to that market. And for the next 1 to 2 years, we are currently looking for the China the EV export to grow by like 50 to 60% every year. And in that long-terms, as you may notice that currently China made vehicles account for only 3% of cars sold outside China. But in the next decade we are looking for one third of EVs sold in overseas would be China made, so they are going to be the leader of the EV sold globally. Adam Jonas: Tim, thanks for taking the time to talk. Tim Hsaio: Great speaking with you Adam.Adam Jonas: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show.

Investors are questioning what new policy changes the 2024 election might bring, how the changes could affect markets and when they should start paying attention.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed-Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about what investors need to know about the 2024 U.S. election. It's Wednesday, July 26th at 11 a.m. in New York. As the press starts to focus more and more on the 2024 election, so have our clients leading many questions to come our way about who we think will be the next president and what we think they might do that could influence markets. As listeners of this podcast are surely aware, here at Morgan Stanley Research, we obviously care a great deal about elections and their consequences for markets. So then you might be surprised to know that our response so far to 2024 election questions has been, 'Nothing to see here, at least not yet'. There's two reasons behind this thinking. First, there's no data out there that can tell us much about what the election outcome will be. Polls are, in our view, better predictive tools and they've recently gotten credit for, but polls taken today about presidential candidates over a year away from the election have no track record of predicting anything. The same is true for polls about who the challenging party's nominee will be. And modern U.S. electoral history is full of examples where party nomination frontrunners have either faded or won the nomination, so there's no pattern to rely on there. In short, if you're interested in knowing who will win the election, there's not much to do but watch and wait. Second, the policy consequences of the election that might matter to markets could evolve greatly over the next 12 months in unpredictable ways. For example, in 2019, the 2020 election seemed set to be all about health care policy, and investors were intensely focused on the potential impact to the pharma sector. But when the pandemic hit, the election's importance to the market became more macro, it was all about the potential for more fiscal stimulus, shifting the election from an equity sector story to one that mattered to the overall stock index and bond yields. In 2007, the 2008 election seemed poised to be all about foreign policy, but then the financial crisis hit and markets again cared about how the outcome would affect potential fiscal stimulus and bank regulation. We could go on, but the point is this, history tells us this election will matter greatly to markets, but it's way too early to reliably know how it will matter. Now, rest assured, while we're suggesting investors don't have to pay close attention to the US election yet, we are paying attention and putting plenty of time into assessing the various plausible impacts the election could have. In particular around tax policy, tech regulation, defense spending, and refreshing our framework for how fiscal policy in the U.S. reacts to political conditions and party control in Congress. Of course, we'll flag for you when we think it's a productive time to join us in this early preparation, so that when the election and its consequences come more into focus, you'll be front footed. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

Rapidly declining inflation poses a challenge to revenue growth and earnings. So what should investors look out for to identify the winners from here?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Tuesday, July 25th at 10 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. As discussed in last week's podcast, this year's equity market has been all about expanding valuations. The primary drivers of this multiple expansion have been falling inflation and cost cutting rather than accelerating top line growth. Last October, we based our tactically bullish call on the view that inflation was peaking, along with back end interest rates and the US dollar. While the 30% move in equity multiples on the back of this theme has gone much further and persisted longer than we anticipated, we don't feel the urge to turn bullish now. Missing the upside this year was unfortunate, however, compounding with another bad call can lead to permanent loss. While falling inflation supports the expectations for a Fed pivot on monetary policy, it also poses a risk to nominal revenue growth and earnings. To remind listeners of a key component to our earnings thesis, we believe inflation is now falling even faster than the consensus expects, especially the inflation experienced by companies. With price being the main factor keeping sales growth above zero for many companies this year, it would be a material headwind if that pricing were to roll over. This is precisely what we think is starting to happen for many businesses, especially in the goods portion of the economy. Last year's earnings disappointment in communication services, consumer discretionary and technology were significant, but largely a function of over-investment and elevated cost structures rather than disappointing sales. In fact, our operational efficiency thesis that worked so well last year was adopted by many of these companies in the fourth quarter, and they've been rewarded for it. From here, though, we think sales estimates will likely have to rise for these stocks to continue to power higher, and this will be the key theme to watch when they report. Last week was not a good start in that regard, as several large cap winners disappointed on earnings and these stocks sold off 10%. The same thing can be said for the rest of the market, too. If we're right about pricing fading amid falling inflation, then sales will likely disappoint from here. We think it's also worth keeping in mind that the economic data is not always reflective of what companies see in their businesses from a pricing standpoint. Recall in 2020 and 21, the companies were extracting far more than CPI-type pricing as demand surged higher from the fiscal stimulus, just as supply was constrained. This was the inflation driven boom we pointed to at the time, a thesis we are now simply using in reverse. Bottom line, investors may need to focus more on top line growth acceleration to identify the winners from here. This will be harder to find if our thesis on inflation is correct and cost cutting and better than feared earnings results would no longer get it done, at least in the growth sectors. On the other side of the ledger, we have value stocks where expectations are quite low. Last week, financial stocks outperformed on earnings results that were far from impressive, but not as bad as feared. That trade is likely behind us, but with China now offering some additional fiscal stimulus in the near term, energy and materials stocks may be poised for a catch up move using that same philosophy. In short, growth stocks require top line acceleration at this point to continue their run, while value stocks can do better if things just don't deteriorate further. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show.

India’s smartphone market could triple in size over the next decade, putting it behind only the U.S. and China.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Erik Woodring, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Hardware Analyst. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today, I'll discuss our outlook for the India smartphone market. It's Monday, July 24th at 10 a.m. in New York. We're making a bold call for India's smartphone market. We believe it will triple in size over the next decade to $90 billion and account for 15% of global smartphone shipments by 2032, up from just 6% today. That implies that India alone will drive 100% of global smartphone shipment growth over the next decade. India has the largest worldwide population, but smartphone penetration is significantly lower versus the rest of the world. For the last two decades, investors have been intrigued by the vast growth potential of the India smartphone market. But so far, investor expectations have not played out, as smartphone penetration in India has failed to surpass 40% versus the global average of 60%. And growth in the India smartphone market has been overwhelmingly driven by low end devices, with razor thin margins for original equipment manufacturers or OEMs. In fact, the smartphone TAM or total addressable market is just 25% the size of China, despite a similarly sized population. But we think the next decade will be different - it will be India's decade. Besides forecasting annual GDP growth of 6.5% for the next decade, our India Strategy and Economics colleagues believe that over the next decade, domestic consumption in India will more than double - driven by a number of important factors, including widespread economic reforms. These efforts are expected to bring meaningful demographic change, with income per capita expected to double, and the number of high income households expected to quintuple over the next decade. Alongside nearly 100% electrification of the country and a government led effort to prioritize digital transformation, we expect strong demand for technology goods to emerge over the next decade. We see these factors as setting the stage for robust smartphone growth in India. A recent AlphaWise smartphone survey of Indian consumers confirmed these trends, with three in four survey respondents acknowledging they are likely to purchase a new smartphone in the next 12 months, in line with other leading emerging markets. In fact, some respondents acknowledged they are more likely to own a smartphone over other household items such as a PC, car or refrigerator. Furthermore, Indian consumers are willing to pay up to 20% more for their next smartphone to gain access to premium technologies such as 5G compatibility, longer battery life, better camera quality and more storage capacity. While it's still early days, we believe these survey results illustrate the growing importance of the smartphone in India and the rising potential for the Indian smartphone market. When we take a step back, the two most important factors underpinning our $90 billion India smartphone TAM are growing smartphone penetration and positive mix shift, meaning customers are shifting their purchases to higher end devices. We estimate that in a decade, Indian smartphone penetration will reach 60%, the global average today. Furthermore, we estimate that over the next decade, 80% of India's smartphone market growth will come from smartphones priced in excess of $250, which have only accounted for about 10% of smartphone growth in India over the last five years. Combined, we believe these factors will drive a 11% annual smartphone market growth in India over the next decade, allowing India to become the third largest smartphone market in the world at $90 billion, trailing just China and the United States. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

With positive GDP growth and increasing revenues, Japan equities are becoming a preferred market globally. ----- Transcript -----Chetan Ahya: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia Economist. Daniel Blake: And I'm Daniel Blake, Asia and Emerging Markets Equity Strategist. Chetan Ahya:  Over the last two days in this special three part series on Japan, we discussed a constructive outlook for Japan's economy and the various structural reforms it's undergoing. Today in this final episode focused on Japan, we'll talk about the key investment implications of these macro trends. It's Friday, July 21st at 9 a.m. in Hong Kong and Singapore. Chetan Ahya: Dan, you've been highlighting Japanese equities as our most preferred asset within the region and globally. Your bullish view is based on three powerful drivers of outperformance coming together, namely macro, micro and multipolar world. Starting with the macro, our economists expect an uplift in nominal GDP growth trend, how does this benefit Japanese equities? Daniel Blake: So we see this being another era for the Japanese market, having first exited deflation in 2013 with the initial Abenomics program, but now moving into positive nominal GDP growth from 2023 onwards. It's hugely important for companies who have been hemmed in with an inability to lift prices and hence they have been unable or unwilling to lift base wages or dividend levels. So this new pricing flexibility in top line growth supports the equity market in five key ways. First, we're going to see faster revenue growth. Second, we think this will mean wider operating profit margins given fixed cost leverage will now be working in favor of the bottom line. Third, financial sector earnings have been repressed by ongoing Bank of Japan policy, but a gradual process of normalization should help release the earnings power of Japanese financials. Fourth, domestic portfolios are highly risk averse and focused on cash and deposits. We think there will be some ongoing shift towards higher return assets, including equities. And finally, we think valuations for the equity market can continue to trend higher on convergence with global norms. Chetan Ahya: And on micro front, we've been discussing about the improvement in corporate governance for almost a decade now. What's changed this year? Daniel Blake: Yes, the environment has been changing for the better part of a decade, really since the introduction of the corporate governance and stewardship codes back in 2015 and 16. We are seeing progressive improvement with record levels of investor activism and engagement, and we're seeing signs that management teams are taking up the challenge of improving profitability with record buybacks and record levels of dividend payout ratios. That said, the progress has been patchy at times and coming into this year, 50% of equity market constituents were still trading below book value. So what's changed this year is in this backdrop of improving corporate governance we've had new calls from the Tokyo Stock Exchange for companies trading below book value to explore ways to meet their cost of capital and lift valuations. We think that additional support that will come through as companies look to engage with investors and unlock value will help to boost Japan's sustainable return on equity to 11 to 12%, that compares with Japan's 15 year average of just 4% before the Abenomics program took hold. And it would bring it up more consistent with global averages. Chetan Ahya: Dan, one of the big themes Morgan Stanley research is exploring deeply this year is the transition from a globalized or multipolar world. How does this emergence of multipolar world impact Japan and its equity markets in particular? Daniel Blake: Thanks, Chetan. And as we're thinking about a multipolar world transition, we think there are two scenarios for global supply chains and interdependencies. One is a de-risking process, which is our base case, where supply chains are strengthened, diversified, and we see ongoing policy support for investment into emerging industries. The second scenario, which we hope to avoid, is one of decoupling. But if we focus on the de-risking scenario, we think Japanese companies will benefit from that trend for two reasons. One, we have a high allocation in the Japanese market of companies skewed towards industrial automation, semiconductor manufacturing equipment, precision instruments, specialty chemicals, all of the inputs for supply chain diversification that are crucially in demand in this de-risking process. And the second reason is investor portfolios are also being diversified, and Japan's deep capital markets have been in a good position to absorb this shift. Chetan Ahya: So taking it together, where does this leave your view on Japan equities and what are the risks to your call? Daniel Blake: So overall, we see Japanese equities as our most preferred market globally with another 7% upside to our base case for the TOPIX index. As a result of the three drivers we'll discuss today, we're above consensus on earnings forecasts, seeing 10% growth in 2023 and 2024. Investors are still underweight on Japanese equities and we expect ongoing inflows over the coming quarters. The most acute risk to the call is if we end up in a global recession or if in Japan, core inflation overshoots 2% sustainably, forcing a tightening cycle in Japanese yen appreciation. We think the underlying environment will manage to mitigate these risks more than they have in the past, but that remains a cyclical risk for the Japanese equity outlook. Chetan Ahya: Dan, thank you for taking the time to talk. Daniel Blake: Great speaking with Chetan. Chetan Ahya: And thanks for listening to our special three part series on Japan. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.

As Japan anticipates shifts in structural policy and GDP growth, these are the industries within the market that are poised to benefit. Chief Asia Economist Chetan Ahya, Chief Japan Economist Takeshi Yamaguchi, and Japan Senior Advisor Robert Feldman discuss.----- Transcript -----Chetan Ahya: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia Economist. Takeshi Yamaguchi: I'm Takeshi Yamaguchi, Chief Japan Economist. Robert Feldman: And I'm Robert Feldman, Japan Senior Advisor. Chetan Ahya: Yesterday I discussed broad economic contours of Morgan Stanley's constructive view on Japan. Today, in the second installment of our special three part episode on Japan, we will dig deeper into the implications of the shift in Japan's nominal GDP path, the outlook for BOJ policy, as well as the outlook for structural reforms. It's Thursday, July 20th at 9 a.m. in Hong Kong. Robert Feldman: And 10 a.m. in Tokyo. Chetan Ahya: Yamaguchi-San, let's start here. The change in inflation dynamics that I covered on yesterday's episode could mean a momentous shift in Japan's nominal GDP path. Maybe you could start here with you walking us through some of the key implications of this shift. Takeshi Yamaguchi: Yes, Japan's nominal GDP has been in a flat range for many years, since 1990's after the collapse of the asset bubble. But now it's finally getting out of the range, and we expect this trend of positive nominal GDP growth to continue over the medium term. I think there are mainly three implications from economists' viewpoints. First, we expect compensation of employees, that's the amount taken by workers, and corporate earnings to grow at the same time. Before it was like a zero sum game with almost no nominal GDP growth, but now we expect a bigger economic pie which should benefit both workers and companies. Japan's wage trend is already improving after strong spring wage negotiations this year. Second, we think that the revival of positive nominal GDP growth will improve Japan's fiscal sustainability. We are already seeing a big increase in tax revenue with strong nominal GDP growth. Meanwhile, we expect the average interest costs or interest burden to increase only gradually due to monetary policy and also because average maturity of Japanese government bonds exceeds nine years. And finally, we think the outlook of higher nominal GDP growth strength should have some positive impact on asset prices, including equity prices. This is not the only reason behind the recent equity market moves, but the likely shift in the nominal GDP growth trend is playing some role here in our view. Chetan Ahya: Another question I want to ask is around the Bank of Japan's yield curve control program. You're expecting the BOJ to adjust its policy around yield curve control program at the upcoming policy in end July, which would be the second shift in monetary policy stance last December. Do you see further shifts in monetary policy and would it disrupt the virtuous cycle we are forecasting? Takeshi Yamaguchi: At that July monetary policy meeting we don't expect the BOJ to get rid of YCC, the yield curve control framework, but we expect the BOJ to change the conduct of YCC by allowing more fluctuations of ten year JGB yields, potentially to plus/minus 1%, around 0%. And that said, we think the BOJ governor Ueda directly emphasized that the 2% inflation target is still not achieved in a sustainable manner. So we expect the BOJ to maintain the current short term policy rate of -0.1% after the YCC adjustment. In the third quarter next year we expect the BOJ to exit negative interest rate policy after observing another round of solid spring wage negotiations. But even so, Japan's real interest rates would remain extremely low for some time. So we think the virtuous cycle we've been highlighting will likely remain intact.  Chetan Ahya: Thank you, Yamaguchi-San. Robbie, let me turn it over to you. Japan has been feeling increasing pressure from demographics and other factors at home and geopolitics abroad. And so in response it's developing a new grand strategy and undergoing a number of structural reforms. You believe these reforms could lead to higher growth, walk us through why you feel so positive. Robert Feldman: Thanks, Chetan. Structural reforms are being triggered by both market forces and policy. The market forces are technology change, labor shortage, geopolitical pressures, higher interest rates, pricing power from the end of deflation and supply chain derisking. The policy forces are corporate governance changes, immigration law changes, startup policies, monetary policy and climate and sustainability policy. There are lots of market forces and lots of policy forces behind these changes. Chetan Ahya: In what industries do you expect to see the biggest changes? Robert Feldman: There are five industries where I think there will be major changes. And other industries, of course, will have them as well, but these five industries could even be subject to disruption. These are energy, agriculture, AI and I.T., health care and education. Let me say a couple words about each. In energy Japan has been a little bit behind some other countries in introducing renewables, but it's catching up. A particularly promising is offshore wind, and especially offshore floating wind. There still has to be some cost reductions, but there's a lot of interest and Japan has huge resources in this area. In agriculture Japan is 60% dependent on foreign countries for total calorie intake. Moreover, about 10% of the agricultural land in the country is lying unused. That's because of land law issues, etc. and vested interests, but there's huge opportunity there. AI and IT, this is where probably progress has been the fastest because of the labor shortage. Japan views AI and IT as a savior because this labor shortage is just so intense. Health care, Japan is an old country and it's getting older, health care costs are going up and so it's imperative that living standards be maintained in the health care area through lower costs and better effectiveness. Japan has a good healthcare system, but it's under a lot of monetary pressure and that's why the technology changes are so important. And finally, education. If technology is going to spread, we need workers who are educated in the new technology. And that's where reskilling and recurrent education, lifelong education will become so, so important. This will be primarily a private sector initiative because government is focused on standard, primary, secondary education. So there's a lot of opportunity in the education business. There are 72 listed companies in education in Japan. Chetan Ahya: And how much progress has been made so far on these structural reforms? And what does the timeline look from here? Robert Feldman: Progress has been fastest in AI and IT, because the labor shortage is so intense. AI is viewed as a savior here in Japan rather than with the trepidation in some other countries, due to this labor shortage. We've also seen good progress in energy in a number of fields hydrogen, solar, carbon capture, wind and ammonia. Health care has seen much progress within hospitals where IT platforms are quite advanced at administrative functions. Agriculture has been slower, but there are amazing advances in vertical farming. On the timeline these changes are happening now and likely to see significant momentum in the next 2 to 3 years. There is no time to waste and I'm expecting very rapid progress, particularly in AI/IT, energy and health care. Chetan Ahya: Yamaguchi-San, Robbie, thank you both for taking the time to talk. Takeshi Yamaguchi: Great speaking with you, Chetan. Robert Feldman: Thanks for having us. Chetan Ahya: And thanks for listening. Tomorrow, I will return for part three of the special segments on Japan. My guest will be Daniel Blake, our Asia equity strategist. We will discuss the market implications of our constructive Japan macro outlook and what investors should pay attention to. If you Enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

The first of our three-part series on the Japanese economy dives into the three key factors that have triggered a recent surge in interest from investors.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'm kicking off a special three part episode on our outlook for Japan. Today I'll be discussing our view on the Japanese economy. It's Wednesday, July 19th at 9am in Hong Kong. As you may have seen, Japan's economy and financial markets have attracted outsized investor interest this year. We at Morgan Stanley Research have had a constructive view on the macro and markets outlook for some time, based on three pillars: A decisive shift away from deflation, structural macro reforms coupled with the improved corporate governance on the macro front and return on equity for the corporate sector. Let's start with the macro outlook. From my vantage point, the single most important factor that defines the Japan narrative is inflation. Between 1993 and 2012, the Japan economy was trapped in deflation, with headline inflation hovering around 0%. The pursuit of Abenomics from 2013 onwards brought about a transition from deflation to low-flation and inflation managed to move a tad bit higher to an average of 0.5% from 2013 to 2019. In this cycle, we are seeing yet another shift in which Japan is decisively exiting deflation. Indeed, we see Japan transitioning into moderate inflation territory, where inflation averages 1 to 1.5% over the medium term. How is this inflation outcome achieved? Since the early 1990's, Japan has experienced monetary easing and fiscal easing, but the two have never really come together in a coordinated fashion, and in fact at times have neutralized each other. This started to change in 2013, when fiscal easing was combined with quantitative and qualitative monetary easing, which we think was critical to initial exit from deflation. In this cycle, we finally saw wage growth rising to a multi-year high, which in our view is the final key ingredient that will sustain inflation in the range of 1 to 1 and a half percent. Moreover, we don't expect a premature withdrawal of accommodative macro policies. Against this backdrop, we believe inflation expectation will be re-anchored to a higher level than before. Why is the liftoff of inflation so important? Well, moderate inflation is what makes the economic machine work. If consumers expect deflation or low-flation, they will be incentivized to put off their spending plans. For the corporate sector, the resulting high level of real interest rates will not catalyze new investment. This whole situation changes when moderate inflation takes hold and inflation expectations shift. Animal spirits come back to life, and that is at the heart of why we are bullish on Japan. In the next episode, we are going to continue this conversation with our two leading minds on Japan, our Chief Japan Economist Takashi Yamaguchi, and Japan Senior Advisor Robert Feldman. The three of us will dive into the implications of the shift in Japan's nominal GDP path, the outlook for BOJ's policy, as well as the outlook for structural reforms. And to wrap up the series, I'll speak with our Equity Strategist Daniel Blake about our market outlook and what investors should focus on. Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.

With the moratorium on federal student loans ending soon, discretionary spending is likely to go down and delinquency is likely to rise as consumers face the end of a three-year reprieve.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Sarah Wolfe from the U.S. Economics Team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the implications from the upcoming student loan restart. It's Tuesday, July 18th at 10 a.m. in New York. The more than three year long moratorium on federal student loans is ending soon, expected to resume on October 1st, impacting nearly 27 million borrowers who have federal student loans in forbearance, totaling a trillion dollars or $41,000 per borrower on average. We believe this will translate into a hit to disposable income and a moderate pullback in discretionary spending in the fourth quarter of this year and partially into the first quarter of 2024. Altogether, we estimate it could shave about ten basis points off of total year real PCE growth or seven basis points off GDP growth. But we think that this is likely an upper estimate for a few reasons. First of all, there's a 12 month grace period that will allow households to take the next year to start making payments without falling delinquent—so not everybody is going to start making payments in October—consumers can tap into their savings and there could be debt reprioritization. There's going to be varying impact across different demographics. We find that those aged 25 to 34 are most likely to hold student debt, But borrowers age 35 and older hold the largest debt balance in dollar terms and as a share of disposable income. We also find, based on geography, that southern states, including Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina, have the highest average student loan balance as a share of per capita disposable income while states in the Northeast, like Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey and New Hampshire have the lowest. It's worth mentioning that this is more of a result of disposable income being lower in southern states than debt balances being higher. So how will this impact credit? My colleagues from the Morgan Stanley U.S. consumer finance team expect the combination of student loan payments starting in October with the absence of loan forgiveness to lead to potential delinquencies as consumers divert cash flow, servicing other forms of debt like credit card and autos, towards their student loans. This could accelerate delinquency rates which are now above 2019 levels and increasing at the fastest clip in 15 years. One thing we're keeping an eye on are the new Biden administration initiatives that could provide some relief for low and middle income consumers. For example, as I mentioned, a 12-month ramp up grace period for borrowers means they won't be penalized or moved into delinquency if they fail to pay over the next year, though interest does still accrue. Also, a new save income driven repayment option should fully go into effect as of July 2024, lowering payments owed by undergraduate borrowers if they adopt this new income driven repayment plan. Overall, we believe the student loan repayment restart will be a hit to spending and borrowing that will spill over into U.S. hard lines, so these are appliances and sports equipment, broad lines, which are companies that deal in high volume at the cheaper end of a product line, and food retail industries, though at varying degrees. Retailers with customer demographics skewed towards younger and lower income consumers that sell into more discretionary categories appear to be the most at risk. Furthermore, our soft lines retail—that is clothing—and brands team think companies with outsized exposure to luxury and men's apparel, denim and swim could see the biggest slump in demand from student loan repayment, whereas those with sports apparel and footwear exposure may be the most insulated. That said, the bottom line is that no retailer is free from exposure to all three key student loan holder demographics, which skew younger, less affluent and more urban. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

While falling inflation is good news for many, equity investors may see volatility in earnings growth as pricing power fades.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, July 17th at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. Last week was all about the downward surprise to the June inflation data. More specifically, both the consumer and producer price indices came in well below expectations and suggests the Fed is on its way to winning its hard fought battle to beat inflation back down to 2%. Both stocks and bonds celebrated the news as a likelihood for a soft landing and the economy increased. Our view is not so sanguine on stocks as the steeper fall in inflation supports our view for a much weaker than expected earnings growth. Three years ago, at the trough of the pandemic recession, we were a lonely voice on the idea that inflation would surge higher due to excessive fiscal and monetary support. Furthermore, we suggested it would lead to a surge in earnings growth as companies discovered an ability to raise prices at will while the government subsidized labor costs. As we move to 2021, this over-earning broadens out as consumers spent their excess savings on everything from sporting goods to travel and leisure activities. By last summer, this boom in spending was so strong the Fed was forced to raise interest rates at a pace not seen in 40 years. With a lag in monetary policy close to 12 months, it should be no surprise that we are now seeing the headwinds on growth and inflation today. Because markets are forward looking, they understand this dynamic perhaps better than the average investor. In fact, it is the primary reason we decided to get tactically bullish on U.S. stocks last October. At that time, we suggested long term interest rates in the U.S. dollar would top in anticipation of the Fed's aggressive policy having its desired effect on inflation and growth. That began to play out in the fourth quarter as price earnings multiples expanded from 15.3x in October to 18x in early December. We decided to take the money and run at that point, thinking the market had already fully discounted the peak in inflation interest rates in the US dollar. Over the next six months, 18x did provide a ceiling on valuations. However, over the last six weeks, valuations have risen another 10% as the inflation data confirmed what we already knew. Meanwhile, artificial intelligence has given investors something to get excited about, but at unattractive valuations in our view. As noted earlier, we think inflation is now likely to surprise in the downside. A move to disinflation is positive for stocks because valuations typically rise under those circumstances. However, that has already happened. Now we expect disinflation to shift to deflation in many parts of the economy, in other words,prices began to fall. Most are not forecasting such a decline because it seems hard to fathom after what they witnessed in the real economy. However, it's just the mirror image of what happened in 2020 and 21 when supply was short of demand. At that time, inflation surprised companies and investors to the upside and led to much better earnings growth than forecasted. Now pricing power is fading due to demand falling short of supply, and this is likely to surprise many companies and investors to the downside. More importantly, it's not expected by the consensus anymore or is it in stock valuations at this point. We are already seeing pricing come down in many areas like consumer goods and commodities. Housing and cars are also seeing price degradation, especially in electric vehicles where supplies now overwhelming demand. In the latest consumer price index released last week, we even saw deflation in both airlines and hotel prices, two areas where demand is still robust. The bottom line, while falling inflation last week was great news for the Fed and its war on higher prices, equity investors should be careful what they wish for, as this is a slippery slope for earnings growth and hence stock valuations which are now quite extended. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show.

With inflation slowly moving lower, government bonds are looking increasingly more attractive and may be primed for a comeback later this year.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today, I'll be talking about the case for government bonds. It's Friday, July 14th at 11 a.m. in New York. With the U.S. labor market remaining resilient, the prospects for bond markets would depend critically on the outlook for inflation. Our economists expect core inflation to continue to move lower, slowly but surely, shifting consumption patterns in which spending on services slows while goods consumption continues to contract, will weigh on core inflation.Recent data have been supportive of this expectation. The June employment report we got last Friday, showed a slowing in the services sector earnings growth. Overall, average hourly earnings moved sideways and still are higher than the historical averages. But the average hourly earnings for the services sector decelerated again in June. Though two months do not establish a firm trend, the deceleration in service's average hourly earnings since April is good news for the inflation outlook. The Consumer Price Index and the producer price index  data that we got this week also reflect this ongoing deceleration in inflation. On a year-over-year basis, headline inflation came down to 3% while core inflation came in at 4.8%, down from 5.3% in May. Core Producer Price Index also came in below consensus and is now running at 2.6% year-over-year, down from 2.8%. This moderation in economic activity and inflation goes beyond what many Fed officials would consider their model expectations. Such a deceleration, even if associated with a soft landing, could see them adjusting their current hawkish stances. Of course, in the best environment for government bonds, central banks are actively easing monetary policy, an environment our economists see taking shape at the end of the first quarter of next year. As such, expected returns for government bonds this year, while admirable, may be closer to average calendar year return than the returns typically delivered during the recessionary periods. At the same time, we think government bonds could perform even better than average, considering the risks that markets are not pricing in. The possibility that central bank hikes to date may weigh on economic activity into year end, and that inflation is likely to fall meaningfully into year end with sticky components becoming less sticky, increases the attractiveness of government bonds in our view. Hence, while they have been battered and bruised, government bonds look primed for a comeback in 2023. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. 

As airlines scramble to decrease their carbon footprint by 80% before 2050, can sustainable aviation fuel lead the charge?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ravi Shanker, Morgan Stanley's freight transportation and airlines analyst. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss the path to decarbonization in aviation. It's Thursday, July 13th at 2 p.m. in New York. The global aviation industry emits roughly 1 billion tons of CO2 per year - comparable to the emissions of Japan, the world's third largest economy, and aviation emissions are estimated to double or even triple between 2019 and 2050 in a business-as-usual scenario. In order to reach net-zero emissions by 2050 and align with the goals of the Paris Agreement, the global aviation industry needs to reduce its CO2 absolute footprint by 13% by 2030, and 80% by 2050. We think the industry has three solutions for doing so. One, change its fleet mix towards more fuel efficient aircraft. Two, scale other modes of propulsion such as electric/hybrid engines and hydrogen. And three, change their jet fuel mix towards more sustainable aviation fuel. Based on currently available technologies, we see the third option, sustainable aviation fuel or SAF, as the most realistic pathway for the airlines industry to meet its 2030 decarbonization goals. SAF is a biofuel used to power aircraft that has similar properties to conventional jet fuel, and can be dropped into today's aircraft and infrastructure. SAF is derived from non-fossil sources called feedstock, such as corn grain, oilseeds, algae, oils, fats and greases, forestry residues, and municipal solid waste streams. There are currently various certified SAF production procedures, all of which make fuel that performs at levels operationally equivalent to jet A1 fuel. Replacing conventional jet fuel with SAF can mitigate CO2 materially. The challenge, however, is that SAF accounts for less than 1% of the fuel used in global aviation, and for the aviation industry to meet its decarbonization targets SAF supply needs to scale materially. The key constraints around wide adoption of SAF are cost, feedstock availability, impacts to nature and biodiversity, and, finally, the capital required to produce SAF at scale. That said, support for SAF has improved materially over the last two years. In 2021, President Biden's climate agenda outlined a goal of producing 3 billion gallons of SAF per year by 2030, roughly 10x the current global SAF production. And in 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act extended and bolstered incentives for SAF. Since then, new capacity has been announced and multiple airlines have committed to using more SAF through long term offtake agreements. Meanwhile, more than ten global airlines target to replace at least 10% of their jet fuel demand with SAF by 2030. In addition, several U.S. state jurisdictions are adopting clean fuel standards or are exploring similar programs. The EU, UK and Japan have also put in place various incentives and targets since 2021. While these developments are highly encouraging, more widespread support and long term certainty are needed to scale SAF production to the levels required to meet the 2030 targets. Is this achievable? We will continue to monitor developments and bring you updates as we make progress along the path to decarbonizing aviation. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

With a potential government shutdown looming in the fall, investors may want to keep an eye on the U.S. Treasury market to insulate themselves from risk.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research  for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the potential market impacts of a government shutdown. It's Wednesday, July 12th at 10 a.m. in New York. Press reports warning of a potential government shutdown this fall have understandably led to some questions from clients this week. They're asking what, if any, market impact should they expect if the U.S. fails to appropriate spending for the next fiscal year starting October 1st. The concern, of course, is that markets may react negatively perceiving economic risk if the government without funding ceases certain operations. But some historical perspective is helpful here and leads us to categorize this as a risk worth monitoring but not panicking about. First, while government shutdowns create a very real strain for parts of the economy, like government employees and contractors doing business with the government, our economists have pointed out that in the past, the aggregate impacts to the overall economy have tended to be modest and fleeting. A key reason why is that the norm has been that after shutdowns, the government typically appropriates back pay and resumes prior expected payments to vendors. So spending is simply deferred and made up in the future rather than completely foregone. Not surprisingly, then, market impacts have tended to be inconsistent and fleeting. True, there have been episodes when stocks sold off heading into and during shutdowns and then rally back when shutdowns ended, but it's difficult to desegregate the shutdown as a market driver from other prevailing economic conditions and market valuations. Said more simply, if equity and or credit markets were pricing higher economic optimism, a shutdown could be a temporary headwind for markets. But such a dynamic is far from something that we would base strategic investment guidance on. Despite all this, if you're still looking for a market that might be more insulated from the risk of a shutdown, then given current conditions, we'd look toward the U.S. Treasury market. While it might seem counterintuitive to own government bonds in a government shutdown, remember it was the debt ceiling issue that carried default risk, not a shutdown. In the shutdown, the U.S. Treasury has money and authority to pay bondholders, just not authority to pay certain other government operations. Further, we already think Treasuries are poised to have a strong second half of 2023 as yields could start to decline on softening economic data and an expectation that the Fed would soon be done hiking rates. And while a government shutdown wouldn't necessarily add to that trend, it certainly adds some degree of risk to the economy, reinforcing the case for owning bonds. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share your Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

The market for artificial intelligence technologies could reach $275 billion by 2027, but not all companies will be able to generate revenue. Here’s what investors should watch.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Shawn Kim, Head of Morgan Stanley's Asia Technology Research Team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss why A.I matters for investors and our outlook for the next 5 to 10 years in the evolution of A.I. It's Tuesday, July 11th, at 9 a.m. in New York. In the span of just six months, open A.I has moved from being a niche IT research and development, to a key driver of what is set to become a $3 trillion IT spend by 2029. Despite this rapid progress, we're still in the early stages of A.I technologies. We believe today's machine learning stage of A.I adoption precedes a much larger future market when we reach the inference phase, which is where A.I would be able to make predictions based on novel data. And that, in turn, would eventually expand to an even bigger potential market in endpoint or edge A.I inference. The A.I technology total addressable market or the TAM, which includes semiconductors, hardware and networking, is at $90 billion today and we estimate it will grow to 275 billion by 2027. That's more than half the size of the semiconductor market today. This remarketable growth is actually led by semiconductors, where we see the A.I semiconductor market TAM tripling over the next three years from 43 billion to 125 billion, and signifying our growing the overall A.I market. Companies that we consider A.I leaders are generally showing high growth and returns, consensus shows a three year average EPS growth of 24%, which is more than twice the earnings growth of global stocks on average. Our investment framework addresses three key criteria. One, which parts of the tech supply chain are the biggest beneficiaries of A.I, in terms of revenue exposure and how that exposure is growing relative to their traditional businesses. Two, the quality of those earnings and whether they are based on volume or pricing. And three, whether stock valuations reflect that upside potential. We believe we are far from bubble metrics, although the market will inevitably compare A.I. to the dot.com boom. However, today's leading A.I companies are well-established  with good cash flow characteristics, for the most part, unlike many companies that became casualties of dot.com collapse. As we embark on what we view as a new, decade-long paradigm shift, we expect outperformance to come in waves and think we are currently very early in the enabling technology stage. And like so many technologies, A.I is also a double edged sword. There are companies that are in the right place at the right time now, but also have what it takes to fully commercialize the A.I opportunity over the long term. The flip side is companies that are less relevant to A.I products or services but will infuse optimism in their forward guidance via mentions of A.I. While we expect A.I will be a growth driver for most, it will not generate revenue growth for everyone. Other potential risks include the fact that the chip cycle is not just depending on the A.I, but also on the wider global economic cycle. And furthermore, we believe any big visions of A.I's transforming the world as we know it must rest on a solid foundation of physics, ethics and the law, a big topic we will continue to follow closely and bring you updates. Thank you for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. 

As earnings season kicks off, market valuations continue to trend high based on major growth expectations. However, investors may want to keep an eye on liquidity.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, July 10th at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it.   With year to date U.S. equity returns driven nearly 100% by higher valuations, the market either doesn't care about earnings or it expects a major reacceleration in growth both later this year and next. One might argue that the higher valuations are anticipating the end of the Fed's rate hiking campaign, even though the bond market doesn't seem to agree with that conclusion, given the recent rise in yields. In short, the price earnings ratio for the S&P 500 is up approximately 15%, and with interest rates up this year, the equity risk premium has collapsed by 100 basis points to its lowest level since the tech bubble era. With second quarter earnings season beginning this week, 'better than feared' likely isn't going to cut it anymore. While earnings results so far this year remain right on track for the sharp earnings recession we forecast, we don't expect second quarter earnings to disappoint expectations in aggregate, given second quarter estimates have now been revised lower by 7.5% since the beginning of the year. Instead, we would point out that the consensus bottom-up second quarter EPS forecast for the S&P 500 is -7% year over year, hardly exciting. Furthermore, the consensus pushed out the trough earnings per share growth quarter from the first quarter to the second quarter over the last three months. We expect this trend to continue through the balance of the year, which would also be in line with our forecast. In other words, no big second half recovery as the consensus and valuations now expect. More specifically, third quarter is when our forecast starts to meaningfully diverge from the consensus. This means the key driver for stocks during this earnings season will come via company guidance for the out quarter rather than the second quarter results. We suspect some companies will begin to walk down the estimates, while others will continue to tell a more optimistic story. In short, this earnings season should matter more than the prior two, and should provide significant alpha opportunities for investors in terms of both longs and shorts. In our view, the year to date multiple expansion has occurred for a couple of reasons beyond earnings growth optimism. One, excess liquidity provided by global central banks amid a weaker U.S. dollar and the FDIC bail out of depositors. And two, excitement around artificial intelligence’s potential impact on productivity and earnings growth. On the liquidity front we think that support is starting to fade. One way of measuring liquidity is global money supply in U.S. dollars. One of the reasons we turned tactically bullish last October was due to our view that the U.S. dollar was topping. This, along with the China reopening and the Bank of Japan's monetary policy actions, added close to $7 trillion to global money supply over the following six months. We've pointed out previously that the rate of change on global money supply is correlated to the rate of change on global equities, as well as the S&P 500. Over the past few months, global money supply in U.S. dollars has begun to shrink again, just as the Treasury begins to issue over a trillion dollars of supply to restock its coffers post a debt ceiling resolution last month. As an early indicator that market liquidity is fading, nominal ten-year yields broke out last week above the psychologically important 4% level, and real rates are making new cycle highs. Interest rate volatility also picked up as uncertainty about the Fed's next moves increased. Neither higher interest rate levels nor volatility are generally conducive to higher equity valuations. Bottom line, with earnings season upon us, we aren't expecting any fireworks from the earnings reports directly. However, with expectations for growth now much higher than six months ago, we suspect it will be a 'sell the news' event for many stocks, no matter what the companies post, as the market begins to look ahead to what is likely going to disappoint lofty expectations. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show.

Though the debate around the global strength of the dollar in currency markets continues, the dollar’s current high yield in a world of weak global growth could help it appreciate----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm James Lord, Morgan Stanley's Head of Foreign Exchange and Emerging Market Strategy. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today, I'll be discussing the status of the U.S dollar within global foreign exchange or FX reserves. It's Friday, July 7th, 3 p.m. in London. The debate about the dollar's status as the world's dominant currency usually resurfaces during every business cycle, and as our world increasingly transitions from globalized toward a multipolar model, this debate appears more relevant. Indeed, some economic actors are already de-risking their currency reserves away from the dollar, promoting the use of local currencies as an alternative in international trade and trying to reduce the dollar's global role through other means. Yet, this debate is usually a distraction from determining where the dollar is headed. In contrast to the popular narrative, we believe the dollar can appreciate, even if its use as a reserve currency or invoicing currency in international trade declines. Let's first address the dollar's status as the world's dominant central bank reserve currency. The purpose of FX reserves is to bolster the external stability of an economy and enable central banks to act as lenders of last resort to those in demand of foreign currency. It's intuitive to think that reserve choices might therefore be correlated with the value of currencies themselves, yet relying on that intuition would not have served you well in recent history. Case in point, while the dollar remains the world's dominant reserve currency, its share has dropped by around 20% over the last 20 years, most rapidly over the last ten. Nevertheless, over the last decade, the dollar has been one of the world's strongest currencies, with the Fed's real broad dollar index reaching a near 20 year high in October 2022. The dollar's declining share of global FX reserves has not been relevant in figuring out where the dollar is heading, in part because FX reserve managers are less influential in currency markets today, but more importantly, because other investors have favored U.S. assets. To be clear, this does not mean that watching trends in FX reserves is not important. A sudden, sharp decline in the market share of a reserve currency could well be driven by a sudden loss of confidence in the macroeconomic stability of an economy, diminishing its attraction as an investment destination. If so, the currency of that economy would likely decline. This concern has not driven the decline of the dollar's share of global FX reserves in recent years, as evidenced by its continued strength. Moreover, U.S. assets retain unique appeal for global capital, as the recent boom in U.S. tech stocks and rising optimism about the productivity enhancing implications of A.I show.Meanwhile, the dollar provides one of the highest yields of the world's major currencies, thanks to the Fed's hiking cycle. In a world of weak global growth, this yield will also likely help the dollar to appreciate. For clues about the future direction of exchange rates, we would be watching for signs that investment opportunities in different economies are improving. For now, the dollar offers attractive yields and remains a safe harbor during the current period of slow global economic growth. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Artificial intelligence could help biopharmaceutical companies reduce costs as well as improve their chances of developing successful new drugs.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Terence Flynn, Morgan Stanley's Head of U.S. BioPharma Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today, I'll focus on how artificial intelligence and machine learning can reshape the health care sector. It's Thursday, July 6th at 10 a.m. in New York. As we've discussed on this podcast, Tech Diffusion is one of the big three themes we at Morgan Stanley Research are following this year. The other two being the Multipolar World and Decarbonization. As a quick reminder, by tech diffusion, we mean the process by which any transformative technology is adopted widely by consumers and industries. When it comes to the healthcare sector, it's still early but we believe artificial intelligence and machine learning adoption is poised to accelerate significantly. The biopharma industry specifically is moving to unlock the potential of A.I across multiple areas, including drug discovery, clinical development, manufacturing and physician patient engagement. We see two broad areas where A.I enabled investments in drug development could drive significant value in the biopharma space. One is direct cost savings, so think of improved R&D margins, for example. And two is increased probability of success of pipeline programs. Here we estimate that even small improvements in the probability of success could drive significant value. Now, let me put some numbers around this. Over the past ten years, the FDA has granted 430 new drug approvals or about 43 per year. We estimate that every two and a half percentage point improvement in early stage development success rates could lead to an additional 30 new drug approvals over the course of ten years, or nearly a 10% boost. Assuming that each incremental approved drug generates over 600 million in peak sales, we estimate that 60 additional therapies approved over a ten year period would translate into an additional 70 billion in drug development and PV for the biopharma industry. However, biopharma is not the only health care subsector that's poised to benefit from A.I.. Looking at health care services and technology, A.I represents an opportunity to drive meaningful change in efficiency in how care is delivered. A.I tools have predictive capabilities that could be used for early diagnosis and detection of disease, which could lead to improved clinical outcomes and patient experience and reduce the cost of care over time. Many health systems have already begun to migrate data from on premises to the cloud, an important step for capturing the full benefits of A.I. We will continue to monitor further developments in health care, both near-term and long term, and will provide you with our latest analysis and insights. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

With the U.S. possibly imposing tighter trade policies towards China, investors may want to look into diversifying their investments.----- Transcript -----Welcome to the thoughts on the market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the U.S., China relationship and its impact on markets. It's Wednesday, July 5th at noon in New York. In recent weeks, the Biden administration has focused on the U.S. relationship with China. Treasury Secretary Yellen is headed to Beijing this week for meetings with senior officials in China, following on Secretary of State Blinken's recent visit. Whenever these diplomatic efforts pick up, investors tend to ask if it's a sign that there could be a softening or even a reversal in policy choices by the U.S. in recent years to create more rules and barriers to trade in certain higher tech industries. The interest is because these moves drove concern among many investors that multinational companies would have a harder time doing business in China in the future. But in our view, these policies are not going to reverse, but rather will likely become tighter. Consider that the stated goal of these meetings was to open regular communication channels on economic and security issues. It's obviously important for countries to have regular communication to avoid misunderstandings spiraling into conflict. But this appears to be where the ambition for these meetings ends. There's no more talk of reaching comprehensive free trade agreements, for example. Given that context, it makes sense that we're continuing to see news reports that the Biden administration is preparing fresh non-tariff barriers which would impact China. This includes further tightening export controls on semiconductors in an attempt by the U.S. to protect its technical advantage in an industry that's critical to both its economic and national security. It also includes long awaited outbound investment restrictions, which could crimp foreign direct investment into China. To be clear though, none of this is the same as a hard decoupling of the U.S. and China economies, nor would it have the related shock effect on global markets. The effects here are likely to be incremental adjustments by companies over time to deal with these policies. This is why, for example, we've seen many multinationals announce their diversifying they’re supply chains by investing in new geographies like Mexico and Turkey. But for the most part, they're not pulling existing resources out of China. Given all of that, investors may want to react to this nuanced situation by incrementally shifting international equity allocations to countries whose stock markets have solid valuations and may also benefit from companies' new supply chain investments. Japan in particular stands out to our colleagues in equity strategy, and Mexico and India also appear to be solid options longer term. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

Original Release on June, 15th 2023: With more Asian economies on pace to join the recovery path set by China, confidence in economic outperformance versus the rest of the world is rising. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Chief Asia Economist at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing your variety of perspectives, today I'll be discussing our mid-year outlook for Asia's economy. It's Thursday, June 15 at 9 a.m. in Hong Kong. Asia's recovery is for real. We believe its growth outperformance has just started. We expect a full fledged recovery to build up over the next two quarters across two dimensions. First, we think more economies in the region will join the recovery path. Second, the recovery will broaden from services consumption to goods consumption and in the next six months to capital investments, or CapEx. We see Asia's growth accelerating to 5.1% by fourth quarter of this year. There are three main reasons why we expect this growth outperformance for Asia. First, Asia did not experience the interest rate shock that the U.S. and Europe did. Asian central banks did not have to take rates through restrictive territory because inflation in Asia has not been as intense. Plus, Asia's inflation has already declined and we expect 80% of region’s inflation will get back into central bank's comfort zone in the next 2 to 3 months. The second reason is China. While China's consumption recovery is largely on track, we have seen downside in the last two months, in investment spending and the manufacturing sector. We believe policy easing is imminent as policymakers are keen on preventing a deterioration in labor market conditions and on minimizing social stability risks. Easing should help stabilize investment spending and broaden out the recovery in back half of 2023. Beyond China, India, Indonesia and Japan will also contribute significantly to region's growth recovery. India is benefiting from cyclical and structural factors. Cyclically beating healthy corporate and banking system balance sheets mean India can have an independent business cycle driven by domestic demand, and we are seeing that appetite for expansion translating into stronger CapEx and loan growth. As for Japan, it is in a sweet spot, having decisively left the deflation environment behind, but not facing runaway inflation. Accommodative real interest rates are helping catalyze private CapEx growth, which has already risen to a seven year high. And, in another momentous shift, Japan's nominal GDP growth is now rising at a healthy pace after a long period of flatlining. Finally, we believe Indonesia will be able to sustain a 5% pace of growth. Indonesia runs the most prudent macro policy mix amongst emerging markets. In particular, the fiscal deficit has been maintained below 3%, since the adoption of the fiscal rule and has only exceeded that in 2020 during the worst of the pandemic. This has resulted in a consistent improvement in macro stability indicators and led to a structural decline in the cost of capital supporting private domestic demand. The risks to our next 12 month Asia outlook are hard landing in the U.S., which Morgan Stanley's U.S. economists think it's unlikely and a deeper slowdown in China. But we believe China's recovery will only broaden out in the second half of 2023. And given this, we feel confident about our outlook for Asia's outperformance in 2023 vis-à-vis rest of the world. Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Original Release on June, 6th 2023: Consumers in the U.S. are largely returning to pre-COVID spending levels, but new behaviors related to travel, credit availability and inflation have emerged.----- Transcript -----Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver from the Morgan Stanley U.S. Equity Strategy Team. Sarah Wolfe: And I'm Sarah Wolfe from the U.S. Economics Team. Michelle Weaver: On this special episode of the podcast, we're taking a look at the state of the U.S. consumer as we approach the midyear mark. It's Tuesday, June 6th at 10 a.m. in New York. Michelle Weaver: In order to talk about where the consumer is right now, let's take it back two and a half years. It's January 2021, and households are slowly emerging from their COVID hibernations, but we're still months away from the broad distribution of the vaccine. Consumers are allocating 5% more of their wallet share to goods than before COVID, driving record consumption of electronics, home furnishings, sporting goods and recreational vehicles. All the things you needed to make staying at home a little bit better. Our U.S. economists at Morgan Stanley made a high conviction call in early 2021 that vaccine distribution would flip the script and drive a surge in services spending and a payback in goods spending. Sara, to what extent has this reversion played out and where do you think the U.S. consumer is now? Sarah Wolfe: The reversion is definitely played out, but there's been some big surprises. Basically, the spending pie has just been greater overall than expected, and that's thanks to unprecedented fiscal stimulus, excess savings and significant supply shortages. So we've not only seen a shift away from goods and toward services, but a much larger spending pie overall. The result has been a 13% surge in goods inflation over nearly three years, an acceleration in services inflation, and a return to pre-COVID spending habits that's much greater in real spending terms than in nominal terms. So if we look in the details, where has the payback been the largest? We've seen the biggest payback in home furnishing, home equipment, jewelry, watches, recreational vehicles, but we've seen the most robust recovery in discretionary services like dining out, going to a hotel, public transportation and recreational services. Michelle Weaver: Sara, has the recent turmoil in the banking sector affected the U.S. consumer and do you think there's a credit crunch going on right now? Sarah Wolfe: Bank funding costs have risen meaningfully and are expected to rise further, leading to tighter lending standards, slower loan growth and wider loan spreads. But let me be clear, this is not a credit crunch, nor do we expect it to be. We think about the pass through from tighter lending standards to the consumer to ways directly and indirectly. The direct channel is tighter lending standards for loans on consumer products, including credit cards and autos, and indirectly through tighter lending standards for businesses, which has knock-on effects for job growth. We've already seen the direct channel of consumer spending in the past year, as interest rates on new consumer loan products hit 20 to 30-year highs, raising overall debt service costs and forcing consumers to reduce purchases of interest sensitive goods. Dwindling supply of credit as banks tighten lending standards is also dampening consumption. Michelle Weaver: Great. And given that credit is getting a little bit tougher to come by, can you tell us what's happening with savings and what's happening with the labor market and labor income? Sarah Wolfe: This is very timely. Just a few days ago, we got a very strong jobs report for May. I think that this really supports our call for a soft landing, and even though consumers are increasingly worried about the economic outlook, about financial prospects, it's clear that we still have momentum in the economy and that the Fed can achieve its 2% inflation target without driving the unemployment rate significantly higher. We are seeing under the details that consumer spending is slowing, there's a pullback in discretionary happening, there's a bit of trade down behavior. But with the labor market remaining robust, it's going to keep spending afloat and prevent this hard landing scenario. Michelle, let me turn it to you now, let's drill down into some specifics. What are the latest spending trends around spending plans you're seeing in your consumer survey? Michelle Weaver: Sure. So consumers expect to pull back on spending for most categories that we asked them about over the next six months. And the only categories where they expect to spend more are necessities like groceries and household products. We also added two new questions to this round of the survey to figure out which discretionary categories are most at risk of a pullback in spending. We asked consumers to order categories based on spending priority and identify categories where they would pull back on spending if forced to reduce household expenses. We found that travel and live entertainment were most at risk of a pull back, and this isn't just a case of income groups having different attitudes towards spending, we saw similar prioritization across income cohorts. Sarah Wolfe: So you mentioned travel, travel's been in a boom state in the post-COVID world. But you're saying now that households are reporting that they would pull back if they needed to. Are we seeing that already? What do we expect for summer travel? What do we expect for the remainder of the year? Michelle Weaver: So the data I was just referencing was if you had to reduce your household expenses, how would you do it? And travel was identified there. So that's not a plan that's currently in place. But summer travel may be a bit softer this year versus last year. In our survey, we asked consumers if they're planning to travel more, the same amount or less than last summer, and we found that a greater proportion of consumers are planning to travel less this year. Budgets are also smaller for summer travel this year, with more than a third of consumers expecting to spend less. We're seeing a mixed picture from the company side. Airlines are seeing very strong results still, and Memorial Day weekend proved to be very strong.. But the data around hotels has started to weaken and the revenue per available room that hotels have been able to generate has been pretty choppy and forward bookings that hotels are seeing have actually been flat to down for the summer. Demand for resorts and economy hotels has fallen but demand for urban market hotels still remained very strong. Sarah, how does this deceleration, both services and goods growth play into your team's long standing argument for a soft landing for the economy? Sarah Wolfe: It's really the key to inflation coming down and avoiding a hard landing. With less pent up demand left for services spending and a strong labor market recovery, supply demand imbalances in the services sector are slowly resolving themselves. We estimate that there's a point three percentage point pass through from services wages to core core services inflation throughout any given year. Core core services, is services excluding housing inflation. So with compensation for services providing industries already decelerating for the past five quarters, we do expect the largest impact of core services inflation to occur in the back half of this year. So that's going to see a more meaningful step down in inflationary pressures later this year. This combined with a rising savings rate, so a shrinking spending pie, means that there's just going to be less demand for goods and services together this year. Altogether, it will enable the Fed to make progress towards its 2% inflation target without driving the economy into a recession. Michelle Weaver: Sarah, thank you for taking the time to talk. Sarah Wolfe: It was great speaking with you, Michelle. Michelle Weaver: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today. 

A surprising increase in the sale of new homes doesn’t mean that overall demand for housing is on the rise. Find out what to expect for the rest of the year.----- Transcript -----Jim Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, Co-Head of U.S. Securitized Products Research here at Morgan Stanley. Jay Bacow: And I'm Jay Bacow, the other Co-Head of U.S. Securitized Products Research. Jim Egan: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing the U.S. housing market. It's Thursday, June 29th at 11am in New York. Jay Bacow: All right, Jim. We put out our mid-year outlook about a month ago, and since we put out that outlook, we've had a breadth of housing data and it feels like you can pick any portion of that housing data, sales, starts, home prices and it's telling a different story. Which one are we supposed to read?  Jim Egan: I think that's a really important point. The U.S. housing market right now is not a monolith, and there are different fundamental drivers going on with each of these characteristics, each of these statistics that are pushing them in different directions. Let's start with new home sales. I think that was the most positive, we could say the strongest  print from the past month. The consensus expectation, just to put this in context, was a month over month decrease of 1.2%, instead, we got an increase of 12.2%. To put it succinctly, new home sales are basically the only game in town. Existing listings remain incredibly low. We've talked about affordability deterioration on this podcast. We've talked about the lock in effect, the fact that the effective mortgage rate for existing homeowners right now is over three points below the prevailing mortgage rate. That just means there's no inventory. If you want to buy a home right now, there's a much greater likelihood that it's a new home sale than at any point in the past 10 to 15 years. And new home sales were the only housing statistic in our mid-year forecast where we projected a year over year increase in 2023 versus 2022 because of these dynamics. Jay Bacow: All right. So that's the new home sales story. Does that mean that we're just, broadly speaking, supposed to expect more housing activity? Jim Egan: This is the single most frequent question that we've been getting the past two weeks because of this data that's come in. And what we want to be careful to do here is not conflate this growth in new home sales with a swelling in demand for housing. As we stated in the outlook, we expect the recovery in housing activity to be more L-shaped. This behavior is apparent in more higher frequency data points, purchase applications for instance. 2023 remains far weaker than 2022. Average weekly volumes are down 35% year-to-date versus last year, and they're really not showing much sign of inflecting higher. In fact, if we look at just May and June versus 2019 prior to the pandemic, purchase applications are down almost 40%. Now, comps will get easier in the second half of the year. Year-over-year decreases will come down, but total activity is not inflecting higher. This is also showing through existing home sales, which are not showing the same improvement as new home sales. Existing home sales are down 24% year to date versus 2022. Also pending home sales, which missed a little bit to the downside just this morning. Jay Bacow: Okay. So when I think about the process of housing activity at the end, you've got a home sale, existing home sale, a new home sale. At the beginning, you've got either people applying to buy a home or starting to build a home. And the housing start data, that was pretty strong relative expectations as well, right? Jim Egan: It was. And the dynamics that we're discussing here, fewer existing home sales and climbing new home sales, that's leading to new home sales making up a larger share of that total number. And subsequently, homebuilder confidence is growing as a result. We think you can view this large number as perhaps a manifestation of that confidence, but we also want to stress that you need to think about that starch number in terms of single unit starts versus multi-unit starts. And yes, single unit starts were stronger than we anticipated, but they were still down year-over-year and through the first five months of this year, they're down 23%. Again, as with most housing activity data, the year over year comps are going to get easier in the back half of this year. That year over year percent will fall. We think they'll only finish the year down about 12%. But that's still a starch number that looks more L-shaped than a strong recovery. On the other hand, five plus unit starts in May were higher than in any single month since 1986. Multi-unit starts are still really driving the bus here. Jay Bacow: Okay. So with that homebuilder confidence, what are homeowners supposed to be thinking? They just saw the first negative year-on-year print in home prices since 2012. Are we in a repeat of previous things or are things going to get better? Jim Egan: Look, we just actually, in the mid-year outlook process, upgraded our year end home price forecast from -4% in December of 2023 to flat in December of 2023 versus December of 2022. That being said, while making that upgrade, we maintained that home prices were going to turn negative this month for the first time since 2012. We believe it's going to be short lived, largely because of the dynamics that we've already been discussing on this podcast. Current homeowners are not incentivized to list their home for sale. Existing listings continue to be incredibly low. The past few months, they've actually resumed falling year-over-year. When you look at affordability it’s still challenged, but it's not getting worse. When you look at overall inventories, they're still close to multi-decade lows, but we're not setting new historic lows each month. All of that leads to even more support for home prices on a go forward basis. We're still confident in our 0% for the end of the year. We might spend a couple more months here in  negative territory before we kind of rebound back towards that flat by the end of 2023. Jay Bacow: All right. So new home sales, surprised to the upside, but we shouldn't conflate that with swelling demand for housing. Home prices just trended negative, but we think that was expected and they're going to end the year flat versus 2022. Jim, always great talking to you. Jim Egan: Great talking to you, too, Jay. Jay Bacow: And thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on the Apple Podcast app and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

How will corporate credit markets fare as the Fed keeps rates higher for longer? Look for wider spreads, further decompression and muted excess returns. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed-Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the outlook for corporate credit markets. It's Wednesday, June 28th at 11 a.m. in New York. Our economists are calling for one more 25 basis point rate hike in the upcoming Fed meeting in July and pause thereafter until the end of first quarter of next year. They're also calling for continued growth slowdown because of the policy tightening that we have seen over the last 15 months or so. A restrictive pause, which means rates staying higher for longer, and muted growth will weigh more on the performance of the corporate credit markets, especially as refinancing needs pick up. So our call is for wider spreads, further decompression and muted excess returns for corporate grade markets. Within credit we favor higher quality, which means investment grade credit over leveraged credit, both in bonds and in loans. Let's dig into some details. Industrial grade credit looks attractive from a duration lens, and we expect 7% plus total returns over the next 12 months. From a spread perspective, our base case target, a 150 basis point, calls for modest widening. Although risks are skewed to the downside in the recession bear case scenario to 200 basis points. We think the banking space looks cheap versus the market, especially money center banks. We favor single A's or triple B's and shortening of portfolio duration. Our preference is to own the front end of the curve within the investment graded space. Higher for longer puts more pressure on lower quality borrowers. While the macro outlook is not acutely challenging for credit, it progressively erodes debt affordability. For larger and higher quality borrowers, we expect the net impact to be gradual decline in interest coverage ratios and a voluntary focus on right sizing balance sheets. For smaller and lower quality companies, this adjustment could well be disruptive as 2025 maturity walls come into view. So even in leverage credit, we would look to stay up in quality. The layering of leverage and rate sensitivity in loans informs our preference for bonds in general relative to loans. We expect loan only structures to underperform mixed capital structures. We also expect sponsor commitment will be put to test. That said, higher quality names within the loan market are a way to benefit from the shape of the rates curve and generate better near-term carry. In all, we forecast wider spreads and higher default rates in the lower quality segments of the credit markets. Relative to the modest widening in the investment grade space within high yield and leveraged loans, we expect more significant widening in the range of 120 basis points of widening. This will result in marginally negative excess returns for these segments and will screen even worse when adjusted for volatility and downside risk. We forecast default rates pushing above long-run averages with loan defaults outpacing bond defaults, especially after accounting for distressed exchanges. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. 

With A.I. rapidly reaching the mass market, investors are pondering the risks and upsides to A.I. diffusion. History may provide some answers.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ed Stanley, Morgan Stanley's Head of Thematic Research in Europe. And along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be discussing ten key lessons from the last hundred years of tech diffusion. It's Tuesday, the 27th of June at 3 p.m. in London. Tech diffusion is one of the three big themes we at Morgan Stanley Research are following in 2023. The other two being the multipolar world and decarbonization. And when we say ‘tech diffusion,’ which has become a term of art, we mean the process by which any transformational technology is adopted widely by consumers and industries. Think of the light bulb, the first power plant, the internet, and now, A.I.. Our recent analysis of the last hundred years of tech diffusion helps to shed light on ten critical questions around how, when and where stocks will be impacted from the development of A.I.. One of the most important issues to consider is how fast A.I. diffusion is happening and whether regulation can restrain this. Since its pivotal moment when it was released in November, the leading generative A.I. tools are on pace to do in one year what the internet took  seven years to achieve in spilling over to the mass market, and electricity took around 20 years to do the same thing. The next critical question to consider is whether we tend to see upside or downside happen first for industries being impacted. In examining 80 structural positive and negative adoption curves over the last 50 years, we find that downside disruption often occurs sooner and twice as quickly as upside disruption. So how does the downside play out for stocks perceived to be by investors more at risk from these types of technology disruption? The market typically de-rates and waits. So valuations fall somewhere between 50 to 60% in the years 1 to 3 post-a-disruptive-event with consensus sales and profit downgrades taking anywhere around 5 to 7 years to materialize. This process is shorter for business to consumer, B2B and longer for business to business contracts, B2B. And what about the ways that upside plays out? For perceived winners, upgrades need to arrive within 6 to 12 months post the initial re-rating. However, we find that missing the first year of upside tends to have little impact on long term compound returns for investors. Investors also wonder to what degree A.I. might be a bubble. And this is a fair question considering the market excitement and froth in A.I. at the moment, but we're watching Internet search trends to answer this question. And if you look at image generation tools for A.I., we're already about 50% lower than peak search volumes. So it's a trend we're going to have to continue to watch pretty closely. Given all this, at what point do we expect killer apps to emerge that are built on top of these technologies? Well, our analysis of the last 50 examples of these killer apps emerging suggests that they tend to take a year and a half to emerge. This is why it's often very challenging to find domain specific winners in the public markets because they are still likely to be in venture backed scale up stage at the moment. But when the killer apps do emerge, the next question becomes how much value will accrue to the incumbents versus the disruptors. And on this point, history suggests that diffusion of technologies that are transformational like this have tended to lead to changes in stock market leadership over the last hundred years, with ultimately 2.3% of all companies generating all $75 trillion of net shareholder returns since 1990. In this context, are pure play or diversified stocks the best ways to play these themes? Over the long run, we believe that pure play stocks exposed to themes such as A.I., can be expected to be valued at approximately 25% premium to non pure play stocks on average. And the final two questions we get from investors take a more macro tilt. First, how much and when can we expect to see productivity gains? We are already seeing these productivity gains. The question is, what range? And we've seen anywhere between 20 to 55% for software developers, we've seen 14% for call center workers, and healthcare is also a large focus of academic research in terms of A.I. productivity and efficiency gains. Finally, there is the question of deflation. When and how much can we expect from this kind of technology? This remains the most challenging question to answer. Technology of all kinds has proven consistently deflationary, and we think this is no different. But we do suggest that investors familiarize themselves with the emerging debates on virtual assistance, which could accelerate these deflationary spillover effects. We'll continue to track all these developments around the ten key lessons and questions from history, and we'll provide you timely updates accordingly. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

While many countries are gearing up to combat climate change, financing these large projects may pose a challenge. ----- Transcript -----Simon Waever: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Simon Waever, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of EM Sovereign Credit Strategy. Carolyn Campbell: And I'm Carolyn Campbell, Head of Morgan Stanley's ESG Fixed-Income Research. Simon Waever: On this special episode of the podcast, we'll discuss the credit impact of climate finance in emerging markets. Carolyn Campbell: It's Monday, June 26, at 10 a.m. in New York. Simon Waever: We believe that the ramp up in climate mitigation and adaptation financing from developed markets can be a key credit positive for emerging market countries, if executed correctly. The amounts of financing required in low and middle income countries to adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change is likely to be over 1 trillion per year by 2030. Carolyn, let's start with that 1 trillion figure and the scale of the challenge. How are low and middle income countries positioned for climate change? Carolyn Campbell: So when we think about climate change, there's two sides of the coin. There's climate change mitigation, which is everything that will slow or prevent the temperature from rising more than a degree and a half above pre-industrial levels, which is the goal of the Paris Agreement. And on the other side, we've got adaptation, which is financing projects that will build resiliency to physical risks, for example, or to help transform the economy away from dependency on industries that are likely to be harmed by climate change. So on the mitigation side, we've seen energy consumption in emerging markets steadily rise over the past couple of decades as their economies continue to develop and their populations grow often at faster rates than we see in developed countries. Now, while we've seen absolute levels of renewable energy usage tick up in these countries, on a proportional basis we're not seeing a material change, and that's because of this absolute rise in energy usage overall. So that leaves a lot of scope for the expansion of low carbon technologies such as wind and solar and so on, and that's obviously very expensive. On the adaptation side, a lot of the emerging markets are located in areas that will bear the brunt of climate change, whether that's through worsening storms or increased droughts, rising sea levels and so on, and they don't have the same infrastructure or economic diversity to deal with these climate impacts. So it's an immense amount of capital required for both types of projects, as you said, likely to be greater than a trillion dollars per year by 2030. And so far, developed markets have actually come up short on their promise to deliver $100 billion annually in climate finance. So all this being said, I think it begs the question how will they pay for it without incurring an unsustainable debt load? Simon Waever: Yep, that is the question. And I would say the good news so far is that more and more sources are being made available with some being more targeted than others. The first main source is loans. So these generally come from either bilateral agreements, so from other sovereigns, or from multilateral institutions such as the World Bank. An example of a new facility being made available just in the past year is the resilience and sustainability trust from the IMF, which has now already made disbursements to six countries with more on the way. And the advantage of this facility, compared to others from the IMF, is that it comes at a lower cost and a longer maturity. The second main source is the capital markets. The instruments people will be most familiar with here are the labeled bonds, such as green, sustainable or even sustainability linked bonds that see their coupons change depending on various targets being met. But today, there's also an increasing use of the debt for nature swaps such as used in Belize and Ecuador recently and the introduction of climate resilient debt clauses. What this means is that if an adverse event happens like a hurricane, etc., there can be an automatic pause or delay in payments, which in theory should help both the country and creditors because you avoid going into any distress situation on the bonds. But another interesting avenue that's opened up in the last decade or so has been to raise financing by turning carbon into a commodity, whether as a voluntary carbon offset or through direct carbon pricing. Carolyn, how would those be used? Carolyn Campbell: Yeah. So on the voluntary carbon side, a credit represents one tonne of carbon reduced, removed or avoided, and a lot of emerging markets are able to sell these credits, not necessarily at the sovereign level directly, but in some cases, yes, to developed markets, either to the sovereigns or to corporates who are willing to buy those emissions to offset against their own. And so those projects can be anything related to forest preservation or other natural capital projects or linked to renewable energy deployment and so on, and that can help raise the financing to get those projects off the ground. On the other side, there's direct carbon pricing, which is compulsory and includes things like Europe's emissions trading scheme or commonly thought of as cap and trade programs. There's also carbon taxes which raise revenue from businesses that emit and tax every tonne of carbon emitted. And direct carbon pricing is really important because the revenues raised from these schemes don't actually have to be applied to green projects so they can further other local development priorities. Lots of interesting avenues, but not every avenue will be suitable for every country, there's a wide range of emerging markets out there. But let's assume for a moment that all the financing will actually be deployed at a sufficient scale over the near and medium term. What does that mean for the credit quality of these recipient nations? Simon Waever: Yes. So as we've actually covered before on this podcast, developing countries are facing significant financing challenges. And by that I mean they've been used to getting a lot of cheap financing over the last ten years, that's no longer available. So if the result is that more financing is being made available, that is credit positive, especially if it then also comes at lower financing costs and with longer maturities. I would of course say that the magnitude of the impact is going to differ by country, and overall, I would highlight the lower rates of countries as benefiting the most. And just to give two examples of countries that have benefited recently, one is Kenya. They've been under pressure in the markets because they have a 2 billion maturity next year that people were questioning where they were going to get the funds to repay it. Now, through the help of the IMF and their new Resilience Sustainability Trust facility, they've seen larger disbursements and the markets have traded much better. The other example is Ecuador that was able to complete a debt for nature swap that in the end resulted in lower debt burden, fewer bonds outstanding, and at the same time helping conserve the Marine area in Ecuador. But actually, all this is a lot about just a near-term impact. The longer term impacts will eventually turn out to be even more important, I would think. Carolyn, could you give some examples of this? Carolyn Campbell: So on the one side, we've got climate resiliency improvements that can materialize in ways like reduced costs in the face of acute weather events or economic resiliency to slow onset adverse climate events, we mentioned droughts earlier. Another very important avenue is fundamental improvements via the renewable energy transition. So deployment of renewable energy might increase overall levels of electrification in the country, which can boost productivity and so on. If we think about South Africa as an example, South Africa has struggled with lower productivity because of its dependency on aging coal power plants. So there's a real case to be made about the benefits of renewable energy deployment there in terms of economic productivity. So all this sounds great, but there are some real execution risks for this quantity of financing and getting these projects off the ground. Simon can you tell us what that might mean for these countries? Simon Waever: Right. That's a key topic, and it may be that there's actually insufficient climate financing, and that would at best mean that you have other suboptimal financing sources used. But at worst, that we see scaled back, delayed or even canceled climate projects. And actually the risk of this happening isn't low, so it's something we do need to watch. And then another risk is that the debt dispersed but used in the wrong places or used inefficiently, because then you end up with the countries with higher leverage that doesn't actually see the benefits. Simon Waever: But with that, Thanks, Carolyn. Thanks for taking the time to talk. Carolyn Campbell: Great speaking with you, Simon. Simon Waever: And thanks to everyone for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

This year, foreign exchange has been even harder than usual to predict. Even so, the outlook for the U.S. Dollar may prove to be a handy asset moving forward.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Dave Adams, Head of G10 Foreign Exchange Strategy at Morgan Stanley. And today I'll be talking about our outlook for the U.S. dollar and why it may prove an important driver of investor returns this year. It's Friday, June 23rd at 3 p.m. in London. Foreign exchange has long been known as a hard asset class to predict, and this year has proven to be even harder than usual. Consensus trades left and right have missed the mark, and both disagreement and uncertainty are the highest we've seen in years. So where do we go from here? We think the U.S. dollar is going to keep rallying, rising about 5% or so by the end of the year. Central bankers are likely to keep their feet on the brakes in order to tackle inflation. And in doing so, growth is likely to remain anemic, with risks skewed to the downside. Against this backdrop, we think two key themes are going to emerge: demand for carry and demand for defense. Carry is attractive in a slow growth world and is likely to explain a lot more of investor returns if prices don't move very much. And defensiveness is an alluring quality in financial assets when optimism is low, uncertainty is high and risks abound. It's pretty rare to find a financial asset that offers both of these qualities. Typically, insurance costs you money. But the good news is that the US dollar does. The dollar tends to be negatively correlated versus the equity market, meaning that when equities go down, the dollar goes up, and that relationship has only strengthened in recent years. Meanwhile, U.S. rates are elevated versus the rest of the world thanks to Fed rate hikes. Dollar rates are roughly 2% higher than those in Europe and even 5% higher compared to those in Japan.Foreign exchange is a relative game, and if investors are buying the dollar, they're probably selling something. We think in this high uncertainty environment currencies  which are most sensitive to growth and risk assets would likely weaken the most. In the G10 space, the Australian dollar and the Swedish krona both look vulnerable here, while in emerging markets that's probably the South African rand and the Chinese renminbi. There are plenty of potential risks on the horizon to keep investors worried; banking sector volatility, geopolitical risks, sticky inflation, just to name a few. As the investment outlook remains cloudy and hazy, the U.S. dollar is a handy asset to keep in the portfolio as a positive carry insurance hedge. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.

As the U.S. Economy still angles for a soft landing, the recent Federal Open Markets Committee meeting may have left more questions than answers.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ellen Zentner, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss the outcome of the June Federal Open Market Committee meeting and our outlook for the U.S. economy. It's Thursday, June 22nd at 10 a.m. in New York. Hawks and doves entered the battlefield at the June FOMC meeting, wrangling over the extent to which further rate hikes might be needed and how forcefully to convey that. As expected, the FOMC held rates steady at 5.1% and maintained a tightening bias in the statement. But it's also important to note that the statement included an ever so slight change in language that made further rate hikes seem less certain. So in all, this suggests the Fed could raise rates later this year, although when thinking about the very next meeting we think the bar to hike in July is much higher than market pricing implies. And the new summary of economic projections, which is made up of Federal Open Market Committee participants projections for things like GDP growth, the unemployment rate, inflation and the appropriate policy path, FOMC participants revised up the policy path for this year by a full 50 basis points. So that would imply two more 25 basis point rate hikes. They also lifted their growth projections for this year, they revised down the unemployment rate and they revised upward their core PCE inflation forecast. So all in all, that's a summary of economic projections that skewed very hawkish. Now, we find the upward revision to core PCE most perplexing as incoming data on inflation had been in line with the Fed's forecasts, and especially as key measures of core services inflation have consecutively softened. Now in relation to our forecasts, we think this sets up core inflation to fall faster than the Fed currently projects, which should offset the takeaways from a higher peak rate in the DOT plot. The core inflation projection for this year and the level of the Fed funds rate could get revised downward by the time the FOMC meets in September. In our latest outlook, we continue to see a soft landing for the U.S. economy this year, with inflation and wages slowly easing, as well as job gains. Now consistent with this expectation, we continue to look for the Fed to hold the peak rate at 5.1% for an extended period before making the first .25% cut in March 2024. Like the Fed, we have to be humble here and we do see the effects of banking stresses on the economy as highly uncertain, and we'll hone our expectations for the economy and monetary policy as the incoming data unfold. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

While high oil prices at the end of last year drove down demand and freed up supply, this year many expect the market to tighten again. So why hasn’t it tightened yet?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley's Global Commodity Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss the outlook for the global oil market for the rest of 2023. It is Wednesday, June 21st at 3 p.m. in London. Last year saw severe tightness in most commodity markets. Demand still benefited from the post-COVID recovery, and supply was disrupted by the war in Ukraine. In many markets, prices had to rise to a level where demand destruction occurred. In the oil markets, that led Brent crude oil to rise to $130 a barrel, gasoline to $180 and diesel $190 a barrel. Those prices clearly did the trick. In response, the global economy slowed down and oil demand softened towards year end, resulting in a slight oversupply at market earlier this year. In recent months, however, the main narrative in the oil market has been a one of re-tightening into the second half. The market was clearly in surplus in the first quarter, but was widely expected to tighten again by the second half due to a combination of China reopening, continued recovery in aviation and downside risk to supply from Russia. Those factors should see the market balance in the second quarter and reenter a meaningful deficit in the third and fourth quarter, driving prices higher. In fact, that was also our expectation at the start orrf the year. However, if this was indeed to play out, we should see it by now. Given we are currently in June, the most actively traded Brent contract is the one for August delivery. North Sea oil delivered in August will typically arrive at a refinery around about September, with end products made from that crude oil such as gasoline, diesel and jet typically delivered to end customers by October. Therefore, the oil market is already trading the anticipated supply-demand balance deep into the second half. Yet the expected tightness has not yet emerged. This is not due to China's reopening, which has boosted oil demand broadly as expected. Already in March, Chinese refinery runs and its crude oil imports reached all time highs again. The recovery in aviation, and with that jet fuel consumption, is also broadly playing out as expected. Instead, most reasons for the weaker than expected oil market balance lie on the supply side. For starters, Russian exports have been remarkably resilient. The EU sanctions on the imports of Russian oil were widely expected to result in lower oil production from the country, but this has not materialized. On top, oil production from other non-OPEC countries have surprised to the upside. Notwithstanding low investment levels over the last few years, oil production has grown in a wide variety of countries, including the United States, but also Brazil, Canada, Argentina, Guyana, Colombia, Mexico, Oman and even China. As a result, oil production from non-OPEC countries has started to grow faster than global oil demand once again. When that is the case, the balance in the oil market can only be maintained if OPEC cuts production. And that is indeed what the producers group has been doing. OPEC already announced a production cut back in October of last year, and then again in April of this year, and again earlier this month. However, in doing so, OPEC loses market share to non-OPEC producers and it builds up spare capacity, both factors that typically end up weighing on oil markets. We still foresee a small deficit in the oil market in the third and the fourth quarter, but this is mostly a function of seasonality in demand and OPEC cuts. Those factors are not inherently bullish. If second half tightening does not play out, then market participants may need to consider what lies just beyond that. Our balances for early 2024 do not look so tight. Next year, demand will no longer be supported by another year of China reopening and aviation growth. There will still be supply growth in several non-OPEC countries, and seasonality, which is currently a tailwind, will turn into a headwind. There is still likely a period ahead when global GDP growth re-accelerates and the impact of little investment in new production capacity should start to bite. However, the cyclical and the structural outlook do not always align. Over the next six months, we see oil prices broadly stable at about $75 to $80 a barrel for Brent. What market participants find right in front of them is neutral rather than constructive. Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with  a friend or colleague today.

While the U.S is moving towards a soft landing and Japan is seeing nominal growth, the European economy continues to face restrictive policy.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Macro Strategy. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today, I'll talk about our mid-year outlook for macro markets. It's Tuesday, June 20th at 10 a.m. in New York. As we look ahead at macro markets for the next 12 months, central banks are front and center again. Our economists see them finding peak rates mid-year, while growth slows and inflation remains sticky. They also see the U.S. moving towards a soft landing, while the Euro area economy continues to face more restrictive policy. The U.K. continues to muddle through, while Japan delivers a year of nominal growth. Two global risk scenarios that our economists consider, a hard landing in the U.S. and then faster disinflation also in the U.S., should keep macro markets on the defensive. We think sovereign bond yields will end the year lower than in the first half, while the U.S. dollar will end the year stronger. We think macro markets already reflect the base case outlook for a soft landing and gradual adjustments in monetary policy. The view from our economists, which is mostly in the market price, aligns neatly with this consensus. So what will move markets into year end? Price action should, of course, evolve as surprises to this consensus view unfold. As usual, uncertainties around the outlook for monetary policy are murky, raising risks that the outcome will surprise currently held consensus views. One uncertainty involves the stance of monetary policy and the impact of the previous tightening that's been put in place. Have central banks tightened enough already to bring inflation back to target, in a suitable time frame? How long and variable are the lags of monetary policy today? We think rates market volatility, currently at its local lows, under appreciates the multitude of risks that lie ahead. For example, the lack of negative headlines around regional banks in the US have made investors complacent about bank stresses being behind us. However, key data points on bank balance sheets show that things have worsened on the margin since March. As for government bonds, we expect them to end the year with a rally for which investors have been waiting for, and we wouldn't be surprised if the positive returns accrued in line with historical seasonality. For example, strength in July and August, followed by a lull and then further strength in November and December. If you look at the US dollar, there's been a debate around the extent of the dollar's dominance in the global economy. As things stand, foreign investors continue to have a voracious appetite for US dollar denominated assets thanks to their strong returns and the U.S. economy's deep and liquid capital markets. So we forecast continued U.S. dollar strength into year end as tepid growth and asymmetric downside economic risk amplify investor demand for carry and defensive assets. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show.

With investors anticipating earnings surprises for US stocks, the outlook for municipal bonds is looking brighter.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Mark Schmidt: And I'm Mark Schmidt, Head of Municipal Strategy. Michael Zezas: And today, we'll be talking about the core of many investors' fixed income portfolios, municipal bonds. It's Friday, June 16th at 9am in New York. Michael Zezas: As our equity strategists continue to highlight the risk of earnings surprises for U.S. stocks, the outlook for the bond market looks considerably better. A soft landing, so call it, slow growth and slowing inflation, would mean favorable total return prospects across fixed income. In fact, even as the Fed's been raising short term rates, longer term bond yields have been falling as investors anticipate both inflation and growth to decline. So, Mark, for the benefit of listeners, tell us why this is a sweet spot for munis. Mark Schmidt: Thanks, Michael. Municipal bonds, high credit quality and tax exempt income are an opportunity for investors in high tax brackets right now. Credit quality for municipals can seem confusing, but we like to think of it in a pretty simple way. What's the outlook for tax collections? Income tax collections were mixed in April, but sales and property taxes continue to grow. Also, most state and local governments still have plenty of cash on reserve in case the economy performs worse than our economists expect. That cash comes from all the aid that the federal government provided, several hundred billion dollars, in fact, to municipal issuers in response to COVID. That's created a balance sheet buffer that can still support issuers today, even as growth slows. Now, even though credit quality remains pretty good, the good news is we don't think you need to take a lot of risks to enjoy the benefits of tax free income in your portfolio. Michael Zezas: And Mark, investors ask a lot about what the right maturity of bond is for their portfolio. What do you think investors should favor right now? Shorter or longer maturity bonds? Mark Schmidt: Longer maturity bonds generally offer higher returns, but of course, with higher risk as well. Right now, we actually see superior risk adjusted returns in a 1 to 5 year or 1 to 10 year latter. We'd look for investment grade credits in those shorter maturities for investors seeking higher income with higher risk. We'd recommend a barbell approach, one that blends short 1 to 5 year maturities with select maturities between 15 and 20 years. On the long end of the curve, we prefer very high quality AA bonds. With credit spreads and risk free rates at multi-year highs, we just don't think you need to reach for yield in this environment, especially as the economy slows. But Michael, one question that always comes up with regards to municipal bonds is the risk of the tax exemption changing, given how important tax free income is for municipal investors. Congress does change the tax code from time to time, do you expect major legislation out of Washington anytime soon? Michael Zezas: In short, no. Major tax reforms tend to happen once in a generation, and they tend to need one party to control both the White House and both chambers of Congress. And even then, a big tax code change needs to be their priority. So, the earliest this could possibly happen again would be after the 2024 election, so call it 2025. And then again, even then, it's not clear that even if one party were to take control of Congress and the White House, that this would be a priority for them. So in short, it's not something I'd be particularly concerned about. But Mark, turning it back to you. Munis helped to build all kinds of infrastructures in states and cities, colleges, hospitals, airports and toll roads. They all issue municipal bonds. What sectors do you like right now? Mark Schmidt: We think the outlook for most transportation issuers remains pretty good. Summer vacations are right around the corner, and we all definitely want to pack our bags and hit the road. All those travelers going through airports and on toll roads is good news for credit quality. Now, as for one sector where credit quality is more mixed, health care providers are still recovering from all the disruptions related to COVID. You all know the story, of course, as more patients required more specialized care, the demand for nurses and frontline health care workers skyrocketed, leading to higher costs across the board. Those costs are now stabilizing, but we continue to think it will take some time for credit quality to fully recover. When it comes to some of these choices about sectors and credit quality, though, remember that volatility is relative. Compared to other asset classes, fundamentals for investment grade municipal bonds don't change very quickly or very often. They're the classic late cycle haven, as you've mentioned, Michael, in years before. Michael Zezas: Well, Mark, this has been really insightful. Thanks for taking the time to talk. Mark Schmidt: Great speaking with you today, Michael. Michael Zezas: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy thoughts on the Market, please be sure to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show.

With more Asian economies on pace to join the recovery path set by China, confidence in economic outperformance versus the rest of the world is rising. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Chief Asia Economist at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing your variety of perspectives, today I'll be discussing our mid-year outlook for Asia's economy. It's Thursday, June 15 at 9 a.m. in Hong Kong. Asia's recovery is for real. We believe its growth outperformance has just started. We expect a full fledged recovery to build up over the next two quarters across two dimensions. First, we think more economies in the region will join the recovery path. Second, the recovery will broaden from services consumption to goods consumption and in the next six months to capital investments, or CapEx. We see Asia's growth accelerating to 5.1% by fourth quarter of this year. There are three main reasons why we expect this growth outperformance for Asia. First, Asia did not experience the interest rate shock that the U.S. and Europe did. Asian central banks did not have to take rates through restrictive territory because inflation in Asia has not been as intense. Plus, Asia's inflation has already declined and we expect 80% of region’s inflation will get back into central bank's comfort zone in the next 2 to 3 months. The second reason is China. While China's consumption recovery is largely on track, we have seen downside in the last two months, in investment spending and the manufacturing sector. We believe policy easing is imminent as policymakers are keen on preventing a deterioration in labor market conditions and on minimizing social stability risks. Easing should help stabilize investment spending and broaden out the recovery in back half of 2023. Beyond China, India, Indonesia and Japan will also contribute significantly to region's growth recovery. India is benefiting from cyclical and structural factors. Cyclically beating healthy corporate and banking system balance sheets mean India can have an independent business cycle driven by domestic demand, and we are seeing that appetite for expansion translating into stronger CapEx and loan growth. As for Japan, it is in a sweet spot, having decisively left the deflation environment behind, but not facing runaway inflation. Accommodative real interest rates are helping catalyze private CapEx growth, which has already risen to a seven year high. And, in another momentous shift, Japan's nominal GDP growth is now rising at a healthy pace after a long period of flatlining. Finally, we believe Indonesia will be able to sustain a 5% pace of growth. Indonesia runs the most prudent macro policy mix amongst emerging markets. In particular, the fiscal deficit has been maintained below 3%, since the adoption of the fiscal rule and has only exceeded that in 2020 during the worst of the pandemic. This has resulted in a consistent improvement in macro stability indicators and led to a structural decline in the cost of capital supporting private domestic demand. The risks to our next 12 month Asia outlook are hard landing in the U.S., which Morgan Stanley's U.S. economists think it's unlikely and a deeper slowdown in China. But we believe China's recovery will only broaden out in the second half of 2023. And given this, we feel confident about our outlook for Asia's outperformance in 2023 vis-à-vis rest of the world. Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

While investors are feeling optimistic with the strong performance in markets despite some predicted challenges, it may be too soon to tell if these possible hurdles have been completely avoided.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Wednesday, June 14th at 2 p.m. in London. It's hard to ignore a sense of relief and increased optimism that's starting to percolate among investors. After a hard 2022, there was widespread trepidation entering this year that slower growth, quantitative tightening and further rate hikes would continue to pressure markets. Yet year-to-date, performance has been pretty good. Is that evidence that these problems aren't really problems anymore? Markets have been strong. But in terms of that strength showing that markets have passed the test of slower growth or policy tightening, I think it's more accurate to say that it's too soon to tell. Let's start with the idea that markets have already weathered a period of weaker growth. While leading economic indicators of the economy are soft, so far, actual activity has held up pretty well. The U.S. economy grew 1.3% in the first quarter and has added 1.6 million new jobs year-to-date. It's the coming quarters, specifically the next 3 to 6 months, where our economists see the weakest stretch of economic activity. Next, how about market resilience suggesting that rate hikes don't matter, or at least don't matter very much? Here we think the question is to what extent rate increases hit with a lag. The optimistic case is that markets are forward looking, and thus have already discounted the full impact of very large recent rate increases by both the Fed and the European Central Bank. But there's also a school of thought that higher rates don't fully hit the economy for 12 months, or more. 12 months ago, the federal funds rate was still just 1%. Maybe the full effects of policy tightening haven't yet hit. Another part of the theme of tighter policy is the reduction of central bank balance sheets or quantitative tightening. Again, it's tempting to view recent market strength as evidence that this dynamic doesn't matter as much as expected, and that may be true. But I think the jury's still out. Year-to-date, the aggregate bond holdings of the world's central banks have actually risen, not fallen, thanks to continued easing from the Bank of Japan and support for the US banking sector from the Federal Reserve. That should now change going forward, with these balance sheets shrinking, giving us a better measure of the true impact. Third is the effect of tighter lending conditions. The optimistic case is that following quite a bit of banking sector volatility in March, recent market resiliency shows that this is just another test that the current market has passed. But lending, like monetary policy, could act with a lag. Morgan Stanley's banking analysts see tighter lending from the U.S. banking sector playing out over an extended period of time, rather than quickly, and all at once. Markets have been resilient year-to-date, a welcome respite from a poor 2022. We don't think, however, that this resilience is yet proof that markets have successfully answered the question of what the impact of lower growth, tighter policy or tighter bank credit will be. Rather, these questions are still sitting there, waiting to be answered over the next several months. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave a review. We'd love to hear from you.

With the European economy losing momentum amidst a rally in growth stocks globally, the time of European equity outperformance may be in the past for now.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Graham Secker, Head of Morgan Stanley's European Equity Strategy Team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the outlook for European equities in the second half of this year. It's Tuesday, June 13th at 2 p.m. in London. After a record burst of outperformance between October and March, European equities have started to underperform their international peers over the last couple of months, and we think this is likely to continue over the summer for two reasons. Firstly, the European economy seems to be losing some momentum, with many of the region's leading economic indicators turning back down over the last month or so. Now, while the magnitude of their reversal is small so far in absolute terms, the European Economic Surprise Index, which tracks how the data comes in relative to expectations, has fallen much more sharply and is now close to a ten year low. We think this is an important development, as this index is often a good lead indicator for future earnings and hence is now pointing to downside risks ahead for corporate profitability in Europe. The second factor starting to drag on Europe's relative performance, is the strong rally in growth stocks that we are seeing globally. While Europe has its own fair share of such companies, its tech weight overall remains considerably below that of most other regions. For example, tech is at about 7% of the European equity market versus 13% for Asia and over 30% for the U.S.. Quite simply, the size of this differential makes it difficult for Europe to keep pace with other regions when growth stocks are outperforming more broadly, such as now. While these two factors are likely to weigh on Europe's relative performance in the near term, we also see downside risks to broader global equity indices over the summer, given the potential for slowing growth and deteriorating liquidity dynamics in both the US and Europe. Taken together, we think these headwinds could see European equities fall by up to 10% over the next few months. Given this backdrop, we have further increased our preference for defensives over cyclicals, by upgrading pharmaceuticals to overweight, to sit alongside telecoms and utilities in our most preferred list. In contrast, we remain underweight cyclical sectors such as autos, capital goods, chemicals and energy. From a style perspective, we think it is too soon to take profits in the growth sectors and hence remain positive on the likes of luxury goods, medtech, semis and software. The biggest change to our view recently has become more downbeat on the outlook for European financials, which we think fits a, "right place but wrong time narrative". Specifically, while the sector looks attractive from a bottom up perspective in terms of low valuations, strong balance sheets and healthy earnings trends, we think the top down macro environment has become more challenging as we near the end of the current rate hiking cycle and with the prospect of slower economic growth and lower bond yields ahead. Notwithstanding our near-term caution, however, we are more positive on European stocks over the longer term, given the backdrop of what we think will ultimately be relatively resilient earnings and low equity valuations. For example, Europe's price to earnings ratio is now down to just 12.5 times versus the U.S. at close to 18 times. Looking out further on a 12 month view, our models suggest 8% price upside from here, which would rise closer to 12% if we include dividends and buybacks. So, when we put all of the above together, we think the outlook for European stocks is perhaps best described as one of short term pain, but for longer term gain. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

With AI gaining momentum among investors and the Fed potentially pausing on rate hikes, signs are now pointing towards the end of the bear market rally.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, June 12th at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. At the beginning of the year, we noted that our view is much more in line with the consensus and we discussed that it might take some time for that to change. Suffice it to say, it has taken longer than we expected. At the end of January, sentiment and positioning had improved enough to put stocks in a vulnerable state, and sure enough, we had a 10% correction in the S&P 500 over the following six weeks, with the average stock down about 13%. Since then, the average stock has lagged the overall index by about 10%. We think this is mostly due to increased liquidity from the depositor bailouts, at the same time artificial intelligence began to gain momentum with investors. The combination of perceived safety and of newfound open ended growth story was too much for investors to resist. Hence, we have one of the most concentrated markets in history. For most of the past two months, sentiment has remained somewhat pessimistic, which is part of the reason why the average stock hasn't done very well. But sentiment has turned outright bullish in the past week. Furthermore, it's not just sentiment, as both retail and institutional flows have returned to the equity markets with technology and artificial intelligence the dominant themes. This past week there were several other warning signs that this bear market rally may have finally exhausted itself after eight months. First, several sell side strategists and market commentators have publicly stated the bear market is now over at this point. Second, we don't find much value in the 20% threshold for declaring new bull markets. Instead, our conclusion is driven more by the fundamentals, valuations and expectations relative to our outlook. In short, our earnings view is much more pessimistic than the current consensus expectation, which is now assuming a second half reacceleration story. We can also find several instances of bear market rallies that exceeded the 20% threshold, only to eventually give way to new lows. One example is particularly relevant, given our 1940s and fifties boom bust framework that we discussed in last week's podcast. After the boom in 1946, following the end of the war, the S&P 500 corrected by 28%, followed by a 24% choppy bear market rally that lasted almost eighteen months before succumbing to new lows a year later. Thus far, it appears similar to the current bear market, which corrected 27 and a half percent last year and is now rallied 24% from its intraday lows, but is still 10% below the highs. Third, when we called for a bear market rally last October, it was predicated on two key assumptions. First, market concern around the Fed and terminal rate had likely peaked, and second, the US dollar was also peaking. Both of these developments occurred as long term interest rates and the U.S. dollar topped last October. Falling rates and the US dollar have combined to drive both valuations and earnings expectations higher. On the latter point, the U.S. dollar index is now flat on a year-over-year basis, which compares to up 21% at its peak last fall. The question is how much did a weaker dollar help the top line for multinational companies and the S&P 500 overall? Furthermore, will this dollar weakness continue or will it flatten out and or even reverse into a headwind? It's hard to know for sure, but our house view is for a stronger dollar, and it's important to acknowledge the S&P 500 has become very negatively correlated to the dollar over the last decade. Finally, we think the Fed's potential pause on rate hikes this week could serve as the perfect bookend to this bear market rally that began with a peak in the Fed's terminal rate last fall. In many ways, it's often easier to travel than arrive at the destination. The bottom line, sentiment and positioning are now 180 degrees from where they were on January 1st. This means stocks are no longer set up for the disappointment we think is coming in the form of much weaker than expected earnings this year. This reset can happen either slowly as companies miss expectations one by one, or quickly from another exogenous shock that is just too much for the market to absorb. In that latter case, the equity risk premium is likely to spike, price earnings multiples are likely to fall sharply and we may make a new bear market price low before estimates fall in earnest. We suspect the weaker liquidity backdrop from greater Treasury issuance discussed last week could serve as that exogenous shock. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps for people to find the show.

While the forecast for global bonds remains strong for the latter half of 2023, other asset classes could see bifurcated results across regions.----- Transcript -----Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. Andrew Sheets: And I'm Andrew Sheets, Morgan Stanley's Chief Cross-Asset Strategist. Seth Carpenter: And on part two of the special two-part episodes of the podcast, we're going to focus on Morgan Stanley's year ahead strategy Outlook. It's Friday, June 9th at 10 a.m. in New York. Andrew Sheets: And 3 p.m. in London. Seth Carpenter: All right, Andrew, in the first part of this two part special, you were grilling me on the economic outlook. You were taking me to task on all of our views, pointing out the different ways in which our clients, investors around the world were pushing back at different parts of our story. And now, it's payback time. Let me ask you, basically, what are we thinking as a research house in terms of where the best trades are likely to be for markets? We're looking for a soft landing in the U.S., but that doesn't mean a good outcome. So very weak economic activity and policy rates that are still restrictive. So what is that type of backdrop going to mean for one of the most closely watched assets in the world, the U.S. dollar? Andrew Sheets: Sure. So we do think that this backdrop, despite the fact that on the surface it looks decent, you have the U.S. and Europe avoiding recession. You have stronger growth in Asia, but you have a lot of uncertainties that are front loaded, and you still have slowing growth, you still have tight monetary policy. And we think this is going to still lead to a somewhat more difficult backdrop for markets over the next three months. And so I think in that context, the U.S. dollar looks quite attractive. The US dollar pays investors to hold it, it's a so-called positive carry currency against most major currencies and it's a diversifying currency, so as an asset it helps protect your portfolio. And I also think kind of within this context, if any economy is going to be able to handle higher interest rates, well, it might be the U.S. where a large share of consumer debt is fixed in a long term mortgage, which is very different from what we see in Australia or the UK or Sweden. So, we think that the dollar will do better, we think the dollar will do better in large part because of this attractiveness in a portfolio context that it offers investors a positive yield, while at the same time offering portfolio protection. Seth Carpenter: All right. So, if you're feeling reasonably upbeat about the dollar, presumably that spills over to dollar denominated assets. At the end of last year, the strategy team published a piece that was called ‘The Year of Yield.’ Are you still feeling that good about bonds in the United States in particular? Is it really fixed income securities that are your strongest call? Andrew Sheets: So, we still feel good about bonds, but I would say that the start of the year has been a pretty mixed picture. I think kind of relative to what we were expecting at the start of the year, the Fed and the ECB have raised rates more. Growth has been somewhat stronger, inflation has been somewhat higher. I would say none of those things are good for the bond market and yields instead of falling have kind of trended sideways. So they've done okay, but they've not done as well as we on the strategy side initially thought. But, you know, looking ahead, we think that the case for high quality fixed income is still quite good. We still think we see slowing in the second half of the year, which we think will be supportive for bonds. We think, certainly based in large part on the forecasts from you and the economics team, that the Fed and the ECB are largely done with their rate hikes, which we think will be supportive for bonds, and we think that inflation will moderate over the course of the year, which could also be supportive. So, we still think that when we look across global assets, while we see positive returns from most bond and equity markets, we think it's high grade bonds that generally offer the best risk adjusted return on our forecasts. Seth Carpenter: Okay, So risk adjusted return on bonds seem attractive to you. The natural follow up question to that is what about equities? Equities have actually performed reasonably well this year. On our first part of this podcast, I said that we are looking for a soft landing. What's the call on equities in the United States? Is this going to be a great second half of the year for equities? Andrew Sheets: So we think the equity picture is quite bifurcated. In some ways, I think it ties quite nicely to the bifurcated global economic picture that you and the economics team are talking about. Where growth in Asia is accelerating, this year, it's accelerating in the second half of the year, while growth in the U.S. and Europe is slowing. And it's that bifurcation that we think is mirrored in the equity market where we see quite good returns for Japanese, in emerging market equities, we see double digit total returns over the next 12 months. But we see a U.S. equity market that's broadly flat in 12 months time to where it is today. Now, what's driving that is we do think that the slowing growth we have this year and tighter monetary policy that will hit profitability. We think it's already been hitting profitability, we think it will continue to. And more tactically, we think that a lot of the big questions for the market are somewhat unresolved, but will be tested very soon. It's the next two quarters, which is the weakest stretch of U.S. GDP growth. It's the next two or three quarters that we think is the bulk of the risks to U.S. earnings. It's this year, it's not next year. And we think the next two quarters is where monetary policy relative to inflation tightens more in our forecast horizon rather than tightening more in the future. So, when we think about the resilience of stocks, especially U.S. stocks year-to-date, it's been very impressive, it's been stronger than we expected. But also, I think year- to-date, growth has been pretty solid. The Federal Reserve's balance sheet has declined to less than initially expected. You haven't necessarily, I think, gone through some of the tests that investors, ourselves, thought might present more headwinds to the equity market, and those tests are going to present themselves, we think, rather soon. Seth Carpenter: Okay. So you highlighted a dichotomy there, especially for the second half of the year. That lines up, I would say, with some of our economic outlook, other parts of the world maybe doing a little bit better. I started off very narrowly with just the dollar. Are there other currencies in other parts of the world where based on, either what's going on with their central banks or what we think is going to be going on with their economic performance. Other currencies that you think would be really good for investors to take a look at. Andrew Sheets: So if I think about where we're forecasting currency strength, we do have the dollar appreciating against most currencies. So I'd say that's a dominant story. We do have the Japanese Yen doing modestly better, and that's largely a function of valuations that look to us very low versus history adjusted for inflation. And we do think that you could have a somewhat uncommon occurrence where Japanese equities and the currency both do well. We think that's the case because the currency is so inexpensive relative to other currencies and because Japanese corporates are already expecting their currency to strengthen some that, that wouldn't necessarily be an additional hit to profitability. The Brazilian Real is another currency that we're predicting to be stronger relative to regional peers. We think both the Indian Rupee and the Indonesian Rupiah can also do well as those economies are relatively strong in a regional context, and in a global context, looking out over the next 12 months. Seth Carpenter: All right. That's super helpful. I guess the last question will come back to you with, again, trying to take this global perspective on things, is commodities. Commodities are traded around the world. They are often a reflection of economic performance in different regions. We've got two big economies that we think will be growing fairly slowly, but we've got China and the rest of Asia that we think will be doing well. What is the outlook for commodities, and maybe especially oil, as we look forward the next six months, the next year? Andrew Sheets: Yeah so, we're underweight commodities. And here I want to talk about the market from a so-called factor perspective. When we think about markets, I think it can be helpful to think about them in terms of fundamentals, carry and momentum, as different things that can drive the market and especially for commodities where those things all matter. So, you know, what do we mean by fundamentals? Well, we think as growth slows, that's a negative for commodity demand relative to supply, and so a forecast where slowing growth is still ahead of us and it's really front loaded in our forecast is somewhat of a headwind to commodities. If I think about carry, that's another way of saying what does it pay you to hold the commodity or what does it cost to hold the commodity? And given how high short term U.S. interest rates are, it's quite expensive to hold copper or gold rather than hold a Treasury bill which pays you interest. The commodity does not. So, we think that works against commodities some. And then there's also momentum you tend to see in commodities more so than other asset classes that they tend to trend. They tend to stay in the same direction that they're traveling, rather than reverse, and commodity prices have been heading down. And if we look at the data, we think that tends to be more of a negative thing than a positive thing. So broadly, we think commodities produce lower risk adjusted returns than other assets. We do see oil prices modestly higher by the middle of 2024. We see Brent at about 78. So that's a little bit higher from current levels. But I think it's an asset class where after some very good returns in the recent past, is one where the risk reward looks less favorable relative to some other things. Seth Carpenter: All right, I'm going to call it there. Andrew, I really want to thank you for taking the time to talk, and let me throw a bunch of questions at you. Andrew Sheets: Seth, great speaking with you. Seth Carpenter: And thanks to everyone else for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or a colleague today.

As we look toward the second half of 2023, the U.S. and Europe are likely to see very slow growth but avoid a recession, while Asia may be poised to become an engine of economic growth.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts in the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Morgan Stanley's Chief Global Cross-Asset Strategist. Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. Andrew Sheets: And on this special two part episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing Morgan Stanley's global mid-year outlook. Today we'll focus on economics, and tomorrow we'll turn our attention to strategy. It's Thursday, June 8th at 3 p.m. in London. Seth Carpenter: And it's 10 a.m. in New York. Andrew Sheets: Seth, it's great to sit down with you. We've been talking over the last several weeks as Morgan Stanley's gone through this outlook process. And this is a big joint collaborative forecasting process across Morgan Stanley research, where the economists and the strategists get together and think about what the next 12 to 18 months might look like. And, you know, we're sitting down at this really fascinating time for markets. The U.S. labor market is at some of its strongest levels since the late 1960s. Core inflation is at levels that we really haven't seen since the 1980s. The Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank have been raising rates at a pace that hasn't really been seen in 30 or 40 years. So, as you step back from all of these quite unusual occurrences, Seth, how do you frame where the global economy is at the moment and where is it headed? Seth Carpenter: I'd say there's one major dichotomy that I'll first start with in the global economy. On the one hand, Asia as a region really poised to have the strongest economic growth. And in very sharp contrast, when I think about the rest of the world, the United States and the Euro area, we see those as being actually quite weak. Second, China, you can't get out of a discussion of the global economy without talking about China. And there, the first quarter saw massive growth in China as all of the restrictions from COVID were removed, and as the government shifted the rest of its policies towards being supportive of growth. Now, there's been a little bit of a stumble in the second quarter, but we think that's temporary. And so you'll see a cyclical boost to Asia, coming out of China. Layer on top of this our structurally bullish views on economies like India and Indonesia, where there's a medium term, really positive note, you have all of these coming together, and it sets the stage for Asia really to be an engine of economic growth. The sharp contrast, the United States, the euro area. The inflation that you referenced has led central banks to raise interest rates for one reason and one reason alone. They want to slow those economies down, so the inflationary impulses start to fade away. Andrew Sheets: So Seth that's great context, and I'd like to drill down a little bit more detail on two economies in particular, the United States and China. For the United States, this idea of a soft landing, I think investors will point to the fact that given how strong the labor market is, given how high inflation is, given how inverted the yield curve is, given how much banks are tightening lending conditions, all those factors make it less likely historically that a recession is avoided. So, why do you think a soft landing is the most likely option here? Why do you think that that's our central scenario? Seth Carpenter: Yeah, I completely agree with you, Andrew. The discussion, the debate, the push back, the soft landing part of our thesis is definitely central to all of that discussion. Maybe I'll just start a little bit with the definition because I think the phrase soft landing can mean different things to different people. What I don't mean is that we just have great economic growth and inflation comes down on its own. Quite to the contrary, we are looking for economic growth in the United States to slow so much that it basically comes to a standstill. This year and next year are both likely to be years where economic growth is substantially below the long run productive capacity of the economy. Why? Because the Fed is raising interest rates, making the cost of borrowing, making the cost of extending credit higher, so that there is less spending in the economy so that those inflationary impulses go away. So that's what we're thinking is going to happen, is that we'll have really, really weak growth. But your question also gets into is if you're going to have that much slowing in the economy, why not a recession? And here, it's always fraught to say this time is different. But I think you highlighted what is really different about this cycle. It's the first time the Fed is pulling inflation down, instead of trying to limit its rise, in 40 years. But in addition to that, we're coming out of COVID. And I don't think anyone would argue that COVID is a normal part of an economic business cycle in the United States. Andrew Sheets: So we've just covered some of the reasons why we are more optimistic than those who expect a recession in the U.S. over the next 12 months. There are investors who say we're too pessimistic, and yet the economy in the first half of this year, the U.S. economy has been surprisingly solid and chugged along. So, what do you think is behind that? And why is it wrong to say that the last six months kind of disprove the idea that you need material slowing ahead? Seth Carpenter: Let's examine the facts. Housing activity actually did fall pretty substantially. If we compare where non-farm payrolls are and if you do any sort of averaging. Over months. Where we are now is actually much less hiring than what we saw six months ago, nine months ago, a year ago, the payrolls report for the month of May notwithstanding. We are seeing some slowing down there. And remember, I just said one of the reasons why we think we're going to get a soft landing is that the economy is still shorthanded. Some of the strength that we're seeing in hiring is making up for the fact that businesses were so cautious to hire in the past. I think the last thing to keep in mind is if we are wrong, if this slowing isn't in train, then the Federal Reserve is just going to have to raise interest rates even more because inflation, although it's coming down, there is a residual amount of inflation that really does need to be, in the Fed's mind, at least squeezed out of the economy by having subpar growth. Andrew Sheets: I'd like to turn now to the world's second largest economy, China, where there's also a great level of skepticism towards the economy generally, but also our view that the economy will recover in the second half of the year. If you look at commodity prices, Chinese equity prices, China's currency, there's been a lot of weakness across the board. So, what do you think has been going on? Why do you think the data has softened more recently and why is that not the right thing to extrapolate going forward for China growth? Seth Carpenter: Absolutely. All the asset prices that you point to, all of the market trades that people were looking to for a strong China recovery. Boy, they were a little bit disappointing. But the reason I think they were disappointing in general is because it was a different kind of expansion, so much domestic spending, so much on services. People were very much accustomed to looking at a Chinese surge coming from investment spending, infrastructure spending, housing spending, and most of the spending was elsewhere. So I think that's the first part of the puzzle. The second part of the puzzle, though, is Q2 legitimately has had a notable slowdown. Does that mean the whole China reopening story is derailed? I don't think so, and I don't think so for a few reasons. One, we are still seeing the spending on consumer services. So that's important. Second, we think what the government is planning on doing is topping up growth to make sure that the unemployment rate, especially among young people, continues to come down. And so it'll set us up for a strong second half of the year.Andrew Sheets: I'd like to ask you next about inflation. You know, I think something that's so fascinating about this year is if you were sitting there in early January, there was a real temptation, I think, by the market to think, 2023 was supposed to be the year where inflation is coming down. Yet inflation has been kind of surprisingly high this year. So if you think about our inflation forecasts, which do have inflation moderating throughout this year and into next year, what do you think is the more dominant part of that story that investors should be mindful of? Is it that inflation's falling? Is it that core inflation is still uncomfortably high? Is it a bit of both? Seth Carpenter: How about if I say absolutely all of the above? The inflation forecasting since COVID has been one of the most challenging parts of this job, I have to admit. So what is going on? Headline measures of inflation. So including food and energy prices that people like to strip out because it can be volatile, those are unquestionably off their peak and have come down a lot, not surprisingly, because oil prices, natural gas prices had spiked so much and those have backed off. But even looking at the core measures, as you say, we are seeing that core inflation has peaked in the U.S. and the euro area, sort of the major developed market economies where, you know, markets are focused and we are seeing things come down. And in particular, if you look in the United States, inflation on consumer goods, if you average over the past six months or so, has been about zero or negative. So went from very high inflation down to zero and for a few of those months, outright negative inflation. So I think it's impossible to say that we haven't seen a shift in terms of inflation. Andrew Sheets: And for monetary policy, what do you think that means? If we think about the big central banks, the Fed, the European Central Bank, the Bank of Japan, what do you think this inflation backdrop means for monetary policy, looking forward?Seth Carpenter: So for the Federal Reserve in the U.S. and the European Central Bank in the euro area, very, very similar. Different a little bit in terms of the specific numbers, the specific timing. But the strategy is the same, which is to raise policy rates to the point where they feel confident that they’re exerting restraint on the economy and allow inflation to come down over the course of another year or two years. In the United States, for example, you know, our baseline view is that the Fed did its last rate hike at the May meeting. The market is debating with itself as to whether or not the Fed is done. But, you know, the idea is make sure rates are in a way restrictive and then stay there for as long as needed to ensure that you get that downward trajectory in inflation and then only very gradually start to lower the policy rate as inflation comes down and looks like it's very clearly going back to target. In the euro area, same answer. Qualitatively, we're not convinced they're quite done raising rates. We think they probably have two more policy meetings where they raise their policy rate 25 basis points at each meeting. But then staying at that peak rate for an extended period of time and then gradually letting the policy rate come back down as the economy slows. Now, you mentioned Japan. And Japan, in our view, is really a bit different. When we think about the underlying, the trend inflation. We think that is about to peak now and come back down and in fact get below their 2% inflation target.Andrew Sheets: Very interesting. Seth, thanks for taking the time to talk. Seth Carpenter: Andrew, it is always a pleasure for me to get to talk to you. Andrew Sheets: And thanks for listening. Be sure to tune in for part two of this episode where Seth and I will discuss Morgan Stanley's mid-year strategy Outlook. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

On the heels of Congress’s raising the debt ceiling, markets are wondering: What’s next from D.C.? Here are three things we’re watching.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about what we're watching in Washington, D.C.. It's Wednesday, June 7th at 3 p.m. in New York. Now that the debt ceiling has been raised and the risk of a U.S. default is behind us for quite some time, it begs the question, what could come next out of Washington, D.C. that markets need to care about? While there's nothing definitively impactful on the horizon from our perspective, here's three things we're watching. First, we continue to expect that, any day, the White House could announce new restrictions on outbound investments towards China. If this were to occur, its scope would matter greatly. Limited restrictions might not matter, but wide ranging restrictions could seriously interrupt foreign direct investment into China at a time when investors are asking questions about the sustainability of China's economic recovery in light of some recent weak data. Second, we have to keep an eye on the emerging discussion around AI regulation. To be clear, there don't yet appear to be any well-formed views by either party on how regulation should develop. So Congress is likely far from action. But the shape of any eventual action will likely determine which use cases for AI will be permitted. So paying attention to these emerging debates will be important. Finally, candidates for president in the 2024 U.S. election have started to emerge. This has stoked questions about potential looming changes in policies that matter to markets. This includes tax policy, where key corporate and personal tax changes are set to expire starting in 2025, making the outcome of the election potentially impactful to corporate margins and therefore equity and credit markets. This certainly bears watching and we'll be investing substantial time in researching this topic in the coming months. But we caution that it's far too early to draw any conclusions about the likelihood of election outcomes and resulting policy paths. So in our view, it's still just a bit too early to impact markets. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague. Or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show. 

Consumers in the U.S. are largely returning to pre-COVID spending levels, but new behaviors related to travel, credit availability and inflation have emerged.----- Transcript -----Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver from the Morgan Stanley U.S. Equity Strategy Team. Sarah Wolfe: And I'm Sarah Wolfe from the U.S. Economics Team. Michelle Weaver: On this special episode of the podcast, we're taking a look at the state of the U.S. consumer as we approach the midyear mark. It's Tuesday, June 6th at 10 a.m. in New York. Michelle Weaver: In order to talk about where the consumer is right now, let's take it back two and a half years. It's January 2021, and households are slowly emerging from their COVID hibernations, but we're still months away from the broad distribution of the vaccine. Consumers are allocating 5% more of their wallet share to goods than before COVID, driving record consumption of electronics, home furnishings, sporting goods and recreational vehicles. All the things you needed to make staying at home a little bit better. Our U.S. economists at Morgan Stanley made a high conviction call in early 2021 that vaccine distribution would flip the script and drive a surge in services spending and a payback in goods spending. Sara, to what extent has this reversion played out and where do you think the U.S. consumer is now? Sarah Wolfe: The reversion is definitely played out, but there's been some big surprises. Basically, the spending pie has just been greater overall than expected, and that's thanks to unprecedented fiscal stimulus, excess savings and significant supply shortages. So we've not only seen a shift away from goods and toward services, but a much larger spending pie overall. The result has been a 13% surge in goods inflation over nearly three years, an acceleration in services inflation, and a return to pre-COVID spending habits that's much greater in real spending terms than in nominal terms. So if we look in the details, where has the payback been the largest? We've seen the biggest payback in home furnishing, home equipment, jewelry, watches, recreational vehicles, but we've seen the most robust recovery in discretionary services like dining out, going to a hotel, public transportation and recreational services. Michelle Weaver: Sara, has the recent turmoil in the banking sector affected the U.S. consumer and do you think there's a credit crunch going on right now? Sarah Wolfe: Bank funding costs have risen meaningfully and are expected to rise further, leading to tighter lending standards, slower loan growth and wider loan spreads. But let me be clear, this is not a credit crunch, nor do we expect it to be. We think about the pass through from tighter lending standards to the consumer to ways directly and indirectly. The direct channel is tighter lending standards for loans on consumer products, including credit cards and autos, and indirectly through tighter lending standards for businesses, which has knock-on effects for job growth. We've already seen the direct channel of consumer spending in the past year, as interest rates on new consumer loan products hit 20 to 30-year highs, raising overall debt service costs and forcing consumers to reduce purchases of interest sensitive goods. Dwindling supply of credit as banks tighten lending standards is also dampening consumption. Michelle Weaver: Great. And given that credit is getting a little bit tougher to come by, can you tell us what's happening with savings and what's happening with the labor market and labor income? Sarah Wolfe: This is very timely. Just a few days ago, we got a very strong jobs report for May. I think that this really supports our call for a soft landing, and even though consumers are increasingly worried about the economic outlook, about financial prospects, it's clear that we still have momentum in the economy and that the Fed can achieve its 2% inflation target without driving the unemployment rate significantly higher. We are seeing under the details that consumer spending is slowing, there's a pullback in discretionary happening, there's a bit of trade down behavior. But with the labor market remaining robust, it's going to keep spending afloat and prevent this hard landing scenario. Michelle, let me turn it to you now, let's drill down into some specifics. What are the latest spending trends around spending plans you're seeing in your consumer survey? Michelle Weaver: Sure. So consumers expect to pull back on spending for most categories that we asked them about over the next six months. And the only categories where they expect to spend more are necessities like groceries and household products. We also added two new questions to this round of the survey to figure out which discretionary categories are most at risk of a pullback in spending. We asked consumers to order categories based on spending priority and identify categories where they would pull back on spending if forced to reduce household expenses. We found that travel and live entertainment were most at risk of a pull back, and this isn't just a case of income groups having different attitudes towards spending, we saw similar prioritization across income cohorts. Sarah Wolfe: So you mentioned travel, travel's been in a boom state in the post-COVID world. But you're saying now that households are reporting that they would pull back if they needed to. Are we seeing that already? What do we expect for summer travel? What do we expect for the remainder of the year? Michelle Weaver: So the data I was just referencing was if you had to reduce your household expenses, how would you do it? And travel was identified there. So that's not a plan that's currently in place. But summer travel may be a bit softer this year versus last year. In our survey, we asked consumers if they're planning to travel more, the same amount or less than last summer, and we found that a greater proportion of consumers are planning to travel less this year. Budgets are also smaller for summer travel this year, with more than a third of consumers expecting to spend less. We're seeing a mixed picture from the company side. Airlines are seeing very strong results still, and Memorial Day weekend proved to be very strong.. But the data around hotels has started to weaken and the revenue per available room that hotels have been able to generate has been pretty choppy and forward bookings that hotels are seeing have actually been flat to down for the summer. Demand for resorts and economy hotels has fallen but demand for urban market hotels still remained very strong. Sarah, how does this deceleration, both services and goods growth play into your team's long standing argument for a soft landing for the economy? Sarah Wolfe: It's really the key to inflation coming down and avoiding a hard landing. With less pent up demand left for services spending and a strong labor market recovery, supply demand imbalances in the services sector are slowly resolving themselves. We estimate that there's a point three percentage point pass through from services wages to core core services inflation throughout any given year. Core core services, is services excluding housing inflation. So with compensation for services providing industries already decelerating for the past five quarters, we do expect the largest impact of core services inflation to occur in the back half of this year. So that's going to see a more meaningful step down in inflationary pressures later this year. This combined with a rising savings rate, so a shrinking spending pie, means that there's just going to be less demand for goods and services together this year. Altogether, it will enable the Fed to make progress towards its 2% inflation target without driving the economy into a recession. Michelle Weaver: Sarah, thank you for taking the time to talk. Sarah Wolfe: It was great speaking with you, Michelle. Michelle Weaver: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

The recovery in 2024 and 2025 looks promising, but the worst of the earnings cycle is likely not over, even for technology stocks.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, June 5th at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. For the past several years, our overarching view on markets has been driven by our hotter but shorter cycle regime framework. More specifically, we wrote a report over two years ago that argued this cycle will run hotter, but shorter than what we've experienced over the past 50 years. We based this thesis in part on our comparison to the post-World War II time period, which looks quite similar to today in many respects. First and foremost, the excess savings buildup during World War II and the COVID lockdowns were released into the economy at a time when supply was constrained. The punch line is that both the fundamentals and asset prices returned to prior cycle highs at a historically fast pace. There's booming inflation in earnings in 2021, then led to the Fed tightening policy at the fastest pace in 40 years, a policy reaction that proved to be surprising to many investors. Now, we suspect many will be surprised again by the depth of their earnings decline in 2023, as well as the subsequent rebound in 2024 and ‘25. In a major deviation from the past 30 years, we think stocks are now positively correlated to the rate of change and inflation. We also believe this new inflationary cycle is better for stocks and bonds, at least over the secular time horizon of 7 to 10 years. However it will be volatile, with significant cyclical ups and downs that should be traded if one wants to fully capture the excess returns in this new regime. In short, the boom bust period that began in 2020 is currently in the bust part of the earnings cycle, a dynamic that has yet to be priced during the bear market that began 18 months ago. There are two key assumptions we think are now being made by many investors that may be erroneous. First, the worst of the interest rate hikes are now behind us. And second, technology stocks already experienced the worst of the earnings recession last year and can now look forward to accelerating growth in the second half of 2023. In fact, that reacceleration in earnings growth is now built into consensus expectations. Suffice it to say, we respectfully disagree with that conclusion. More importantly, this is a big change from the beginning of the year when our earnings outlook was not out of consensus. We think this has to do with companies sounding more optimistic about the second half, combined with the newfound excitement around artificial intelligence, or A.I., and what that means for both growth and productivity. While there will undoubtedly be individual stocks that deliver accelerating growth from spending on A.I. this year, we do not think it will be enough to change the trajectory of the overall cyclical earnings trend in a meaningful way. Instead, it may pressure margins further, as companies decide to invest in A.I. despite decelerating growth in the near term. 

Original Release on May 11th, 2023: While personal computer sales were on the decline before the pandemic, signs are pointing to an upcoming boost.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Erik Woodring. Morgan Stanley's U.S. IT Hardware Analyst. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss why we're getting bullish on the personal computer space. It's Thursday, May 11th, at 10 a.m. in New York. PC purchases soared during COVID, but PCs have since gone through a once in a three decades type of down cycle following the pandemic boom. Starting in the second half of 2021, record pandemic driven demand reversed, and this impacted both consumer and commercial PC shipments. Consequently, the PC total addressable market has contracted sharply, marking two consecutive double digit year-over-year declines for the first time since at least 1995. But after a challenging 18 months or so, we believe it's time to be more bullish on PCs. The light at the end of the tunnel seems to be getting brighter as it looks like the PC market bottomed in the first quarter of 2023. Before I get into our outlook, it's important to note that PCs have historically been a low growth or no growth category. In fact, if you go back to 2014, there was only one year before the pandemic when PCs actually grew year-over-year, and that was 2019, at just 3%. Despite PCs' low growth track record and the recent demand reversal, our analysis suggests the PC addressable market can be structurally higher post-COVID. So at face value, we're making a bit of a contrarian bullish call. This more structural call is based on two key points. First, we estimate that the PC installed base, or the number of pieces that are active today, is about 15% larger than pre-COVID, even excluding low end consumer devices that were added during the early days of the pandemic that are less likely to be upgraded going forward. Second, if you assume that users replace their PCs every four years, which is the five year pre-COVID average, that about 65% of the current PC installed base or roughly 760 million units is going to be due for a refresh in 2024 and 2025. This should coincide with the Windows 10 End of Life Catalyst expected in October 25 and the 1 to 3 year anniversary of generative A.I. entering the mainstream, both which have the potential to unlock replacement demand for more powerful machines. Combining these factors, we estimate that PC shipments can grow at a 4% compound annual growth rate over the next three years. Again, in the three years prior to COVID, that growth rate was about 1%. So we think that PCs can grow faster than pre-COVID and that the annual run rate of PC shipments will be larger than pre-COVID. Importantly though, what drives our bullish outlook is not the consumer, as consumers have a fairly irregular upgrade pattern, especially post-pandemic. We think the replacements and upgrades in 2024 and 2025, will come from the commercial market with 70% of our 2024 PC shipment growth coming from commercial entities. Commercial entities are much more regular when it comes to upgrades and they need greater memory capacity and compute power to handle their ever expanding workloads, especially as we think about the potential for A.I. workloads at the edge. To sum up, we're making a somewhat contrarian call on the PC market rebound today, arguing that one key was the bottom and that PC companies should outperform in the next 12 months following this bottom. But then beyond 2023, we are making a largely commercial PC call, not necessarily a consumer PC call, and believe that PCs have brighter days ahead, relative to the three years prior to the pandemic. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

With the rapid adoption of electric vehicles, onshoring the critical battery supply chain poses significant challenges and will drive sizable investments.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Adam Jonas, Head of Morgan Stanley's Global Auto and Shared Mobility Team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today we'll be talking about the global EV battery supply chain. It is Thursday, June 1st at 9 a.m. in New York. The rapid adoption of electric vehicles has brought to investor attention some rather inconvenient truths. We all know EVs require batteries, but today's battery supply chain involves some high environmental externalities, emissions, water usage, labor practices. And 70 to 90% of the upstream battery supply chain runs through the People's Republic of China. Re-architecting and on-shoring the EV battery supply chain is easier said than done. In our recent Global Insights report, we introduced a framework centered on two core variables. One, the rate of EV adoption, faster versus slower, and two EV supply chain sourcing, China dependent versus more diversified. At the crux of our analysis is the tradeoff between near-term EV penetration and on-shoring policies. Billions of taxpayer dollars are being thrown at an industry where the technology is still in its early stages of finding scalable industrial standards. Even as mineral extraction, refining and battery assembly all occurred on-shore, you still have to consider that battery manufacturing involves high carbon emissions and EVs require more energy intensive metals vis-à-vis internal combustion vehicles. We explore three scenarios across our framework. First, the China case, which entails rapid EV penetration, increasing the West's dependance on China. Second, the derisking case, which entails a more diversified supply chain with rapid even adoption requiring significant policy action. And third, the slow EV case, where the focus on on-shoring translates to more gradual EV adoption and continued prevalence of internal combustion vehicles versus market expectations. With this report, I brought together my research colleagues across autos, batteries, mining and clean tech, to assess implications for sectors and stocks that are better positioned or more challenged based on our scenario framework. We assess policy gaps and break down CapEx spend totaling up to 7 to $10 trillion. In our view, it may require well over a decade to achieve industrialization and standardization, gated by a host of geopolitical, environmental and economic considerations. If we're going to make batteries in the West, we're going to have to make them differently. The materials must be sourced, processed and refined far more sustainably. So we ask what is the new fracking equivalent for lithium? The lithium ion battery is the most consequential technology for decarbonizing transportation. Yet lithium is associated with supply shortages, intensive water consumption and permitting bottlenecks. Technologies that mitigate carbon emissions do exist, like direct lithium extraction, battery recycling, solid state batteries and others. But the journey of U.S. and European battery on-shoring will involve scaling these technologies. This is where innovation levered by the private sector and accelerated by the taxpayer can play a deterministic role. So who wins in a rewired battery supply chain? Ultimately, we think it'll be those firms that employ cost efficient and environmentally sustainable technologies in strategically beneficial geographies. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

While an agreement on suspending the debt ceiling seems likely to make it through Congress, investors may want to monitor bank deposits for lingering risks.----- Transcript -----Welcome to the Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the U.S. debt ceiling and its impact on markets. It's Wednesday, May 31st at 9 a.m. in New York. Today should bring a key step forward in resolving the debt ceiling dispute in Washington, D.C.. After the White House and Republican leadership reached an agreement over the weekend to pair a debt ceiling increase with a fiscal plan that caps spending growth for a time, the legislative plan advances to a vote in the House today. That vote is expected to succeed, with the only question being by how big a majority. After that, the deal moves to the Senate, which will likely have to work the weekend to enact the legislation before the June 5th X-date. So it seems then that we're closer to taking a key negative catalyst off the table for markets and the economy. As you might recall from our prior podcasts, without a debt ceiling resolution before the X-date, the White House may have had to choose from some less than ideal options to avoid default. For example, they could have prioritized payments to bondholders over other governmental obligations, but that could have interrupted up to 18% of personal income in the U.S., creating substantial economic risk. Further, the fiscal deal that enabled this raise of the debt ceiling doesn't appear to contain substantial enough spending cuts in the short term to hamper the economy. The Congressional Budget Office says it will cut deficits by about $70 billion in the first year, a very small number in the context of a roughly 26 and a half trillion dollar U.S. economy. But there's one lingering risk worth monitoring. When the debt ceiling is raised, Treasury will start issuing Treasury bills to rebuild the balance in its general account so it can pay its obligations. That action could reduce deposits in the banking system, to the extent that they are bought by investors that aren't money market funds. We can't say that this would definitively be a negative catalyst for, say, midcap banks which have been dealing with deposit outflows, but it's a risk market participants will have to continue to monitor. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show. 

As congress debates a debt ceiling deal, investors are proactively purchasing Treasury bills and thus causing a drain on the reserves which could amplify risks.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the U.S. debt ceiling amid recent volatility in the banking sector. It's Tuesday, May 30th at 10 a.m. in New York. The looming deadline for the U.S. debt ceiling has been a significant concern for markets. In similar standoffs in both 2011 and 2013, the Congress raised the debt limit only at the last minute. The closer we got to the so-called "X-date", the more the Treasury ran down the amount of Treasury bills outstanding to stay under the limit. Bills maturing around the X-date were seen as less desirable and their prices fell a bit, but the scarcity of other bills made their price go up, and therefore, their yield fall. The bills market got dislocated, as we say, but the story did not end with the increase in the debt limit. To restock its account at the Fed, the Treasury issued a lot of Treasury bills, pulling in cash from the market. One lesson we can take from history is that there is short term volatility, but everything gets resolved in the end. But before we do that, it's worth considering what aspects of the world are different now than back in 2011 or 2013. Since February, the concerns about the banking sector's balance sheet have heightened financial stability questions. Although our baseline view is that the recent developments are more idiosyncratic than systemic, the uncertainty is substantial. That potential fragility is one key difference between now and then. Another key difference between now and previous episodes is the existence of the Fed's reverse repo facility, the RRP, which now stands at about two and a quarter trillion dollars. As short term interest rates have risen, depositors have taken cash out of banks and shifted it to money funds, and money fund managers have been putting the proceeds into the Fed's RRP facility. This transaction takes reserves away from the banking sector. As we get closer to the X-date and Treasury bills have fallen in yield, money funds have had additional incentive to shift their holdings into the RRP. At a time of volatility in the banking sector, this drain on reserves could amplify the risks. But Congress raising the debt limit would not be the end of the story. The Treasury will want to restock its account of the Fed from near zero back to its recent target of about $500 billion. And to do so, the Treasury will be issuing at least $500 billion in Treasury bills to replenish its account and maybe as much as $1.2 trillion in the second half of 2023. Some of the bills will go to money funds, and thus the Treasury's account can rise as the RRP facility falls. But whatever amount of the Treasury bills are purchased by investors other than these  money funds, well that will result in yet another drain on bank reserves. The flows are large and will be coming at a time of continued uncertainty for banks balance sheets. Even after the Congress raises the debt limit, it will not quite be the time to breathe a heavy sigh of relief. Thanks for listening. And if you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Optimistic investors have pushed stocks and bond yields to the high end of the recent range. But inflation, banks and the debt ceiling status are still raising questions that have gone unanswered.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, May 26th at 2 p.m. in London. A hot topic of conversation at the moment is that three big questions that have loitered over the market since January still look unresolved. The first of these is whether inflation is actually coming down. Surprisingly, high inflation was a dominant story last year and a major driver of the market's weakness. A number of low inflation readings in January gave a lot of hope that inflation would now start to fall rapidly, as supply chains normalized and the effect of central bank policy tightening took effect. Yet the data since then has been stubbornly mixed. Headline inflation is coming down, but core inflation, which excludes food and energy, has moderated a lot less. In the U.S., the annualized rate of core consumer price inflation over the last three, six and 12 months is all about 5%. Today's reading of Core PCE, the Fed's preferred inflation measure, came in above expectations. And in both the UK and the Eurozone, core inflation has also been coming in higher than expected. We still think inflation moderates as policy tightening hits and growth slows, but the improvement here has been slow. One reason our economists think that would take quite a bit of economic weakness to push the Fed, the European Central Bank or the Bank of England, to cut rates this year. That ties nicely into the second issue. Over the last two months, there's been a lot more excitement that the Federal Reserve may now be done raising interest rates, thanks to all of the tightening they've already done and the potential effect of recent U.S. bank stress. But with still high core inflation and the lowest U.S. unemployment rate since 1968, this issue is looking much less resolved. Indeed, in just the last two weeks, markets have moved to price in an additional rate hike from the Fed over the summer. Third and more immediate is the U.S. debt ceiling. Risks around the debt ceiling have been on investors' radar since January, but as U.S. stocks have risen this month and volatility has been low, we've sensed more optimism, that a resolution here is close and that markets can move on to other things. But like inflation or Fed rate increases, the U.S. debt ceiling still looks like another key debate with a lot of questions. U.S. Treasury bills or the cost of insuring U.S. debt, have shown more stress, not less, over the last week. As of this morning, a one month U.S. Treasury bill is yielding over 6%. Optimism that inflation is now falling, the Fed has done hiking and the debt ceiling will get resolved, have helped push both stocks and bond yields to the high end of the recent range. But with these issues still raising a lot of questions, we think that may be as far as they go for the time being, presenting an opportunity to rotate out of stocks and into the aggregate bond index. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.

While Japan's equities have continued to rally, a roster of sector leading companies and a weak Yen could signal this bullish story is only just beginning.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jonathan Garner, Chief Asia and Emerging Market Equity Strategist at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be sharing why Japan Equities could be a key part of the bullish story in Asia this year. It's Thursday, May the 25th at 10 a.m. in New York. Japan equities have rallied substantially during the current earnings season and we think further gains are increasingly likely. The theme of return on equity improvement, driven by productive CapEx and better balance sheet management, is clearly finding traction with a wide group of international investors. We first introduced this theme in our 2018 Blue Paper on Japan, where we described a journey from laggard to leader, which we felt was starting to take place due to a confluence of structural reforms such as the Corporate Governance Code and Institutional Investor Stewardship Code, as well as changes in company board composition and outside activist investor pressure. Japan has a formidable roster of world class firms, which we have identified as productivity and innovation leaders in areas such as semiconductor equipment, optical, healthcare, medtech, robotics and traditional heavy industrial automotive, agricultural and commodities trading, specialty chemicals. As well as more recent additions in Internet and E-commerce, many of which sell products far beyond Japan's borders. For the market overall, listed equities ROE has more than doubled in the last ten years, and it's now set to approach our medium term target of 11 to 12% by 2025. Company buybacks are analyzing at a record pace and total shareholder return, that is the sum of dividends and buybacks, is running at 3.6% of market capitalization. Yet Japan equities are still trading on only around 13 times forward price to earnings. And Japanese firms have a low cost of capital, given the country's status as a high income sovereign, with membership of the G7, as highlighted by Premier Kishida hosting its recent summit in his home town of Hiroshima. An additional near-term catalyst for Japan equities is that the yen is tracking significantly weaker year to date at around 135 to the U.S. dollar than company modeling, which was for around 125. Given the export earnings skew of the market, this is a positive.All in all, Japan equities are set, we think, to more than hold their own versus global peers and be a key part of a bullish story in Asian equities this year. Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and recommend Thoughts on the Market to a friend or colleague today.

Discussions at the recent Group of Seven Nations meeting point to the continued development of a multipolar world, as supply chains become less global and more local. Investors should watch for opportunities in this disruption.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the recent G7 meetings and its implications for markets. It's Wednesday, May 24th at 9 a.m. in New York. Over the weekend, President Biden traveled to Japan for a meeting of the Group of Seven Nations, or G7. G7 meetings typically involve countries discussing and seeking consensus on a wide range of economic and geopolitical issues. And the consensus they achieved on several principles underscores one of our big three secular investment themes for 2023, the transition to a multipolar world. Consider some of the following language from the G7 communique. First, there's discussion of efforts to make our supply chains more resilient, sustainable and reliable. Second, they discuss, quote, "Preventing the cutting edge technologies we develop from being used to further military capabilities that threaten international peace and security." Finally, there's also discussion of the, quote, "importance of cooperation on export controls, on critical and emerging technologies to address the misuse of such technologies by malicious actors and inappropriate transfers of such technologies."So that all may sound like the U.S. is drawing up hard barriers to commerce, particularly with places like China. But importantly, the communique also states an important nuance that's been core to our multipolar world thesis. They say, quote, "We are not decoupling or turning inwards. At the same time, we recognize that economic resilience requires de-risking and diversifying.". So to understand the practical implications of that nuance, we've been conducting a ton of research across different industries. My colleagues Ben Uglow and Shawn Kim have highlighted that the global manufacturing and tech sectors are very exposed to disruption from this theme. But their work also shows that capital equipment and automation companies will benefit from the global spend to set up more robust supply chains.So bottom line, the multipolar world theme continues to progress, but the disruption it creates should also create opportunities.  Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show. 

As the confidence level of homebuilders building new homes is increasing, will home sales go along with it? Jim Egan and Jay Bacow, Co-Heads of U.S. Securitized Products Research discuss.----- Transcript -----Jim Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, Co-Head of U.S. Securitized Products Research here at Morgan Stanley. Jay Bacow: And I'm Jay Bacow, the other Co-Head of U.S. Securitized Products Research. Jim Egan: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing the U.S. housing and mortgage markets. It's Tuesday, May 23rd at 2 p.m. in New York. Jay Bacow: It's been a while since we talked about the state of the U.S. housing market. And it seems like if I look at least some portions of the data, things are getting better. In particular, the NAHB confidence just showed for the fifth consecutive month that homebuilders are feeling better about building a house, and we're now finally at the point where they say it is a good time to build a house. When you take a step back and just look at the state of the housing market, do you agree? Jim Egan: I think it's a great question. Housing statistics are going in a whole number of different directions right now. So, yeah, let me take a step back. We've talked a lot about affordability on this podcast and it's still challenging. We've talked a lot about supply and it remains very tight, and all of this has really fueled that bifurcation narrative that we've talked about, protected home prices, weaker activity. But if we think about how the lock in effect and that's the fact that all of these current homeowners who have mortgages well below the prevailing mortgage rate just are not going to be incentivized to list their home for sale, then kind of a logical next step from a housing statistics perspective is that new home sales are probably going to increase as a percentage of total home sales. And that's exactly what we're seeing, new home sales in the first quarter of this year, they were roughly 20% of the total single unit sales volumes. That's the largest share of transactions in any quarter since 2006. And this dynamic was actually quoted by the National Association of Homebuilders when describing the increase in homebuilder confidence that you quoted Jay.    Jay Bacow: Okay, but when I think about that percentage, aren't building volumes in aggregate coming down? Jim Egan: They are, though, as a caveat, I would say that if we look at that seasonally adjusted annualized rate, it did increase sequentially a little bit, month-over-month in April. What I would point to here is that from the peak in single unit housing starts, and we think the peak in the cycle was April of 2022, those starts are down 22%. Now, that's finally started to make a dent in the backlog of homes under construction. Now, as a reminder, again, this is something we've talked about here, there are a number of factors from supply chain issues to labor shortages, that we're really serving to elongate, build timelines in the months and years after the onset of COVID. And all of those things caused a real backlog in the number of homes under construction, so homes were getting started, but they weren't really getting finished. We see the number of single unit homes under construction is now down 130,000 units from that peak. Now, don't get me wrong, that number is still elevated versus where we'd expected to be, given the sheer number of housing starts that we've seen over the past year. But this is a first step towards turning more positive on housing starts. And again, homebuilder confidence Jay, as you said, it's climbed higher every single month this year. Jay Bacow: Okay, but you said this is a first step in turning more positive on housing starts. We get the start, we get the unit under construction, we get a completion and then eventually we get a home sale, so what does this mean for sales volumes? Jim Egan: We would think that it's probably likely for new home sales to continue making up a larger than normal share of monthly volumes, but we don't think that sales are about to really inflect materially higher here. Purchase applications so far in May, they're still down 26% year-over-year versus the same month in 2022. Now, that's the best year-over-year number since August of last year, but it's not exactly something that screams sales are about to inflect higher. Similarly, pending home sales just printed their weakest March in the history of the index, and it's the sixth consecutive month that they've printed their weakest month in index history. So it was their weakest February, their weakest January, and so on and so forth, so we think all of this is kind of emblematic of a housing market, specifically housing sales that are finding a bottom, but not necessarily about to move much higher. Jay Bacow: Okay. Now, Jim, in the past, when you've talked about your outlook for home prices, you mentioned your four pillars. There is supply, demand, affordability and credit availability. We've talked about the first three of these, we haven't really talked about credit availability yet. Jim Egan: Right. And that's another one of the reasons why we don't necessarily see a real move higher in sales volumes because of the whole new regime for bank assets that we've talked about a lot. Jay, you've talked about how much it's going to impact things like the mortgage market, so what do we mean when we talk about a new regime for bank assets? Jay Bacow: Fundamentally, when you think about the business model of a bank, if you're going to simplify it, it's they get deposits in and then they either make loans or buy securities with those deposits and they try to match up their assets to liabilities. Now, in a world where there's a lot more deposit outflows and happening more frequently, banks are going to have to have shorter assets to match that. And as they have shorter assets, that means they're going to have tighter lending conditions, and that tighter lending conditions is presumably going to play into the credit availability that you're looking for in your space. Jim Egan: And when we combine that with affordability that's no longer deteriorating, but still challenged, supply that's no longer setting record lows each month, but still very tight. All of that is a world in which we don't think you're going to see significant increases in transaction volumes. I will say one thing on the home price front month-over-month increases are back. We've seen some seasonality from a home price perspective, but we still think that that year over year number is going to soften going forward. It remains positive in the cycle, but we think it will turn negative  in the next few months for the first time since the first quarter of 2012. We don't think those year-over-year drops will be too substantial. Our base case forecast for the end of the year is down 4%, we think it will be a little bit stronger than that down 4% number, but we think it will be negative. Jay Bacow: Okay. But I like things to be a little bit stronger. And with that, Jim, always great talking to you. Jim Egan: Great talking to you, too, Jay. Jay Bacow: And thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on the Apple Podcasts app and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Though the current market narrative has turned bullish, it may not withstand a downturn in earnings.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, May 22nd at 11a.m in New York. So let's get after it. For the past six months, the S&P 500 has been trading in a narrow range with strong rotations under the surface. When we turned tactically bullish on the index last October at 3500, we did so because the price had reached an attractive level and we believed rates and the dollar were topping. When we exited that trade at 4100 in early December, the price was no longer attractive, given our view that 2023 earnings estimates were materially too high. Fast forward to today and the index is showing some signs that it wants to break higher, even though our concerns remain. The primary difference from the early December highs is that we now have dramatically different leadership. Back then the leaders were energy, materials, financials and industrials, while technology was the big laggard. Small caps were also doing much better and market breadth was strong. The bullish narrative centered around China's reopening, which would put a floor in for global growth. Today, breadth is very weak. Technology, communication services and consumer discretionary are the only sectors up on the year, and even those sectors are exhibiting narrow breadth. Yet investors are more bullish than in early December, or at least far less bearish. The bullish narrative today focuses on technology, specifically on artificial intelligence. While we believe artificial intelligence is for real and will likely lead to some great efficiency to help fight inflation, it's unlikely to prevent the deep earnings recession we forecast for this year. Last week's price action showed frenzied buying by investors who cannot afford to miss the next bull market. We believe this will prove to be a head fake, like last summer for many reasons. First, valuations are not attractive, and it's not just the top ten or 20 stocks that are expensive. The median price earnings multiple is  18 times, which is near the top decile the past 20 years. Second, a very healthy reacceleration is baked in the second half consensus earnings estimates. This flies directly in the face of our forecasts, which continue to point materially lower. We remain highly confident in our model, given how accurate it's been over time and recently. We first started talking about the oncoming earnings recession a year ago and received very strong pushback, just like today. However, our model proved to be quite prescient based on the results and is now projecting 20% lower estimates than consensus, for 2023.  Third, the markets are pricing in 2 to 3 Fed cuts before year end without any material implications for growth. We think such an outcome is very unlikely. Instead, we think the Fed will only cut rates if we definitively enter into a recession or if credit markets deteriorate significantly. 

While the U.S. economy looks to be on track for a soft landing in 2023, even the smallest of setbacks could spell trouble for the end of the year.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ellen Zentner, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss our view around the soft landing for the U.S. economy. It's Friday, May 19th, at 10 a.m. in New York. Last year, we presented our outlook that 2023 would see a soft landing for the U.S. economy. This out of consensus view continues to be our base case expectation. And we looked at several key data points as evidence to support it, including the U.S. housing cycle, income and spending dynamics, the labor market and inflation. To start, economists have long said, "As goes housing, so goes the business cycle." And housing is a very important factor in our outlook for a soft landing. While the decline in housing activity has been record breaking from a national perspective, Morgan Stanley's housing strategists believe the cycle is bottoming. In our forecast, the big drag on economic growth from the housing correction should turn neutral by the third quarter of 2023, providing some cushion against the growth slowdown elsewhere. Second, the incoming data on U.S. income and consumer spending also support our expectation that the economy is slowing but not falling off a cliff. On the one hand, discretionary consumer spending is softening. On the other hand, income is the predominant driver of consumer spending, and even as wage growth continues to slow, our forecasted path for inflation suggests that real wages will finally turn positive in the middle of this year. Third, we look to labor market dynamics, and the April U.S. employment report provides ample evidence that the labor market is slowing but is also not headed for a cliff. The steady decline in job postings with still low unemployment rates since the middle of last year supports our soft landing view. And finally, we closely monitor inflation. The most recent April data suggests that core inflation continues to slowly recede, tracking in line with our forecasts, as well as the Fed's March projections. We think the incoming data continue to support a Fed pause at the June meeting, and after June we can see a wide range of potential outcomes for the policy rate. We expect a gradual slowing in core inflation that keeps the Fed on hold until March 2024, when it begins to normalize policy with quarter percent rate cuts every three months.   To be sure, the possibility of a recession remains a concern this year amid banking pressures with unknown spillovers to the economy from tighter credit. Should credit growth slow more than expected, it would bring larger spillovers to investment, consumption and labor. Against this backdrop, we expect the U.S. economy to experience a sharp slowdown in the middle two quarters of the year, so even small hiccups could push us into a recession. We'll continue to keep you abreast of any new developments. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. 

Although markets remain calm for now, incoming developments across the debt ceiling, inflation and monetary policy could quite quickly turn the tide.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Thursday, May 18th at 2 p.m. in London. A notable aspect of the current market is its serenity. Over the last 30 days, U.S. stocks have seen the least day-to-day volatility since December of 2021. It's a similar story for stocks in Europe or the movement of major currencies. Across key markets, things have been calm and investors have become more relaxed, with expectations of future volatility also in decline. But why is this happening? After all, major uncertainties around the path of inflation and central bank policy still exist. And the United States, the world's largest economy and most important borrower, still hasn't reached an agreement to keep borrowing by raising the debt ceiling, raising the risk, according to the U.S. Treasury secretary, of running out of money in less than a month. Well, we think a few things are going on. With the debt ceiling, we think this is a great example that real world investors genuinely struggle with pricing a binary, uncertain outcome. It's very challenging to put precise odds on what is ultimately a political decision and hard to quantify its impact. And further complicating matters, the conventional wisdom generally appears to be that any debt ceiling deal would only get done at the last possible moment. In short, investors are struggling, making big changes to their portfolio in the face of what is little better than a political guess and are finding it easier to wait, and hoping that more clarity emerges. I’d note we saw something very similar before the near-miss on the debt ceiling in 2011. Despite being extremely aware of the deadline back then, stocks moved sideways until the last possible moment in August of 2011, afraid of leaning too heavily in one direction before the event. Other factors are also in limbo. We're nearing the end of what was a reasonably solid first quarter earnings season and don't see larger disappointments arriving, potentially, until later in the year. And on our forecasts, the Federal Reserve just made its last rate hike of the cycle and is now on hold for the remainder of 2023. And volatility does have the tendency to be self-reinforcing. Low volatility often begets low volatility, and in turn drags down expectations of what future movements will look like. But importantly, this doesn't represent some form of clairvoyance, expectations about future levels of market volatility often deviate from what actually happens, in both directions. For now, markets remain calm. But don't assume that means investors have some special insight around the debt ceiling, inflation or monetary policy. Incoming developments across all of these areas can change the picture rather quickly. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you. 

According to the Federal Reserve’s latest Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey, small businesses may be the most vulnerable to banks tightening their lending standards.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the takeaways from the Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey. It's Wednesday, May 17th at 10 a.m. in New York. We've talked a lot about the effects of the turmoil in the regional banks on credit formation, on this podcast. We thought the ongoing liquidity pressures in the regional banking sector may lead to tighter lending standards, which will eventually translate into lower credit formation. The Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey, conducted quarterly by the Federal Reserve, provides a window on bank lending practices, including the standards and terms for banks to make loans, as well as the demand for bank loans to businesses and households. The survey results published last week, reflect conditions during the first quarter of 2023 and provide a first glimpse on the effect of the regional banking turmoil on banks outlook for lending over the remainder of 2023. The survey showed that banks expect to tighten standards across all loan categories. Banks cited an expected deterioration in the credit quality of their loan portfolios, customer collateral values, a reduction in risk tolerance, concerns about bank funding costs, banks liquidity position and deposit outflows, as reasons for expecting to tighten lending standards over the rest of 2023. While standards for commercial and industrial, the so-called C&I loans, tightened only marginally, the demand for C&I loans fell to levels not seen since the great financial crisis. Even though lending standards only tightened marginally, the tightening came from some loan officers tightening standards considerably. Further, banks reported changes to their modalities of their lending quite substantially. For example, the spread on loans or their cost of funding broke above the pandemic period and entered levels last seen during the great financial crisis. Loan officers also changed credit lines to small businesses drastically, especially regarding the size and cost. They reduced the maximum size and maturity of credit lines, as well as increased collateral requirements and the cost of credit lines. For small businesses in the U.S., such credit tightening comes at a very difficult time. Small business optimism and the outlook for business conditions already deteriorated significantly over the past year, and small businesses acknowledge that the environment isn't conducive for expansion or CapEx. Why does this matter? As small businesses have continued to lower expectations of sales, there were also moderated plans to raise prices in the near term. We see this dynamic raising the risks of downside surprises to upcoming inflation data. Also worth noting that fewer small businesses describe inflation as their number one concern, in fact, more describe interest rates as the number one concern. One of the special questions in this quarter's survey pertained to commercial real estate, so-called CRE. Banks tightened lending standards across all categories of CRE loans. Action cited included, widening loan spreads, reducing loan to value, raising debt service covers ratios and reducing maximum loan sizes. These survey results are consistent with what we had been predicting. Volatility in the regional banking sector has resulted in lower credit formation, due to both lingering liquidity stress and regulatory changes to come. The former is already playing out and the latter is likely to weigh on economic growth over the long term. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. 

As investors attempt to find opportunities in an uncertain stock market, earnings disappointments and an ongoing debt ceiling debate loom overhead.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Tuesday, May 16th, at 1 p.m. in New York. So let's get after it. Having spent the last few weeks on the road engaging with clients from around the world, I figured it would be useful to share some thoughts from our meetings and to touch on the most often asked questions, concerns and pushback to our views. First, conviction levels are low, given broadly elevated valuations and a challenging macro backdrop. While many individual longs and shorts have worked well in the context of a buoyant S&P 500, the most favorite trades have largely played out and clients are having trouble finding the next opportunity. Small cap and low quality stocks have underperformed and we continue to see crowding into mega-cap tech and consumer staples stocks as safe havens in a deteriorating growth environment.Second, there isn't much interest in the S&P 500 as either a long or a short anymore. Most clients we speak with have given up on the idea of a big breakdown of the index level. Conversely, there are few who think the S&P 500 can trade much above 4200, which has proven to be a key resistance since the October lows. What has changed is that the floor has been raised, with the large majority of investors thinking 3800 is now unlikely to be broken to the downside. In short, the consensus believes the bear market ended in October, at least for the high quality S&P 500 and NASDAQ. Third, there is little appetite to dive back into the areas of the market that have significantly underperformed like regional banks, small caps and energy. Other deep cyclicals are also out of favor due to either extended valuation and high earnings expectations In the case of industrials, and recession risk in the case of materials. Instead, most clients we spoke with remained comfortably long, large cap tech stocks, especially given the group's recent outperformance. While consumer staples and other defensives have outperformed strongly since March, there's less confidence this outperformance can continue. Our take remains the same. The market is speaking loudly under the surface, with its classic late cycle leadership and extreme narrowness, it is bracing for further macro and earnings disappointments. However, it is not yet pricing these outcomes at the index level. Such is the typical pattern exhibited by equity markets until clearer evidence of an economic recession arrives, or the risks of one are fully extinguished. With our economist forecasting close to 0% growth this year for real GDP and just modest growth next year, valuations at full levels and several other risks in front of us, we suspect 4200 will hold to the upside as most clients suggest. However, we continue to hold a more bearish tactical view than most clients in terms of the downside risk given our earnings forecast. The majority of our fundamental debate with clients has been over earnings. More specifically, there is broad pushback to our view that margins have not yet bottomed. In addition, many clients do not think revenue growth can fall towards zero or go negative given the still elevated inflation across the economy. Our take is that while many companies have taken decisive cost action, including layoffs, they have not yet cut cost nearly enough for a zero-to-negative revenue growth backdrop. But the odds of such an outcome increasing, in our view, we find it notable that many investors are more sanguine today on the earnings backdrop than they were five months ago. Meanwhile, many clients are worried about the debt ceiling. Most believe it will get resolved, but not without some near-term volatility. However, the discussion has evolved, with many clients framing this event as a lose-lose for markets. Assuming the debt ceiling is not resolved before the Treasury runs out of money, market volatility is likely to pick up meaningfully. Conversely, if the debt ceiling is lifted before the Treasury runs out of money, it will likely come with some concessions on the spending front, which could be a headwind for growth. Secondarily, such an outcome will lead to significant, pent up issuance from the Treasury to pay its bills and rebuild its reserves. This issuance from Treasury, could approach $1 trillion in the six months immediately after the ceiling is lifted, and potentially present a materially tightening to liquidity that could tip the S&P 500 back to the downside. To summarize, clients are less bearish on earnings than we are, although most are still fundamentally cautious on growth in the economic backdrop. Given the resilience in the large cap indices and leadership from perennially favored companies this year, many investors are now convicted that the equity market can look through a mild economic or earnings recession at this point. We think this is a very challenging tactical setup should growth or liquidity deteriorate as we expect over the next few weeks and months. We maintain our well below consensus earnings estimates for this year and believe narrow breadth and defensive leadership support our view that this bear market is yet to be completed, especially at the index level. Defensively oriented companies with a focus on operational efficiency should continue to outperform, especially if they exhibit true pricing power. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate the review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show.

Original Release on April 20th, 2023: "Smart chemotherapy" could change the way that cancer is treated, potentially opening up a $140 billion market over the next 15 years.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mark Purcell, Head of Morgan Stanley's European Pharmaceuticals Team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll talk about the concept of Smart Chemotherapy. It's Thursday, the 20th of April at 2 p.m. in London. Cancer is still the second leading cause of death globally, accounting for approximately 10 million deaths worldwide in 2020. Despite recent advances in areas like immuno-oncology, we still rely heavily on chemotherapy as the mainstay in the treatment of many cancers. Chemotherapy originated in the early 1900s when German chemist Paul Ehrlich attempted to develop "Magic Bullets", these are chemicals that would kill cancer cells while sparing healthy tissues. The 1960s saw the development of chemotherapy based on Ehrlich's work, and this approach, now known as traditional chemotherapy, has been in wide use since then. Nowadays, it accounts for more than 37% of cancer prescriptions and more than half of patients with colorectal, pancreatic, ovarian and stomach cancers are still treated with traditional chemo. But traditional chemo has many drawbacks and some significant limitations. So here's where "Smart Chemotherapy" comes in. Targeted therapies including antibodies to treat cancer were first developed in the late 1990s. These innovative approaches offer a safer, more effective solution that can be used earlier in treatment and in combination with other cancer medicines. "Smart Chemo" uses antibodies as the guidance system to find the cancer, and once the target is reached, releases chemotherapy inside the cancer cells. Think of it as a marriage of biology and chemistry called an antibody drug conjugate, an ADC. It's essentially a biological missile that hones in on the cancer and avoids collateral damage to the healthy tissues.  The first ADC drug was approved for a form of leukemia in the year 2000, but it's taken about 20 years to perfect this "biological missile" to target solid tumors, which are far more complex and harder to infiltrate into. We're now at a major inflection point with 87 new ADC drugs entering development in the past two years alone. We believe smart chemotherapy could open up a $140 billion market over the next 15 years or so, up from a $5 billion sales base in 2022. This would make ADCs one of the biggest growth areas across Global Biopharma, led by colorectal, lung and breast cancer. Large biopharma companies are increasingly aware of the enormous potential of ADC drugs and are more actively deploying capital towards smart chemotherapy. It's important to note, though, that while a smart chemotherapy revolution is well underway in breast and bladder cancer, the focus is now shifting to earlier lines of treatment and combination approaches. The potential to replace traditional chemotherapy in other solid tumors is completely untapped. A year from now, we expect ADC drugs to deliver major advances in the treatment of lung cancer and bladder cancer, as well as really important proof of concept data for colorectal cancer, which is arguably one of the biggest unmet needs out there. Given vastly improved outcomes for cancer patients, we believe that "Smart Chemotherapy" is well on the way to replacing traditional chemotherapy, and we expect the market to start pricing this in over the coming months. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy this show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. 

With technology evolving rapidly in education, investors are taking a closer look at how it will financially impact the global education market. Stephen Byrd and Josh Baer discuss.----- Transcript -----Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Sustainability Research. Josh Baer: And I'm Josh Baer from the U.S. Software Team. Stephen Byrd: On the special episode of the podcast will discuss the global education market. It's Friday, May 12th at 10 a.m. in New York. Stephen Byrd: Education is one of the most fragmented sectors globally, and right now it's in the midst of significant tech disruption and transformation. Add to this, a number of dynamically shifting regulatory and policy regimes and you have a complex set up. I wanted to sit down with my colleague Josh to delve into the intersection of the EdTech and the sustainability side of this multi-layered story. Stephen Byrd: So, Josh, let's start by giving a snapshot of global education technology, particularly in this post-COVID and rather uncertain macro context we're dealing with. What are some of the biggest challenges and key debates that you're following? Josh Baer: Thanks, Stephen. One way that I think about the different EdTech players in the market is through the markets that they serve. So in the context of education, that means early learning, K-12, higher ed, corporate skilling and lifelong learning. The key debates here come down to what it usually comes down to for equities, growth and margins. So on the growth side, there's several conversations that we're constantly having with investors. Some business models are exposed to academic enrollments as a driver. To what extent would a weaker macro with higher unemployment lead to stronger enrollments given their historical countercyclical trends? And enrollments have been pressured as current or potential students were attracted to the job market. And on the margin side, some of the companies that we follow in the EdTech space, they're the ones that were experiencing very rapid growth during COVID and investment mode to really capture that opportunity. And so investors debate the unit economics of some of these business models and really the trajectory of margins and free cash flow looking ahead. One other more topical debate, the impact of generative A.I. on education, and maybe we'll hit on that topic later. Josh Baer: Stephen, why do these debates matter from the point of view of ESG, environmental, social and governance perspective? Why should investors view global education through a sustainability lens? Stephen Byrd: Yeah Josh I'd say among sustainability focused investors, typically the number one topic that comes up within the education sector is inequality. So higher education is a key pillar of economic development, but social and economic problems can arise from limited access. Unequal access to education can perpetuate all forms of socioeconomic inequality. It can limit social mobility, and it can also exacerbate health and income disparities among demographic groups. It can also restrict the potential talent pool and diversity of backgrounds and ideas in different academic fields, leading to all kinds of negative economic implications for both growth and innovation. While progress has been made in increasing enrollment among underrepresented students, significant disparities remain in admission and graduation rates. For investors and public equities, I think one of the more useful tools in our note is a proprietary framework that measures sustainability impact. Now that tool is really primarily rooted in the United Nations Sustainable Development goal number four, which lays out targets in education. This framework is rooted in the premise that I mentioned earlier. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated multiple challenges in education. So when we think about business models that we really like, we're focused on models that can improve the quality of student learning, enhance institutions' operations and increase access and affordability. And we think our stocks that we selected really do meet those objectives quite well. Stephen Byrd: Josh, what is the current size of the EdTech and education services markets and why invest now? Josh Baer: First, on the size of the market, we see global education spend of 6 trillion today going to 8 trillion in 2030. So that's a CAGR below the growth of GDP, but we do see faster growth in EdTech. So there's really compelling opportunities for consolidation in the fragmented education market broadly and for EdTech growing at a double digit CAGR, so much faster than the overall education market. Why invest in EdTech? Well, as just mentioned, EdTech addresses these very large markets. It's increasing its share of education spend because it's aligned to several secular trends. So I'm thinking about digital transformation of the entire education industry. The shift from in-person instructor led training to really more efficient or economic online or digital learning. And positives from this shift, as you mentioned, include better scalability, affordability, global access to really high quality education. These EdTech companies are aligned to corporate skilling, which are aligned to companies, strategic goals, digital transformation initiatives. And then from a stock perspective, there's really low investor sentiment broadly and of course, the exposure to ESG trends around inclusion, skilling, education, access. Josh Baer: And Stephen, what is the regulatory landscape around global education and EdTech, both in the U.S. and in other regions? Stephen Byrd: So education policy is not really featured heavily in recent sessions of Congress in the U.S., as it tends to develop at more local levels of government than really at the federal level. The federal government in the United States provides less than 10% of funding for K through 12 education, leaving most of regulation and funding to state and local governments. Now, that said, there have been a few large education policy focused bills enacted into law since the establishment of the U.S. Department of Education in the second half of the 20th century. The most recent was in 2015, when President Obama signed the Every Student Succeeds Act, which granted more autonomy to states to set standards for education that vary based on local needs. In Brazil, there's some really interesting developments that we're very focused on. The Ministry of Education began loosening the rules for distance learning in 2017 to compensate for the lack of public funding and affordability. This was a new modality that didn't depend on campuses and was much cheaper for students. So companies saw this as the next growth opportunity and started investing in digital expansion, especially after COVID-19 lockdowns forced the closure of campuses. Distance learning grew rapidly and surpassed the number of on campus enrollments in 2021. Despite the increase in addressable market, this potential cannibalizes is part of the demand for in-person learning and reduces average prices in the sector. Lastly, in Europe, the European Union has set seven key education targets that it is hoping to achieve by 2025. And by 2030 on education and training. Let me just walk through a couple of the big targets here. By 2025, the goal is to have at least 60% of recent graduates from vocational education and training, that should benefit from exposure to work based learning during their vocational education and training. By 2030, the goal is for less than 15% of 15 year olds to be low achievers in reading, mathematics and science, as well as less than 15% of eighth graders should be low achievers in computer and information literacy. Stephen Byrd: Josh, how are emerging technologies like artificial intelligence and virtual reality disrupting the education space, both in the classroom and in cyberspace? How do you assess their impact and what catalysts should investors watch closely? Josh Baer: Great question. Investors are hyper focused on all the generative A.I. hype, all the risks and opportunities for EdTech. And it's important to remember that all EdTech companies serve different markets and they have different business models and they provide varying services and value to all those different markets. And so there's a wide spectrum from risk to opportunity, and in actuality, I think many businesses will actually have both headwinds and tailwinds from A.I.  At the core, the question is not, will generative A.I. change education and learning, but how will it change? And from the way it may change, from the way education content is created and consumed, to the experience of learning and teaching and testing and studying. And on one end of the spectrum, investors should also look for signs of disruption, disruption to the publisher model or tutoring services or solutions, look for signs of students that may meet their learning needs or studying needs with generative A.I. instead of existing solutions. But from an innovation perspective, I think investors should look for new entrants and incumbents to leverage generative A.I. to really enhance the future of education, from personalized and efficient content creation to more adaptive assessments and testing, to more customized learning experiences. And these existing platforms, they're the ones that own vast datasets, really rich taxonomies of learning and skills. And I think those are the ones that are well-positioned to use A.I. technology to vastly improve their capabilities and the education market. Investors can also look for a more direct revenue opportunities, as the EdTech platforms are the platforms that will be teaching and reskilling and upskilling the whole world on how to use these innovative technologies, today and in the future. Stephen Byrd: Josh, thanks for taking the time to talk. Josh Baer: Great speaking with you, Stephen. Stephen Byrd: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share the podcast with a friend and colleague today.

While personal computer sales were on the decline before the pandemic, signs are pointing to an upcoming boost. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Erik Woodring. Morgan Stanley's U.S. IT Hardware Analyst. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss why we're getting bullish on the personal computer space. It's Thursday, May 11th, at 10 a.m. in New York. PC purchases soared during COVID, but PCs have since gone through a once in a three decades type of down cycle following the pandemic boom. Starting in the second half of 2021, record pandemic driven demand reversed, and this impacted both consumer and commercial PC shipments. Consequently, the PC total addressable market has contracted sharply, marking two consecutive double digit year-over-year declines for the first time since at least 1995. But after a challenging 18 months or so, we believe it's time to be more bullish on PCs. The light at the end of the tunnel seems to be getting brighter as it looks like the PC market bottomed in the first quarter of 2023. Before I get into our outlook, it's important to note that PCs have historically been a low growth or no growth category. In fact, if you go back to 2014, there was only one year before the pandemic when PCs actually grew year-over-year, and that was 2019, at just 3%. Despite PCs' low growth track record and the recent demand reversal, our analysis suggests the PC addressable market can be structurally higher post-COVID. So at face value, we're making a bit of a contrarian bullish call. This more structural call is based on two key points. First, we estimate that the PC installed base, or the number of pieces that are active today, is about 15% larger than pre-COVID, even excluding low end consumer devices that were added during the early days of the pandemic that are less likely to be upgraded going forward. Second, if you assume that users replace their PCs every four years, which is the five year pre-COVID average, that about 65% of the current PC installed base or roughly 760 million units is going to be due for a refresh in 2024 and 2025. This should coincide with the Windows 10 End of Life Catalyst expected in October 25 and the 1 to 3 year anniversary of generative A.I. entering the mainstream, both which have the potential to unlock replacement demand for more powerful machines. Combining these factors, we estimate that PC shipments can grow at a 4% compound annual growth rate over the next three years. Again, in the three years prior to COVID, that growth rate was about 1%. So we think that PCs can grow faster than pre-COVID and that the annual run rate of PC shipments will be larger than pre-COVID. Importantly though, what drives our bullish outlook is not the consumer, as consumers have a fairly irregular upgrade pattern, especially post-pandemic. We think the replacements and upgrades in 2024 and 2025, will come from the commercial market with 70% of our 2024 PC shipment growth coming from commercial entities. Commercial entities are much more regular when it comes to upgrades and they need greater memory capacity and compute power to handle their ever expanding workloads, especially as we think about the potential for A.I. workloads at the edge. To sum up, we're making a somewhat contrarian call on the PC market rebound today, arguing that one key was the bottom and that PC companies should outperform in the next 12 months following this bottom. But then beyond 2023, we are making a largely commercial PC call, not necessarily a consumer PC call, and believe that PCs have brighter days ahead, relative to the three years prior to the pandemic. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

With the debt ceiling debate seemingly making little headway, it may be critical for investors to track market developments in the near future.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the debt ceiling and its impact on markets. It's Wednesday, May 10th at 10 a.m. in New York. Congressional leaders met at the White House on Tuesday to hammer out a deal to raise the debt ceiling and avoid a government bond default. Reports following the meeting suggest little progress was made. That news shouldn't necessarily be surprising or discouraging. Initial rounds of legislative negotiations are often just a venue for each side to state their position. It often takes the urgency of a nearby deadline to catalyze compromise. While this isn't the first debt ceiling challenge for markets, it may be the most critical one, at least since 2011. As we said before, investors need to take seriously the idea that we do something that hasn't been done before, cross the X-date, the date after which Treasury doesn't have enough cash on hand to meet all obligations as they come due. So it's useful to quickly revisit what that would mean. In short, it puts a bunch of options on the table, but most are not good options, suggesting some markets may have to price in greater downside, at least for a time. A benign and plausible outcome would be that if the X-date is crossed, the resulting concern among policymakers, voters and business leaders around missed debt, Social Security, infrastructure and other payments, creates enough pressure on Congress to quickly force a compromise. Other outcomes are less friendly. The White House could choose to avoid default by ignoring the debt ceiling, citing authority under the 14th Amendment, but that could just shift uncertainty from the legislative process to the judicial one, as courts could ultimately decide if the U.S. defaults. The White House could also choose to prioritize payments to bondholders over other government obligations, but this could interrupt payments into the economy that support a substantial amount of consumption and GDP. And, of course, default would be a possibility, but given its far more considerable economic and political downside relative to the other options, this outcome would not be our base case expectation. So how could markets react? Here's what to watch for. The Treasury bills curve could invert further, with shorter maturity yields rising more relative to longer maturity yields. In equity markets, volatility should pick up considerably, and any resolution that crimps economic growth further would underscore the cautious stance of our equity strategy team. So developments over the next couple of weeks will be critical to track. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

As oil data in 2023 shows that second-half tightening is less likely, it may be time to alter the narrative around the expected market for the remainder of the year.Important note regarding economic sanctions. This recording references country/ies which are generally the subject of selective sanctions programs administered or enforced by the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), the European Union and/or by other countries and multi-national bodies. Any references in this recording to entities, debt or equity instruments, projects or persons that may be covered by such sanctions are strictly incidental to general coverage of the issuing entity/sector as germane to its overall financial outlook, and should not be read as recommending or advising as to any investment activities in relation to such entities, instruments or projects. Users of this recording are solely responsible for ensuring that their investment activities in relation to any sanctioned country/ies are carried out in compliance with applicable sanctions.----- Transcription -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley's Global Commodity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss how the 2023 global oil market story is changing. It's Tuesday, May the 9th at 4 p.m. in London. Over the last several months, the dominant narrative in the oil market was one of expected tightening in the second half. Although supply outstripped demand in the first quarter, the assumption was that the market would start to tighten from the second quarter onwards and be in deficit once again by the second half, which would lead to a rise in price. At the start of the year, this was also our thesis for how 2023 would play out. However, as of early May, it seems this narrative needs to change. The expectation of second half tightness was largely based on two key assumptions. One, that China's reopening would boost demand, and two, the Russian oil production would  start to decline. By now, however, it seems that these assumptions have run their course and are in fact behind us. On China, both the country's crude imports and its refinery runs were already back at all time highs in March, leaving little room for further improvement. On Russia, oil production has fallen from recent peaks, but probably only about 400,000 barrels a day. From here, we would argue that it's becoming increasingly unlikely it will fall much further. The EU's crude and product embargoes have been in place for some time now. Russian oil that flows now will probably continue to flow. That raises the question whether the second half tightening thesis can still be sustained. After OPEC announced production cuts at the start of April, we argued that OPEC was mostly responding to a weakening in the supply demand outlook. Perhaps counterintuitive, but we lowered oil price forecasts already significantly at the time those cuts were announced. Still, with those cuts, we thought that the second half balances would be about 600,000 barrels per day undersupplied, and that that would be enough to keep Brent in the mid-to-upper $80 per barrel range. New data from this past month, however, has further chiseled away at this deficit, which we now project at just 300,000 barrels a day. This is in effect getting very close to a balanced market, and that limits upside to oil prices, at least in the near term. Even this modest undersupply now mostly depends on seasonality in demand and OPEC production cuts. However, when the second half arrives, oil prices will start to reflect expected balances for early 2024. In the first half of '24, seasonality may turn the other way and OPEC production cuts are scheduled to come to an end. Our initial estimate of 2024 balances showed the market in a small surplus, especially in the first half. Looking beyond the next 12 months, oil prices still have long term supportive factors. Demand is likely to continue to grow over the rest of the decade, while investment levels have been low for some time now. However, the structural and the cyclical don't always align, and this is one of those moments. The second half tightness thesis does not appear to be playing out, and we don't see much tightness in the period just beyond that either. We expect Brent oil prices to stay in their recent $75 to $85 per barrel range, probably skewed towards the bottom end of that range later this year when the market enters a period of seasonal softness again and OPEC's voluntary cuts come to an end. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

With all the volatility surrounding the banking sector, the Fed raising rates and the continued debt ceiling debate, are consumers finally pulling back on spending? ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, May 8th, at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. In this week's podcast, I will discuss three major topics on investors' minds. First quarter Earnings results, the Fed's decision to raise rates last week, and how the consumer is holding up in the face of a debt ceiling debate with no easy solutions. First, on earnings, the first quarter earnings per share beat consensus expectations by 6 to 7%. Furthermore, second quarter guidance is held up better than we expected coming into the quarter. That said, it's important to provide some context. First quarter estimates came down 16% over the past year, double the 20 year average decline over equivalent periods and a more manageable hurdle for companies to clear. Furthermore, the macro data improved in January and February as seasonal adjustments and easy comparisons, with the early 2022 break out of Omicron flattered the growth rate. Nevertheless, this improvement also helped earnings results on a year-over-year basis and provided a boost to company confidence about where we are in the cycle. Unfortunately, many of the leading macro data we track have fallen and are now pointing to a similar reacceleration in earnings per share growth that the consensus expects. Ironically, this comes as many companies position 2023 growth recoveries as being contingent on a solid macro backdrop. If one is to believe our leading indicators that point pointed downward trends in earnings per share surprise and margins over the coming months, stocks will likely follow that negative path lower. With regards to the Fed, Chair Powell pushed back on the likelihood of interest rate cuts that are now priced in the bond markets. While bonds and stocks faded after these comments, they closed the week on a strong note. We believe the equity market continues to expect the best of both worlds, interest rate cuts and durable growth. We view the likelihood of reacceleration in growth in conjunction with interest rate cuts is very low. Instead, we believe another chapter of our fire and ice narrative is possible. In other words, a tighter Fed even as growth slows towards recession. This would be a difficult environment for stocks. So what are consumers telling us? Today, we published our latest AlphaWise Consumer Survey. Consumers continue to expect a pullback in spending for most categories over the next six months. Consumers still plan to spend more on essentials like groceries and household supplies. However, they are looking to pull back on discretionary goods spending categories with the most negative net spending intentions are consumer electronics, leisure activities, home appliances and food away from home. Grocery is the only category where low and middle income consumers said they’re planning to spend incrementally more over the next six months. They are not planning to spend more on any services categories. For high income consumers, travel is the only services category where spending intentions are positive and grocery is the only goods category where spending intentions are positive. Interestingly, the high income group indicated negative spending intentions for food away from home and leisure services. Bottom line, the consumer looks to finally be pulling back from an incredible two year run of spending. That was always unsustainable in our view. Some of this may be due to inflation and dwindling savings, but also the very public debate around the debt ceiling, which does not appear to have any easy solution. This is just another wildcard risk for stocks as we head into the summer. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps for people to find the show. 

The Federal Reserve pausing on hiking interest rates has historically been good for markets. But given current conditions, history may not repeat itself.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Assets Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, May 5th at 2 p.m. in London. The Federal Reserve raised interest rates 25 basis points this week and have now raised their benchmark policy rate 5% over the last 14 months. That's the fastest increase in over 40 years, and for now we think it's enough. Morgan Stanley's economist forecasts the Fed won't make additional rate hikes or cuts for the rest of this year. In market parlance, the Fed will now pause. The question, of course, is whether the so-called pause is good for markets. In 1985, 1995, 1997, 2006 and 2018, buying stocks once the Fed was done raising rates resulted in good returns over the following 6 to 12 months. And this result does make some intuitive sense. If the Fed is no longer increasing rates and actively tightening policy, isn't that one less challenge for the stock market? Our concern, however, is that current conditions look different to these past instances, where the last rate hike was a good time to be more optimistic. Today, current levels of industrial production and leading economic indicators are weaker, inflation is higher, bank credit is tighter, and the yield curve is more inverted than any of these prior instances since 1985, where a pause boosted markets. In short, current data suggest higher inflation and a sharper slowdown than past instances where the last Fed hike was a good time to buy. And for these reasons, we worry about lumping current conditions in with those prior examples. So far, I've focused on performance following a pause in Fed rate hikes from the perspective of equity markets. Yet the picture for bonds is somewhat different. Whereas future performance for stocks is quite dependent on the growth outlook, U.S. Treasury bonds have historically done well after the last Fed rate hike under a variety of growth scenarios, whether good or poor. For now, we continue to favor high grade bonds over equities, even if we think the Fed may now be done with its rate hikes. We think that's consistent with the current data looking weaker than prior instances. In turn, stronger growth and lower inflation than we forecast would make conditions start to look a little bit more similar to instances where the last rate hike was a buy signal and would make us more optimistic. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.

The banking sector appears stronger in Europe than it does in the U.S., but some other European sectors may be at risk of lower profitability.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Graham Secker, Head of Morgan Stanley's European Equity Strategy Team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about our latest thoughts on European equities. It's Thursday, May the 4th at 3 p.m. in London. Over the last couple of months, we have seen global technology stocks significantly outperform global financial stocks, aided by lower bond yields and concerns around the health of the U.S. regional banking sector. Historically, when we have seen tech outperform financials in the past, it has usually been accompanied by material underperformance from European equities. However, this time the region has proved much more resilient. Part of this reflects the benefits of lower valuation and lower investor positioning. However, we also see two broader macro supports for Europe just here. First, we see less downside risk to the European economy than that of the U.S., where many of the traditional economic leading indicators are down at recessionary levels. In contrast, similar metrics for Europe, such as consumer confidence and purchasing managers indices, have actually been rising recently. In addition, a healthier and more resilient banking sector over here in Europe suggests there is potentially less risk of a credit crunch developing here than we see in the U.S.. Second, we think Europe is also seen as an alternative way to get exposure to an economic recovery in China, given that the region has stronger economic ties and greater stock market exposure than most of its developed market peers. While this is not necessarily manifesting itself in overall aggregate inflows into European equity funds at this time, we can clearly see the theme benefiting certain sectors, such as luxury goods, which has arguably become one of the most popular ways to express a positive view on China globally. Notwithstanding these relative advantages, we do expect some near-term weakness in European stocks over the next quarter, with negative risks from the U.S. potentially outweighing positive risks from China and Asia. While first quarter results season has started strongly, we believe earnings disappointment will gradually build as we move through 2023 and our own forecasts remain close to 10% below consensus. Catalysts for this disappointment include slower economic growth, from the second quarter onwards, continued falls in profit margins and building FX headwinds given a strengthening euro. Our negative view on the outlook for corporate profitability often prompts the question as to which companies are over-earning and hence potentially most at risk from any mean reversion. To help answer this question, we ranked European sectors across five different profitability metrics where we compared their current levels to their ten year history. This analysis suggests that the European sectors who are currently over-earning, and hence most at risk of future disappointment include transport, semiconductors, construction materials, energy and autos. In contrast, sectors where profitability does not look particularly elevated at this time include retailing, diversified financials, media, chemicals, real estate and software.   More broadly, we believe this analysis supports our cautious view on cyclical stocks within Europe just here, particularly for the likes of energy and autos, where profits are already falling year on year and where we see more downgrades ahead. Instead, we maintain a preference for stocks with higher quality and growth characteristics. We think these should be relative outperformers against the backdrop of economic weakness, falling bond yields and better relative earnings trends. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. 

Congress is finally set to begin debt ceiling negotiations. What are some possible outcomes and how might the negotiations affect economic growth?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the debt ceiling and its impact on markets. It's Wednesday, May 3rd at 9 a.m. in New York. Earlier this week, the Treasury Department informed Congress that at the start of June, it could run out of money to pay government obligations as they come due. This X-date appears much earlier than most forecasters expected, catching markets by surprise. Some investors even expressed to us disbelief, pushing the idea that the real X-date would be later, and Treasury is just trying to stir negotiations in Congress to raise the debt ceiling. Here's our take. The X-date is likely a moving target due the complex interplay of the timing of incoming tax receipts, government outlays and maturing debt securities. So, while it's possible the date ends up being sometime later this summer, the government might not be able to forecast that with a high degree of certainty. In that case, negotiations have to start now to avoid a situation where the X-date sneaks up on Congress, leaving little time to deliberate and risking default. And that seems to have prompted negotiations, with a May 9th meeting at the White House set to kick things off. But we emphasize that an early resolution remains uncertain. Both parties remain far apart on how they'd like to deal with the debt ceiling and in some ways haven't formed consensus within their own parties on the issue either. So the negotiating dynamic is likely to be tricky. That in turn means a range of policy solutions are plausible here, including a temporary suspension of the debt ceiling, unilateral measures by the administration to avoid default, a budget austerity package in exchange for raising the debt ceiling, or perhaps a clean debt ceiling raise. Of course, that level of uncertainty is generally not something markets like. Not surprisingly, we're seeing further inversion of the yield curve for Treasury bills, with notes maturing in June rising to around 5.3%. However, it does dovetail with our general preference for bonds over equities in developed markets this year. If the negotiation lingers too long, investors could become more concerned about the impact of the economic growth outlook, either because payment prioritization puts government transfer payments at risk or budget austerity reduces the trajectory of net government spending. In that case, equity markets could come under pressure, but longer maturity bonds could benefit. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show. 

With the trend toward a multipolar world accelerating, companies are finding that investing in productivity may help protect margins. Ravi Shanker and Diego Anzoategui discuss.----- Transcript -----Ravi Shanker: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ravi Shanker, Morgan Stanley's North American Freight Transportation Analyst. Diego Anzoategui: And I'm Diego Anzoategui from the U.S. Economics Team. Ravi Shanker: And on this special episode of the podcast, we discuss what we see as The Great Productivity Race, that's poised to accelerate. It's Tuesday, May 2nd at 10 a.m. in New York. Ravi Shanker: The transition away from globalization to a decentralized multipolar world means companies' ability to source labor globally is contracting. This narrowing of geographical options for companies is making cheap labor, particularly for skilled manufacturing, harder to find. But there is a potential positive, a rebound in productivity which has been anemic for more than a decade. Ravi Shanker: So Diego, what's the connection that you see between the slowing or even reversal of globalization and productivity trends? Diego Anzoategui: If you think about it, the decision to upgrade technologies and increase productivity is like any other type of capital investment. Firms decide to improve their production technologies, either to deal with scarce  factors of production or to meet increasing demand. COVID 19 was a negative shock to the labor supply in the U.S., and there is still a long road ahead to reach pre-pandemic levels. On top of that, we think that slowing globalization trends will likely limit labor supply further, causing real wages to increase, and keeping firms under pressure to improve productivity to protect margins. But we think firms will boost productivity investment in the medium term once business sentiment picks up again. And we are past the slowdown in economic activity that we expect in 2023 and into 2024. Expectations are key because the decision to innovate is forward looking, adopting new technologies takes time and the benefits of innovation come with a lag. Diego Anzoategui: Ravi, as a result of COVID and the geopolitical uncertainties from the war in Ukraine, companies have been dealing with a number of significant challenges recently, from supply chain disruptions to worker shortages and energy security. How are companies addressing these hurdles and what kinds of investments do they need to make in order to boost productivity? Ravi Shanker: Look, it's a good question and certainly a focus area for virtually every company anywhere in the world. The last five years have been very challenging and a lot of those challenges have revolved around labor availability and labor cost in particular. So I think companies are approaching this with two broad buckets or two broad focus areas. One is, I think they are trying to reinvest in their labor force. I think for too long companies' labor force was viewed as sort of a source of free money, if you will, an area to cut costs and gain efficiency. But I think companies have realized that, hey, we need to reinvest in our workforce, we need to raise their wages, improve their benefits, give them better working conditions, and make them a true resource that will obviously contribute to the success of the company over time. And the second bucket they're looking at is just broader long term investments in things like automation and productivity technologies, because many of these labor trends are structural, that are demographic issues, that are geopolitical issues, that are not going to reverse anytime soon. So you do need to look for an alternative, particularly in areas where, you know, jobs that people don't want to take on or where the value added from a labor is not as good as automating it. That's where companies are highly focused on the next generation of tools, whether that's automation or A.I. and machine learning. Diego Anzoategui: It seems that A.I. technology holds great promise when it comes to raising productivity growth. In fact, our analysts here at Morgan Stanley believe that A.I. focused productivity revolution could be more global than the PC revolution. What is your thinking around this? Ravi Shanker: Look, I think it's still too early to tell what impact A.I. will have on labor productivity as a whole and the impact of labor at corporations around the world. Take, for example, my sector of freight transportation. We don't make anything, but we move everybody else's stuff. And so by nature of freight transportation, is a very process driven industry and process driven industries by nature kind of iterate to find more efficiency and better ways of doing things, and that's where a lot of these new productivity tools can be very helpful. At the same time, it is also a very labor intensive industry that has some significant demographic challenges, whether it's a truck driver shortage, the inability to find rail workers, warehouse workers on the airline side of the house, the inability to find pilots and so the training and the desire of people to do this job over time may be changing. And that's where something like, you know, automation or A.I. tools can be very, very helpful going forward. However, I think this is still very early innings and we will see how this evolves in the coming years. Ravi Shanker: So finally, Diego, what is your outlook for the US labor market and wages over the next 5 to 10 years and how persistent do you think this productivity race is going to be? Diego Anzoategui: We think that a persistently lower labor supply should gradually boost wages. So far nominal wages have increased less than inflation, but we believe the modest increase in nominal wages is simply evidence of typically sluggish response of wages to price shocks. We expect real wages to pick up ahead and regain lost ground, and without this catch up in wages we leave firms to raise prices rather than upgrade their technologies. Evidence of strong price passthrough in the U.S. is limited and structural changes have made wage price spirals less relevant. Ravi Shanker: Diego, thanks so much for taking the time to talk. Diego Anzoategui: Great speaking with you Ravi.

As the banking sector is in the news again, investors wonder about an increase in borrowing from the Fed and possible restrictions on the horizon.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of  perspectives, I'll be talking about the ongoing tensions in the regional banking sector. It's Monday, May 1st at 2 p.m. in New York. At the outset, I would note that the news we woke up to this morning about JP Morgan's acquisition of First Republic is an important development. As Betsy Graseck, our large cap banks equity analyst noted, as part of this transaction JP Morgan will assume all $92 billion remaining deposits at First Republic, including the $30 billion of large bank deposits which will be repaid in full post consolidation. We believe that this is credit positive for the large cap bank group, as investors have been concerned that large banks would have to take losses against their $30 billion in deposits in the event First Republic was put into FDIC receivership. That said, we will be watching closely a key metric of demand for liquidity in the system, the borrowings from the Fed by the banks. The last two weeks saw consecutive increases in the borrowings from the Fed facilities by the banks, the discount window and the Bank Term Funding Program. That the banking system needed to continue to borrow at such high and increasing levels suggested that liquidity pressures remained and may have actually been increasing over the past two weeks. In light of the developments over the weekend, it will be useful to see how these borrowings from the Fed change when this week's data are released on Thursday. Last Friday, the Federal Reserve Board announced the results from the review of the supervision and regulation of the Silicon Valley Bank, led by Vice Chair for Supervision Michael Barr. The regulatory changes proposed are broadly in line with our expectations. The most important highlights from a macro perspective include the emphasis on banks management of interest rate risk and liquidity risk. Further, the report calls for a review of stress testing requirements. The Fed is now proposing to extend the rules that already apply to large banks now to smaller banks, banks with $100 billion to $700 billion in assets. These changes will be proposed, debated, reviewed and these changes will not be effective for a few years because of the standard notice and common periods in the rulemaking process. What are the market implications? We think that the recent events in the regional banking sector will cause banks to shorten assumptions on deposit durations, while potential regulatory changes would likely impact the amount of duration banks can take on their asset side. This is a steepener for rates, negative for longer duration securities such as agency mortgage backed securities and a dampener for the bank demand for senior tranches of securitized credit. While the implementation of these rules will take time, markets would be proactive. In the near-term, the challenges in the regional banks sector will likely result in lower credit formation and raise the risk of a sharper economic contraction.  Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

With the world moving towards a more complex and decentralized multipolar structure, how will technology and infrastructure markets fare going forward?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ed Stanley, Morgan Stanley's Head of Thematic Research in Europe. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the complex issue of security in the multipolar world. For some time, the world has been trending away from a globalized, unipolar structure characterized by stability and mutual cooperation. And in its place, we've been moving towards a multipolar structure, more complex, more decentralized. And this theme is one that Morgan Stanley's Global Research Department has been exploring deeply over the last three years. And the time is right to revisit that theme now because it's accelerating. And we see two plausible outcomes from here, a de-risking or a decoupling, lie ahead for companies. Our base case is still for a gradual phased de-risking between regions and companies are already in the process of facing up to that new reality, by diversifying their highly concentrated supply chains. But the possibility of a full and disorderly decoupling scenario now warrants more serious consideration. It's no longer the tail risk it was when we first addressed the theme three years ago. What has acted as a more recent accelerant to this trend is the extent of top down policy measures we've witnessed over recent years. The number of such policies designed to restrict trade have increased fivefold in the last five years, as measured by the UN. And these restrictions have covered everything from rare earth battery minerals, to grain exports and solar panel imports, to specialist machinery for microchip production. Add to this the ever greater incentives to reshore supply chains and critical components back to the U.S. and Europe, in the form of the CHIPS Act, the U.S. IRA and Europe's response to it, and it becomes clearer why this multipolar world and de-risking theme continue to gather pace. After all, Europe's market share of critical inputs and technologies stand at about 6% versus China's at over 50%. And that scale of imbalance will take time and substantial resources to even partially reverse. And while this is a complex theme with many moving parts, there is one relatively simple conclusion. Whether the world continues to gradually de-risk or more abruptly decouple, greater spending on security and critical infrastructure will be essential. Consequently, the industrial and tech sectors will likely need to allocate the most capital to achieve this de-risking process. But we also see promise for more than 80 companies exposed to the critical infrastructure buildout, which should see higher demand and should be able to generate strong return on capital in the process. These are the types of companies that should be well-placed, as this theme evolves. Our new security framework suggests that space infrastructure, artificial intelligence and batteries may be areas of greatest focus for the markets going forward. Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.

While government bonds have been less than desirable investments for the past two years, the tide may be turning on bond returns.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about global macro trends and how investors can interpret these trends for rates and currency markets. It's Thursday, April 27th at 2 p.m. in New York. Over the past 2 years, government bonds have been less than desirable investments. This year, the inflation phenomena came out of hibernation and appears unwilling to go away anytime soon. In 2022, one of the worst years on record, U.S. Treasuries delivered a total return of -12.5%. Securities that offer fixed interest payments like government bonds tend to lose value when inflation rises, because the future purchasing power of those cash flows declines. But that doesn't always happen, of course, and certainly not to this degree. For most of the past 20 years, government bonds dealt reasonably well with positive inflation rates, even if those rates were rising. But last year was different, for two reasons primarily. First, inflation rose at a rate we haven't seen since the late 1970s. And second, central banks responded aggressively by tightening monetary policies. How have these factors changed so far this year? Well, inflation has started to moderate both in terms of consumer prices and wages. And in response, central banks have become less aggressive in their recent policy maneuvering. Investors have also benefited from the clarity on the speed with which central banks have moved and how fast they may move in the future. This would seem like good news for government bond returns, and so far it has been. However, at the same time, investor nerves remain frayed, even if less so than last year. But why? First, investors remain worried about inflation, but for different reasons than last year. Throughout 2022 concern focused on the speed with which inflation was rising and just how high it would go. This year, however, concerns remain around how far inflation will fall, a process known as disinflation. The consensus view amongst investors is that inflation will remain above the Fed's 2% goal unless the Fed engineers a deep recession. And to do so, the Fed will either have to tighten monetary policy even further or keep monetary policy tight for an extended period of time. Neither scenario seems particularly supportive of government bond returns. Second, investors are worried about the upcoming debt ceiling negotiations. The concern isn't so much that the government will default on its debt obligations, although that is a possibility. Rather, it's more about whether the government will have to delay paying other obligations, such as federal employee salaries or Social Security. A cessation of those payments, even if temporary, could slow economic activity in the United States. And even if the debt ceiling is raised in time, material risks to regional banking institutions still remain. Putting it all together, the higher yields available in the government bond markets and the increasing risk to economic activity, including those from the lagged effects of monetary policy tightening, leave us hopeful on the future returns of the asset class. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show. 

As multinational companies look towards a future of higher innovation costs and a shrinking labor pool, some corporate sectors may fare better than others in the multipolar world.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the great productivity race and the multipolar world. It's Wednesday, April 26th at 9 a.m. in New York. Client questions this week have focused on the U.S. debt ceiling, as Republicans in the House of Representatives work to pass their version of a debt ceiling raise. But we think this bill is just one step in a longer process, so we'll return to this topic when there's something more concrete to say about the ultimate resolution and its market implications. Stepping away from that topic gives us the opportunity to focus on a longer term trend impacting the markets, something our research team is calling the Great Productivity Race. It's the idea that U.S. multinational companies in particular will have to spend to develop and integrate new technologies, including artificial intelligence , into their production in order to keep up output. Why is that? In part, it has to do with one of our big three themes for 2023, the transition to a multipolar world. In a multipolar world, where the U.S. is looking to safeguard advantages and technologies and key areas of production, the labor pool for U.S. multinationals is contracting. Efforts to re-friend, and near-shore critical industries have strong political support. But this narrows the geographical options for companies making cheap labor, particularly for skilled manufacturing, harder to find. And that exacerbates a U.S. economic challenge already present for several reasons. That means companies are likely to invest in improving their own productivity through technology. And as our economists point out, there's historical precedent for this. For one academic study, the great Mississippi Flood of 1927 led many people to emigrate from some adjacent counties. Those areas modernized agricultural production much faster than others. Another academic study shows that conversely, metro areas that had a significant inflow of low skilled workers in the eighties and nineties were slow to adopt automated production processes. So investors need to know that some corporate sectors will be able to handle this well and others will be challenged. Those best positioned are ones less reliant on labor and with ample resources to invest in productivity. Those more challenged rely heavily on labor and have less resources on their balance sheets.  Our colleagues in equity research are digging into which sectors fit into which category, and in a future podcast we’ll share with you what they're learning. 

With many investors predicting the U.S. dollar to continue to weaken, its potential for diversification and high yields may indicate otherwise.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Assets Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Tuesday, April 25th at 2 p.m. in London. The U.S. dollar has fallen about 11% from its highs last September. We think a majority of investors expect that weakness to continue, driven by factors ranging from expensive valuations to potential slowing of the U.S. economy, to the view that a more fragmented geopolitical backdrop will lead to less trade and transactions in U.S. dollars. In contrast, our foreign exchange strategists think it's more likely that the dollar strengthens. I want to discuss the idea of dollar strength from a larger lens and what it could mean for a cross-asset portfolio. For a multi-asset investor, the greatest appeal of the U.S. dollar comes from its diversification. At present, it is one of the few positive carry diversifiers, which is another way of saying that it's one of the few assets out there that pays you while also acting as a portfolio hedge, thanks to the dollar generally moving in the opposite direction of riskier assets like stocks or high yield bonds. Importantly, that diversification from the U.S. dollar makes a lot of intuitive sense to us. We think the dollar could do well if U.S. growth is very hot, as investors are drawn to even higher U.S. rates under that scenario, or if growth is very weak as investors seek out safety and liquidity. These extremes in growth, we think, represent two of the key risks, for riskier assets. In contrast, the dollar probably does weaken if growth is down the middle and a so-called soft landing for the economy. In this case, modest Fed easing without the fear of recession would likely cause investors to seek out cheaper, more volatile currencies. But this soft landing scenario is probably the best outcome for the riskier other parts of one's portfolio, allowing the dollar to provide diversification as it zigs while other assets zag. But what about the dollar's higher valuation or the threat of geopolitical shifts? Well, on valuation, our work suggests that it tends to be a pretty weak predictor of foreign exchange returns over the next 6 to 12 months, for better or for worse. And on geopolitical shifts, the dollar remains the dominant currency of global trade. And importantly, over the last year, a year that’s contained quite a bit of geopolitical uncertainty, it's continued to show diversification benefits. In summary, many investors expect U.S. dollar weakness to continue. Thanks to its high yield and powerful potential for diversification, we think it's more likely to appreciate. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you. 

The drive to reduce carbon emissions could trigger the biggest transformation of the steel industry in decades. Global Head of Sustainability Research, Stephen Byrd, Head of European Metals and Mining Research, Alain Gabriel, and Head of the Americas Basic Materials Team, Carlos De Alba, discuss. ----- Transcript -----Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Sustainability Research. Alain Gabriel: And I’m Alain Gabriel, Head of Europe Metals and Mining Research. Carlos De Alba: I am Carlos De Alba, Head of the Americas Basic Materials Team. Stephen Byrd: On this special episode of the podcast, we'll discuss the implications of decarbonization in the steel industry. It's Monday, April 24th at 10 a.m. in New York. Alain Gabriel: And 3 p.m. in London. Stephen Byrd: Achieving net zero is a top priority as the world moves into a new phase of climate urgency, and global decarbonization is one of the three big themes for 2023 for Morgan Stanley research. Within this broader theme, we believe that decarbonizing steelmaking has the potential to trigger the biggest transformation of the steel industry in decades. Stephen Byrd: Alain to set the stage and just give our listeners a sense of the impact of steelmaking, just how much does steel contribute to global CO2 emissions? Alain Gabriel: Thank you, Stephen. In fact, the steel industry emits around 3.6 billion tonnes of CO2 per annum. And this enormous carbon footprint puts the industry at the heart of the climate debate, and public policy is rapidly evolving towards stricter emissions reductions targets, but also shorter implementation timelines. So for instance, in Europe, which is leading this transformation by simultaneously introducing a carbon border adjustment mechanism, which is otherwise known as CBAM and gradually reducing free CO2 allowances until their full removal by 2034.  Stephen Byrd: So, Alain, given the size of Steel's contributions to emissions, it should come as no surprise that decarbonizing steel would likely really reconfigure the entire supply chain, including hydrogen, renewable energy, high quality iron ore and equipment providers. So, Alain, given this impending paradigm shift, what is the potential impact on upstream resources? Alain Gabriel: Yes, the steel value chain is collectively exploring various ways to reduce carbon emissions, whether it was miners, steelmakers or even capital equipment providers. However, we think the most promising path from today's perspective appears to be via the hydrogen direct reduced iron electric arc furnaces process, which is also known as H2DRIEAF in short. Admittedly, if we were to have this conversation again in three years, this conclusion might be different. But back to the H2DRIEAF process, it promises to curb emissions by 99% by replacing carbon from coal with hydrogen to release the oxygen molecules from iron ore and convert it to pure iron. The catch is that this process is resource intensive and would face significant supply constraints and bottlenecks, which in a way is positive for upstream pricing.So if we were to hypothetically convert the entire industry in Europe today, we will need more than 55% of Europe's entire production of green hydrogen last year. And we'll also need more than double the global production of DRI grade pellets, which is a niche high grade iron ore product. Stephen Byrd: Alain, you believe that steel economics in Europe is really at an inflection point right now, and given that Europe will likely see the biggest disruption when it comes to the green steel transformation, I wondered if you could give us a snapshot of the current situation in Europe and of your outlook there.  Alain Gabriel: Should steel mills choose to adopt the H2DRIEAF proccess, they would need to build out an entire infrastructure associated with it, and we detail each component of that chain in our note. But in aggregate, we estimate that the average capital intensity would be approximately $1,200 per ton, and this excludes the build up of renewable electricity. So on OpEx, green hydrogen and renewable electricity will constitute more than 50% of production costs and this will lead to wide disparities between regions. So the economics of this transformation will only work, in our view, under effective policy support to level the playing field. And this would include a combination of grants, subsidies and carbon border taxes. Fortunately, the EU policy is moving in that direction but is lagging the United States. Stephen Byrd: So, Carlos, as we heard from Alain, Europe is leading this green steel transformation. But at the same time, the U.S. has the greenest steel footprint and is benefiting from some relative advantages vis a vis Europe and the rest of the world. Could you walk us through these advantages and the competitive gap between the U.S. and other regions? Carlos De Alba: Yeah, I mean, definitely the U.S. is already very well positioned. And what drives this position of strength is the fact that about 70% of the steel production in the U.S. is made out of electrical furnace, and that emits roughly around half a ton of CO2 per ton of steel, which is significantly better than the average of 1.7 tons per ton of steel and the blast furnace route average of around 2 tons per ton of steel. So that is really the genesis of the better position that the U.S. has in terms of emissions. Another way of looking at it is the U.S. produces around 6% of the global crude steel and it only makes around 2% of the overall steel emissions in the world. Stephen Byrd: That's a good way of laying it out, Carlos. It's interesting, in the U.S., the cost of electricity being relatively low certainly does help with the cost of making steel as well. I wanted to shift over to China and India, which are responsible for two thirds of global steel emissions. How are they positioned for this green steel transition? Carlos De Alba: Yeah, I mean, these two countries are significant contributors to the emissions in the world. And when you take the average emission per ton of steel produced in India, it's around 2.4 tons and in China it's around 1.8 tons. And the reason being is that they have a disproportional majority of their steel made under the blast furnace route that, as I alluded to previously, emits more CO2 per ton of steel than other routes like the electrical furnaces. So it's going to take some time definitely for them to reposition their massive steel industry steel capacity and reduce their emissions. We need to keep in mind that these two countries in particular have to weigh not only the emissions that their steel sector provides, but also the economic implications of such an important sector. They contribute to jobs, they contribute to economic activity, they provide the raw material for their infrastructure and the development of their cities and their urbanization trends. So for them, it is not necessarily just straightforward a matter of reducing their emissions, but they need to weigh it and make sure that they have a balance between economic growth, urbanization, infrastructure buildup and obviously the environment. Carlos De Alba: So Stephen, given the scale of the global steel industry, what are some of the broader sustainability implications of the shift towards green steel production? How do you view this transition through the lens of your environmental, social and governance or ESG framework? Stephen Byrd: Yeah Carlos as Alain started the scope of emissions from the steel industry certainly is worthy of attention. We think a lot about the supply chain required to provide the clean energy and electrolyzers necessary to achieve this transformation that you both have laid out. Now, green hydrogen supply in particular is limited and will take some time to ramp up. So while technically feasible, there are numerous hurdles to overcome to make widespread green hydrogen use a reality. We do expect the ramp up to be gradual. A lot of capital is being deployed, but this will take time. Now, on clean energy, I think it's a bit more straightforward. The cost of clean energy has been dropping for years, just as a frame of reference in the United States from 2010 to 2020, the cost of clean energy dropped annually by about 15% per year, which is quite remarkable. Now, the levelized cost of electricity from renewables is lower in the US and China relative to Europe. So we think a lot about the growth in clean energy. We do think that the capital will be there. The cost of clean energy we believe will continue to drop. So that is a hopeful development that over time should result in a lower and lower cost for green steel. Stephen Byrd: Alain, Carlos, thanks for taking the time to talk. Alain Gabriel: Great speaking with you both.Carlos De Alba: Thank you very much. I enjoy your discussions as well. Stephen Byrd: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today. 

With equity markets showing strength in the face of slowing growth, investors are left wondering how, or if, they can remain resilient.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross Assets Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, April 21st at 2 p.m. in London. Meeting with investors over the last several weeks, there's one question above all others that seems to be on people's mind. In the face of slowing growth, tightening policy, banking sector stresses and uninspiring valuations, why are markets, especially equity markets, so resilient? Like many things in the market, there is no one reason, and it's also impossible to know for sure. But we have some suspicions about what is and isn't behind the strength and what that means going forward. One trio of factors rolled out to explain this resiliency, is the idea that growth and earnings are holding up well, the Fed is once again injecting liquidity into the system, given recent banking sector challenges and investors are already so negative that the risks are well known. Yet each of these explanations seems to come up a little short. Global growth in the first quarter was better than expected, but markets should care more about the forward looking outlook, which looks set for deceleration, while estimates for corporate earnings have generally been falling throughout the year. While the Fed did provide extra liquidity given recent banking sector challenges, this looks very different from traditional quantitative easing, especially as the banks continue to tighten their lending activity. And while sentiment feels cautious, perhaps as evidenced by the popularity of this question, measures that try to quantify that fear have generally normalized quite a bit and look a lot closer to average than extreme. So what do we believe is going on? First, the stock market is often seen as a broad proxy for the economy or risk appetite, but in 2023 it's been unusually swayed by a small number of very large stocks in the U.S. and Europe. That still counts, of course, but it makes drawing broad conclusions about what the stock market is doing or saying a lot more difficult. Second, recent banking issues created an odd dynamic where markets could celebrate the possibility of easier central bank policy almost immediately, while the real economic impact of tighter lending standards arrives at some uncertain point in the future. That provides an immediate boost for markets, but the fundamental challenges of that tighter bank lending are still to come. Third, and just as important, the market tends to take a view that the end of central bank interest rate increases will be a positive. That is what the data says if you look across all hiking cycles since, say, 1980. But if you only look at times when the yield curve is inverted and the Fed has stopped hiking, like it is today, the picture looks a lot less rosy. Market resilience has likely had several drivers. But with measures of sentiment starting to look more balanced, growth still set to slow and markets already expecting easier central bank policy than our economists expect, we think the outlook remains challenging as we look beyond April. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on The Market on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you. 

"Smart chemotherapy" could change the way that cancer is treated, potentially opening up a $140 billion market over the next 15 years.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mark Purcell, Head of Morgan Stanley's European Pharmaceuticals Team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll talk about the concept of Smart Chemotherapy. It's Thursday, the 20th of April at 2 p.m. in London. Cancer is still the second leading cause of death globally, accounting for approximately 10 million deaths worldwide in 2020. Despite recent advances in areas like immuno-oncology, we still rely heavily on chemotherapy as the mainstay in the treatment of many cancers. Chemotherapy originated in the early 1900s when German chemist Paul Ehrlich attempted to develop "Magic Bullets", these are chemicals that would kill cancer cells while sparing healthy tissues. The 1960s saw the development of chemotherapy based on Ehrlich's work, and this approach, now known as traditional chemotherapy, has been in wide use since then. Nowadays, it accounts for more than 37% of cancer prescriptions and more than half of patients with colorectal, pancreatic, ovarian and stomach cancers are still treated with traditional chemo. But traditional chemo has many drawbacks and some significant limitations. So here's where "Smart Chemotherapy" comes in. Targeted therapies including antibodies to treat cancer were first developed in the late 1990s. These innovative approaches offer a safer, more effective solution that can be used earlier in treatment and in combination with other cancer medicines. "Smart Chemo" uses antibodies as the guidance system to find the cancer, and once the target is reached, releases chemotherapy inside the cancer cells. Think of it as a marriage of biology and chemistry called an antibody drug conjugate, an ADC. It's essentially a biological missile that hones in on the cancer and avoids collateral damage to the healthy tissues.  The first ADC drug was approved for a form of leukemia in the year 2000, but it's taken about 20 years to perfect this "biological missile" to target solid tumors, which are far more complex and harder to infiltrate into. We're now at a major inflection point with 87 new ADC drugs entering development in the past two years alone. We believe smart chemotherapy could open up a $140 billion market over the next 15 years or so, up from a $5 billion sales base in 2022. This would make ADCs one of the biggest growth areas across Global Biopharma, led by colorectal, lung and breast cancer. Large biopharma companies are increasingly aware of the enormous potential of ADC drugs and are more actively deploying capital towards smart chemotherapy. It's important to note, though, that while a smart chemotherapy revolution is well underway in breast and bladder cancer, the focus is now shifting to earlier lines of treatment and combination approaches. The potential to replace traditional chemotherapy in other solid tumors is completely untapped. A year from now, we expect ADC drugs to deliver major advances in the treatment of lung cancer and bladder cancer, as well as really important proof of concept data for colorectal cancer, which is arguably one of the biggest unmet needs out there. Given vastly improved outcomes for cancer patients, we believe that "Smart Chemotherapy" is well on the way to replacing traditional chemotherapy, and we expect the market to start pricing this in over the coming months. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy this show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. 

Recent interactions between China and Europe signal a continuing reorganization of global commerce around multiple power bases, bringing new and familiar challenges for companies.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the U.S.-China relationship and the shift to a multipolar world. It's Wednesday, April 19th, at 9 p.m. in New York. As listeners here already know, one of the big secular themes we've been tracking in recent years is the shift to a multipolar world, one where instead of having one major power base, the United States, you now have multiple power bases to organize global commerce around, including China and Europe. And recent interactions between China and Europe underscore this trend. For example, President Macron of France recently noted following a trip to China that Europe need not precisely follow the U.S. in how it approaches its relationship with China. While those comments have received pushback in other European capitals, it's fair to say that Europe, with its relatively more interconnected and trade-based economy, may have a more nuanced approach to China than its traditional ally in the U.S.. In any case, multiple power bases mean multiple challenges for companies doing business on a global scale. This trend is most noticeable to U.S. investors in large cap stocks, where multinationals continue to announce shifts in the geographic mix of their supply chains. While incremental, some of these changes seemed unfathomable just a few years ago. Take a recent Bloomberg News report about a major tech company that continues to shift, again incrementally, new production of some products out of China and into places like India. While the news report doesn't draw an explicit link between those moves and U.S. policy choices, we think such a story speaks to the influence of the non-tariff barriers that the U.S. has raised in recent years as it seeks to protect new and emerging tech industries in its jurisdiction that it deems important for national and economic security. This includes existing export restrictions and the potential for outbound investment restrictions, which could hamper companies seeking to build production facilities in countries like China, where sensitive technologies would either be produced or be part of the production process. To keep it simple, the multipolar world comes with new costs for many types of companies, and it's becoming clearer and clearer who will bear those costs and who will benefit from that spend. We've previously highlighted potential geographical beneficiaries like Mexico and India and will continue to check in with new work on specific sector impacts to keep you informed. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show. 

As the U.S. banking sector faces oncoming regulatory changes, how will the smaller banks react to these new requirements and what will the impact be on markets?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the impact of potential regulatory changes on bank assets. It's Tuesday, April 18th at 11a.m in New York. In the wake of the tumult in the banking sector since early March, and the significant intervention by the authorities, it is likely that a regulatory response will follow, particularly focused on the regulation of regional banks. President Biden has already called on the federal banking agencies in consultation with the Treasury Department, to consider a set of reforms that will reduce the risk of future banking crises. A review led by Michael Barr, the Vice Chair for Supervision at the Federal Reserve Board, is set to be released by May 1st and will likely offer some indication as to where future bank regulation might be headed. In this context, it is worthwhile to examine potential changes to regional bank regulation, reflect on how banks would respond to such changes and consider their impact on markets. Across all banks, there are approximately 4.7 trillion of non-interest bearing deposits with the duration of about seven years. Banks will likely need to either review and re-justify or shorten such deposits. Our bank equity analysts expect two key regulatory changes TLAC, total loss absorbing capacity and LCR, liquidity coverage ratio, to be extended to smaller banks, about $100 billion in assets, though this process will likely not get fully implemented until 2027. From the perspective of rates markets, these changes make the case for steepening of the curve. Our rate strategists see bank demand for treasuries increasing relative to other assets with greater LCR requirements. Both shortening deposit duration and implementing LCR suggest that banks would favor shorter dated Treasuries over longer dated Treasuries. More longer term issuance due to TLAC, drives higher long term yields and fixed income, with support curve steepeners for Treasuries over the medium term. For agency mortgage backed securities, these changes will result in less demand from banks and consequently wider mortgage spreads. For munis, these changes would likely imply a lower footprint from banks with available for sale securities favored or held to maturity securities. For securitized credit markets, we see downside in demand ahead. Longer term outlook for securitized credit depends on the specifics of regulatory reform, but is likely to remain tepid for some time to come. The expansion of TLAC to smaller banks could intensify supply headwinds in the medium term. Our credit strategists believe that supply risks in bank credit are now skewed to the upside. The emphasis on funding diversity and shift away from deposits to wholesale funding, is likely to keep regional bank issuance elevated for longer. An important lesson from recent events in the banking sector, is that the risks to the asset banks hold, extend beyond credit risk into other risks, most notably interest rate risk. While interest rate and convexity risks are reflected in Comprehensive Capital Analysis Review, CCAR and Horizontal Liquidity Review, HLR test, arguably not having an interest rate component to risk weights enable banks, and regional banks in particular, to seek term premia to support their earnings. It is not our base case that this will change. However, it is possible that regulators would at least consider enacting some type of a charge for owning longer-duration securities. At a minimum, we expect the regulators could require all banks to flow marked-to-market hits from available-for-sale securities through their regulatory capital ratios, something that the big banks have been doing already. Ultimately, new regulations for regional banks will take time for formulation and implementation. We'll be watching developments in this space closely. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

While some investors may be cheering due to softer than expected inflation data, revenues may begin to disappoint in the face of a credit crunch brought on by recent banking stress.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, April 17th, at 11:30 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. A month ago, when the banking stress first surfaced, my primary takeaway for U.S. equity markets was that it would lead to a credit crunch. Given our already well below consensus outlook for corporate earnings, it simply gave us more confidence in that view. Fast forward to today and the data suggests a credit crunch has started. More specifically, they show the biggest two week decline in lending by banks on record as they simultaneously sell mortgages and treasuries at a record pace to offset deposit flight. In fact, since the Fed began raising rates a year ago, almost $1 trillion in deposits have left the banking system. Throw in the already tight lending standards and it's no surprise credit growth is shrinking. If that isn't enough, last week, the latest small business survey showed that credit availability had its biggest drop in 20 years, while interest costs are at a 15-year high. There's a passage in Ernest Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises, in which a character is asked how he went bankrupt. "Two ways", he answers. "Gradually, then suddenly". This is a good description of recent bank failures. The losses from long duration Treasury holdings and concentrated deposit risk built up gradually over the past year and then suddenly accelerated, leading to the surprising failures of two large and seemingly safe banks. In hindsight, these failures seem predictable given the speed and magnitude of the Federal Reserve's rate hikes, some regrettable regulatory treatment of bank assets and concentrated deposits from corporates. Nevertheless, most did not see the failures coming, which begs the question of what other surprises may be coming from the Fed's abrupt monetary policy adjustment? In contrast to what we expected, the S&P 500 and Nasdaq have traded well since these bank stresses appeared. However, small caps, banks and other highly leveraged stocks have traded poorly as the market leadership turned more defensive and in line with our sector and style recommendations. Our contention is that the major averages are hanging around current levels due mostly to their defensive and high quality characteristics. However, that should not necessarily be viewed as a signal that all is well. On the contrary, the gradual deterioration in the growth outlook continues, which means even these large cap indices are at risk of a sudden fall like those that we have witnessed in the regional banking and small cap indices. The analogy with Hemingway's poetic description of bankruptcy can extend to the earnings growth deterioration observed over the past year. Until now, the decline in earnings estimates for the S&P 500 has been steady and gradual. Since peaking in June of last year, the forward 12 month bottoms up consensus earnings per share forecast for the S&P 500 has fallen at a rate of approximately 9% per annum, which is not severe enough for equity investors to demand the higher equity risk premium we think they should. Further comforting investors is the consensus earnings forecast that implies first quarter will be the trough rate of change for S&P 500 earnings per share. This is a key buy signal that we would normally embrace, if we believed it. Instead, if we are right on our well below consensus earnings forecast, the rate of decline in these estimates should increase materially over the next few months as revenue growth begins to disappoint. To date, most of the disappointment in earnings has been a result of lower profitability, particularly in the technology, consumer goods and communication services sectors. To those investors cheering the softer than expected inflation data last week, we would say, be careful what you wish for. Falling inflation last week, especially for goods, is a sign of waning demand, and inflation is the one thing holding up revenue growth for many businesses. The gradually eroding margins to date have been mostly a function of bloated cost structures. If and when revenues begin to disappoint, that margin degradation can be much more sudden, and that's when the market can suddenly get in front of the earnings decline we are forecasting, too. Bottom line, continue to favor companies with stable earnings that are defendable in the deteriorating growth environment we project. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show. 

Artificial Intelligence is clearly a powerful tool that could help a number of sustainability objectives, but are there risks attached to these potential benefits? Global Head of Sustainability Research Stephen Byrd and Global Sustainability Analyst Brenda Duverce discuss.----- Transcript -----Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Bryd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Sustainability Research. Brenda Duverce: And I'm Brenda Duverce from the Global Sustainability Team. Stephen Byrd: On the special episode of the podcast, we'll discuss some key A.I. related opportunities and risks through the lens of sustainability. It's Friday, April 14th at 10 a.m. in New York. Stephen Byrd: Recent developments in A.I. make it clear it's a very powerful tool that can help achieve a great number of sustainability objectives. So, Brenda, can you maybe start by walking us through some of the potential benefits and opportunities from A.I. that can drive improved financial performance for companies? Brenda Duverce: Sure, we think A.I. can have tremendous benefits to our society and we are excited about the potential A.I. can have in reducing the harm to our environment and enhancing people's lives. To share a couple of examples from our research, we are excited on what A.I. can do in improving biodiversity protection and conservation. Specifically on how A.I. can improve the accuracy and efficiency of monitoring, helping us better understand biodiversity loss and support decision making and policy design. Overall, we think A.I. can help us more efficiently identify areas for urgent conservation and provide us with the tools to make more informed decisions. Another example is what we see A.I. can do in improving education outcomes, particularly in under-resourced areas. We think A.I. can help enhance teaching and learning outcomes, improve assessment practices, increase accessibility and make institutions more operationally efficient. Which then goes into financial implications A.I. can have in improving margins and reducing costs for organizations. Essentially, we view A.I. as a deflationary technology for many organizations. So Stephen, the Morgan Stanley's Sustainability Team has also done some recent work around the future of food. What role will A.I. play in agriculture in particular? Stephen Byrd: Yeah, we're especially excited about what A.I could do in the agriculture sector. So we think about A.I. enabled tools that will help farmers improve efficiencies while also improving the quantity and quality of crop production. For example, there's technology that annotates camera images to differentiate between weeds and crops at the pixel level and then uses that information to administer pesticides only to weed infested areas. The result is the farmer saves money on pesticides, while also improving agricultural production and enhancing biodiversity by reducing damage to the ecosystem. Brenda Duverce: But there are also risks and negative implications that ESG investors need to consider in exploring A.I. driven opportunities. How should investors think about these? Stephen Byrd: You know, we've been getting a lot of questions from ESG investors around some of the risks related to A.I., and there certainly are quite a few to consider. One big category of risk would be bias, and in the note, we lay out a series of different types of bias risks that we see with A.I. One example would be data selection bias, another would be algorithmic bias, and then lastly, human bias. Just as an example on human bias, this bias would occur when the people developing and training the algorithm introduce their own biases into the data or the algorithm itself. So this is a broad category that's gathered a lot of concern, and that's quite understandable. Another area would be data privacy and security. An example in the utility sector from a research entity focused on the power sector, they highlight that the data collected for A.I. technologies while being meant to train models for a good purpose, could be used in ways that violate the privacy of the data owners. For instance, energy usage data can be collected and used to help residential customers be more energy efficient and lower their bills, but at the same time, the same data could also be used to derive personal information such as the occupation and religion of the residents. Stephen Byrd: So Brenda, keeping in mind the potential benefits and risks for me that we just touched on, where do you think A.I's impact is likely to be the greatest and the most immediate? Brenda Duverce: Beyond the improvements A.I. can have on our society, in our ESG space in particular, we are excited to see how A.I. can improve the data landscape, specifically thinking about corporate disclosures. We think A.I. can help companies better predict their scope through emissions, which tend to be the largest component of a company's total greenhouse gas emissions, but the most difficult to quantify. We think machine learning in particular can be useful in estimating these emissions by using statistical learning techniques to develop more accurate models.  Stephen Byrd: But it's ironic that when we talk about A.I., within the context of ESG, one of the drawbacks to consider around A.I. is its potential carbon footprint and emissions. So is this a big concern? Brenda Duverce: Yes, we do think this is a big concern, particularly as we think about our path towards net zero. Since 2010, emissions at data centers and transmission networks that underpin our digital environment have only grown modestly, despite rapid demand for digital services. This is largely thanks to energy efficiency improvements, renewable energy purchases and a broader decarbonization of our grids. However, we are concerned that these efficiencies in place won't be enough to withstand the high compute intensity required as more A.I. models come online. This is a risk we hope to continue to explore and monitor, especially as it relates to our climate goals. Stephen Byrd: In terms of the latest developments around risk from A.I, there's been a call to pause giant A.I. experiments. Can you give us some context around this? Brenda Duverce: Sure. In a recent open letter led by the Future of Life Institute, several A.I. researchers called for a pause for at least six months on the training of A.I. systems more powerful than GPT-4. The letter highlighted the risk these systems can have on society and humanity. In our view, we think that a pause is highly unlikely. However, we do think that this continues to bring to light why it is important to also consider the risk of A.I. and why A.I. researchers must follow responsible ethical principles. Brenda Duverce: So, Stephen, in the United States, there's currently no comprehensive federal regulation specifically dedicated to A.I.. What is your outlook for legislative action and policies around A.I., both here in the U.S. and abroad? Stephen Byrd: Yeah, Brenda, I'd say broadly it does look like the pace of A.I. development is more rapid than the pace of regulatory and legislative developments, and I'll walk through some developments around the world. There have been several calls across stakeholder groups for effective regulation, the US Chamber of Commerce being one of them. And last year we did see some state level regulation focused on A.I. use cases and the risks associated with A.I. and unequal practices. But broadly, in our opinion, we think that the likelihood of legislation being enacted in the near term is low, and that in the U.S. in particular, we expect to see more involvement from regulatory bodies and other industry leaders advocating for a national standard. The European approach to A.I. is focused on trust and excellence, aiming to increase research and industrial capacity while ensuring safety and fundamental rights. The A.I. ACT is a proposed European law assigning A.I. to three risk categories. Unacceptable risk, high risk and applications that don’t fall in either of those categories which would be unregulated. This proposed law has faced significant delays and its future is still unclear. Proponents of the legislation expect it to lead the way for other global governing bodies to follow while others are disappointed by its vagueness, the potential for it to stifle innovation and concerns that it does not do enough to explicitly protect against A.I. systems used for weapons, finance and health care. Stephen Byrd: Finally, Brenda, what are some A.I. related catalysts that investors should pay attention to?  Brenda Duverce: In terms of catalysts, we'll continue to see innovation updates from our core A.I. enablers, which shouldn't be a surprise to our listeners. But we plan to continue to monitor the ever evolving regulatory landscape on this topic and the discourse from influential organizations helping to push for A.I. safety around the world. Stephen Byrd: Brenda, thanks for taking the time to talk. Brenda Duverce: Great speaking with you, Stephen. Stephen Byrd: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

After a correction that took place in recent months, Asia and emerging markets are once again rallying. But how have these regions sustained their ongoing bull markets?----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jonathan Garner, Chief Asia and Emerging Market Equity Strategist at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the recent correction and ongoing bull market in Asia and emerging market equities. It's Thursday, April 13th, at 10 a.m. in London. Asia and emerging market equities underwent a six week correction in February and March, in what we think is an ongoing bull market. However, they've recently stabilized and begun to rally once more as we head into the new quarter. Importantly, the catalyst for the correction came from outside the asset class in the form of banking sector risks in both the U.S. and Europe. EM assets suffered some limited challenges, for example, at one point major EM currencies gave up most of that year to date gains against the U.S. dollar. However, as investors appraised the situation, they recognized that little had actually changed in the investment thesis for the EM asset class this year. At the core of this thesis is the ongoing recovery in China. After an initial surge in mobility indicators and services spending, there is now a broadening out of the recovery to include manufacturing production and even recent strength in property sales. Like the rest of Asia and EM these days, Chinese growth is self-funded in the main from domestic banking systems which are generally well capitalized and liquid. Indeed, just as question marks are now appearing over bank credit growth prospects in the U.S. in segments like commercial real estate lending, the opposite is taking place in China as the authorities encourage more bank lending. Elsewhere, we're also seeing an encouraging set of developments in the semiconductors and technology hardware cycles, which matter for the Korea and Taiwan markets. Although end use demand in most segments remained very weak in the first quarter, we believe our thesis that we are passing through the worst phase of the cycle was confirmed by positive stock price reactions to news of production cuts by industry leaders. We think stock prices in these sectors troughed last October, as usual about six months ahead of the weakest point of industry fundamentals and the industry now has a lower production base to begin to recover from the second half of the year onwards.   Elsewhere in EM, we recently adopted a more positive stance on the Indian market after being cautious for six months. Valuations adjusted meaningfully lower in that timeframe and we think Indian equities are now poised to join in the rally from here on an improving economic cycle outlook, as well as heightened structural interest in the market by overseas investors. India continues to benefit from ongoing positive household formation, industrialization and urbanization themes which are well represented in domestic equity benchmarks. Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and recommend Thoughts on the Market to a friend or colleague today.

Given the recent developments in developed markets banking sectors, can Asia’s economic growth continue to outperform?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be discussing why Asia remains better placed despite recent global financial developments. It's Wednesday, April 12, at 9 a.m in Hong Kong. With the recent issues in the Developed Markets banking sector, investors are asking if Asia could face similar funding challenges and if Asia will still be able to outperform on growth. On the funding challenge, a key point to keep in mind is that interest rates have not risen as much in Asia compared to the U.S.. Asia's inflation was more cost-push driven, i.e commodity prices driven, and has already started to decelerate, and so central banks did not have to hike rates as much as the Fed. For instance, on July 21, policy rates rose by 4.75% in the U.S., but in Asia, it has risen only by one percentage point on an average. In a similar vein, prior to recent developments, 10 year bond yields rose by 2.8 percentage points in the U.S., but have only risen by just 0.9% in Asia. Another important distinguishing factor has to do with the setup of the banking sector. In Asia, liquidity coverage ratios are well above 100%, loans tend to be more floating rather than fixed, and deposit franchises are more diversified. Turning to the second question on whether Asia can still outperform. We think that recent developments will pose downside risks to both developed markets and Asia's growth but on net, Asia will still be able to outperform. In the case of a meaningful slowdown or a mild technical recession in the U.S., there will be three mitigating factors for Asia's growth outlook. First, the impact from weaker trade would be partially offset by easier financial conditions from lower market pricing of Fed's path, as well as lower commodity prices, leading to an improvement in Asia's terms of trade. The more stable macroeconomic backdrop in Asia means central banks in the region do have more room to ease monetary policy. In our base case, we expect rate cuts starting from the first quarter of 2024, but if downside risks emerge, these rate cuts could come into play sooner than we anticipate. Second, we expect China's GDP to recover to 5.7% in 2023. Reopening is lifting economic activity in China and also helping to generate positive spillovers for the rest of the region. Third, the three of the other large economies in Asia, Japan, India and Indonesia all have economy specific factors driving domestic demand. Japan's accommodative macro policies should keep private sector demand supported. For India, balance sheets for the financial and non-financial private sector have been cleaned up over the years. The private sector is thus pricing with a healthy risk appetite for expansion. In Indonesia, macro stability risks have been well managed, hence, rates have not had to rise as much in other emerging markets, and domestic demand has therefore remained robust. However, we do think that the risks are skewed to the downside. In a hard landing scenario, which we would characterize as U.S. full year GDP contracting by 1% or more, Asia may not be able to escape the downdraft and could recouple on the downside, at least during the worst point of the shock. But once we see a stabilization of global financial conditions with policy response, we believe Asia will be able to recover faster than the U.S. and Europe and resume its growth outperformance. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.

Banks and the Fed are winding down activity in the mortgage market amid recent funding challenges, signaling a potential new regime for the asset class. Co-Heads of Securitized Products Research Jim Egan and Jay Bacow discuss.----- Transcript -----Jim Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, Co-Head of U.S. Securitized Products Research here at Morgan Stanley. Jay Bacow: And I'm Jay Bacow, the other Co-Head of U.S. Securitized Products Research. Jim Egan: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing mortgage markets. It's Tuesday, April 11th, at 11 a.m. in New York. Jim Egan: Now, Jay, there has been lots of news recently about bank funding challenges, and the FDIC put both Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank in receivership. They just announced last week that $114 billion of their securities will be sold, over time, with those securities being primarily agency MBS. Now, that sounds like a pretty big number, can you tell us what the impact of this is? Jay Bacow: Sure. So, I think it's important first to realize that the agency mortgage market is the second most liquid fixed income market in the world after treasuries, and so the market is pretty easily able to quickly reprice to digest this news. And as a reminder, agency mortgages don't have credit risk, given the agency guarantee. Now, that $114 billion is a big number and about $100 billion of them are mortgages, and putting that $100 billion in context, we're only expecting about $150 billion of net issuance this year. So this is two thirds of the net supply of the market is going to come just from these portfolio liquidations. That's a lot, and that's before we even get into the composition of what they own. Jim Egan: Isn't a mortgage a mortgage? What do you mean by the composition of what they own? Jay Bacow: Well, yes, a mortgage is a mortgage, but what banks can do is that they can structure the mortgages to better fit the profile of what they want. And based on publicly disclosed data of when they bought, we assume that most of those mortgages right now have very low fixed coupons—in the context of 2%, well below the current prevailing rate for investors. Furthermore, about a third of the mortgages that the FDIC holds in receivership are these structured mortgages, they're still guaranteed, there's no credit risk, but these would be out of index investments for most money managers. Jim Egan: Well, can't banks buy them, though? Like, aren't these pretty typical bank bonds, two banks owned them in the first place? And if the bonds worked for a bank that time, why don't they work for a different bank now? Jay Bacow: So, part of what made them work for those banks is that they bought them around “par,” and given the low coupons that they have now, they're no longer at par. And for accounting reasons that we probably don’t need to get into right now, banks typically don't like to buy bonds that are far away from par. Furthermore, the recent events have made banks likely to need to revisit a lot of the assumptions that they're making on the asset and liability side. In particular, they probably going to want to revisit the duration of their deposits, which is going to bias them towards owning shorter securities. The regulators are probably also going to want to revisit a lot of assumptions as well. And we think what's likely to happen is that they're going to make a lot of the smaller banks have the mark-to-market losses on their available for sale securities flow through to regulatory capital, which in conjunction with some of the other changes probably means banks are going to further bias their security purchases shorter in duration and lowering capital charges. Jim Egan: Okay. So, if the banks aren't going to be active and the Fed is already winding down their portfolio, who's really left to buy? Jay Bacow: Basically, money managers and overseas. And while spreads have widened out some, we think they're biased a little wider from here. Effectively, this is going to be the first year since 2009 that neither domestic banks or the Fed were net buying mortgages. And when you take away the two largest buyers of mortgages, that is a problem for the asset class. And so we think we're in a new regime for mortgages and a new regime for bank demand. Jim Egan: Jay, thank you for that clear explanation, and it's always great talking to you. Jay Bacow: Great talking to you, too, Jim. Jim Egan: And thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on the Apple Podcasts app and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

China’s growth is expected to be strong this year. However, it is being driven by services more than goods, meaning the news for other economies may not be as good as it initially appears. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Diego Anzoategui from the Global Economics Team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the global impact of China's reopening. It's Monday, April 10th, at 3 p.m. in New York. At the end of 2022, China scrapped all COVID zero policies and laid out a growth focused policy agenda for 2023. By mid-January, around 80% of the population had had COVID, but infections are now much lower, mobility is improving, and China's economy seems to be taking off. We estimate China's growth will reach 5.7% in 2023, primarily driven by a rebound in private consumption. This is the first time in four years that COVID, regulatory and economic policy are all pushing in the same direction. Since the Chinese Party Congress in October 2022, the administration has swung to a pro-business stance, and we expect fiscal and monetary support to continue. Furthermore, China's big tech regulation has entered an institutionalized and stable stage, and we don't expect new, aggressive measures any longer. Although China's growth is expected to be strong in 2023, it is off a low base and it will take time for private sentiment to come back. So we expect fiscal easing to continue at least through the first half of 2023. As for monetary policy, the People's Bank of China may continue to provide targeted support towards economic recovery while private demand gets on a surer footing. As growth becomes more self-sustaining in the second half of 2023, cyclical policy could start to normalize, but not turn to outright tightening. Against this macro backdrop, we believe that services such as tourism, transportation and food services will drive the recovery. During the pandemic, mobility restrictions and social distancing policies caused a much more serious drag on services compared to good producers- and China is no exception to this pattern. But the services versus goods distinction is also key for assessing the global implications of China's reopening. Investors often ask to what extent China's reopening will translate into higher economic growth elsewhere. Historically, the China economic acceleration typically acts as a demand shock to the global economy. China's higher aggregate demand means higher exports to China from the rest of the world and greater economic activity globally. And more global growth coming from a demand push usually contributes to higher commodity prices, a weaker dollar and potential higher risk appetite leading to lower interest rates in emerging markets. This, of course, is good news, especially for EM. But the devil is in the details, and China's recovery being primarily driven by services is a key factor. One perhaps underappreciated by the market. It's important to keep in mind that services are less tradable and therefore less relevant to international trade. If China's acceleration were to be goods driven, Asia and LatAm commodity exporters would be clear beneficiaries, particularly economies like Korea, Taiwan, Argentina, Brazil and Chile. But the situation is different when services lead the way, and the relative advantage of manufacture-intensive Asian economies is less obvious in this case. Ultimately, our work suggests a more services driven rebound in China would be less relevant for the global economy. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

While banking conditions seem to have stabilized for now, tighter credit conditions could still hit U.S. economic growth.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ellen Zentner, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss how recent developments in the banking sector could impact the U.S. economy. It's Thursday, April 6, at 10 a.m. in New York. Events over the past several weeks have led to disruptions in the financial system that we believe will leave a mark on the real economy. Our banking analysts here at Morgan Stanley Research see permanently higher funding costs for banks going forward, and that will likely lead to tighter credit conditions beyond what was already embedded in our previous baseline for the economy. At its March meeting, the Federal Open Market Committee explicitly added a reference to tightening credit conditions and the effects on growth and inflation. But in the press conference, Chair Powell also highlighted wide uncertainty around the magnitude of tightening. The lack of visibility into the extent and persistence of current bank funding pressures, as well as the banking systems response, are contributing to this uncertainty. Our banking analysts believe that higher operating costs should drive tougher standards for new loans and higher loan spreads. These drivers set the stage for an even sharper deceleration in credit growth over the course of this year. Put simply, when it's more difficult or expensive for businesses and consumers to borrow money, it creates challenges for economic growth. While our baseline forecast for the U.S. economy already included a meaningful slowdown in loan growth over the coming months, further tightening in lending standards and greater pullback in bank lending will weigh further on GDP. That said, our modeling shows the effects are likely to take some time to build, with a meaningful slowing starting in the third quarter of this year and the largest impact occurring across the fourth quarter of 2023, and the first quarter of 2024. We think the impact of tighter credit on consumption and business investment is roughly equal, though we expect that the effects on business investment will likely peak in the fourth quarter of this year, one quarter ahead of consumption. On the back of this analysis, we've lowered our forecast for U.S. GDP growth this year and now look for 0.3% growth on a Q4 over Q4 basis. That's 1/10 lower than where we had it prior to the emergence of these new bank funding pressures. For next year we took our GDP forecast down by 2/10 to just 1%. Again, because it takes time for the cumulative impacts to build, we see the largest impacts as we're moving into 2024. So to sum up, the risk to the U.S. economic growth outlook and the labor market are large and two sided. A quicker resolution of financial system troubles could help keep the economy on solid footing, in line with recent monthly payroll data, which has been resilient. On the other hand, more volatile financial conditions from here could see a larger and more rapid deterioration in growth and the labor market. For now, banking conditions seem to have stabilized, which has given investors a bit of relief. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

With the deadline to raise the debt ceiling looming closer, will recent banking challenges reduce Congress's willingness to take risks with the economy?----- Transcript -----Welcome to the Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the debt ceiling and financial markets. It's Wednesday, April 5th at 9 a.m. in New York. Markets have focused in recent weeks on key long term debates, such as sizing up the long term effects of Fed policy and bank liquidity challenges. But investors should be aware that there may be at least a temporary interruption for focus on the debt ceiling in the coming weeks. That's because tax receipts will soon start rolling in, which should give the government and markets a clearer assessment of the timing of the x-date, that's the date after which the Treasury no longer has cash on hand to pay all its bills as they come due. Said differently, it's the date that investors would focus on as a potential deadline for raising the debt ceiling in order to avoid a government bond default, or a messy workaround to such a default that could rattle markets. Some clients have suggested to us that there should be less concern about Congress raising the debt ceiling in a timely manner ahead of that x-date, the reason being that recent banking challenges and resulting economic fears may have reduced Congress's willingness to take risks with the economy. We disagree, and still expect Congress will at least take this negotiation down to the wire, perhaps even going past the x-date, which, to be clear, wouldn't necessarily cause a default, but it would up the risk meaningfully. So what's the basis for our argument? First, remember, Republicans have a very slim majority in the House, meaning only a handful of objectors to any legislation could potentially create gridlock. There was already public reticence by Republicans about raising the debt ceiling unless paired with spending cuts, something Democrats have not been interested in. That position appears unchanged, despite recent bank issues, with some Republicans linking government spending to banking sector challenges, drawing a line from spending to the increase in interest rates that drove mark-to-market losses in bank portfolios. And second, some lawmakers have publicly speculated that the Fed and Treasury's reassurances that the U.S will not default suggest that they would step in in any emergency. This dynamic of a perceived safety net could incentivize Congress to debate the debt ceiling for an uncomfortably long amount of time for markets. Where would such stress first show up? We’d watch the T-bills market, where recent history suggests that the shortest maturity Treasuries would come under above normal selling pressures as investors try to steer clear of maturities closest to the x-date. We'll of course be tracking this, and the broader debt ceiling dynamic carefully and keep you updated. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

As the economic growth spread between Asia and the rest of the world widens, China’s reopening is unlikely to spur growth that spills over globally.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the outlook for global economic growth. It's Tuesday, April 4th at 10 a.m. in New York. How is the outlook evolving after one quarter of 2023? The key trends in our year ahead outlook remain, but they're changing. The spread between Asian growth and the rest of the world is actually a bit wider now. And within developed market economies, downgrades to the U.S. forecast largely on the back of banking sector developments and upgrades to the euro area, largely on the back of stronger incoming data, now have Europe growing faster than the U.S. in 2023. In China, the data continue to reinforce our bullish call for about 5.7% GDP growth this year, and if anything, there are risks to the upside, despite the official growth target from Beijing coming in at about 5%. Had it not been for the banking sector dominating the market narrative, I suspect that China reopening would still be the most important story. But China's recovery has always had a critical caveat to it. We've always said that the rebound would be much more domestically focused than in the past and more weighted towards services than industry in the past. We don't think you can apply historical betas, that is the spillover from Chinese growth to the rest of the world, the way you could in the past. I want to highlight a recent piece that quantifies how China's global spillovers are different this time. Two main points deserve attention. First, the industrial economy never contracted as much as the services economy in China did, and that means that the rebound will be much bigger in services than it could be in the industrial economy. And second, we do try to estimate those betas, as they're called for the spillover from China to the global economy, excluding China. And what we conclude is that the effect is smaller the more important the services economy in China is for growth. Put differently, the three percentage point acceleration from last year to this year will not carry the same punch for the rest of the world that a three percentage point acceleration would have done years ago. The modest upgrade we've made to the euro area growth is not as a result supported by the China reopening, but instead is coming from stronger incoming data that we think reflect lower energy prices and more sustained fiscal impetus. The modestly stronger outlook, though, doesn't change the fact that the distribution of likely outcomes over the next year, it's skewed to the downside. Seven months from now Europe will be starting the beginning of another winter and with it the risk of exhausting gas inventories, and with core inflation in the euro area not yet at its peak, stronger real growth is simply a reason for more hiking from the ECB. In contrast, we have nudged down our already soft forecast for the U.S. for 2023. Funding costs for banks are higher, the willingness to lend is almost surely lower than before, but that restriction in loan supply is coming at a time where we are already expecting material slowing in the U.S. economy and therefore falling demand for credit. So the net effect is negative, but banks willingness to lend matters a lot less if there are fewer borrowers around. So where does this all leave us? The EM versus DM theme we have been highlighting continues and if anything it's a bit stronger. The China reopening story remains solid and the U.S. is softening. Within DM the stronger growth within Europe compared to the U.S. is notable both for its own sake, but also because it will mean that the ECB hiking will look closer to the Fed's hiking than we had thought just three months ago. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy this show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share thoughts on the market with a friend or colleague today. 

Recent increases in the Fed’s balance sheet may not have the same impact on money supply, growth and equities as in previous cycles.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, April 3rd at 11:30 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. Over the past month, market participants have been focused on how the government will deal with the stress in the banking system and whether the economy can withstand this latest shock. After a rough couple of weeks, especially for regional banks, the major indices appear to be shrugging off these risks. Many are interpreting the sharp increase in bank reserves as another form of quantitative easing and are exhibiting the Pavlovian response that such programs are always good for equity prices. As we discussed in prior podcasts, we do not think that's the right interpretation of this latest increase in the Fed's balance sheet. In our view, all bank reserves are not created equal. True money supply as a function of reserves and the velocity of money which is difficult to measure in real time. As a comparison, inflation did not appear after the first wave of quantitative easing used during the great financial crisis because the velocity of money simultaneously collapsed. This was despite the fact that the percentage increase in the Fed's balance sheet dwarfed what we experienced during COVID. The primary difference was that the increase in reserves during the great financial crisis was simply filling holes left on bank balance sheets from the housing crisis. Therefore, the increase in reserves did not lead to a material increase in true money supply in the real economy. In contrast, during COVID, the increase in reserves are pushed directly into the economy via stimulus checks, PPP loans and other programs to keep the economy from shutting down. However, these fiscal programs were overdone and the result was money supply moved sharply higher because the velocity of money remained stable and even increased slightly. During this latest increase in Fed balance sheet reserves, the total liabilities in the US banking system have continued to fall. This suggests to us that the velocity of money is falling quite rapidly, more than offsetting the increase in bank reserves. In fact, these bank liabilities are falling at a rate of 7% year-over-year, the biggest decline in more than 60 years. Even during the Great Financial Crisis, money supply growth never went into negative territory. The kind of contraction we are witnessing today suggests this is not anything like the QE programs experienced during COVID or the 2009 to 2013 period. Secondarily, it also means that both economic and earnings growth are likely to remain under pressure until money supply growth reverses. This leads me to the second part of this podcast. Year to date, major U.S. stock indices have performed well, led by technology heavy NASDAQ. This is partially due to the snap back from such poor performance last year, led by the NASDAQ. But it's also the view that unlevered, high quality growth stocks are immune from the potential oncoming credit crunch. It's important to note that the rally to date in U.S. stocks has been very narrow, with just eight stocks accounting for 80% of the entire returns in the NASDAQ 100. Meanwhile, only ten stocks have accounted for 95% of the entire returns in the S&P 500, with all ten of those stocks being technology-related businesses. Such an erroneous performance is known as bad breadth, and it typically doesn't bode well for future prices. The counterargument is that technology already went through its own recession last year and it's taken its medicine now with respect to cost reductions and layoffs. Therefore, these stocks can continue to recover and carry the overall market, given their size. We would caution on such conclusions, given the increased risk of a credit crunch that suggests the risk of a broader economic recession is far from extinguished. Recessions are bad for technology companies, which are generally pro cyclical businesses. Instead, we continue to prefer more defensive sectors like consumer staples and health care.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show.

Given recent signs of slowing in a previously strong economy, investors may want to look to history before wishing for weaker growth.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Assets Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the Global Investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, March 31st at 2 p.m. in London. Here at Morgan Stanley Research, we are cautious on global equities relative to high grade bonds. So what would change our mind? We think the bull case for markets is better than expected growth, even if that means higher interest rates. On the other hand, investors should be careful about wishing for weaker growth, even if that would mean easier policy. Central to our thinking is the observation that a sharp slowing of a previously strong economy has repeatedly been poor for stocks relative to high grade bonds. And we think signs of such an environment of a hot economy that's slowing abound. Inverted yield curves, falling earnings expectations, high inflation, tight labor markets, weak commodity prices and tightening bank lending standards are all consistent with a strong economy that's slowing and are all present to an unusual degree. Historically, the-more of these factors one has seen, the worst the forward looking environment for stocks versus bonds. In short, much of our caution is driven by concerns around the growth outlook and its deceleration. So if growth is better than we expect, we think that's a positive surprise. But wouldn't better growth mean higher interest rates, which were bad for markets last year? Shouldn't investors be wishing for weaker growth that would bring back lower rates and policy easing? First, we would view 2022 as something of an outlier, the first time in 150 years that both U.S. stocks and long-term bonds fell by more than 10%. Today, the starting point for valuations in both equities and fixed income is better, leaving more room to absorb the impact of higher rates. Second, the way that stocks and bonds are moving relative to each other is shifting and different from last year. Throughout 2022, stocks generally fell if yields rose, implying higher rates were a concern. But over the last 60 days, stocks have generally fallen with lower yields. That pattern is more consistent with growth being the dominant concern of equity markets. But wouldn't weaker growth help if it meant central banks start to cut interest rates? Here, we think the historical evidence is less supportive than appreciated. In 1989, 2001, 2007, and 2022, the Federal Reserve eased policy as growth weakened. All saw stocks underperform bonds, consistent with our current recommendations. In addition, the amount of easing already expected by markets matters. U.S. markets are already expecting the Fed to cut rates by about 1.7% over the next two years. Such large easing doesn't match times when relatively smaller levels of rate cuts did boost markets like in ‘95, ‘97, ‘99 or 2019. In short, we think the bull case through markets lies through growth that's better than our economists expect. Hoping for weaker growth and lower interest rates that might go along with it has a more volatile track record. Be careful what you wish for. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you. 

As regional banks contend with sector volatility, commercial real estate could face challenges in securing new loans and refinancing debt when it matures.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about some of the challenges facing the commercial real estate markets. It's Thursday, March 30th at 11 a.m. in New York. Commercial real estate market, or CRE in short, is a hot topic, especially in the context of recent developments in the banking sector. As we have discussed on this podcast, even though banks were already tightening lending standards, given recent events their ability and willingness to make loans is diminished. Besides making loans, banks enable credit formation as buyers of senior tranches of securitizations. A regulatory response to recent events will likely decrease the ability of regional banks to be buyers of such tranches, if risk rates and liquidity capital ratio requirements are revised to reflect duration in addition to credit risk. It's against this backdrop that we think about the exposure of regional banks to CRE. Understanding the nature of CRE financing and getting some numbers is useful to put this issue in context. First, commercial real estate mortgage financing is different from, say, residential real estate mortgage financing in that they are generally non-amortizing mortgages with terms usually 5 or 10 years. That means at term there is a balloon payment due which needs to be refinanced into another 5 or 10 year term loan. Second, there is a heightened degree of imminence to the refinancing issue for CRE. $450 billion of CRE debt matures this year and needs to be refinanced. It doesn't really get easier in the next few years, with CRE debt maturing and needing to be refinanced of about $550 billion per year until 2027. In all, between 2023 and 2027, $2.5 trillion of CRE debt is set to mature, about 40% of which was originated by the banking sector. Third, retail banks' exposure to CRE lending is substantial and their share of lending volumes has been growing in recent years. 70% of the core CRE debt in the banking sector was originated by regional banks. These loans are distributed across major CRE sub-sectors and majority of these loans are under $10 million loans. That the share of the digital banks in CRE debt has ramped up meaningfully in the last few years is actually very notable. That means the growth in their CRE lending has come during a period of peaking valuations. Even in sub-sectors such as multifamily, where lending has predominantly come from other sources, such as the GSEs, banks play a critical role in that they are the buyers of senior tranches of agency commercial mortgage backed securities. As I said earlier, if banks' ability to buy such securities decreases because of new regulations, this indirectly impacts the prospects for refinancing maturing debt in the sector as well. So what is the bottom line? Imminent refinancing needs of commercial real estate are a risk and the current banking sector turmoil adds to this challenge. We believe CRE needs to reprice and alternatives to refinance debt are very much needed. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. 

Many investors are questioning if the online dating market has become saturated and, in turn, if there is still a growth runway for the industry.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Lauren Schenk, Equity Analyst covering Small and Mid-Cap Internet stocks. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss the next leg of growth for the online dating industry. It's Wednesday, March 29th at noon in New York. Investors are understandably focused on turmoil in banking, but today we'll be taking a break from banks to cover a hot topic in any macro environment, online dating. Almost every investor call I get includes the question, "Is online dating just becoming saturated, mature or over-monetized?" Several data points have driven this market view. First, revenue growth at the top dating apps slowed in 2022 and provided more modest fiscal year 2023 guides and expected. Second, survey data suggests U.S. online dating adoption slowed over COVID. Third, app data implies U.S. monthly active users have been flat for five plus years, suggesting that monetization has driven all the growth and may slow from here. This data prompted us to dig deeper into the multiple growth drivers of online dating revenue growth to see if investor concerns are well founded. And we found that online dating is not just about users and user growth. Today, roughly 32% of the U.S. addressable single population uses online dating and 26% of that 32% pay for online dating either through a subscription or a la carte purchase. In fact, our analysis suggests there's still plenty of growth runway. There are effectively four key drivers of online dating growth between users and monetization, potential users, or total addressable market, online dating usage, payer penetration and revenue per payer. Most dating apps employ a "Freemium" model, meaning the service and platform are free to use, but the experience and success rate can be improved via a monthly subscription of bundled features or one-off a la carte purchases. To be sure, user growth has provided a solid boost to revenue growth over the last many years as mobile swipe apps expanded usage among young users. However, we see slowing U.S. single population growth and a slowing of user penetration from here. We estimate that user growth will likely contribute only 3% of industry revenue growth from 2022 to 2030, while the bulk of online dating revenue growth will increasingly come from monetization. With that said, compared to user growth, monetization growth is far more dependent on execution, which could make the industry growth inherently more volatile going forward, supporting our thesis that the leading apps' steep recent slowdown is not a function of oversaturation so much as mis-execution. Given all this, we believe the U.S. online dating industry will see durable, above consensus revenue growth medium to long term. We think the 2022 slowdown was due to mis-execution and monetization, with almost no payer growth and macro challenges, rather than saturation, as three of the four primary industry growth drivers, online dating usage, payer penetration and revenue per payer, are still on a growth path. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. 

If you're a listener to Thoughts on the Market you may be interested in our new podcast: What Should I Do With My Money? ----------------Managing our money can be ... a lot. It's one of the most important aspects of our lives, and yet, many of us just muddle through, without any help, hoping that we haven’t made a mistake. It doesn’t have to be that way. At Morgan Stanley, we help people manage their money at all stages of their lives, whether a young person just starting out or an executive planning their retirement. And while each person's situation is unique, many of their concerns are common. On this podcast, we match real people, asking real questions about their money, with experienced Financial Advisors. You’ll hear answers to important questions like: Is now the right time to buy a house? What to do if your business fails? How should I be saving to cover the cost of college? How much do I really need to retire and am I on track? Having an experienced Financial Advisor on your side can go a long way. Someone who you can trust, who gets you, who has tackled these same issues before and who has the expertise to develop a plan that fits your goals. Join us as our guests share their stories around life's major moments. And hear the difference a conversation can make. Hosted by Morgan Stanley Wealth Management’s Jamie Roô. For more information visit morganstanley.com/mymoney.  

Amid uncertainty in the global banking sector, are European equities a safe haven for investors to weather the storm?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Graham Secker, Head of Morgan Stanley's European Equity Strategy Team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the implications on European equities from the increased uncertainty surrounding the global banking sector. It's Tuesday, March 28th at 3 p.m. in London. After the turbulence of mid-March, a degree of calm has descended over markets recently, which has lifted European equities back to within 3% of their prior high and pushed equity volatility down to more normal levels. In effect, we think investors are now in 'wait and see' mode as they try to assess the forthcoming consequences and investment implications of recent events within the global banking sector. Our recent discussions with investors suggests a potential lack of willingness to get too bearish at this time, with some still hopeful the markets can navigate a path of modestly weaker growth, with lower inflation and less hawkish central banks. For us, we view this outcome as a possibility rather than a probability and reflective of the fact that investors have been positively surprised by the general resilience of economies and equity markets to date. However, this viewpoint ignores the fact that something has changed in the overall macro environment. First, yield curves are starting to steepen from very inverted levels, a backdrop that has traditionally been negative for risk markets as it reflects lower interest rate expectations due to rising recession risk. And second, we now have clear evidence, we think, that tighter monetary policy is beginning to bite. Over the coming weeks, we may see anecdotal stories emerge of problems around credit availability, followed thereafter by weaker economic data and ultimately lower earnings estimates. We also suspect that more financial problems or accidents will emerge over the coming months as a result of the combination of higher interest rates and lower credit availability. These issues may not necessarily manifest themselves in the mainstream European banking sector this time, however asset markets will still be vulnerable if risks emerge from other areas such as U.S. banks, commercial real estate or other financial entities. As a result of this increased uncertainty, we have taken a more cautious view on European equities in the near-term and forecast the region's prior outperformance of U.S. stocks to pause for a while. Within the European market, we see a trickier outlook for banks, given crowded positioning and less upside risk to earnings estimates than previously thought. However, the area of greatest caution for us is cyclicals, with the group most exposed to rising recession risk and weaker equity markets, and we are particularly cautious on those sectors most sensitive to credit dynamics such as autos. On the more positive side, we continue to like longer duration sectors such as luxury goods and technology, and believe they will continue to act as safe havens while market uncertainty remains high. In addition, we think the telecom sector offers an attractive mix of low valuation, healthy earnings resilience and the potential for more corporate activity and increased policy support from regulators going forward.  Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

After the events of the past few weeks, earnings estimates look increasingly unrealistic and the bear market may finally be ready to appropriately factor-in elevated earning risks.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, March 27th at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. Back in October, when we turned tactically bullish, we wrote that markets often need the engraved invitation from a higher power to tell them what's really going on. For bond markets, that higher power is the Fed, and for stocks it's company earnings guidance. Our assumption at the time was that we were unlikely to get the negative messaging on earnings from companies necessary for the final bear market low. Instead, our view is that it would likely take another quarter for business conditions to deteriorate enough for companies to finally change their minds on the recovery that is still baked into consensus forecasts. Fast forward to today and we are seeing yet another quarter where estimates are being lowered to the same degree we have witnessed over the past two. In other words, it doesn't appear that the earnings picture is bottoming as many investors were starting to think last month. In fact, these downward revisions are progressing right in line with our earnings model, that suggests bottoms up estimates remain 15 to 20% too high. More specifically, consensus estimates still assume a strong recovery in profitability. This flies directly in the face of our negative operating leverage thesis that is playing out. Our contention that inflation increases operating leverage and operating leverage cuts both ways, is a concept that is still under appreciated. We think that helps to explain why we are so far below the consensus now on earnings. More importantly, it doesn't necessarily require an economic recession to play out, although that risk is more elevated too. This leads us to the main point of this week's podcast. With the events of the past few weeks, we think it's becoming more obvious that earnings estimates are unrealistic. As we have said, most bear markets end with some kind of an event that is just too significant to ignore any longer. We think recent banking stress and the effects they are likely to have on credit availability is a risk that the market must consider and price more appropriately. Three weeks ago, the bond market did a striking reversal that caught many market participants flat footed. In short, the bond market appeared to have decided that the recent bank failures were the beginning of the end for this cycle. More specifically, the yield curve bull steepened by 60 basis points in a matter of days. Importantly, it was the first time we can remember the bond market trading this far away from the Fed's dot-plot. It was dismissing the higher powers guidance. We think this is important because now in our view it's likely to be the stock market's turn to think for itself, too. To date, the bear market has been driven almost entirely by higher interest rates and the impact that it has had on valuations. More specifically, when the bear market started, the price earnings multiple was 21.5x versus today's 17.5x. Importantly, this multiple troughed at 15.5x in mid-October, the lows of this bear market to date. Well, that's a relatively attractive multiple and one of the reasons we turned tactically bullish at the time, we think it never reflected the growth concerns that should now dominate the market and investor sentiment. Our evidence for that claim is based on the fact that the equity risk premium is actually lower by 110 basis points than it was at the start of this bear market. In other words, the portion of the price earnings multiple related to growth expectations is far from flashing concern. Based on our analysis, the equity risk premium is approximately 150 to 200 basis points too low, which translates into stock prices that are 15 to 20% lower at the index level. The good news is that the average stock is getting cheaper as small cap stocks have underperformed, along with banks and other areas most affected by recent events. Areas that appear most vulnerable to the further correction we expect include technology, consumer goods and services and industrials. Remain patient until the market has appropriately discounted the earnings risk that we think has moved center stage. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show. 

As markets contend with the recent volatility in the banking sector, global central banks face the challenge of continuing to combat inflation against this updated backdrop. Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets and Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter discuss.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Global Chief Economist. Andrew Sheets: And today on the podcast we'll be talking about Global Central Bank policy and what's next amidst significant market volatility. It's Friday, March 24th at 4 p.m. in London. Seth Carpenter: And it's noon here in New York. Andrew Sheets: So Seth I know that both of us have been running around over the last week speaking with clients, but it's really great to catch up with you because we're coming to the end of the first quarter and yet I feel like a year's worth of things have happened in global central banks and the economic narrative. Maybe just take a step back and help us understand how you're thinking about the global economy right now. Seth Carpenter: You're absolutely right, Andrew. There is so much going on this year, so it's worth taking a step back. Coming into this year, we were looking for the economy to slow down. And I think it's just critical to remember why, central banks everywhere that are fighting inflation are raising interest rates intentionally to tighten financial conditions in order to slow their economies down and thereby bring down inflationary pressures. The trick, of course, is not slowing things down so much that they actively cause a recession. So the Fed having hiked interest rates already, we came into the year expecting a few more hikes, but then the data got stronger and Chair Powell opened the door to maybe going back to 50 basis point hikes. And now we've got this development in the banking sector. But it's not as if so far the central banks have seen evidence that things have gone so far that they're going to cause a recession. So all of this sounds a little bit simple maybe, but the key thing here is how can they calibrate whether or not they've done enough in terms of tightening financial conditions or if they've gone too far. Andrew Sheets: That's a really important point, because if you look at what the market is now pricing from the Federal Reserve, it's expecting significant rate cuts through the end of the year. And it's pricing in a scenario where the Fed has effectively gone far enough or maybe they've even gone too far and has to reverse their policy pretty quickly. How do you think about the path forward from here and how likely is it that central banks will ease as much as markets are currently pricing? Seth Carpenter: I mean, I do think there is a path for central banks to ease, but that is not and let me just start off with that is not our baseline scenario for this year. You led off with inflation and I think that's an appropriate place to start because what we heard clearly from central bankers in all of the developed markets was they are still hyper focused on inflation being too high and the need to bring it down. So one way of thinking about what's going on is that there's just a continuation of the normal tightening of monetary policy, so bank funding costs have gone up. If you read the the publications that our colleague Betsy Graseck, who runs Bank Equity Research in North America, she's pointed out that there's been a clear increase in bank funding costs that compresses net interest margins and that should, as a result, have an effect on what's going on with credit extension. In that version of the world, the Fed is in this fine tuning version of the world where they have to feel their way to the right degree of tightness and maybe they overdo it a little bit and then eventually pull back. I think the other version of the world that's very hard to get your mind around it is absolutely not our best case scenario right now, is that there's just a wholesale pulling back in terms of the availability and willingness of banks to make credit, either because of what's going on with their own funding or because of risk in the economy. And if there's an immediate cessation of lending, well, then I think you're talking about small and medium sized businesses that rely on bank loans not being able to say cover payrolls, or not being able to cover working capital. I think that version of the world is very, very different and that would lead to a much sharper slowdown in the economy and I think, again, would elicit some reaction from the Fed. Andrew Sheets: So Seth, I'm really glad you brought the banking sector and its uncertain impact on the economy, because it goes to this broader question of lags and how that impacts some of the big debates that investors are having in the market. You have central banks that are looking at inflation and labor market data, that's arguably some of the more lagging economic data we have, by which I mean it historically tends to show weakness later than other economic indicators. So how do you think about those lags in inflation, in monetary policy and in bank credit when you're thinking about both Morgan Stanley's forecasts, but also how central banks navigate the picture here? Seth Carpenter: Very key part of what's going on is to try to understand that lag structure. I would say the best estimates are changes in monetary policy that tighten financial conditions, probably affect the real economy with a lag of two, three, maybe four quarters. And then from the real side of the economy to inflation, there's probably another lag of two or three or maybe four quarters. So we're talking about at least a year from policy to inflation and maybe as much as two years. One thing to keep in mind though, about those lags is we can look at the Fed and what they tell us about their own projections for how the economy would evolve under what they consider appropriate policy. And the answer is the median member of the Federal Open Market Committee sees core inflation at about 2.1%, so almost, but not quite back to target at the end of 2025. So if you think about when they started hiking rates until the end of 2025, they're thinking it's an appropriate time horizon for it to take well over three years. I think that's the kind of time horizon we should be thinking about in general, when everything goes, shall we say, roughly according to plan. Now, the banking system developments throw a big monkey wrench into everything. And to be clear, confounding all of this, even before we had any of the volatility in the banking sector, we were already seeing slowing, that always happens when interest rates rise. Deposits were coming down in the United States, even before any of the recent developments, the rate of growth of loans was coming down. We had on a three month basis, C&I loan growth slowed to about zero. So we were already seeing the slowing happening in the banking sector. I think the real question is, are we going to see just incrementally more or is there something more discontinuous? Our baseline view relies on this being sort of an incremental additional tightness in conditions, but we have to keep monitoring to make sure we know what happens. Andrew Sheets: Seth maybe my last question would be, given everything that's been going on, what do you think is something that is most misunderstood by the market or least understood by the market? Seth Carpenter: I definitely hear in conversations with clients and others this idea that there might be a dichotomy. Are central banks going to give up their concern about inflation and instead turn their focus to financial stability? And I always try to push back on that and say that that's a bit of a bit of a false dichotomy. Why do I say that? Because, remember, fundamentally, central banks are trying to tighten financial conditions in order to slow the economy, in order to bring inflation down. And so if what we're seeing now is just further tightening of financial conditions, that will help them slow the economy down, there's no trade off to be made. And in fact, Chair Powell, at the last press conference said what's going on in banking system is something like the equivalent of one or two interest rate hikes. So in that sense, there's clearly no dichotomy to be had. So I would say that's for me, the biggest misunderstanding in the way the debate is going on is whether central banks have to focus either on financial stability or on inflation. But if I can, let me turn the tables and ask a question of you. We came into this year with our outlook called the year of Yield, but now the world is very different. You've talked about how much volatility there is. So when you're talking to clients, how are they supposed to navigate these very turbulent waters with lots of cross-currents going in different directions? Andrew Sheets: One thing that I hope listeners understand is that when we set our views from the strategy side at Morgan Stanley, we work very closely with you and the Global Economics Team. And I think one of the core themes this year is that even though we've seen a lot of volatility in the narrative and in the data, the core message is that 2023 is a year where growth is decelerating meaningfully in the U.S and Europe and the 2023 is a year where growth is decelerating meaningfully in the U.S and Europe, and that's the case if you have a recession, which is not our base case, or if you avoid a recession, which is. And I think we've seen developments in the banking sector since we've and I think the developments that we've seen in the banking sector only reinforce this view, only reinforce the idea that growth is going to slow, given how hot it was coming in, given the effect of higher rates and now given the additional impact of a more conservative bank of a more conservative banking sector. I think you make a great point that there's a lot we don't know about how banks will react or how consumers will react to tighter credit conditions. Regardless, I still think at the core we should be investing for a decelerating growth environment. And I think that's an environment that argues for more conservatism in portfolios, owning less equities than normal and owning more bonds than normal. And that's very much premised on the idea that growth will decelerate from here and strategies will and that investing will follow a pattern similar to other periods of significant deceleration. Well, Seth, it was great talking with you. Seth Carpenter: It's great speaking with you Andrew. Andrew Sheets: And thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.

Original Release on February 6th, 2023: As new gene therapies are researched, developed and begin clinical trials, what hurdles must genetic medicine overcome before these therapies are commonly available? Head of U.S. Pharmaceuticals Terence Flynn and Head of U.S. Biotech Matthew Harrison discuss. ----- Transcript -----Terence Flynn: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Terence Flynn, Head of U.S. Pharma for Morgan Stanley Research. Matthew Harrison: And I'm Matthew Harrison, Head of U.S. Biotech. Terence Flynn: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll be discussing the bold promise of genetic medicine. It's Monday, February 6th, at 10 a.m. in New York. Terence Flynn: 2023 marks 20 years since the completion of the Human Genome Project. The unprecedented global scientific collaboration that generated the first sequence of the human genome. The pace of research in molecular biology and human genetics has not relented since 2003, and today we're at the start of a real revolution in the practice of medicine. Matthew what exactly is genetic medicine and what's the difference between gene therapy and gene editing? Matthew Harrison: As I think about this, I think it's important to talk about context. And so as we've thought about medical developments and drug development over the last many decades, you started with pills. And then we moved into drugs from living cells. These are more complicated drugs. And now we're moving on to editing actual pieces of our genome to deliver potentially long lasting cures. And so this opens up a huge range of new treatments and new opportunities. And so in general, as we think about it, they're basically two approaches to genetic medicine. The first is called gene therapy, and the second is called gene editing. The major difference here is that in gene therapy you just deliver a snippet of a gene or pre-programmed message to the body that then allows the body to make the protein that's missing, With gene editing, instead what you do is you go in and you directly edit the genes in the person's body, potentially giving a long lasting cure to that person. So obviously two different approaches, but both could be very effective. And so, Terence, as you think about what's happening in research and development right now, you know, how long do you think it's going to be before some of these new therapies make it to market? Terence Flynn: As we think about some of the other technologies you mentioned, Matthew, those took, you know, decades in some cases to really refine them and broaden their applicability to a number of diseases. So we think the same is likely to play out here with genetic medicine, where you're likely to see an iterative approach over time as companies work to optimize different features of these technologies. So as we think about where it's focused right now, it's being primarily on the rare genetic disease side. So diseases such as hemophilia, spinal muscular atrophy and Duchenne muscular dystrophy, which affect a very small percentage of the population, but the risk benefit is very favorable for these new medicines. Now, there are currently five gene therapies approved in the U.S. and several more on the horizon in later stage development. No gene editing therapies have been approved yet, but there is one for sickle cell disease that could actually be approved next year, which would be a pretty big milestone. And the majority of the other gene editing therapies are actually in earlier stages of development. So it's likely going to be several years before those reach the market. As, again as we've seen happen time and time again in biopharma as these new therapies and new platforms are rolled out they have very broad potential. And obviously there's a lot of excitement here around these genetic medicines and thinking about where these could be applied. But I think before we go there, Matthew, obviously there are still some hurdles that needs to be addressed before we see a broader rollout here. So maybe you could touch on that for us. Matthew Harrison: You're right, there are some issues that we're still working through as we think about applying these technologies. The first one is really delivery. You obviously can't just inject some genes into the body and they'll know what to do. So you have to package them somehow. And there are a variety of techniques that are in development, whether using particles of fat to shield them or using inert viruses to send them into the body. But right now, we can't deliver to every tissue in every organ, and so that limits where you can send these medicines and how they can be effective. So there's still a lot of work to be done on delivery. And the second is when you go in and you edit a gene, even if you're very precise about where you want to edit, you might cause some what we call off target effects on the edges of where you've edited. And so there's concern about could those off target effects lead to safety issues. And then the third thing which we've touched on previously is durability. There's potentially a difference between gene therapy and gene editing, where gene editing may lead to a very long lasting cure, where different kinds of gene therapies may have longer term potential, but some may need to be redosed. Terence, as we turn back to thinking about the progress of the pipeline here, you know, what are the key catalysts you're watching over 23 and 24? Terence Flynn: You know, as everyone probably knows, biopharma is a highly regulated industry. We have the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration here in the U.S., and we have the EMA in Europe. Those are the bodies that, you know, evaluate risk benefit of every therapy that's entering clinical trials and ultimately will reach the market. So this year we're expecting much of the focus for the gene editing companies to be broadly on regulatory progress. So again, this includes completion of regulatory filings here in the U.S. and Europe for the sickle cell disease drug that I mentioned before. And then something that's known as an IND filing. So essentially what companies are required to do is file that before they conduct clinical trials in humans in the U.S. There are companies that are pursuing this for hereditary angioedema and TTR amyloidosis. Those, if successful, would allow clinical trials to be conducted here in the U.S. and include U.S. patients. The other big thing we're watching is additional clinical data related to durability of efficacy. So, I think we've seen already with some of the gene therapies for hemophilia that we have durable efficacy out to five years, which is very exciting and promising. But the question is, will that last even longer? And how to think about gene therapy relative to gene editing on the durability side. And then lastly, I'd say safety. Obviously that's important for any therapy, but given some of the hurdles still that you mentioned, Matthew, that's obviously an important focus here as we look out over the longer term and something that the companies and the regulators are going to be following pretty closely. So again, as we think about the development of the field, one of the other key questions is access to patients. And so pricing reimbursement plays a key role here for any new therapy. There are some differences here, obviously, because we're talking about cures versus traditional chronic therapies. So maybe Matthew you could elaborate on that topic. Matthew Harrison: So as you think about these genetic medicines, the ones that we've seen approved have pretty broad price ranges, anywhere from a million to a few million dollars per patient, but you're talking about a potential cure here. And as I think about many of the chronic therapies, especially the more sophisticated ones that patients take, they can cost anywhere between tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. So you can see over a decade or more of use how they can actually eclipse what seems like a very high upfront price of these genetic medicines. Now, one of the issues obviously, is that the way the payers are set up is different in different parts of the world. So in Europe, for example, there are single payer systems for the patient never switches between health insurance carriers. And so therefore you can capture that value very easily. In the U.S., obviously it's a much more complicated system, many people move between payers as they switch jobs, as you change from, you know, commercial payers when you're younger to a government payer as you move into Medicare. And so there needs to be a mechanism worked out on how to spread that value out. And so I think that's one of the things that will need to evolve. But, you know, it's a very exciting time here in genetic medicine. There's significant opportunity and I think we're on the cusp of really seeing a robust expansion of this field and leading to many potential therapies in the years to come. Terence Flynn: That's great, Matthew. Thanks so much for taking the time to talk today. Matthew Harrison: Great speaking with you, Terrence. Terence Flynn: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show.

As investors focus on the risks of debt, can Emerging Markets combat pressure from wide fiscal deficits? Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research Michael Zezas, Global Head of EM Sovereign Credit Strategy Simon Waever and Global Economics Analyst Diego Anzoategui discuss.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Simon Waever: I'm Simon Waever, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of EM Sovereign Credit Strategy. Diego Anzoategui: And I'm Diego Anzoategui from the Global Economics Team. Michael Zezas: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll discuss how emerging markets are facing the pressures from rising debt levels and tougher external financing conditions. It's Wednesday, March 22nd at 10 a.m. in New York. Michael Zezas: The bank backdrop that's been unfolding over the last couple of weeks has led investors in the U.S. and globally to focus on the risks of debt right now. Emerging markets, which have seen sovereign debt levels rise in part due to the COVID pandemic, is one place where debt concerns are intensifying. But our economists and strategists here at Morgan Stanley Research believe this concern is overdone and that there might be opportunities in EM. Diego, can you maybe start by giving us a sense of where debt levels are in emerging markets, post-COVID, especially amidst rising interest rates globally? Diego Anzoategui: The overall EM debt to GDP ratio increased 11% from 2019, reaching levels above the 60% mark in 2022. Just a level, leveled by some economists, that's a warning sign because of its potential effects on the growth outlook. But without entering the debate on where this threshold is relevant or not, there is no doubt that the increase is meaningful and widespread because nearly every team has higher debt levels now. And broadly speaking, there are two factors explaining the rise in EM debt. The first one is a COVID, which was a hit on fiscal expenditure and revenues, overall. Many economies implemented expansionary fiscal policies and lockdowns caused depressed economic activity and lower fiscal revenues. The second one is the war in Ukraine, that caused a rise in oil and food commodity prices, hitting fiscals in economies with government subsidies to energy or food. Michael Zezas: And, Simon, while most emerging markets continue to have fiscal deficits wider than their pre-COVID trends, you argue that there's still a viable path to normalization against the backdrop of global economic conditions. What are some risks to this outlook and what catalysts and signposts are you watching closely? Simon Waever: Sure. I'm looking at three key points. First, the degree of fiscal adjustment. I think markets will reward those countries with a clear plan to return to pre-pandemic fiscal balances. That's, of course, easier said than done, but at least for energy exporters, it is easier. Second market focus will also be on the broader policy response. Again, I think markets will reward reforms that help boost growth, and inbound investment. It's also important as central banks respond to the inflation concerns, which for the most part they have done. And then I think having a strong sustainability plan also increasingly plays a role in achieving both more and cheaper financing. Third and lastly, we can't avoid talking about the global financial conditions. While, of course that's not something individual countries can control, it does impact the availability and cost of financing. In 2022, that was very difficult, but we do expect 2023 to be more supportive for EM sovereigns. Michael Zezas: And with all that said, you believe there may be some opportunities in emerging markets. Can you walk us through your thinking there? Simon Waever: Right. So building on all the work Diego and his team did, we think solvency is actually okay for the majority of the asset class, even if it has worsened compared to pre-COVID. Liquidity is instead the weak spot. So, for instance, some countries have lost access to the market and that's been a key driver of why sovereign defaults have picked up already. But looking ahead, three points are worth keeping in mind. One, 73% of the asset class is investment grade or double B rated, and they do have adequate liquidity. Two, for the lower rated countries valuations have already adjusted. For instance, if I look at the probability of default price for single B's, it's around double historical levels already. And then three, positioning to EM is very light. It actually has been for the last three years. So these are all reasons why we're more upbeat on EM longer term, even if near-term, it'll be driven more by a broader risk appetite. Michael Zezas: And Simon, what happens to emerging markets if, say, developed market interest rates move far beyond current expectations and what we in Morgan Stanley research are currently forecasting? Simon Waever: In short, it would be very difficult for EM and I would say especially high yield to handle another significant move higher in either U.S. yields or the U.S. dollar. As I mentioned earlier, market access for single B's needs to return at some point in 2023 as countries already drew down on alternative funding sources. And even within the IG universe, it would make debt servicing costs much higher. Michael Zezas: And Diego, when you look beyond 2023, what are you focused on from an economics perspective? Diego Anzoategui: Beyond 2023, we're going to focus on fiscal balances mainly. The expenditure side of the equation has broadly normalized after COVID. So it's currently at pre-COVID levels. But the revenue side of the economy is lagging, so its revenues are below pre-COVID trends. So we're going to be focused on the economic cycle to check where revenue picks up again to pre-COVID levels. Michael Zezas: And, last question Simon, which countries within emerging markets are you watching particularly closely? Simon Waever: So overall, the investment grade and double B rated countries are largely priced for a more benign outlook already, which we agree with. But I would highlight Brazil as an exception, as one place that's not pricing the fiscal risks ahead. For the lower rated credits, I would highlight Egypt, Nigeria and Kenya as key countries to watch. They are large index constituents, still have relatively high prices and they all have upcoming maturities. Pakistan and Tunisia are at even higher risk of being the next countries to see a missed payment, but the difference here is that they're also priced much more conservatively. Michael Zezas: Well, Simon, Diego, thanks for taking the time to talk. Simon Waever: Great speaking with you, Mike. Diego Anzoategui: Great talking to you, Mike. Michael Zezas: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show. 

Against the backdrop of volatility in the banking sector, tightening in consumer and commercial credit may have far-reaching impacts for economic growth.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Vishy Tirupattur, Chief Fixed Income Strategist here at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the impact of the current volatility in the banking sector on credit. It's Tuesday, March 21st at 11 a.m. in New York. On the back of the developments over the last two weeks, our banking analysts see a meaningful increase in funding costs ahead, which should lead to tighter lending standards, lower loan growth and wider loan spreads. Our economists were already expecting a meaningful slowdown in growth and job gains over the coming months, and the prospect of incremental tightening of credit conditions raises the risk that a soft landing turns into a harder one. According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, small businesses are those that employ fewer than 500 workers, and between 1995 and 2021, they accounted for nearly 63% of the net new job creation. Today, nearly 47% of all private sector employees work at small businesses. In the banking sector, small banks account for 38% of total loans in the U.S. and 30% of commercial and industrial loans. Businesses rely on C&I loans for short term funding of activities such as hiring, paying workers, purchasing supplies, equipment and building inventories. We now expect this C&I lending to slow down the most based on our prior experience. We also expect that lending to commercial real estate sector to decline given the stresses that are building over there. On the other hand, we are looking for lending to consumer to grow, but more slowly than what we thought before. Beyond their normal lending activity, banks enable credit formation in the economy by being buyers of senior tranches of securitized credit, providing senior leverage to securitization vehicles, which is a major source of credit formation. Well, we don't exactly know how bank regulations will change in response to the developments of last two weeks, there is the potential for bank sponsorship of securitized credit to diminish and thus indirectly affect credit formation. From a corporate bond investor perspective, the view has been that the banking sector fundamentals have been in a good place, and last year's underperformance versus non financials was largely a technical story. The developments of the last two weeks have undermined this thesis. Looking beyond the near-term uncertainty, we believe that the supply risks in bank credit are now skewed to the upside. The emphasis on funding diversity shifting away from deposits to wholesale funding is likely to keep regional bank issuance elevated for much longer. While the Bank Term Funding Program (BTFP) may alleviate the urgency to issue these bonds, it by no means provides a permanent solution. So looking beyond the near-term uncertainty, new assurance from banks, regional banks in particular, is likely to persist. Given that the sector was a consensus overweight and is also likely to see more supply when markets normalize, we see continued volatility and increased tiering within bank credit. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

As markets look to recent bank failures, how are valuations for both stocks and bonds likely to change with this risk to growth?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, March 20th at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. Over the past few weeks, the markets have fixated on the rapid failure of two major banks that, up until very recently, have been viewed as safe depository institutions. The reason for their demise is crystal clear in hindsight, and not that surprising when you see the interest rate risk these banks were taking with their deposits, and the fact that the Fed has raised rates by five percentage points in the past year. The uninsured deposit backstop put in place by the Fed and FDIC will help to alleviate further major bank runs, but it won't stop the already tight lending standards across the banking industry from getting even tighter. It also won't prevent the cost of deposits from rising, thereby pressuring net interest margins. In short, the risk of a credit crunch has increased materially. Bond markets have exhibited volatility around these developments as market participants realize the ramifications of tighter credit. The yield curve has steepened by 60 basis points in a matter of days, something seen only a few times in history and usually the bond market's way of saying recession risk is now more elevated. An inversion of the curve typically signals a recession within 12 months, but the real risk starts when it re-steepens from the trough. Meanwhile, the European Central Bank decided to raise rates by 50 basis points last week, despite Europe's own banking issues and sluggish economy. The German bund curve seemed to disagree with that decision and steepened by 50 basis points, signaling greater recession risk like in the U.S. If growth is likely to slow further from the incremental tightening in the U.S. banking system and the bond market seems to be supporting that conclusion, why on earth did U.S. stocks rally last week? We think it had to do with the growing view that the Fed and FDIC bail out of depositors is a form of quantitative easing and provides a catalyst for stocks to go higher. While the $300 billion increase in Fed balance sheet reserves last week does re liquefy the banking system, it does little in terms of creating new money that can flow into the economy or markets, at least beyond a brief period of, say, a day or a few weeks. Secondarily, the fact that the Fed is lending, not buying, also matters. If a bank borrows from the Fed, it's expanding its own balance sheet, making leverage ratios more binding. When the Fed buys a security outright, the seller of that security has more balance sheet space for renewed expansion. That is not the case in this situation, in our view. As of Wednesday last week, the Fed was lending depository institutions $300 billion more than it was the prior week. Half was primary credit through the discount window, which is often viewed as temporary borrowing and unlikely to translate into new credit creation for the economy. The other half was a loan to the bridge the FDIC created for the failed banks. It's unlikely that any of these reserves will transmit to the economy as bank deposits normally do. Instead, we believe the overall velocity of money in the banking system is likely to fall sharply and more than offset any increase in reserves, especially given the temporary emergency nature of these funds. Over the past month, the correlation between stocks and bonds has reversed and is now negative. In other words, stocks go down when rates fall now and vice versa. This is in sharp contrast to most of the past year when stocks are more worried about inflation, the Fed's reaction to it and rates going higher. Instead, the path of stocks is now about growth and our belief that earnings forecasts are 15 to 20% too high has increased. From an equity market perspective, the events of the past week mean that credit availability is decreasing for a wide swath of the economy, which may be the catalyst that finally convinces market participants that valuations are way too high. We've been waiting patiently for this acknowledgment because with it comes the real buying opportunity, which remains several months away. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show.

As Europe commits to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, one hurdle will be the energy emissions caused by buildings’ operations. What investment opportunities might come from energy renovation? European Building and Construction Equity Analyst Ceder Ekblom and European Property Analyst Sebastian Isola discuss. ----- Transcript -----Cedar Ekblom: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Cedar Ekblom, Equity Analyst covering European Building and Construction for Morgan Stanley research. Sebastian Isola: And I'm Sebastian Isola from the European Property Team. Cedar Ekblom: On this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll discuss Europe's commitment to building energy efficiency. Cedar Ekblom: Sebastian when I talk to investors and talk about energy emissions, most people immediately think of cars and transportation. But according to the International Energy Agency, in 2021 the operation of buildings accounted for 30% of global final energy consumption and 27% of total energy sector emissions. That's a huge number. A lot of people don't realize that. So it's clear that decarbonizing building stock is essential to achieving a net zero by 2050 scenario. Sebastian, we recently wrote about this and with this big goal in mind, can you give us an overview of where Europe is right now and what the biggest opportunities are that you see? Sebastian Isola: I think to start, Europe's building stock is old and inefficient. More than 40% was built before 1970 when the first energy efficiency standards were introduced, and we're currently renovating just 1% of building stock a year. The European Commission thinks that this needs to at least double to meet its 2030 target for a 55% cut in emissions. If we successfully lift innovation spend, there is a big opportunity for makers of solar, heating and ventilation equipment, building automation, energy efficient lighting, and any product linked to the building envelope from insulation to roofing and windows. Cedar Ekblom: So it sounds like there's great opportunity here, but investors often push back with the argument that energy renovation is a 'hope' rather than a reality. What are your views on the economics of investment? Sebastian Isola: I think firstly, I'd say that our alphawise survey gives us a proprietary insight into what's really happening on the ground. It confirms renovation spend is on the rise, there was a 10% increase in the number of people that renovated their homes to save energy in 2022 versus 2021. Secondly, for commercial property landlords, the economics of investment is clear. Green buildings are attracting higher rents, and in some markets, office buildings with sustainability ratings are being awarded materially higher valuations, sometimes more than a 20% premium. And Cedar, what are the key renovation categories and what is the driving motivation behind them? Cedar Ekblom: Well, if you talk to anyone in the industry, they'll tell you that fabric first is where we need to start. So what does that actually mean? We have to look at improving the insulation of the walls, the roofs, and looking at new windows and doors. And the reason why we need to prioritize this is ultimately space heating accounts for about two thirds of total energy consumption. The good thing is that our survey told us that in the nonresidential market, these types of investments are the ones being prioritized. Installation is expected to be one of the key renovation categories for 2023. Building managers told us that they plan to boost spend on installation by 8%. After upgrading the building envelope, you need to think about tackling HVAC equipment and rolling out building automation. And finally solar continues to rank as the most attractive for residential energy renovation upgrades. In terms of the motivations, 59% of consumers and building managers say that lowering energy costs was the biggest driver for investment. I think that ultimately makes sense when we think about the landscape of the energy market in Europe over the last 12 months with the big increases in gas and electricity prices. Sebastian Isola: And with that in mind Cedar, what's your near-term and longer term outlook for renovation spend? Cedar Ekblom: Well, look, the runway for investment is huge. The European Commission estimates that an additional €275 billion of investment in building energy efficiency is required annually to 2030. And that's only an interim goal. If we really want to reach a 2050 net zero ambition, the optionality for investment means that we could be looking at more than €5.9 trillion of spend. If we deliver that total construction spend in real terms would run at 3% annually. That's a big increase from the less than 1% average growth over the last 10 years. Now, Sebastian, we've obviously spoken about the potential for fantastic investment, but there's obviously some big barriers around actually driving this uplift. How is the region trying to tackle these types of hurdles? Sebastian Isola: I think the biggest barriers are funding and skills and there's a 'carrot and stick' approach to funding. Government subsidies are coming through, although maybe slightly slower than we'd like. The good news is that private investment really is ramping up, and that's partly driven by better economics, but also new penalties which make letting inefficient buildings less profitable. In the UK, if we use that as an example, you need to achieve an EPC rating of B or higher by 2030 to be able to let your building. To put that in context, 75% of commercial properties in the UK currently don't meet that EPC standard. So there's going to be a huge scale of renovation required for commercial property in the UK to be brought up to that standard by 2030. And that really is going to drive investment in commercial property and in energy renovation. The second challenge is skills. It's not an easy problem to fix, especially when the construction industry is already challenged by a lack of skilled labor. The EU is taking an important step to address these hurdles by introducing the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive. This sets a region wide energy efficiency standard and harmonizes how buildings are ranked. It was passed into law in February of this year and we think it sets the framework for a multi-decade investment runway. Cedar Ekblom: Sebastian, thanks for taking the time to talk. Sebastian Isola: Great speaking to you Cedar. Cedar Ekblom: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app, it helps more people find the show.

Investors’ renewed concerns around the banking system should have a variety of impacts on fixed-income investment.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between public policy and financial markets. It's Thursday, March 16th at 11 a.m. in New York. It's a volatile moment in markets, with investors grappling with complicated questions around the failure of Silicon Valley Bank. That event has naturally led to concerns about broader challenges to the banking system and potential impacts to the path for monetary policy. Here's what we think fixed income investors need to know in the near-term. Our banking analysts and economists have concluded that the U.S. banking system is more constrained. The causes of the Silicon Valley Bank situation will likely cause banks and their regulators to think differently about capital, causing lending growth to decline more than expected this year. That, in turn, should put pressure on the labor market and therefore the general U.S. economic outlook. We expect this dynamic will influence the U.S. bond market in the following ways in the near-term. For treasuries, we believe yields will be biased lower, because while the data still shows inflation pressures have persisted, that may take a backseat to financial stability concerns in the minds of investors. For corporate credit, there may be some near-term underperformance, given the market features a heavy weighting towards bonds issued by U.S. banks. In MUNI's, our team doesn't expect them to outperform in the near-term as the kind of interest rate volatility caused by recent events historically has been a headwind to the asset class. But a bright spot might be agency mortgage bonds, where our colleagues see room for compression in yields relative to treasuries. Those levels, which are near COVID crisis levels, perhaps overcompensate for fears that banks may have to sell their portfolios of similar bonds. So that's what's going on in the near-term, but my colleagues and I will be back here frequently to give you some longer term perspective. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

As cryptocurrency has seen some of its major players topple, policy makers have set their sights on regulation. So what are some of the possible scenarios for crypto policy? U.S. Public Policy Researcher Ariana Salvatore and Head of Cryptocurrency Research Sheena Shah discuss.Digital assets, sometimes known as cryptocurrency, are a digital representation of a value that function as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, or a store of value, but generally do not have legal tender status. Digital assets have no intrinsic value and there is no investment underlying digital assets. The value of digital assets is derived by market forces of supply and demand, and is therefore more volatile than traditional currencies’ value. Investing in digital assets is risky, and transacting in digital assets carries various risks, including but not limited to fraud, theft, market volatility, market manipulation, and cybersecurity failures—such as the risk of hacking, theft, programming bugs, and accidental loss. Additionally, there is no guarantee that any entity that currently accepts digital assets as payment will do so in the future. The volatility and unpredictability of the price of digital assets may lead to significant and immediate losses. It may not be possible to liquidate a digital assets position in a timely manner at a reasonable price.Regulation of digital assets continues to develop globally and, as such, federal, state, or foreign governments may restrict the use and exchange of any or all digital assets, further contributing to their volatility. Digital assets stored online are not insured and do not have the same protections or safeguards of bank deposits in the US or other jurisdictions. Digital assets can be exchanged for US dollars or other currencies, but are not generally backed nor supported by any government or central bank.Before purchasing, investors should note that risks applicable to one digital asset may not be the same risks applicable to other forms of digital assets. Markets and exchanges for digital assets are not currently regulated in the same manner and do not provide the customer protections available in equities, fixed income, options, futures, commodities or foreign exchange markets. Morgan Stanley and its affiliates do business that may relate to some of the digital assets or other related products discussed in Morgan Stanley Research. These could include market making, providing liquidity, fund management, commercial banking, extension of credit, investment services and investment banking.----- Transcript -----Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore from Morgan Stanley's U.S. Public Policy Research Team. Sheena Shah: And I'm Sheena Shah, Head of the Cryptocurrency Research Team. Ariana Salvatore: And on this special episode of the podcast, we'll focus on the issue of cryptocurrency regulation. It's Wednesday, March 15 at 10 a.m. in New York. Sheena Shah: And 2 p.m. in London. Ariana Salvatore: The recent news about the U.S. banking system has brought even more focus on the cryptocurrency markets. Our listeners may have heard about a series of insolvencies and collapses of major crypto players last year, with the most notable being the FTX exchange. These events have raised concerns among policymakers and are signaling a need to regulate cryptocurrencies as a means of protecting investors. Sheena, before we dig into any potential regulatory path for crypto from here, I think it's important to try to get a grip on a question that might seem basic, but in fact is one that policymakers have actually been grappling with for quite some time. And that is, what is a cryptocurrency from a regulatory perspective. Is it a security or is it a commodity? How should it be classified from a regulatory perspective? Sheena Shah: So cryptos could be classified as many things: securities, commodities, currencies, or even something else. But the U.S. regulators are making their view very clear. The SEC is saying every crypto apart from Bitcoin is a security. The definition will determine what products can be offered, which companies can offer them, which regulator will be in charge and maybe even how transactions are taxed. There is agreement that Bitcoin should be classified as a commodity, partly due to its decentralized nature, and no regulator is classifying Bitcoin as a currency as this would admit that it's a direct competitor with the U.S. dollar. Ariana Salvatore: Got it. So taking a step back for a second, cryptocurrencies up until this point have been largely unregulated and volatility is obviously nothing new in the space. What has been happening in crypto markets lately that's just now suggesting a need for regulation? Sheena Shah: Well, last year crypto prices were in a bear market and the collapse of the FTX exchange just increased the politician interest in this area. Trading data tell us that the average U.S. retail investor purchased crypto when Bitcoin was trading above $40,000, around double the current price. So regulators want to make sure that retail investors understand the risks and to limit the volatility spillover from crypto to the traditional financial system. Now that we know why there's a need for regulation, what do you think the core principles would be behind a potential regulatory framework? Ariana Salvatore: So when we think about the way that Congress approaches the crypto space, there are really two key principles. The first is restrictiveness, or how much lawmakers want to rein in the space. And this we kind of see as a spectrum, so ranging from status quo or continuation of regulation by enforcement, to a scenario that we're calling comprehensive crypto crackdown. And that would be probably the most severe outcome from our perspective. The second principle is pretty binary. So whether or not Congress is able to delegate authority or control over the crypto space to one agency or another. One thing I'll just mention back on that Restrictiveness idea, it's not necessarily a question of just how much Congress wants to reign in the space, it's arguably even more so a function of what's possible in the legislative sense. Remember, the Republican Party controls the House of Representatives, so there are some structural constraints here that might make any regulatory efforts a little bit lighter touch than what you could expect in a unified government scenario or single party control. Sheena Shah: So there are lots of opinions on crypto regulation. What do you think is a viable eventual scenario for some regulatory framework? Ariana Salvatore: When we think about what's possible, like you said, there's a range of outcomes, but our base case is what we're calling scoping in Stablecoins. So in this scenario, Congress does in fact deliver a clear delegation of authority to either the FDIC or the CFTC, effectively answering that question of mapping out control. And it also puts into place some baseline consumer focused protections. So, for example, requiring Stablecoin issuers to be FDIC insured and imposing federal risk management standards, primarily things like reserve requirements. Now, why do we think they're going to target Stablecoins first? Besides the fact that that's pretty much all lawmakers can agree on for right now, we think there are two pressing reasons. First, most stablecoins are U.S. dollar based, and the services that some crypto companies have been offering are quite similar to what banks offer, which provides pretty direct competition with the U.S. banking system. And secondly, a large portion of crypto trading is also done via stablecoins, which means that regulating this area first could have a significant impact on the broader market without having to necessarily stretch those regulations further. So Sheena, turning it back to you, how do we think other governments around the world are looking at crypto regulation? Are they focused as the U.S. is, or are we kind of leading the way in this area? Sheena Shah: Most countries are looking at crypto regulation right now, and many are applying the similar rules, such as requiring exchanges to register with the regulators. I would say that the European Union is further ahead than the U.S. in terms of a crypto specific framework, with their MiCA regulation due to be put into law soon. In the U.S., they've gone down a route of enforcing current financial rules on crypto products. At first glance, the actions are thought to be pushing crypto innovations to other parts of the world. We think it's a bit too early to tell whether that will occur in the long run. Ariana Salvatore: Now, one specific area I'd like to touch on also, because it's become a global debate, is Central Banks Digital Currencies or CBDCs. Given the role of the U.S. dollar in the global economy, do you think the U.S. needs a CBDC? And if it does, what form do you think it could take? Sheena Shah: The U.S. only started investigating a CBDC because everyone else was doing it too. Most notably China and the Eurozone. The U.S. doesn't actually necessarily need a CBDC for domestic payments as instantaneous bank settlements are going to be possible through FedNow being introduced later this year. We don't know what form a CBDC could take as that's still being researched, but some forms could have dramatic implications for the banking sector should banks not be required to create the currency. This year we're paying more attention to the developments of the digital euro as that may be available within 2 to 3 years. Now, Ariana, if we bear in mind everything we've discussed so far, realistically how much do you expect to be accomplished in terms of crypto regulation by the next election? Ariana Salvatore: So in the note, we rank our scenarios in terms of likelihood. And as I mentioned before, scoping and stablecoins is our base case. So we do think that something gets done in this area ahead of the 2024 election, although obviously it's a very complex space and there's quite a ramp time associated with lawmakers learning about crypto and all the different nuances and working out those details. I think this question also brings up a really interesting point, though, in particular on timing and how that could relate to potential market impact. So back to your Civics 101 class, when Congress passes a law it technically goes into effect immediately, but the rules themselves can take some time to come to fruition. If the legislation directs federal agencies to come up with regulatory parameters within a certain time frame, that time frame can vary. It can be years, but sometimes it can be months following the legislation. So that is to say that although right now we're seeing significant legislative discussion underway, it's possible that markets have some time to digest the impact as these rules are introduced and developed and fine tuned to then eventually come into effect. We think that delay could create a ramp period for companies to make adjustments to become compliant with some of the new rules which we think could, overall in the longer term, soften the blow of regulation and mitigate the shock to markets. So, Sheena, last question for you. Given all of this, what key events or catalysts should investors be paying particular attention to in the coming months? Sheena Shah: Broad investor focus is clearly on the traditional banking sector. For crypto, we watch to see if there are any further announcements related to these recent coordinated actions from regulators aiming to define crypto products and any that could reduce the on-ramps between the fiat world and the crypto world. Ariana Salvatore: Got it, that makes sense. So this is a continuously evolving space with a lot of potential new developments along the way, and we'll be sure to keep an eye on it as it evolves. Sheena, thanks so much for taking the time to talk. Sheena Shah: Great speaking with you, Ariana. Ariana Salvatore: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today. 

While oil and gas prices generally move in similar directions, their current situation has deviated from market norms.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley's Global Commodities Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll give you an update on the global oil and gas markets. It's Tuesday, March 14th at 2 p.m. in London. Energy markets are currently confronted with an unusual situation: usually oil and gas prices move in similar directions, but at the moment they have quite different prospects. Let's start with the global gas market, that is the gas market outside the United States, which has its own dynamic. Over the last 12 months, the center of activity in global gas has been Europe. This time last year, Europe still received close to 400 million cubic meters a day of natural gas from Russia. Over last summer, this fell by around 90% to just a trickle, causing a severe spike in European gas prices. At the time, we argued that gas prices needed to rise to drive demand destruction and attract LNG, that is liquefied natural gas that can be transported on tankers, to Europe. Prices indeed rose. By August, European gas prices reached over €300 per megawatt hour, that is more than 20x their normal level. Since then, the European gas market has seen the most dramatic turn around. For starters, demand destruction has been far greater than expected. Warm weather has helped, but that has certainly not been the main driver. At the same time, LNG imports into Europe have risen to levels that seemed unlikely this time last year. Remarkably, European gas prices have been declining for some time already, but energy imports just keep coming. The European gas market now faces the surprising situation that if demand stays as weak as it currently is, and LNG imports continue at the level of the last few months, inventories could fill over the summer to such an extent that Europe could run out of physical storage capacity sometime around August. In the space of a few months, the European gas market has gone from worrying about what commodity analysts call 'tank bottoms', to now concern over 'tank tops'. To prevent overstocking this summer, European gas prices probably need to fall further to send a signal to LNG suppliers that they need to send at least some of their energy cargoes elsewhere. However, that then creates a better supply situation elsewhere in the LNG market, putting downward pressure on prices there too. In contrast, the oil market presents a very different picture. Oil prices also gave up a large part of their gains late last year as the market worried about recession. However, even at the point when 70% of bank economists consensually forecast a recession, Brent crude oil did not fall much below $80 a barrel. At the moment, the oil market is modestly oversupplied, which is not uncommon for this time of the year. However, from here, the oil market has several tailwinds. First is another year of recovery in aviation, which is likely to drive growth and jet fuel consumption. Second is China's reopening. While there may be some concern in other markets over the impact of China's reopening, in the oil market the indications so far have simply been positive. And finally, there is supply risk for Russia. Although oil exports from Russia have continued, a lot of this oil is piling up at sea. That cannot continue at the current pace for very long and we would still estimate that Russian oil exports will eventually come under some pressure as the year progresses. Put these factors together and the oil market will likely come into balance in 2Q and reenter a deficit once again in the third and fourth quarter. Inventories are already low and likely to decline further in the second half. Spare capacity in OPEC is still very limited and investment levels have been modest in recent years. As the oil market tightens, prices are likely to find their way higher again. In inflation adjusted terms the average oil price over the last 15 years is $93 a barrel. This is not a market where oil prices should be below the historic average. In fact, we'd argue the opposite. As mentioned, oil and gas prices usually move in similar directions, but so far this year they have already diverged quite substantially. Given the current outlook, we think these trends have further to run- global gas faces headwinds, but oil is likely to find its way higher again later this year. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Banking news and other market pressures are leading some depositors to move funds from traditional banks to higher-yielding securities. How will this affect economic growth and equity prices?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, March 13th at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. The speed and size of the Silicon Valley bank wind down over the last week was startling to many investors, even those who have been negative on the stock for months on the basis of exactly what transpired- a classic mismatch between assets and liabilities and risk taking beyond what a typical depositor does. To be clear about our view, we do not think there's a systemic issue plaguing the entire banking system, like in 2007 to 2009, particularly with the FDIC decision to backstop uninsured deposits. However, last week's events are likely to have a negative impact on economic growth at a time when growth is already waning in many parts of the economy. Rather than do a forensic autopsy of what happened at Silicon Valley and other banks, I will instead focus my comments and what it may mean for equity prices more broadly. First, I would remind listeners that Fed policy works with long and variable lags. Second, the pace of Fed tightening over the past year is unprecedented when one considers the Fed has also been engaged in aggressive quantitative tightening. Third, the focus on market based measures of financial conditions, like stock and bond prices, may have lulled both investors and the Fed itself into thinking policy tightening had not yet gone far enough. Meanwhile, more traditional measures like the yield curve have been flashing warnings for the past 6 months, closing last week near its lowest point of the cycle. From a bank's perspective, such an inversion usually means it's more difficult to make new profitable loans, and new credit is how money supply expands. However, over the past year, bank funding costs have not kept pace with the higher Fed funds rate, allowing banks to create credit at profitable net interest margins. In short, most banks have been paying well below market rates, like T-bills, because depositors have been slow to realize they can get much better rates elsewhere. But that's changed recently, with depositors deciding to pull their money from traditional banks and placing it in higher yielding securities like money markets, T-bills and the like. Ultimately, banks will likely decide to raise the interest rate they pay depositors, but that means lower profits and lower loan supply. Even before this recent exodus of deposits, loan officers have been tightening their lending standards. In our view, such tightening is likely to become even more prevalent, and that poses another headwind for money supply and consequently economic and earnings growth. In other words, it's now harder to hold the view that growth will continue to hold up in the face of the fastest Fed tightening cycle in modern times. Secondarily, the margin deterioration across most industries we've been discussing for months was already getting worse. Any top line shortfall relative to expectations from tighter money supply will only exacerbate this negative operating leverage dynamic. The bottom line is that Fed policy works with long and variable lags. Many of the key variables used by the Fed and investors to judge whether Fed policy changes are having their desired effect are backward looking- things like employment and inflation metrics. Forward looking survey data, like consumer and corporate confidence, are often better at telling us what to expect rather than what's currently happening. On that score the picture is pessimistic about where growth is likely headed, especially for earnings. Rather than a random or idiosyncratic shock, we view last week's events as just one more supporting factor for our negative earnings growth outlook. In short, Fed policy is starting to bite and it's unlikely to reverse, even if the Fed were to pause its rate hikes or quantitative tightening. Instead, we think the die is likely cast for further earnings disappointments relative to consensus and company expectations, which means lower equity prices before this bear market is over. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show.

As the advancement of generative AI takes off, how might this inflection point in technology impact markets, companies, and investors alike? Equity Analyst and Head of U.S. Internet Research Brian Nowak and Head of the U.S. Software Research Team Keith Weiss discuss.----- Transcript -----Brian Nowak: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Brian Nowak, Equity Analyst and Head of U.S. Internet Research for Morgan Stanley. Keith Weiss: And I'm Keith Weiss, Head of the U.S. Software Research Team. Brian Nowak: Today, we're at Morgan Stanley's annual Tech, Media, and Telecom conference in downtown San Francisco. We've been here most of the week talking with industry leaders and emerging companies across the spectrum, and the topic on everyone's mind is clearly A.I. So today, we're going to share some of what we're hearing and our views on the rise of artificial intelligence tools. It's Thursday, March 9th at 2 p.m. here on the West Coast. Brian Nowak: All week, Keith and I have been meeting with companies and speaking with new companies that are developing technologies in artificial intelligence. We've written research about how we think that artificial intelligence is reaching somewhat of an iPhone inflection moment with new people using new tools, and businesses starting to realize artificial intelligence is here to stay and can drive real change. Keith, talk to us about how we reached this moment of inflection and how do you think about some of the big picture changes across technology? Keith Weiss: Well, thank you for having me, Brian. So we've been talking about artificial intelligence for some time now. Software companies have been infusing their solutions with machine learning driven type algorithms that optimize outcomes for quite some time. But I do think the iPhone analogy is apt, for two reasons. One, what we're talking about today with generative AI is more foundational technologies. You can almost think about that as the operating system on the mobile phone like the iOS operating system. And what we've heard all week long is companies are really seeing opportunity to create new apps on top of that operating system, new use cases for this generative AI. The other reason why this is such an apt analogy is, like the iPhone, this is really capturing the imagination of not just technology executives, not just investors like you and I, but everyday people. This is something that our kids are coming home from high school and saying, "Hey, dad, look at what I'm able to do or with chatGPT, isn't this incredible?" So you have that marketing moment of everybody realizes that this new capability, this new powerful technology is really available to everybody. Keith Weiss: So, Brian, what do you think are going to be the impacts of this technology on the consumer internet companies that you cover? Brian Nowak: We expect significant change. There is approximately $6 trillion of U.S. consumer expenditure that we think is going to be addressed by change. We see changes across search. We see more personalized search, more complete search. We see increasing uses of chatbots that can drive more accurate, personalized and complete answers in a faster manner across all types of categories. Think about improved e-commerce search helping you find products you would like to buy faster. Think about travel itinerary AI chatbots that create entire travel itineraries for your family. We see the capability for social media to change, better rank ordering and algorithms that determine what paid and organic content to show people at each moment. We see new creator tools, generative AI is going to enable people to make not only static images but more video based images across the entire economy. So people will be able to express themselves in more ways across social media, which will drive more engagement and ultimately more monetization for those social media platforms. We see e-commerce companies being able to better match inventory to people. Long tail inventory that previously perhaps could not find the right person or the right potential buyer will now better be able to be matched to buyers and to wallets. We see the shared economy across rideshare and food delivery also benefiting from this. Again, you're going to have more information to better match drivers to potential riders, restaurants to potential eaters. And down the line we go where we ultimately see artificial intelligence leading to an acceleration in digitization of consumers time, digitization of consumers wallets and all of that was going to bring more dollars online to the consumer internet companies. Brian Nowak: Now that's the consumer side, how do you think about artificial intelligence impacting enterprise in the B2B side? Keith Weiss: Yeah, I think there's a lot of commonalities into what you went through. On one level you talked about search, and what these generative AI technologies are able to do is put the questions that we're asking in context, and that enables a much better search functionality. And it's not just searching the Internet. Think about the searches that you do of your email inbox, and they're not very effective today and it's going to become a lot more effective. But that search can now extend across all the information within your organization that can be pretty powerful. When you talk about the generative capabilities in terms of writing content, we write content all day long, whether it's in emails, whether it's in text messages, and that can be automated and made more efficient and more effective. But also, the Excel formulas that we write in our Excel sheets, the reports that you and I write every day could be really augmented by this generative AI capability. And then there's a whole nother kind of class of capabilities that come in doing jobs better. So if we think about how this changes the landscape for software developers, one of the initial use cases we've seen of generative AI is making software developers much more productive by the models handling a lot of the rote software development, doing the easy stuff. So that software developer could focus his time on the hard problems to be solved in overall software development. So if you think about it holistically, what we've seen in technology trends really over the last two decades, we've seen the cost of computing coming way down, stuff like Public Cloud and the Hyperscalers have taken that compute cost down and that curve continues to come down. The cost of data is coming down, it's more accessible, there's more out of it because we've digitized so much of the economy. And then thirdly, now you're going to see the cost of software development come down as the software developers become more productive and the AI is doing more of that development. So those are all of your input cost in terms of what you do to automate business processes. And at the same time, the capabilities of the software is expanding. Fundamentally, that's what this AI is doing, is expanding the classes and types of work that can be automated with software. So if your input costs are coming way down and your capabilities are coming up, I think the amount of software that's being developed and where it's applied is really going to inflate a lot. It's going to accelerate and you're going to see an explosion of software development. I'm as bullish about the software industry right now as I've been over the past 20 years. Keith Weiss: So one of the things that investors ask me a lot about is the cost side of the equation. These new capabilities are a lot more compute intensive, and is this going to impact the gross margins and the operating margins of the companies that need to deploy this. So, how do you think about that part of the equation, Brian? Brian Nowak: There's likely to be some near-term impact, but we think the impacts are near-term in nature. It is true that the compute intensity and the capital intensity of a lot of these new models is higher than some of the current models that we're using across tech. The compute intensity of the large language models is higher than it is for search, it is higher than it is for a lot of the existing e-commerce or social media platforms that are used. So as we do think that the companies are going to need to invest more in capital expenditure, more in GPUs, which are some of the chips that enable a lot of these new large language models and capabilities to come. But these are more near-term cost headwinds because over the long term, as the companies work with the models, tune the models and train the models, we would expect these leading tech companies to put their efficiency teams in place and actually find ways to optimize the models to get the costs down over time. And when you layer that in with the new revenue opportunities, whether we're talking about incremental search revenue dollars, incremental e-commerce transactions, incremental B2B, SAS like revenue streams from some companies that will be paying more for these services that you spoke about, we think the ROI is going to be positive. So while there is going to likely be some near-term cost pressure across the space, we think it's near-term and to your point, this is a very exciting time within tech because these new capabilities are going to just expand the runway for top line growth for a lot of the companies across the space. Brian Nowak: And this is all very exciting on the consumer side and the business side, but Keith talk to us about sort of some of the uncertainties and sort of some of the factors that need to be ironed out as we continue to push more AI tools across the economy. Keith Weiss: Yeah, there's definitely uncertainties and definitely a risk out there when it comes to these technologies. So if we think about some of the broader risks that we see, these models are trained on the internet. So you have to think about all the data that's out there. Some of that data is good, some of that data is bad, some of that data could introduce biases into the search engines. And then the people using these search engines that are imbued with the AI, depending on how hard they're pushing on the search engines on the prompts, and that's the questions that they're asking the search engines, you could elicit some really strange behavior. And some of that behavior has elicited fears and scared some people, frankly, by what these search engines are bringing back to them. But there's also business model risk. From a software perspective, this is going to be the new user interface of how individual users access software functionality. If you're a software company that's not integrating this soon enough, you're going to be at a real disadvantage. So there's business has to be taken into account. And then there's broader economic risk. We're talking about all the capabilities that this generative AI can now do that these models can now take over. So for the software developer, does this mean there's job risk for software developers? For creative professionals who used to come up with the content on their own, does this mean less jobs for creative professionals? Or you and I? Are these models going to start writing our research reports on a go forward basis? So those are all kind of potential risks that we're thinking about on a go forward basis. Keith Weiss: So, Brian, maybe to wrap up, how do you think about the milestones and sort of the key indicators that you're keeping an eye on for who are going to be the winners and losers as this AI technology pervades everything more fully? Brian Nowak: It's a great question. I would break it into a couple different answers. First, because of the high compute intensity and costs of a lot of these models, we only see a handful of large tech companies likely being able to build these large language models and train them and fully deploy them. So the first thing I would say is look for new large language model applications from big tech being integrated into search, being integrated into e-commerce platforms, being integrated into social media platforms, being integrated into online video platforms. Watch for new large language tools to roll across all of big tech. Secondly, pay attention to your app stores because we expect developers to build a lot of new applications for both businesses and consumers using these large language models. And that is what we think is ultimately going to lead to a lot of these consumer behavior changes and spur a lot of the productivity that you talked about on the business side. Keith Weiss: Outstanding. Brian Nowak: Keith, thanks for taking the time. Keith Weiss: Great speaking with you, Brian. Brian Nowak: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show. 

While the U.S. has surprised investors with its economic resilience, new labor market and retail sales data could challenge this continued strength.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Thursday, March 9th at 2 p.m. in London. One of the biggest surprises this year has been the resilience of the U.S. economy. This story faces a key test over the next week, with a large bearing on how investors may think about where we are in the cycle. Investors entered this year downbeat on U.S. growth, with widespread expectations of a recession. A payback in high levels of consumption over the pandemic, and the lagged impact of higher interest rates, were both big drivers of this view. And indeed many traditionally leading indicators of economic activity did, and still do, point to elevated economic risk. Yet the story so far has been different. The U.S. economy is still seeing robust consumption and jobs growth and more economically sensitive stocks have been major outperformers. Last month the U.S. economy added half a million jobs and saw very robust retail sales, data points that were taken by the market as a sign that the economy may not be slowing at all. That might be the case, but what's interesting is that this story is about to get a key update. Over the next week, we'll get the next release of data on the U.S. labor market and retail sales. And that data comes with a big uncertainty. The uncertainty is how much of the strength in January's data was flattered by so-called seasonal adjustments. For obvious reasons, a lot of things are sold in December and a lot of people are hired to sell them. In January, activity and jobs usually drop off, and so seasonal adjustments are important to help look through all this noise. To be more specific, retail sales usually drop 20% between December and January. This time around, they only dropped 16%, and since they dropped less than normal this was reported as a healthy gain. The U.S. usually loses 3 million jobs in January as seasonal workers are let go. This time the U.S. lost two and a half million jobs. December holidays are real and we should adjust for them. But if consumption patterns have changed since 2020, historical seasonal adjustments could be misleading. This month's data may give us a much cleaner picture of where that activity really is. If activity is once again strong, it could help further fuel the idea that U.S. growth this year will be better than feared. But if it's weak, investors may start to think that January's strength was something of a statistical quirk, especially in the face of other forward indicators that look much softer. Because of this, we think weak data over the next couple of days could be especially good for bonds. But either way, this data has a major bearing on the market narrative. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.

While there is some skepticism that Asia’s growth will outperform this year, there are a few promising indicators that investors may want to keep in mind.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Chief Asia Economist at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be discussing how Asia's growth is bouncing back. It's Wednesday, March 8th at 9 a.m. in Hong Kong. The last time I came on this podcast, I spoke about why we expect Asia's growth to outperform in 2023. To briefly recap, we expect Asia's growth to be five percentage points higher than the developed markets by the end of the year. One of the key debates we have with investors is precisely about how the growth outlook is tracking relative to our bullish forecasts. Investors are generally skeptical on two counts. First, for China, investors believe that consumption growth will not be sustained after the initial reopening boost. Second, for region excluding China, investors saw that there was a soft patch in the consumption data for some of the economies, and so they are questioning if this will persist over time and across geographies. For China, we have already seen a sharp rebound in services spending in areas like dining out, domestic travel and hotels. We expect consumption growth to continue to recover towards the pre-COVID strength in a broad-based manner. Crucially, this consumption growth is being supported by the sustainable drivers of job growth and income growth rather than a drawdown in excess savings. Private sector confidence is being revived by the alignment of policies towards a pro-growth stance. This shift in stance also means that policymakers will likely be taking quick and concerted policy action to address any remaining or fresh impediments to growth. In other words, this policy stance is likely to persist at least until we get clear signs of a sustainable recovery. Moreover, the property sector, which some investors fear might be a drag on household sentiment, appears to be recovering faster than our expectations. For region excluding China, we focus on the next largest economies in purchasing power parity terms, which is India and Japan. For India, growth indicators did slow post the festive season in October, but have reaccelerated in early 2023. Cyclically strong trailing demand has only lifted capacity utilization, and structurally government policies are still very much geared towards reviving private investment. We see private CapEx cycle unfolding, which will sustain gains in employment and allow consumption growth to stay strong in the coming quarters. For Japan, we see three reasons why growth should improve in 2023. Monetary policy will remain accommodative, private CapEx is now on the mend and Japan will benefit from the full reopening of China this spring, in form of increased tourism and goods exports. Overall, we think we are still on track for our base case narrative of growth acceleration and outperformance. In fact, we see marginal upside risk to our above consensus growth forecasts, which will be driven predominantly by China and its spillover impact to the rest of the region. For China, the upside to growth forecasts stems from the possibility that pro-growth pragmatism may set in motion a much stronger recovery than currently expected. Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.

Original Release on February 24th, 2023: As short-term bond yields continue to rise, what impact does this comparatively high yield have on the broader market?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, February 24th at 2 p.m. in London. One of the biggest stories brewing in the background of markets is the sharp rise in yields on safe, short-term bonds. A 6 month Treasury bill is a great example. In November of 2021, it yielded just 0.06%. Today, just 14 months later, it yields 5.1%, its highest yield since July of 2007. The rise in safe short-term yields is notable for its speed and severity, as the last 12 months have seen the fastest rise of these yields in over 40 years. But it also has broader investment implications. Higher yields on cash like instruments impact markets in three distinct ways, all of which reduce the incentive for investors to take market exposure. First and most simply, higher short term rates raise the bar for what a traditional investor needs to earn. If one can now get 5% yields holding short term government bonds over the next 12 months, how much more does the stock market, which is significantly more volatile, need to deliver in order to be relatively more appealing? Second, higher yields impact the carry for so-called leveraged investors. There is a significant amount of market activity that's done by investors who buy securities with borrowed money, the rate of which is often driven by short term yields. When short term yields are low, as they've been for much of the last 12 years, this borrowing to buy strategy is attractive. But with U.S. yields now elevated, this type of buyer is less incentivized to hold either U.S. stocks or bonds. Third, higher short term yields drive up the cost of buying assets in another market and hedging them back to your home currency. If you're an investor in, say, Japan, who wants to buy an asset in the U.S. but also wants to remove the risk of a large change in the exchange rate over the next year, the costs of removing that risk will be roughly the difference between 1 year yields in the US and 1 year yields in Japan. As 1 year yields in the U.S. have soared, the cost of this hedging has become a lot more expensive for these global investors, potentially reducing overseas demand for U.S. assets and driving this demand somewhere else. We think a market like Europe may be a relative beneficiary as hedging costs for U.S. assets rise. The fact that U.S. investors are being paid so well to hold cash-like exposure reduces the attractiveness of U.S. stocks and bonds. But this challenge isn't equal globally. Both inflation and the yield on short-term cash are much lower in Asia, which is one of several reasons why we think equities in Asia will outperform other global markets going forward. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you. 

While equity markets continue to rally, the key to the end of the bear market may be in the fundamentals.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, March 6th at 2 p.m. in New York. So let's get after it. Given our focus on the technicals in the short term, I'm going to provide an update on that view today, which contrasts with our intermediate term view that the bear market is not over. In short, equity markets traded right to technical support levels on Thursday last week and held. More importantly, they reacted strongly from those levels, which suggests this will not be a one day wonder, meaning the bear market rally may not be over yet. While my comments will focus on the S&P 500, these observations apply to most of the other major indices as well: the Nasdaq, Russell 2000 and the Dow Industrials, which remains the weakest of the bunch. First, as already mentioned, the key support levels were tested twice over the past few weeks, but on Thursday equity prices reacted strongly around the second test. As a strategist, I respect the price action and need to incorporate it into our fundamental view, which remains bearish. In addition to the strong rebound, the S&P 500 was able to recapture its uptrend from the rally that began in October. However, we did not observe any positive divergence on the second retest, and that leaves the door open that this rally may still be on borrowed time. We would point out that one of the reasons we called the rally in October had to do with the fact that we did get a very strong positive divergence on that secondary low in mid-October. For listeners who don't use technical analysis, a positive divergence is when markets make new price lows on less momentum. We measure momentum through price oscillators like relative strength or moving average convergence divergence. The other thing we're watching closely from a tactical standpoint is the longer term uptrend that began after the financial crisis in 2009. We continue to think it is critical that the S&P 500 get back above it to confirm the cyclical bear market is over. This trend line has provided critical resistance and support over the past 14 years during the secular bull market. More recently, it has been more of a resistance line and that level comes in today at around 4150 on the S&P 500. While we think the S&P 500 could make another attempt at this key resistance, it will require two things to surmount it- lower 10 year U.S. Treasury yields and a weaker dollar. In fact, we think Friday's sharp fall in 10 year yields was an important driver of the bounce in stocks. The dollar, too, showed some signs of exhaustion and it would be helpful if it can decline more meaningfully. As we suggested last week, in the absence of a weaker dollar and lower yields, this bear market rally will likely fail once again. The bottom line, there is plenty of bullish and bearish fodder in the technicals in our view, and one will need to take a view on the fundamentals to decide this bear market for stocks is over. Our view remains the same, the bear market is not over, but we acknowledge that Friday's price action may push out the next leg lower for a few more weeks. As we've been discussing on prior podcasts, the main reason we believe the bear market is not over is because the earnings recession has much further to go. Rather than repeating our case once again, we would like to highlight an important note published last week by Todd Castagno, our Global Valuation, Accounting and Tax team, appropriately entitled Exhausted Earnings. In this note, the team discusses their analysis of accruals and to what extent net income is diverging from cash flows. In short, the gap between reported earnings and cash flow is the widest in 25 years. This analysis supports our negative operating leverage thesis and means earnings estimates have a long way to fall over the next several quarters. Unfortunately, most stock valuations do not reflect this risk and why we think the risk reward for U.S. equities remains poor despite the positive price action last week. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show.

The way companies and individuals spend their money has changed in the wake of the COVID pandemic. How might market leadership shift as a result and will new market winners come into focus? Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets and Chief Investment Officer for Wealth Management Lisa Shalett discuss.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley Research. Lisa Shalett: And I'm Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management. Andrew Sheets: And on part two of this special episode, we'll be continuing our discussion of the "Next American Productivity Renaissance". It's Friday, March 3rd at 2 p.m. in London. Lisa Shalett: And it's 9 a.m. in New York. Andrew Sheets: So Lisa, let's take this to markets, how do you think this impacts equity market leadership, given that we've been in a market that's really been defined by the age of secular stagnation. What do you think happens now and who will be those new leaders? Lisa Shalett: This is one of the most important, I think, outcomes of our thesis. And that is that pendulums swing and market leadership shifts all the time, but when it's at that moment of inflection there's huge amounts of pushback, typically. Our sense is that the wealth creation ahead of us may not be in the current leadership in consumer tech, but rather in enterprise tech and the technology providers who are the leaders in new automation technologies that are going to allow us potentially to automate parts of our economy that have heretofore resisted. So it's a lot of the services side of the economy. Think of financial services, consumer services, government services, education services, how manual some of those industries are. And yet when we think about these triads or four or five level combinations of things like artificial intelligence, and machine learning, and optical scanning, and natural language processing and voice recognition. These are things that could really transform service-oriented businesses in terms of their margins and the economics of them. And so we envision a leadership that is potentially bimodal, that includes the tech enterprise enablers. Some of the software or software-as-a-service, some of the technology consultants who will help implement these automation programs and some of the beneficiaries, the tech takers, right. Think about some of those banks, those insurance companies, those healthcare companies, educational-oriented institutions that are just so heavy in manual service support infrastructures that could be rationalized. Andrew Sheets: So I'd like to dive into two of those threads and in just a little bit more detail. Just in terms of, kind of, the decade we've just been in. And, you know, I think it was pretty unique that it was a decade with some of the lowest cost of capital we've ever seen in economic history, and yet, you know, it's kind of left us with an economy where it's very easy to order food and very hard to take a train to the airport. We've had a lot of investment in consumer-led technology and a lot less in infrastructure. Do you think that equation has finally changed in a bigger way? And what do you think that means for maybe winners and losers of the changes that might be happening? Lisa Shalett: Our perspective is that I don't know that it's a permanent change. I think pendulums swing and there are waves when technology is more consumer-oriented. The issue with consumer technology, as we know and certainly with the smartphone, has been there's 2 billion people implementing that technology in 2 billion different ways. So it's very hard to scale those productivity benefits, if there are any, across an economy. When you go through periods of enterprise or economy-wide or infrastructure deepening-based technology spends, that's when economies can transform. And so I think it's a phase in the market. But I think one that is really important, you know, when we think about the advancement of overall return on assets in the economy. Andrew Sheets: And so, Lisa, digging into that technology piece, is there an example that stands out to you of a type of technology consumption that you think could be more fleeting as a result of the post-COVID period? And to your point about the more tangible, long lasting shifts in technology investment, the types of things that will be a lot more permanent and could really surprise people in their permanence over the longer run? Lisa Shalett: I'm not a technology visionary, but I do think that so many of the consumer technologies that we see over time end up being cannibalizing and substitutive as opposed to truly revolutionary. So, think about the consumption of media. We're still consuming media, it's just on what mode. Are we consuming it through a radio broadcast, a television broadcast, now streaming services on demand and etc, but it's content nonetheless. I think that there are other technologies when we think about what's going on with things like A.I., when we think about some of the things that are going on in genomics and in health care in particular, that really are transformative and take us to places we truly have never been before. And I think that that's one of the things that's super exciting right now is that we've never seen this before in many industries, right? Whether we're talking about things like transport and things in terms of human robotics and artificial intelligence and machine learning. These are places that we really haven't been before. And so to me, this is an extraordinarily exciting time vis a vis the innovation path. Andrew Sheets: Lisa, you've been talking about some of these big secular drivers of this productivity shift and capital investment shifting to deglobalization, decarbonization. And so I guess the next question is there might be demand for these things, but is there the supply to address these issues? Can we actually build these plants and re-orient these supply chains? How do you think about the supply side of this? And do you think supply is going to be able to rise to the challenge of the potential demand for this capital expenditure? Lisa Shalett: So I think that that's the piece of this thesis that was most exciting to us because very often one of the things that constrains investment is that you don't have the supply side enablement. One of the things that we can't take for granted is how good, particularly in the United States, private sector balance sheets are today. And so whether we're talking about the degree to which the United States banking system has healed and recapitalized, or we're talking about corporations who are still reasonably cash-rich and have locked in almost historically low costs of capital, or we talk about the household sector, which has moved away and locked in to fixed rate mortgages. That's a huge enablement that says we have the capacity to fund new technology. Then one of the other things that we've been talking about that enable the supply side are demographics. We've gone through this period where there was a bit of an air pocket in terms of overall working age population growth because Gen X was just not all that big relative to the boom. And we're talking about a working age population that is rapidly going to be dominated by a humongous millennial and Gen Z wave. And these are digital natives, right? These are folks who were born with technology in their hands. And so having a workforce that is flexible and tech savvy, that helps implement. So I think those are some of the supply side factors that are different than perhaps what we saw 10-15 years ago, you know, in 2007 when Apple launched the iPhone. Andrew Sheets: Lisa, thanks for taking the time to talk. Lisa Shalett: It's my pleasure, Andrew. Andrew Sheets: And as a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show. 

The COVID pandemic changed the way the U.S. engages with work, but how will these shifts impact structural changes to capital investment? Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets and Chief Investment Officer for Wealth Management Lisa Shalett discuss.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley Research. Lisa Shalett: And I'm Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management. Andrew Sheets: And on this special two-part episode, we'll be discussing what we see as the "Next American Productivity Renaissance". It's Thursday, March 2nd at 2 p.m. in London. Lisa Shalett: And it's 9 a.m. in New York. Andrew Sheets: So while everybody has been paying close attention, and rightly so, to 40 year highs of inflation that we've been having recently, there's another legacy from this pandemic that we want to dig into more deeply. We believe that the COVID crisis catalyzed an incredibly powerful regime shift, a once-in-a-generation shock to the labor markets which transformed the nature of work and is accelerating structural changes to capital investment. Lisa, you believe we're on the cusp of what you call the "Next American Productivity Renaissance", and this renaissance is underpinned by an upcoming capital spending supercycle. So, I guess the place to start is what does that mean and what's driving it? Lisa Shalett: I mean, I think that some of these trends were already beginning to take form before COVID struck, but COVID was really an accelerant. And so if we think about first the detachment from the labor force and the way COVID really transformed the way we think about work, and those jobs that maybe were not flexible to convert to a remote setting, or a work from home setting, and carried with them in-person high risk attributes. I think that was really one of the first dimensions of it, but then it was really about companies having to fundamentally rethink and re-engineer business models towards digitization, right? The removal of human contact. And then you overlay those two major pillars with things like decarbonization and the issues that emerged around how we make this transition to a cleaner energy mix around the world. Obviously COVID accelerated some of the issues around supply chain and deglobalization and how do we secure supply chains. And last but not least, I think it has really become clear we're talking about a world where incentives to invest either to substitute for labor, to strengthen our infrastructure, to commit to some of these climate change initiatives, to re-engineer supply chains or to deal with this new multipolar world. The incentives and the argument for capital spending has really changed. Andrew Sheets: So Lisa actually it's that last point on labor market tightness that I'd like to dive into a little bit more. Because I mean, it's fair to say that this would actually be a pretty normal cyclical phenomenon that as labor markets get tighter, as workers are harder to find, that companies decide that now it's worth investing more to make their existing workers more productive. Do you think that's a fair characterization of some past capital spending cycles that we've seen? And how do you think this one could fit into that pattern? Lisa Shalett [00:04:19] Yes, I think very often, you know, we've gone through these periods where the capital for labor substitution has been at the forefront. Now, one of the things that very often we have to wait for are what I call the supply side enablers of that. There have been eras where there's more automation-oriented technology that is available, and then there's eras where perhaps there's been less. And I think that one of the things that we're positing is that after the golden age of private equity that we're entering one of those periods of technology J-curve explosion, right, where the availability of automation-orienting technologies is there. So it enables part of the dialog around capital for labor arithmetic. Andrew Sheets: I also want to ask you about decarbonization as a theme, which you cited as one of these drivers of the productivity renaissance and capital deepening because I think you do encounter a view out there in the world that decarbonization and environmental regulation is negative for productivity. What do you think the market might be missing about decarbonization as a theme? And how does it drive higher productivity in the future rather than lower productivity? Lisa Shalett: I think fundamentally that there is no doubt that as we make this transition, there are going to be bumps and bruises along the road. And part of the issue is that as we move away from what is perhaps the lowest cost, but most dirty technologies that there may be pressures on inflation. But the flip side of that is that it creates huge incentives to drive productivity improvement in some of those cleaner technologies so that we can accelerate adoption through more compelling economics. So our sense is hydro and wind and some of these technologies are going to see material productivity improvements. Andrew Sheets: Well, Lisa, I think that's a great point, because also what we've certainly seen in Europe is a dramatic fall of consumption of natural gas and a dramatic increase in efficiency. As energy prices spiked in Europe in the aftermath of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, you did see an increased focus on energy-efficient investment, on the cost of energy. And I think it surprised a lot of people about how much more production they were able to squeeze out of the same kilowatt hour of electricity. So it's, I think, a really interesting and important point that might go against some of the conventional wisdom around decarbonization. But I think we have some real hard evidence in the last couple of quarters of how that could play out. And Lisa, the final piece that I think your thesis probably gets a little bit of debate on is deglobalization. Because, again this has been a macro and micro topic, you know, macro in the sense that you're seeing companies look to shorten supply chains after some of the major supply chain issues around COVID. They're looking to shorten supply chains, given heightened geopolitical risk. And, you know, this has often been cited as something that's going to reduce profitability of companies, is they're going to have to double up on inventory and make their supply chain somewhat less efficient. So again, how does that fit into a productivity story or how do you see the winners and losers of that potentially playing out? Lisa Shalett: I don't know that the deglobalization itself drives productivity per se, but what it does do is it creates a lot of incentives for us to rethink the infrastructure that underlies supply chains. So, for example, as companies maybe think about shortening supply chains, maybe it's that American companies don't want to simply be motivated by the lowest net cost of production. But perhaps to your point, the proximity and security of production. So suddenly, does that mean we will be investing in infrastructure across the NAFTA region, for example, as opposed to over oceans and through air freight? And as those infrastructures are strengthened, be those through highway infrastructure, rail infrastructure or new port infrastructure, there's productivity benefits to the aggregate economy as companies rethink those linkages and flows. Andrew Sheets: That's interesting. So when we're talking about deglobalization, maybe you run the risk of focusing very narrowly on some higher near-term costs, but thinking bigger picture, thinking out over the next decade, maybe you are ending up with a more robust, more resilient economy and supply chain that over the long run over cycles does deliver better, more productive output. Lisa Shalett: Absolutely. Andrew Sheets: Lisa, thanks for taking the time to talk. Lisa Shalett: It's my pleasure, Andrew. Andrew Sheets: Thanks for listening, and be sure to tune in for part two of this special episode. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show.

After the passing of the Inflation Reduction Act in the U.S., other countries may be looking to invest more in their own energy transitions.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between public policy and financial markets. It's Wednesday, March 1st at 10 a.m. in New York. When Congress passed and the president signed into law the Inflation Reduction Act last year, they may have started a race among global governments to spend new money in an attempt to cut carbon output dramatically. Consider the European Union, where our economists and strategists are flagging that they expect, later this month, there will be an announcement of a major allocation of government funds to mirror the nearly $370 billion allocated by the U.S. toward its own energy transition. In the U.S., we've already flagged that much of the investment opportunity lies in the domestic clean tech space. As Stephen Byrd, our Global Head of Sustainability Research, has flagged the IRA's monetary allocation and rules creating preferences for materials sourced domestically or in friendly national confines, means that the U.S. clean tech space is seeing a substantial growth in demand for its products and services. In the EU, the story is more nuanced as we await details on what a final version of the European Commission's Green Deal Industrial Plan is, a process that could take us into the summer or beyond. Streamlining regulations to encourage private funding and expand the network for trade partners on green tech equipment is expected to be in focus. So the near term macro impacts are murky, but at a sector level, such a policy should present opportunities in utilities, capital goods, materials and construction. In short, this policy would mean the EU is finding ways to accelerate demand for these green enabler companies. So, in line with the transition to decarbonization as one of our big three investment themes for 2023, investors would do well to follow the money and see where there may be opportunities. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

As the U.S. economy remains resilient in the face of continued rate hikes, investors may wonder if the Fed will re-accelerate their policy tightening or if cuts are on their way.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Sarah Wolfe from the U.S. Economics Team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the economic response to the Fed's monetary tightening. It's Tuesday, February 28th, at 1 p.m. in New York. The Fed has been tightening monetary policy at the fastest rate in recent history. And yet the U.S. economy has been so remarkably resilient thus far that investors have begun to interpret this resilience as a sign that the economy has been less affected by monetary policy than initially expected. And so recession fears seem to have turned into fears of re acceleration. Of course, interest sensitive parts of the economy have largely reacted as expected to the Fed hiking interest rates. Housing activity responded immediately to higher interest rates, declining significantly more than in prior cycles and what our models would imply. Consumer spending on durable goods has dampened as well, which is also expected. And yet other factors have bolstered the economy, even in the face of higher rates. The labor market has shown more resilience since the start of the hiking cycle as companies caught up on significant staffing shortfalls. Households have spent out excess savings supporting spending, and consumers saw their spending power boosted by declining energy prices just as monetary tightening began. As these pillars of resilience fade over the coming months, an economic slowdown should become more apparent. Staffing levels are closing in on levels more consistent with the level of economic output, pointing to a weaker backdrop for job growth for the remainder of 2023 and 2024. Excess savings now look roughly normal for large parts of the population, and energy prices are unlikely to be a major boost for household spending in coming months. Residential investment and consumption growth should bottom in mid 2023, while business investment deteriorates throughout our forecast horizon. We expect growth will remain below potential until the end of 2024 as rates move back towards neutral. But even with more deceleration ahead, greater resilience so far is shifting out the policy path. We continue to expect the Fed to deliver a 25 basis point hike about its March and May meetings, bringing peak policy rates to 5 to 5.25%. However, with a less significant and delayed slowdown in the labor market, with a more moderate increase in the unemployment rate, the Fed's pace of monetary easing is likely to be slower, and the first rate cut is likely to occur later. We think the Fed will hold rates at these levels for a longer period rather than hike to a higher peak, as this carries less of a risk of over tightening. We now see the Fed delivering the first rate cut in March 2024 versus our previous estimate of December 2023, and cutting rates at a slower pace of 25 basis points each quarter next year. This brings the federal funds rate to 4.25% by the end of 2024. With rates well above neutral throughout the forecast horizon, growth remains below potential as well. As for the U.S. consumer, while excess savings boosted spending in 2022 despite rising interest rates, we expect consumers to return to saving more this year, which means a step down in spending. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

As we enter the final month of the first quarter, recalling the history of bear market trends could help predict whether earnings will fall again.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, February 27th at 11am in New York. So let's get after it. Our equity strategy framework incorporates several key components. Overall earnings tend to determine price action the most. For example, if a company beats the current forecast on earnings and shows accelerating growth, the stock tends to go up, assuming it isn't egregiously priced. This dynamic is what drives most bull markets, earnings estimates are steadily rising with no end in sight to that trend. During bear markets, however, that is not the case. Instead, earnings forecasts are typically falling. Needless to say, falling earnings forecasts are a rarity for such a high quality diversified index like the S&P 500, and that's why bear markets are much more infrequent than bull markets. However, once they start, it's very hard to argue the bear markets over until those earnings forecasts stop falling. Stocks have bottomed both before, after and coincidentally with those troughs in earnings estimates. If this bear market turns out to have ended in October of last year, it will be the farthest in advance that stocks have discounted the trough in forward 12 month earnings. More importantly, this assumes earnings estimates have indeed troughed, which is unlikely in our view. In fact, our top down earnings models suggest that estimates aren't likely to trough until September, which would put the trough in stocks still in front of us. Finally, we would note that the Fed's reaction function is very different today given the inflationary backdrop. In fact, during every material earnings recession over the past 30 years, the Fed was already easing policy before we reached the trough in EPS forecasts. They are still tightening today. During such periods, there is usually a vigorous debate as to when the earnings estimates will trough. This uncertainty creates the very choppy price action we witness during bear markets, which can include very sharp rallies like the one we've experienced over the past year. Furthermore, earnings forecasts have started to flatten out, but we would caution that this is what typically happens during bear markets. The stock's fall in the last month of the calendar quarter as they discount upcoming results and then rally when the forward estimates actually come down. Over the past year, this pattern has been observed with stocks selling off the month leading up to the earnings season and then rallying on the relief that the worst may be behind us. We think that dynamic is at work again this quarter, with the stocks selling off in December in anticipation of bad news and then rallying on the relief it's the last cut. Given that we are about to enter the last calendar month of the first quarter later this week, we think the risk of stocks falling further is high. Bottom line, we don't believe the earnings forecasts are done and we think they're going to fall again in the next few months. This is a key debate in the market, and our take is that while the economic data appears to have stabilized and even turned up again in certain areas, our negative operating leverage cycle is alive and well and could overwhelm any economic scenario over the next six months. We remain defensive going into March with the worst of this earnings cycle still ahead of us. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show.

As short-term bond yields continue to rise, what impact does this comparatively high yield have on the broader market?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, February 24th at 2 p.m. in London. One of the biggest stories brewing in the background of markets is the sharp rise in yields on safe, short-term bonds. A 6 month Treasury bill is a great example. In November of 2021, it yielded just 0.06%. Today, just 14 months later, it yields 5.1%, its highest yield since July of 2007. The rise in safe short-term yields is notable for its speed and severity, as the last 12 months have seen the fastest rise of these yields in over 40 years. But it also has broader investment implications. Higher yields on cash like instruments impact markets in three distinct ways, all of which reduce the incentive for investors to take market exposure. First and most simply, higher short term rates raise the bar for what a traditional investor needs to earn. If one can now get 5% yields holding short term government bonds over the next 12 months, how much more does the stock market, which is significantly more volatile, need to deliver in order to be relatively more appealing? Second, higher yields impact the carry for so-called leveraged investors. There is a significant amount of market activity that's done by investors who buy securities with borrowed money, the rate of which is often driven by short term yields. When short term yields are low, as they've been for much of the last 12 years, this borrowing to buy strategy is attractive. But with U.S. yields now elevated, this type of buyer is less incentivized to hold either U.S. stocks or bonds. Third, higher short term yields drive up the cost of buying assets in another market and hedging them back to your home currency. If you're an investor in, say, Japan, who wants to buy an asset in the U.S. but also wants to remove the risk of a large change in the exchange rate over the next year, the costs of removing that risk will be roughly the difference between 1 year yields in the US and 1 year yields in Japan. As 1 year yields in the U.S. have soared, the cost of this hedging has become a lot more expensive for these global investors, potentially reducing overseas demand for U.S. assets and driving this demand somewhere else. We think a market like Europe may be a relative beneficiary as hedging costs for U.S. assets rise. The fact that U.S. investors are being paid so well to hold cash-like exposure reduces the attractiveness of U.S. stocks and bonds. But this challenge isn't equal globally. Both inflation and the yield on short-term cash are much lower in Asia, which is one of several reasons why we think equities in Asia will outperform other global markets going forward. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.

Companies continue their attempts to mitigate their environmental impact. But are some merely buying their way out of the problem using carbon offsets? Global Head of Sustainability Research Stephen Byrd and Head of ESG Fixed-Income Research Carolyn Campbell discuss. ----- Transcript -----Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Sustainability Research. Carolyn Campbell: And I'm Carolyn Campbell, Head of Morgan Stanley's ESG Fixed-Income Research. Stephen Byrd: On this special episode of the podcast, we'll discuss the voluntary carbon offset market and the role carbon offsets play in achieving companies' decarbonization goals. It's Thursday, February 23rd at 10 a.m. in New York. Stephen Byrd: As extreme weather becomes the new normal, and sustainability rises in importance on investors' agendas, many companies are working towards mitigating their environmental impact. But even so, there's persistent public concern that some companies claiming to be carbon neutral may in fact be "greenwashing" by purchasing so-called carbon offsets. So, Carolyn, let's start with the basics. What exactly are carbon offsets and why should investors care? Carolyn Campbell: So a carbon offset represents one ton of carbon dioxide equivalent removed, reduced or avoided in the atmosphere. Companies are buying offsets to neutralize their own emissions. They essentially subtract the amount of carbon offsets purchased from their total emissions, from their operations and supply chain. These offsets are useful because it allows a company to take action against their emissions now, while implementing longer term decarbonization strategies. However, there's concern that these companies are just buying their way out of the problem and are using these offsets that do not actually do anything with respect to actually limiting global warming. So, Stephen, some of these offsets focus on reducing carbon dioxide emissions, while others aim to directly remove these emissions from the atmosphere. Between these so-called avoidance and removal offsets, how do you see the market evolving for each over the next 5 to 10 years, let's say? Stephen Byrd: Yeah, Carolyn, I think the balance is set to shift in favor of removal over the coming decade. So we developed an assessment of the potential mix shift from carbon avoidance to carbon removal projects, which shows the long term importance of removal projects as well as the near-term to medium term need for avoidance projects. We're bullish that over the long term removal projects, and think of these projects as projects that demonstrably and permanently take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, as generating enough carbon offset credits to reach company's net zero targets, again in the long term. However, over the near to medium term, call it the next 5 to 10 years, we expect the volume of removal projects to fall short. As a result, we think carbon avoidance projects, and these would be projects that avoid new atmospheric emissions of carbon dioxide. These will play an important role as offset purchasers shift their mix of carbon offsets towards removal over the course of this decade. Carolyn, one of the big debates in the market around voluntary carbon offsets involves nature based projects versus technology based projects. Could you give us some examples of each and just talk through, is one type significantly better than the other? And which one do you think will likely gain the most traction? Carolyn Campbell: Sure. So on the one side, we've got these nature based projects which include things like reforestation, afforestation and avoided deforestation projects. In essence planting trees and protecting forests that are already there. There's also other projects related to grasslands and coastal conservation. On the other side, we've got these tech based projects which are actually quite wide ranging. This includes things like deploying new renewable technology or capping oil wells to prevent methane leakage, substituting wood burning stove for clean cookstoves, everything up to direct air capture and carbon capture, so on and so forth. So in our view, these tech based offsets will eventually dominate the market, but they face some scaling and cost hurdles over in the near term. Tech based offsets have some key advantages. They're highly measurable and they have a high probability of permanence, both disadvantages on the nature based side. Nature based sides, like I said, have measurement hurdles, but we think they represent an important interim solution until either geographic limits are reached because there's no more area left to reforest, or legislative conservation takes over. Removal technologies, like direct air capture and carbon capture, yield highly quantifiable results. And that drives a value in a market where the lack of confidence is a major obstacle to growth. So we think that's where the market's heading, but we're not really there yet. Now, one thing we haven't discussed is why even buy carbon offsets at all? Should companies be spending their limited sustainability budgets on carbon offsets, or is that money better served on research and development that might get us closer to absolute zero in the long term? Stephen Byrd: Yeah, we are seeing signs that companies are increasingly looking to spend more of their sustainability budgets on research and development of long term decarbonization solutions, in lieu of buying carbon offsets. Now we support that trend, given the need for new technologies to really bend the curve on carbon emissions. And we do believe that offsets should not substitute for viable permanent decarbonization projects. Now, that said, offsets are a complimentary approach that enables action to be taken today against emissions that corporates currently cannot eliminate. We also believe the magnitude of consumer interest in carbon neutral products is underappreciated. Survey work from our alpha wise colleagues, really focused on consumer preferences and carbon neutral goods and services, shows that consumers are willing to pay about a 2% premium for carbon neutrality. Now, that may not sound like much, but it's actually a very significant number when you translate that into a price on carbon. Let's take sneakers as an example. Our math would indicate that consumers would be willing to price carbon offsets at a value above $150 a ton of carbon dioxide. That prices about 15 times the weighted average price of offsets in 2022. So consumer preferences may well play an important role in the evolution of the carbon offset market throughout the course of this decade and beyond. And we do think that this dynamic could provide the support needed to move the market towards higher quality offsets, and also drive companies to develop their own innovative decarbonization solutions. Carolyn, how big do you think the carbon offsets market could get over the next 5 to 10 years and even longer term? Carolyn Campbell: Okay, so right now the market's around 1 to 2 billion in size, but we think there is a sizable growth opportunity between now and 2030, which is when many of the interim targets are set. And also longer term out to 2050, by which point we're trying to be net zero. So we estimate that the market could grow to around 100 billion by the end of this decade, and that will swell to around 250 billion by mid-century. And we've done this analysis based on our median expectation for progress on a few different decarbonization technologies like decarbonizing cement, decarbonizing manufacturing, and increasing the zero carbon energy penetration in the grid. When we look at that technological progress versus where we need to be in terms of our ambition to keep warming to one and a half or two degrees Celsius, that's how we arrive at the shortfall to make up that size of the market. Stephen Byrd: Finally, Carolyn, one of the criticisms of carbon offsets is that they aren't regulated. So could you give us a quick glimpse into the policies and regulations around carbon offsets that potentially lie ahead? Carolyn Campbell: Yeah, so you're right. Right now the market is largely unregulated and that creates the risk of fraud and manipulation. However, we don't expect imminent action, and it's just not a priority in the U.S. for Congress. That being said, if regulation does occur, we have an idea of what it could look like. We would expect to be led by the CFTC, which regulates the commodities markets. And we think that it would be focused on ensuring integrity in the market, creating a registration framework for the offsets and pursuing individual cases of fraud. Now, without formal regulation, there are few voluntary initiatives that have continued to set the standards in the industry. These organizations focus on the integrity of the market, they set principles to ensure that offsets are high quality, and they're even looking at labeling to mark credits as high integrity. So there's a lot of guidance out there, and it's constantly adapting to this evolving landscape. Stephen Byrd: Carolyn, thanks for taking the time to talk. Carolyn Campbell: Great speaking with you today, Stephen. Stephen Byrd: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

With housing affordability plateauing and inventory picking up, sales could be poised to rise again in the near future.----- Transcript -----Jim Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, Co-Head of U.S. Securitized Products Research here at Morgan Stanley. Jay Bacow: And I'm Jay Bacow, the other Co-Head of U.S. Securities Products Research. Jim Egan: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing the U.S. housing and mortgage markets. It's Wednesday, February 22nd, at 11 a.m. in New York. Jay Bacow: All right. So, Jim, when we're looking at data on the housing market, it seems like it's all over the place. We've got home sale activity pointing one direction. We've got home prices doing other things. What's going on? You've had this bifurcation narrative. Is the bifurcation narrative still bifurcating? Jim Egan: So to remind our listeners, the bifurcation narrative for our housing forecasts is between home prices, which we thought were a lot more protected, and housing activity, so sales and housing starts where we thought you were going to see a lot more weakness. And I would say that bifurcation narrative still exists. But, as you're saying, the different data have been pointing to different things. For instance, purchase applications, they picked up sequentially in January from December. And after declining in every single month of 2022, the homebuilder confidence has increased in both January and February. Jay Bacow: All right. But when I think about what happened over that time period, mortgage rates fell almost 100 basis points from their highs in November, as you measure that purchase application pick up from December to January. Is that playing a role? Do you think that there are signs that maybe housing activity is going to pick back up? Jim Egan: So from a mortgage rate perspective, it'd be difficult for us to say it isn't. So we do think that that's playing a role, but we also think it's a little too early to say that housing activity is going to pick back up from here. For one thing, mortgage rates might have come down 100 basis points from mid-November into January, but they've also begun to move higher over the past few weeks. For another, the variables that we've been paying close attention to haven't really shown much improvement. Jay Bacow: Those variables, you mean affordability and supply. How are those looking now? Jim Egan: Exactly. Now let's think about what drove our bifurcation hypothesis in the first place. Because of the record growth in home prices that we saw in 2021 and 2022, combined with the sharp increase in mortgage rates in 2022. They were up almost 400 basis points before that 100 basis point decline that we talked about. Affordability deteriorated more than at any point in over three decades. In fact, the year over year deterioration was roughly three times what we experienced in the years leading up to the GFC. Jay Bacow: Now we want to remind our listeners that this affordability deterioration is really for first time homebuyers. Given the vast predominance of the fixed rate mortgage in the United States most homeowners have a low 30 year fixed rate mortgage with an average rate of about 3.5%. Obviously, their affordability didn't change. What did change was prospective homeowners that are looking to buy a house and now would have to take a mortgage at a higher rate. That does mean that those people with a low fixed rate mortgage, they've got low rates. Jim Egan: And that means that they simply have not been incentivized to list their homes for sale. The inventory of existing homes available for sale plummeted to over 40 year lows. And we only really have 40 years of data. More importantly for the drop in sales volumes that we've seen, if an existing homeowner is not selling their home, they're also not buying a home on the follow that further exaggerates the drop. But thinking about where we are today, affordability is no longer rapidly deteriorating. In fact, it's basically been unchanged over the past three months. And inventories, they remain near 40 year lows, but they're also no longer falling rapidly. If anything, they're actually kind of increasing on the margins. It is only on the margins because of that lock in effect that you mentioned Jay. Jay Bacow: Okay. But it is increasing slightly. So if you have a little bit of a pickup in inventory in basically unchanged affordability, what does that mean for home sales? Jim Egan: Affordability is challenged and supply is very tight, but both are no longer getting even more stretched. In other words, we don't see a catalyst for sales volumes to inflect higher from here, but we also don't think the ingredients are in place for large month over month declines to continue either. I wouldn't say that sales have bottomed, but I would lean more towards they are in the process of bottoming right now. We expect volumes to be weak in the first half of 2023, but perhaps not substantially weaker than they were in the fourth quarter of 2022, where volumes retraced all the way back to 2010 levels. We also want to emphasize that this will still result in significant year over year declines, given how strong the first half of 2022 was. The January purchase applications that I earlier stated were moving higher, they were down 40% year over year from January of 2022. And they also have started to come down a little bit in February. The existing home sales print that happened earlier this week for January, that was down 37% year over year. Jay Bacow: All right, so, home sale activity is in the process of bottoming, but it's down 37% to 40%, depending on what number that we're talking about. In order for things to bifurcate, we need another side. So what's happening with prices? Jim Egan: I would say that prices are still more protected. That doesn't mean the prices are going to continue to grow. When we think about year over year growth in prices, it continues to slow. We were down to 7.7% in the most recent print, which represents November home prices. We'll get the December print next week. We think it'll slow to roughly 6% when we get that. And month over month, home prices have been coming down. They're down about 3.5% from peak, which was June of 2022. We do think that year over year will still turn negative in 2023, the first time that's happened since 2012. But even if we get the 4% decline in home prices in 2023 that we're calling for, that would still only really bring us back to the end of 2021, which is up 30% from the onset of the pandemic in March of 2020. And as I mentioned earlier, sales volumes hit levels we hadn't seen since 2010. So, that bifurcation still exists. Jay Bacow: All right. So that bifurcation between home sales and home prices is still going to exist. Jim, always great talking to you. Jim Egan: Great talking to you, too, Jay. Jay Bacow: And thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on the Apple Podcasts app, and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

While the causes of the European equity rally have become more clear over time, so have the caveats that warrant caution over optimism for cyclical stocks.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Graham Secker, Head of Morgan Stanley's European Equity Strategy Team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the deflating safety cushion for European equities. It's Tuesday, February the 21st at 3 p.m. in London. With the benefit of hindsight, it's relatively easy to justify the European equity rally since the start of October, given that we've seen an improvement in the macro news flow against a backdrop of low valuation and depressed investor sentiment and positioning. While the macro outlook could continue to improve from here, we think the safety cushion that low valuation and depressed sentiment had previously provided has deflated considerably as investors have been drawn back into the market by rising price momentum. On valuation, the MSCI Europe Index still looks quite inexpensive on a next 12 month forward PE of 13, however the same ratio for Europe's median stock has risen to 16, which is at the upper end of its historic range. Admittedly, a less padded safety cushion is not necessarily a problem if the fundamental economic and earnings trends continue to improve. However, there is now considerably less margin for any disappointment going forward. This rebound in European equities has been led primarily by cyclical sectors who have outperformed their defensive peers by nearly 20% over the last six months. Historically, this pace of outperformance has tended to be a good sign, suggesting that we had started a new economic cycle with further upside for cyclical stocks ahead. However, while this sounds encouraging, we see three caveats that warrant caution rather than optimism at this point. First, we have seen no deterioration in cyclicals’ profitability yet, and the lack of any downturn now makes it harder to envisage an EPS upturn required to drive share prices higher going forward. Second, we get a very different message from the yield curve, which has consistently proved to be one of the best economic leading indicators over many cycles. Today's inverted yield curve is usually followed by a period of cyclical underperformance and not outperformance. And thirdly, cyclicals. Valuations look elevated, with the group trading in a similar price to book value as defensives. When this has happened previously, it usually signals cyclicals’ underperformance ahead. Given our cautious view on cyclicals, we prefer small and mid-cap stocks as a way to gain exposure to a European recovery. Having underperformed both large caps and cyclicals significantly over the last year, relative valuations for smaller stocks looks much more appealing, and relative performance looks like it is breaking out of its prior downtrend. In addition, we see two specific macro catalysts that should help smaller stocks in 2023, namely falling inflation and a rising euro. Historically, both these trends have tended to favor smaller companies over larger companies, and we expect the same to happen this year. At the country level we think the case for small and mid-cap stocks looks most compelling in Germany, where the relative index, the MDAX, has significantly lagged its larger equivalent, the DAX, such that relative valuations are close to a record low. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

As our outlook for global equities becomes more cautious, what is influencing the move and what should investors watch as the story develops?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, February 17th at 2 p.m. in London. We recently moved to an underweight stance in global equities as part of our cross-asset allocations. I want to talk a bit about why we did this, why we did it recently and what we're watching. The 'why' behind this move is straightforward, global equities now have low risk-adjusted returns in our framework. Our expected return for global stocks is now below what we see for bonds in the U.S., Europe or emerging markets, and it's also lower than what we expect for U.S. dollar cash. With lower expected returns and higher expected volatility, we think it makes sense to hold a lower than normal amount of global equities, hence our underweight stance. In terms of why we've made this change recently, a few things have shifted. Per Morgan Stanley's forecast, we entered the year expecting low returns for U.S. equities, but higher returns for non-U.S. stocks. But as prices have gone up in 2023, our expected returns outside the U.S. have also fallen, while in the U.S. they're now negative. We also think about expected returns based on longer-run valuations, and then adjusting these for economic conditions. We frame those economic expectations through something we call our cycle indicator, which is trying to look at economic data through the lens of being either stronger or weaker than average, and improving or softening. That indicator recently flipped, indicating a regime where the data is still strong but it's no longer improving, and historically that's often meant lower than average equity returns. And all of this has happened at a time when yields have risen, which is improving expected returns for a lot of other assets. The U.S. aggregate bond index now yields about 4.7%, while 12 month U.S. Treasury bills yield about the same amount. That is raising the bar for what global equities need to return to be relatively more attractive within one's portfolio. For a change like this, what are the risks? Well, one would be a stronger economy, which tends to be better for stocks relative to other assets. And some recent data has been strong, especially related to the U.S. labor market and retail sales. Our economists, however, think the growth story is still murky. Recent economic data is being impacted by large seasonal adjustments, which may be accurate, but which could also be flattering January data if economic patterns have changed versus their pre-COVID trends. Meanwhile, other economic indicators from PMIs to the yield curve to commodity prices suggest a softer growth backdrop ahead. Falling expected returns for stocks relative to other assets have led us to downgrade global equities to underweight. A surprising rebound in global growth is a risk to this change, but for now, we see better risk adjusted reward elsewhere in one's portfolio. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.

Next month the leadership of the Bank of Japan will change hands, so what policy shifts might be in store and what does this imply for markets?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Daniel Blake from Morgan Stanley's Asia and Emerging Markets Equity Strategy team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss Japanese equity markets and the changing of the guard at the Bank of Japan. It's Thursday, February 16th at 8 a.m. in Singapore. March the 10th will mark the end of an era for Japan, with Haruhiko Kuroda completing his final meeting at the helm of the Bank of Japan. Alongside the late Shinzo Abe, Kuroda-san has been instrumental in creating and implementing the famous Abenomics program over the last decade, and we think he's been successful in bringing Japan out of its long running deflationary stance. And just this week we've had the nomination of his replacement, Kazuo Ueda, a well-respected University of Tokyo professor and former Bank of Japan board member. He may not be a household name outside of the economics community, but his central bank and policy bloodlines run deep, having studied a Ph.D. at MIT alongside former Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and under the tutelage of Stanley Fischer, former Bank of Israel governor and vice Fed chair. So as we see a generational handover at the BoJ, what do we expect next and what does it imply for equity markets? Firstly, Japan has made a lot of progress, but we don't think the mission has been fully accomplished on the Bank of Japan's 2% inflation target. Current inflation is being driven by cost pressures and while wage growth is picking up, we don't think wages will move up to the levels needed to see inflation at 2% being sustained. So we don't expect the BoJ under Ueda-san to embark on a tightening cycle the way we have seen for the Fed and the ECB. However, we can look for some change and in particular we think Ueda-san will look to resolve some of the market dysfunction associated with the policy of yield curve control. This is where the BoJ looks to cap bond yields at the ten year maturity, around a target of 0%. We expect he'll exit this policy of yield curve control by summer 2023, allowing the curve to steepen. And thirdly, we'll be watching closely his perspective on negative interest rate policy as we weigh up the costs and benefits and the transmission of negative rates into the real economy, albeit at the cost of profitability impacts for the banking sector. His testimony before the DIT on February 24th and his approach to negative interest rates under his governorship will be important to watch. We expect negative interest rate policy to be dropped, but not until 2024 in our base case, but this remains a key debate. So in terms of implications, this is more evolution than revolution for macro policy in Japan. And importantly, we see fiscal policy remaining supportive as the program of new capitalism and Ueda-san looks to strengthen social safety nets and double defense spending from 1% of GDP. Secondly, for equity markets, we see a resilient but still range bound outlook for the benchmark TOPIX Index. Our base case target of 2020 for December 2023 implies it doesn't quite break the top of its three year trading range, but remains well supported. Finally, at a sector level, banks and insurers may benefit from a tilting policy away from yield curve control. Again, especially if followed by a move back to zero rates from negative rate policy. In summary, we'll be watching for any shifts in the BoJ reaction function under the new leadership of Kazuo Ueda, but we do not expect a macro shock to asset markets. Instead, some micro adjustment in the yield curve control policy, and potentially negative interest rates, could help the sustainability of very low interest rates in Japan. Thanks for listening and if you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. 

As potential candidates begin to announce their presidential campaigns, is it time to start considering how the 2024 race will drive markets?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between public policy and financial markets. It's Wednesday, February 15th at 10 a.m. in New York. With the news that Nikki Haley, former South Carolina governor and ambassador to the United Nations, is now running for the Republican nomination for president, investors are starting to ask questions about how the 2024 race for the White House will drive markets. Well, in our view, it's not worth spending too much time on, at least not yet through the lens of an investor, particularly when compared to the very relevant debate about the path of monetary policy and inflation. Let me explain. When it comes to understanding the impact of elections on markets, it's all about the policy paths opened up by different outcomes. Markets would care deeply, for example, if information we had today, say about who's running for president, could reliably tell us something about whether there will be in 2025 changes in tax policy, existing and emerging trade barriers with China or policy toward Ukraine. But at this point, projecting such changes is nearly pure speculation. Consider that, this far ahead of the election, knowing who the declared candidates are doesn't give us a lot of new information about who will become president. Polls, while never a perfect predictor, have little predictive value this far ahead of an election. Look at Barack Obama and Donald Trump who, when they declared their candidacies, didn't have strong poll numbers but obviously found political success. Also, remember that knowing who will become president is only one piece of the puzzle in forecasting policy outcomes. We also need to assess whether the president's party will control Congress or not. If they do, the markets reasonably might want to present higher probabilities of more dramatic policy changes. But again, this far out, there are far too many variables to make this assessment. Consider we know little about potential congressional candidates, their policy positions, and even which policy issues will motivate the election, which is still over a year and a half away. So bottom line, while it's certainly not too early to think about the 2024 election as a voter, as an investor you're better served focusing elsewhere for the time being. We'll clue you in when there's more for investors to work with. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

Though U.S. consumer spending was surprisingly robust in 2022, this poses both new and continuing challenges as households draw down their excess savings.----- Transcript -----Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver from the Morgan Stanley U.S. Equity Strategy Team. Sarah Wolfe: And I'm Sarah Wolfe from the U.S. Economics Team. Michelle Weaver: On this special episode of the podcast, we'll discuss how the U.S. consumer is faring. It's Tuesday, February 14th at 10 a.m. in New York. Michelle Weaver: The health of the consumer is critical for the equity market, and consumer spending last year helped companies continue to grow their earnings. Sarah, can you give us a snapshot of the overall health of the U.S. consumer right now? Do people still have plenty of savings, and what are you expecting around consumer savings for the rest of the year? Sarah Wolfe: The U.S. consumer was extraordinarily strong in 2022, despite negative real disposable income growth. For perspective, spending was about 3% growth year over year in 2022, and real disposable income was negative 6.5%. Part of that was inflation eroding all income gains, but it was also a tough year as we lapped fiscal stimulus from 2021. So what got consumers through negative 6.5% real income growth? It was this excess savings story. Consumers tapped their excess savings pretty significantly, and we estimate that the drawdown was roughly 30% from its peak. However, when we look into 2023, we don't think consumers are going to be tapping into their savings reserves quite as much. Michelle Weaver: It sounds like households draw down quite a bit of their excess saving. Is there any danger that they're going to run out? And if that's the case, when do you think that will play out? Sarah Wolfe: So we don't think 100% of excess savings are going to get spent ever. Remember, savings is not cash in your wallet, it's just anything that hasn't been spent. So some of these savings have moved into longer term investment vehicles as well. We think that an additional 15% will get spent in 2023, and 10% in 2024, after 30% drawdown last year. This slower drawdown in the excess savings will allow the savings rate to recover after sitting at a two decade low in 2022 at roughly 3%. But there are important divergences when you look at the distributional holding of excess savings. For example, the bottom 25% has drawn down over 50% of their excess savings, compared to 30% overall. And we believe they're on track to run their savings dry by 2Q 2023. Michelle Weaver: Great. And then income, of course, is another really important source of spending for consumers. And the January jobs report we got was a big surprise. And the labor market continues to be pretty resilient without any clear signs of stopping. I run a proprietary survey in conjunction with our Alphawise team, and in our most recent wave we found that despite the tech layoffs that have been all over the news, 31% of people are actually less worried about losing their job now versus a year ago. Can you tell me a little bit about what your team expects for the labor market in 2023? Sarah Wolfe: Well, the February jobs report was a whopper by any standard, 517,000 jobs and the unemployment rate hitting all time lows at 3.4%. However, I think it's important to put these numbers into a bit of context. We identified three temporary factors that boosted nonfarm payrolls in January and that we think are unlikely to persist in February. The first is weather. A warmer than usual January added about 130,000 jobs last month. The return of strike workers added 36,000 jobs and seasonal factors added 3 million jobs. Typically, we see the shedding of a lot of workers in January after the holidays, so leisure and hospitality, retail workers, transportation. But because we're dealing with significant labor shortages, and as a result companies are hoarding workers, we're seeing a lot fewer layoffs than we typically would given this time of the year and as a result, the seasonal factors are adding too many jobs right now. We expect the February print to be about 200,000, which is more in line with the trend that we had seen from July until December of 2022. We continue to expect job growth to slow this year, hitting a low of 50,000 jobs a month in mid 2023, pushing the unemployment rate up to about 3.9% by the end of this year. Michelle, you mentioned that you have an alphawise survey. Could you tell us a little bit more about what the survey’s telling you about consumer spending plans? Michelle Weaver: Sure. So on this wave of the survey, we asked people to think about major purchases that they're planning on making over the next three months. And we defined a major purchase like a vehicle, large appliance or vacation. And we found that about a quarter of people are considering shifting to a cheaper alternative, while a third are expecting to delay the purchase altogether. We also asked several questions on everyday purchases, and our survey indicates that consumers are planning to spend less on more discretionary categories. So that would include tech products, electronics, clothing, alcohol and home improvement. Sarah Wolfe: Michelle, that makes a lot of sense, and it's great to see when the hard data matches the soft data. We've done a lot of modeling work on how higher interest rates impact consumer spending, and we see a similar response in those categories. In particular, consumers tend to pull back on durable goods consumption, including home furnishing, electronics and appliances and motor vehicles. We haven't really talked about the services side yet. There was a big travel boom, post-COVID, do we expect this to continue this year? Michelle Weaver: Stocks exposed to travel did really well post-COVID as people were excited to get out there and travel again. Last year, we saw international travel restrictions lifted, making it a big year for vacations. And so there is some reversion likely here. And our survey showed that consumers are less positive on travel spending this year versus last year, with 34% of people expecting to spend less on travel and only 23% expecting to spend more. Sarah Wolfe: That's a pretty big step down in spending intentions on travel that your survey work shows. It also looks like in the economic data that the strongest part of the services recovery is behind us. We saw 10% nominal spending growth on services in 2021 and 2022. So, it's no wonder that this should decelerate in 2023 as the labor market cools and we return back to normal spending behavior. Michelle Weaver: Finally, Sarah, let's talk about inflation. Inflation is something I've definitely felt a lot as a consumer. For example, when I go to the grocery store, egg prices seem to be out of control, but when I look at my energy bill, things seem to be getting a little bit better. Can you tell us what's going on here and what you expect on inflation for the rest of the year? Sarah Wolfe: Unfortunately, we don't have a lot of transparency on the future of food prices right now, but we have seen pretty remarkable progress in other components of inflation that were weighing on household wallets in 2022. The first and foremost being energy inflation, which has returned back to its pre-COVID levels. We've also seen nice progress on goods inflation, where price levels have been coming off, in particular on new and used motor vehicles. And then we are seeing a slowing among services prices as well. In fact, headline PCE inflation has moderated from 7% this past summer to 5% today. And while this is great progress, the job is not done yet. We think inflation does reach 2.5% by the end of 2023, but this is going to require more aggressive action by the Fed. We now have two more 25 basis point hikes from the Fed in March and in May, reaching a peak rate of 5.25%. And we think they're going to have to keep rates on hold at their peak through the end of the year in order to make sure that inflation is getting where it needs to be. Michelle Weaver: Sarah, thanks for taking the time to talk. Sarah Wolfe: It was great speaking with you, Michelle. Michelle Weaver: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today. 

Inflation was a key topic in a recent meeting at the Brookings Institution. While it has trended downward recently, the details are critical to tracking the path ahead.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Global Chief Economist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about inflation and the U.S. economy. It's Monday, February 13th at 10 a.m. in New York.This past week, I was fortunate to be part of a panel discussion at the Brookings Institution, a research think tank in Washington, D.C. I was one of three economists in discussion with one of the White House's main economic advisers. Unsurprisingly, the topic of inflation came up.One key chart from the White House economist juxtaposed services wage inflation with core services inflation, excluding housing. The key point of the chart was that falling wage inflation in the services sector may put some downward pressure on inflation in core services, excluding housing. This topic is timely because Chair Powell has repeatedly referenced services inflation, excluding housing, as a key risk to their goal for achieving price stability.A couple of weeks ago I'd written on the same topic, and there we tried to show that even the link itself between wage inflation and services inflation is a bit tenuous. But just looking at the raw data, it is clear that the monthly run rate on other services remains elevated. But a question we have to ask ourselves is, 'is it elevated a lot or a little?'Since June of last year, core services inflation, excluding housing, has trended down, and for December, it was at about 32 basis points on a month-over-month basis. That December pace is 3.9% in annual terms and would contribute about 2.1 percentage points to core PCE inflation. To put those numbers into context, recall that from 2013 to 2019, before COVID, core services inflation, excluding housing, averaged about 18 basis points a month or 2.2% at an annual rate. So yes, services inflation is higher than it has been historically, but it is nowhere near as high, relative to history, as housing inflation has been or core goods inflation has been, until recently. Indeed, from 2013 to 2019, core PCE inflation ran below the Fed's 2% inflation target. If goods inflation and housing inflation just went back to their averages from that period and services inflation, excluding housing, was at the rate that we saw in December, core PCE inflation would have overshot target, but by less than a half a percentage point. And we can't forget, for the past year, month-over-month services inflation, excluding housing, has been trending down.So are we out of the woods? No. Clearly, services inflation, excluding housing, is still high and needs to come down over time for the Fed to hit its target. But goods inflation and housing inflation were much bigger drivers of the surge in inflation. So, we really need to consider what's the path from here.Goods Inflation has been negative for the past few months, but used car prices look to have edged up a bit. Our US economics team expects the monthly change in core goods prices to be positive five basis points in January, interrupting that losing streak. We do not expect this reversion to last long, but the next couple of months could have some bumps in the path.Similarly, for housing inflation, the data on current new leases clearly points to a sharp deceleration in housing inflation over the rest of this year. Although overall housing inflation should come down, the closely watched component of owners' equivalent rent will likely stay elevated a bit longer and possibly give markets a bit of a head fake. The details matter, as always.The bottom line for us is twofold. First, inflation is coming down, but it will not be a smooth decline. A return to target for inflation was never very likely this year, so patience is required no matter what. Second, the recent high wage inflation does not spell failure for the Fed. Services inflation is not too far off target and the link between wages and inflation is there but it's small and both wage inflation and price inflation has been trending down despite the strong labor market.I conclude with what might be the most underappreciated moment from Chair Powell's public comments last week. He said he sees inflation getting close to 2% in 2024. When the FOMC did their projections in December, the median forecast was for 3.5% inflation at the end of this year. So, it seems like, based on the incoming data, Chair Powell might be pointing to a meaningful downward revision to the March forecast for inflation.Thanks for listening and if you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

While the risk of economic contraction has lessened in a few regions, is the story of recession and market risk being oversimplified?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, February 10th at 2 p.m. in London. Markets have been fixated on the question of whether the U.S. and Europe will enter recession this year. With Europe benefiting from a fall in energy prices and the U.S. adding half a million jobs in January, it's tempting to think that recession risk is now lower and by extension, the risk to markets has passed. But the story may be more complicated. Near term, the risk of an economic contraction or recession has fallen. Europe has seen the largest swings here, where much lower energy prices, a result of a mild winter and plentiful supply from the United States, is leading to both less inflation and better growth, the proverbial 2-for-1 deal. Recession risk has also fallen a bit in the U.S., where our economists tracking estimate for U.S. GDP has been moving modestly higher. For markets, however, we fear that this story is getting oversimplified, to a recession is bad and no recession is good. At one level yes, avoiding a recession is definitely preferable. But markets often care most about the rate of change. It remains likely that U.S. growth will decelerate meaningfully this year, even in a scenario where a recession is avoided. For one, the idea that the U.S. avoids recession but still sees a meaningful slowdown in growth is the current forecast from Morgan Stanley's economists. And that's also the signal that we're getting from our market indicators. We classify an environment where leading economic data is strong but starting to soften as 'downturn'. That phase tends to see below average returns for stocks relative to bonds over the ensuing 6 to 12 months. We entered that phase recently. Of course, the U.S. economy has been defying predictions of a slowdown for many months now, and it could still have a few surprises up its sleeve. For now, however, we think favoring bonds over stocks is still consistent with our forecast for slowing growth, even if a recession is avoided. In Europe, we think the biggest beneficiary of lower energy prices and better growth prospects is the euro. What we think the euro performs well broadly, we think it does especially well versus the British pound, where economic challenges remain greater and our economists do forecast a recession this year. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or where ever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.  

With the latest U.S. employment report showing unexpected resilience in the labor market, what happens now for the Fed and the policy tightening cycle?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Head of Fixed Income Research and Director of Quantitative Research. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I will discuss the market implications from the latest U.S. employment report. It's Thursday, February 9th at noon in New York. When it comes to economic data releases, there are surprises and there are shockers. Last Friday's U.S. employment report was clearly in the latter category. Ahead of the release, the market consensus estimate was for 185,000 new jobs based on Bloomberg's survey of 77 economists. And yet the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported 517,000 new jobs added during the month, which is about eight and half standard deviations from the average expectation of the Bloomberg survey participants. By any measure, that's huge. The report showed strength across the board. Of course, there were some temporary drivers, like technical adjustments to seasonality factors, mild weather in January, and a resolution of certain strikes that contributed to this large scale boost to the January employment data. These things are unlikely to persist. Still, the U.S. labor market remains far more resilient than previously expected, with really no clear signs of stopping on the Monday following the January data release, Fed Chair Powell struck a more hawkish tone as he emphasized there is a significant road ahead before policymakers would be assured that inflation is returning to the 2% target. So what happens now? Even if the January employment report is not indicative of a change of trajectory in the U.S. labor market, it will likely take a few more months for the true underlying trends to emerge. Respecting the strength of the current labor market conditions, our U.S. economists believe that more evidence of labor market slowing is needed for the Fed to consider an end of the tightening cycle. Therefore, they now expect the Fed to deliver a 25 basis point hike, both in March and in May, that brings the peak policy rate to range of 5% to 5.25%, which would be in line with the FOMCs December projections. Given the change in the expectation for the Fed policy path, our strategists across multiple markets have revised many of our market goals. I would like to flag three key tactical changes. First, we turn neutral on U.S. Treasuries versus our previous overweight recommendation. Considering how big of an outlier the job number was, we think hard data is too strong for the Fed to look past it. With this realization, we think investors no longer assume that the interest rates have peaked. The market debate will likely turn into the interest rate sensitivity of the economy, and if the neutral rate should be higher than previously thought. Until we have greater clarity on these issues, we think being neutral is a better call on treasuries. Second, in the foreign exchange market, we turn neutral on the U.S. dollar, versus our previous call for a weakening dollar. The strong U.S. labor market data will likely cause investors to question whether the U.S. economy is slowing relative to the rest of the world. As a result, investors are likely to be a little more bullish in their U.S. dollar positioning. Third, in the agency mortgage market, we turned to underweight from neutral. The January employment report increases the uncertainty of the rate paths, which means higher interest rate volatility going forward, that's not great for agency MBS. Relative to other fixed income securities, we don't think investors are being compensated sufficiently for this higher interest rate uncertainty. Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Following last night’s State of the Union Address by President Biden, what are some signals from the speech that investors should consider?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between public policy and financial markets. It's Wednesday, February 8th at 10 a.m. in New York. Last night, President Biden delivered the annual State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress. Traditionally, this speech lays out the policy proposals of the administration. In the past, this hasn't signaled much, with only about 24% of proposals historically ending up enacted that year. As a recent 538.com study highlighted. But amidst the noise, there's some potential signal for investors to consider. Here's what we're watching. First, it's clear that U.S. policy will still drive the key investment themes of slowing globalization and the shift to a multipolar world. Biden's speech had much to say about the impact of recently enacted legislation like CHIPS+ and the Inflation Reduction Act, both of which included incentives to shift supply chains on key technologies back to the U.S. or friendly countries. One area this supports is the clean tech industry, which should see substantial demand for its U.S. produced products. Second, it's clear that investors need to keep paying attention to the debate on tech regulation. Biden referenced bipartisan antitrust legislation aimed at tech companies. While, as we previously discussed, there's a lot of details to be worked out before this type of legislation has a fighting chance of being enacted, the momentum behind it seems to be building. So it will be important to assess the impact of different types of regulation to large cap tech companies. Finally, and perhaps most important in the near term, the speech underscores something we've been flagging: the negotiation on how to raise the debt ceiling will be tricky and not solved in a timely manner. While calling for the debt ceiling to be raised without condition, Biden also seemed to concede there's room for negotiation on reducing the deficit. But in our view, that didn't signal a resolution was closer because the president also heavily referenced his desire for changes to the tax code to be part of that solution, something that's historically been a nonstarter for Republicans. In short, it appears in this negotiation so far, compromise has taken a backseat to rhetorical positioning by both sides. So as we stated here in the past, investors may want to prepare for an extended negotiation with a potentially late resolution, where knock-on effects to what is likely to be an already slowing economy are a distinct possibility. This is another reason our U.S. equity strategists continue to flag caution despite some solid recent performance in stocks. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

As the outlook for 2023 shows emerging markets looking better positioned than developed markets, how is Latin America faring in this more optimistic story? Chief Latin American Equity Strategist Gui Paiva and Chief Latin American Economist Andre Loes discuss.----- Transcript -----Gui Paiva: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Gui Paiva, Morgan Stanley's Chief Latin American Equity Strategist.  Andre Loes: And I'm Andre Loes, Morgan Stanley's Chief LatAm Economist.  Gui Paiva: And on this special episode of the podcast, we will discuss this year's economic and equity outlook for Latin America. It is Tuesday, February 7th, at 10 a.m. in New York. Andre Loes:] And noon in Sao Paulo. Gui Paiva: By all accounts, last year was a difficult one for global markets. Yet so far, 2023 is starting on a brighter note. There are reasons to be more optimistic with moderating inflation and the outlook for China and Europe solidifying the case for a weaker U.S. dollar. Overall, emerging markets look better positioned than developed markets, and within EM today we'll take a look specifically at Latin America. Andre, to set the stage can you give us a sense of how Latin America has fared post-COVID, and how it has dealt with the big global challenges of 2022? Andre Loes: Well Gui, the growth performance of the region was not particularly different from the other regions during the bulk of the COVID slump. But the levels of poverty in LatAm were already high at the beginning of the pandemic and the increase in unemployment in 2020 and 2021 aggravated that situation. The erosion of purchasing power stemming from accelerating inflation played an important role as well, and the result was mounting strain for political proposals backing more unorthodox ideas, especially a permanent rise in fiscal spending. So the policy reaction aiming to control inflation has been deployed amid these more challenging contexts. Gui Paiva: Well, you just mentioned policy reaction. Indeed, with rampant inflation in the region, Latin American central banks were probably ahead of the global curve in 2022, having started hiking interest rates in 21. Andre, how effective has their monetary policy been so far and what are your expectations for the rate cycle from here? Andre Loes: Well, the response of LatAm central banks came quite early and has been proving effective in most countries. One of the reasons central bankers of the region react promptly is related to the inflation prone past of the region, which is still fresh in the mind of many economic agents, which leads to de-anchoring of inflation expectations as soon as observed inflation accelerates. This means central banks need to react timely, and as a result, the central banks of Brazil, Mexico, Chile and Peru started to hike rates still in the first half of 2021, with Colombia following early on the second half. With the exception of Colombia, inflation has peaked in all countries under our coverage where the central banks pursue an inflation target. With lower inflation we see an easy cycle is starting in all countries in the region, with Chile leading in the second quarter, Peru and Mexico in the third quarter, and Brazil and Colombia cutting towards year end. Gui Paiva: And what are your economic growth forecasts for the rest of this year and the longer term? Andre Loes: Growth in 2023 will show a deceleration compared to last year with both Brazil and Mexico slowing down from 3% in 2022 to 1.4% in the current year. Deceleration will be more intense in Argentina, Chile, and Colombia, with Chile effectively go into a strong recession, a contraction of around 2%, in order to regain both price and theoretical stability. Lower growth is mostly due to the lagged effects of the material monetary policy tightening we have just discussed. But lower global growth will also play a part on that, especially for Mexico, given the strong economic integration of this country with the U.S. For South America, China's recovery may prove a boon, as the Asian country is the main export destination for Brazil, Argentina, as well as the metro exporters Chile, Peru. But Gui, let me turn it over to you on the equities side. What are some of the key investment themes you are following this year? Gui Paiva: We forecast 20% dollar upside for Latin American equities in 2023. The reasons behind our optimism are the region's leverage to the global economic cycle and the price you currently pay for regional stocks. So let me expand on these topics. First about the leverage to the global economic cycle. Historically, LatAm equities tend to perform well during the early and mid stages of the global economic cycle. The region produces several important soft and hard commodities like grains, copper, steel and iron ore, as well as energy products like crude oil and natural gas. Therefore, a rising commodity prices produces a positive terms of trade shock, which leads to stronger domestic economic growth and benefits, both directly and indirectly the public traded companies across the region. Let me pivot now to the second topic, which is the price of currently pay for regional stocks. In my 20 years as an equity strategist, I have learned that the return in an investment is highly correlated to the price you pay for the assets. Therefore, current depressed valuations of Latin equities provide an interesting entry point for investors looking to gain exposure to the EM trade at a discount. Moreover, historically, Latin American equities have posted strong returns during the 12 months following an EM bear market trough boosted by both global and local cyclical sectors.  Andre Loes: Can you also walk us through some of the largest economies in the region and give us some color as to what's happening in the different LatAm markets? Maybe start with Mexico and in particular the nearshoring opportunities there. Gui Paiva: Sure Andre. In Mexico we struggle to have a positive structural view of our local equities over the past four years, because of the government's state centric approach to some of the key sectors in the economy, like energy and electricity. However, we are more optimistic now, and we believe economic growth could surprise to the upside from 2024 to 2030, and benefit the local stock market. First, if our U.S. house view is correct and the current bear market in U.S. equities finally ends in the first half of the year, Mexico should benefit in the second as a leveraged play on a potential 2024 U.S. economic recovery. Second, we have presidential elections in Mexico in mid 24, and we believe a newly elected government would likely take a less state centric approach to the key energy and electricity sectors, which would ultimately help boost private sector business confidence and thus investments. Last but not least, we see Mexico as potentially enjoying gains from the ongoing on and nearshoring manufacturing trends. If we are correct, then economic growth in Mexico shows surprise to the upside over the next six years and the current on and nearshoring investment theme in the country, which is limited to a handful of mid and small cap stocks, would broaden out, include some of the Mexican large caps.  Andre Loes: And what about Brazil Gui? Gui Paiva: In Brazil, we have a neutral stance towards local equities because the current government has given signs that he intends to run a looser fiscal stance over the next few years, which should lead to a higher for longer monetary policy rate, higher real bond yields, which should undermine the apparently attractive valuation story for local equities. If we are correct in our assessment, the next few years should be good for Brazilian fixed income assets, but not necessarily for equities. However, we believe there are a few interesting investment themes in the local equity market and we are currently positioning some stocks which should benefit from them. For instance, we like private sector banks, insurance companies which tend to do well during periods of higher for longer interest rates. Andre Loes: Finally, what are some key upcoming events and catalysts our listeners should be aware of, Gui? Gui Paiva: Well, from a global perspective, Andre, we do expect the U.S. Fed to reach its peak rate of 4.625% in March and then stop. Therefore U.S. payrolls and inflation data are key for the outlook of U.S. monetary policy and therefore global risky assets. Meanwhile, in China, the latest batch of economic indicators has surprised to the upside, and we do expect the trend to continue in Q2. Finally, regionally, in Mexico, we expect the central bank, Banxico, to end the current monetary tightening cycle at 10.75% in February, while in Brazil, the newly elected government should try to push through Congress an important tax reform and a new long term fiscal framework during Q2. Gui Paiva: Andre, thanks very much for your questions and for taking the time to talk. Andre Loes: Great speaking with you Gui. Gui Paiva: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

As new gene therapies are researched, developed and begin clinical trials, what hurdles must genetic medicine overcome before these therapies are commonly available? Head of U.S. Pharmaceuticals Terence Flynn and Head of U.S. Biotech Matthew Harrison discuss. ----- Transcript -----Terence Flynn: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Terence Flynn, Head of U.S. Pharma for Morgan Stanley Research. Matthew Harrison: And I'm Matthew Harrison, Head of U.S. Biotech. Terence Flynn: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll be discussing the bold promise of genetic medicine. It's Monday, February 6th, at 10 a.m. in New York. Terence Flynn: 2023 marks 20 years since the completion of the Human Genome Project. The unprecedented global scientific collaboration that generated the first sequence of the human genome. The pace of research in molecular biology and human genetics has not relented since 2003, and today we're at the start of a real revolution in the practice of medicine. Matthew what exactly is genetic medicine and what's the difference between gene therapy and gene editing? Matthew Harrison: As I think about this, I think it's important to talk about context. And so as we've thought about medical developments and drug development over the last many decades, you started with pills. And then we moved into drugs from living cells. These are more complicated drugs. And now we're moving on to editing actual pieces of our genome to deliver potentially long lasting cures. And so this opens up a huge range of new treatments and new opportunities. And so in general, as we think about it, they're basically two approaches to genetic medicine. The first is called gene therapy, and the second is called gene editing. The major difference here is that in gene therapy you just deliver a snippet of a gene or pre-programmed message to the body that then allows the body to make the protein that's missing, With gene editing, instead what you do is you go in and you directly edit the genes in the person's body, potentially giving a long lasting cure to that person. So obviously two different approaches, but both could be very effective. And so, Terence, as you think about what's happening in research and development right now, you know, how long do you think it's going to be before some of these new therapies make it to market? Terence Flynn: As we think about some of the other technologies you mentioned, Matthew, those took, you know, decades in some cases to really refine them and broaden their applicability to a number of diseases. So we think the same is likely to play out here with genetic medicine, where you're likely to see an iterative approach over time as companies work to optimize different features of these technologies. So as we think about where it's focused right now, it's being primarily on the rare genetic disease side. So diseases such as hemophilia, spinal muscular atrophy and Duchenne muscular dystrophy, which affect a very small percentage of the population, but the risk benefit is very favorable for these new medicines. Now, there are currently five gene therapies approved in the U.S. and several more on the horizon in later stage development. No gene editing therapies have been approved yet, but there is one for sickle cell disease that could actually be approved next year, which would be a pretty big milestone. And the majority of the other gene editing therapies are actually in earlier stages of development. So it's likely going to be several years before those reach the market. As, again as we've seen happen time and time again in biopharma as these new therapies and new platforms are rolled out they have very broad potential. And obviously there's a lot of excitement here around these genetic medicines and thinking about where these could be applied. But I think before we go there, Matthew, obviously there are still some hurdles that needs to be addressed before we see a broader rollout here. So maybe you could touch on that for us. Matthew Harrison: You're right, there are some issues that we're still working through as we think about applying these technologies. The first one is really delivery. You obviously can't just inject some genes into the body and they'll know what to do. So you have to package them somehow. And there are a variety of techniques that are in development, whether using particles of fat to shield them or using inert viruses to send them into the body. But right now, we can't deliver to every tissue in every organ, and so that limits where you can send these medicines and how they can be effective. So there's still a lot of work to be done on delivery. And the second is when you go in and you edit a gene, even if you're very precise about where you want to edit, you might cause some what we call off target effects on the edges of where you've edited. And so there's concern about could those off target effects lead to safety issues. And then the third thing which we've touched on previously is durability. There's potentially a difference between gene therapy and gene editing, where gene editing may lead to a very long lasting cure, where different kinds of gene therapies may have longer term potential, but some may need to be redosed. Terence, as we turn back to thinking about the progress of the pipeline here, you know, what are the key catalysts you're watching over 23 and 24? Terence Flynn: You know, as everyone probably knows, biopharma is a highly regulated industry. We have the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration here in the U.S., and we have the EMA in Europe. Those are the bodies that, you know, evaluate risk benefit of every therapy that's entering clinical trials and ultimately will reach the market. So this year we're expecting much of the focus for the gene editing companies to be broadly on regulatory progress. So again, this includes completion of regulatory filings here in the U.S. and Europe for the sickle cell disease drug that I mentioned before. And then something that's known as an IND filing. So essentially what companies are required to do is file that before they conduct clinical trials in humans in the U.S. There are companies that are pursuing this for hereditary angioedema and TTR amyloidosis. Those, if successful, would allow clinical trials to be conducted here in the U.S. and include U.S. patients. The other big thing we're watching is additional clinical data related to durability of efficacy. So, I think we've seen already with some of the gene therapies for hemophilia that we have durable efficacy out to five years, which is very exciting and promising. But the question is, will that last even longer? And how to think about gene therapy relative to gene editing on the durability side. And then lastly, I'd say safety. Obviously that's important for any therapy, but given some of the hurdles still that you mentioned, Matthew, that's obviously an important focus here as we look out over the longer term and something that the companies and the regulators are going to be following pretty closely. So again, as we think about the development of the field, one of the other key questions is access to patients. And so pricing reimbursement plays a key role here for any new therapy. There are some differences here, obviously, because we're talking about cures versus traditional chronic therapies. So maybe Matthew you could elaborate on that topic. Matthew Harrison: So as you think about these genetic medicines, the ones that we've seen approved have pretty broad price ranges, anywhere from a million to a few million dollars per patient, but you're talking about a potential cure here. And as I think about many of the chronic therapies, especially the more sophisticated ones that patients take, they can cost anywhere between tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. So you can see over a decade or more of use how they can actually eclipse what seems like a very high upfront price of these genetic medicines. Now, one of the issues obviously, is that the way the payers are set up is different in different parts of the world. So in Europe, for example, there are single payer systems for the patient never switches between health insurance carriers. And so therefore you can capture that value very easily. In the U.S., obviously it's a much more complicated system, many people move between payers as they switch jobs, as you change from, you know, commercial payers when you're younger to a government payer as you move into Medicare. And so there needs to be a mechanism worked out on how to spread that value out. And so I think that's one of the things that will need to evolve. But, you know, it's a very exciting time here in genetic medicine. There's significant opportunity and I think we're on the cusp of really seeing a robust expansion of this field and leading to many potential therapies in the years to come. Terence Flynn: That's great, Matthew. Thanks so much for taking the time to talk today. Matthew Harrison: Great speaking with you, Terrence. Terence Flynn: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show.

After a year of falling assets, 2023 has started strong for global markets. Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets outlines which markets could sustain their momentum.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, February 3rd at 2 p.m. in London. 2022 was a year where almost all assets fell. 2023 so far has been the opposite. Stocks in China, Japan, Europe and the U.S. are all off to unusually good starts. Meanwhile, U.S. long term bonds have actually risen more than the stock market. But behind this widespread strength are some rather different stories. I want to talk through these and how they inform our view of where this strength could continue, or not. One set of strength is coming out of Asia, where China's reopening from COVID has been much more aggressive than expected. This is a material change of policy in the world's second largest economy, which has persisted despite a large initial rise in case numbers. That persistence has made our analysts more confident that large amounts of consumer spending could still be unlocked. While valuations in emerging markets and China equities have risen as a result of this reopening, we think they remain reasonable, and therefore our overweight equities in China, Korea and Taiwan. The second story is Europe. China's rebound is part of the narrative here, but we think a larger driver is energy. A mild winter and abundant supplies of U.S. LNG have caused the price of natural gas in Europe to fall by more than 60% since early December, and by more than 80% since late August. This decline has specific benefits reducing inflation while simultaneously easing pressures on economic growth, a proverbial win-win. But falling energy prices also have a more general benefit. For much of the last six months, the specter of a severe energy shortage has hung over Europe, discouraging investment. With the existential threat of energy shortages easing, the region is once again attracting capital. Flows by U.S. investors into European stock ETFs, for example, is on the rise, and we think continued investment flows into the region will help boost the euro. The third story, the U.S. story, is different still. Better growth in China and Europe are part of this, but we think the bigger issue is growing confidence of a so-called soft landing, where growth slows enough to reduce inflation, but not so much to cause a recession. That soft landing scenario is the base case forecast of Morgan Stanley's economists. But on several key variables, major uncertainties remain. On the one hand, the index of economic leading indicators or measures of new manufacturing orders have been surprisingly weak. But today's U.S. labor market report was extremely strong, with the lowest unemployment rate since 1969. And while inflation has been easing, every update here will remain important, including the next reading of the Consumer Price Index on February 14th. Global markets have been almost universally strong, but the drivers are quite different. We think the stories in Asia and Europe have the best chance of persisting throughout the year, while the U.S. story remains more data dependent. Stay tuned. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.

Emerging markets are turning bullish and China’s reopening leaves room for an increase in consumption. What sectors and industries might benefit from this upturn?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jonathan Garner, Chief Asia and emerging market equity strategist at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, in this episode I'll explain why the bull market in emerging market equities is still young. It's Thursday, 2nd of February at 8 a.m. in Singapore. In our view, the bull market in emerging market equities is still young. We entered a bull market, conventionally defined as up 20% from the trough, in the second week of January, having completed the bear market in mid-October. And bull markets typically last at least a year in our asset class, although the pace of recent market gains will probably slow. Unlike the U.S. market, earnings estimates revisions in Asia and emerging markets are now inflecting upwards, and that's why emerging equities are performing U.S. equities more rapidly even than in early 2009. And we think this outperformance is likely to continue a while longer. As we've entered a bull market the 52 week rolling beta, or measure of correlation of emerging markets versus U.S. equities, has undergone a regime shift falling from around 0.8 times in the third quarter last year to just 0.4 times currently. And even more striking, the beta of the Hang Seng index, at the leading edge of the current bull market in our asset class, compared to the S&P 500 has fallen close to zero. This is lower than at any point in the last 30 years of data and speaks to an environment of extreme decoupling and performance. These factors have led us to raise our growth stock exposure in recent months. Particularly in North Asia ex-Japan, so that's China, Korea and Taiwan, we expect those markets to continue to outperform, as is typical in the early phases of a bull market, whilst we expect Southeast Asian markets, ASEAN and India, which were defensive outperformers during the bear market to underperform as the bull market gets going. On the sector side, we're overweight semiconductors and technology hardware and think that the fourth quarter of 2022 was the trough for industry fundamentals, with recovery expected in the second half of this year as inventory reduces and demand recovers, particularly in China. Whilst we praised our emerging markets and China targets several times in recent months, we recently cut our Japan target for TOPIX given the headwind of yen strength. And we prefer Japan banks to the overall market as they're one of the few sectors that's positively leveraged to a stronger yen. Finally, we'd like to emphasize that China reopening is probably going to be more V-shaped than the consensus expects, with substantial excess savings in consumer pockets likely to support consumption through this year. Now, this factor is prima facie more bullish the energy sector, which we're also overweight, than the broad materials sector, which is more leveraged to property demand in China, which we think will be slower to recover. Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and recommend Thoughts on the Market to a friend or colleague today. 

As reports that the White House may be considering more impactful approaches to Chinese investment restrictions reach investors, how much should they be reading into these policy deliberations?----- Transcription -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. Michael Zezas, Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between public policy and financial markets. It's Wednesday, February 1st at 10 a.m. in New York. The influence of U.S. policy deliberations on financial markets was once again on display this week. Fresh reports that the White House continues to consider implementing rules that would restrict some investments in China, shouldn't surprise regular listeners of this podcast. After all, the U.S. government has been quite public about its intention to keep U.S. resources from supporting the development of key technologies in China deemed critical to U.S. economic and national security. But what might be a bit surprising was a report suggesting that one approach to achieving this goal could be quite different than many anticipated. In particular, the White House is reportedly considering blanket bans on investing in certain sectors of concern, rather than a tailored investment by investment review. Following the news, China equity markets have moved lower and many of our clients see a link. However, we think investors shouldn't read too much into one media report. We emphasize that the media reports on this topic are full of hedged and subjective language. While it could very well be true that the administration is considering this more severe approach, policy deliberations of all kinds typically consider multiple options. So, the consideration of this approach doesn't inherently mean it's the most likely outcome. But we do think one reliable read through from this report is that the U.S. is likely to enact some form of investment restrictions with regard to China. So investors do need to grapple with what this could mean. It could drive concern among investors around impacts to tech concentrated and R&D heavy sectors of the China equity markets. But also consider that such actions underscore emerging opportunities in geographies our colleagues have become quite positive on, like Mexico and India, markets that could benefit from U.S. multinationals having to shift new tech sensitive production away from China. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show. 

As the data continues to show a weakness in inflation, is it enough to convince investors that the Fed may turn dovish on monetary policy? And how are these expectations impacting Treasury yields?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Macro Strategy. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll talk about expectations for the Fed's monetary policy this year, and its impact on Treasury yields. It's Tuesday, January 31st at 10 a.m. in New York. So far, 2023 seems to be 2022 in reverse. High inflation, which defined most of last year, seems to have given way to a narrative of rapidly declining inflation. Wages, the Consumer Price index, data from the Institute of Supply Management, or ISM, and small business surveys all suggest softening. And Treasury markets have reacted with a meaningful decline in yield. We've now had three consecutive inflation reports, I think of them as three strikes, that did not highlight any major inflation concerns, with two of the reports being outright negative surprises. The Fed hasn't quite acknowledged the weakness in inflation, but will the third strike be enough to convince investors that inflation is slowing, so much so that the Fed may change its view on terminal rates and the path of rates thereafter? We think it is. With inflation likely on course to miss the Fed's December projections, the Fed may decide to make dovish changes to those projections at the March FOMC meeting. And in fact, the market is already pricing a deeper than expected rate cutting cycle, which aligns with the idea of lower than projected inflation. In anticipation of the March meeting, markets are pricing in nearly another 25 basis point rate hike, while our economists see a Fed that remains on hold. The driver of our economists view is that non-farm payroll gains will decelerate further, and core services ex housing inflation will soften as well, pushing the Fed to stay put with a target range between 4.5% and 4.75%.In addition to all of this, it has become clear from our conversations with investors, and recent price action, that the markets of 2022 left fixed income investors with extra cash on the sidelines that's ready to be deployed in 2023. That extra cash is likely to depress term premiums in the U.S. Treasury market, especially in the belly -or intermediate sector- of the yield curve. Given these developments, we have revised lower our Treasury yield forecasts. We see the 10 year Treasury yield ending the year near 3%, and the 2 year yield ending the year near 3.25%. That would represent a fairly dramatic steepening of the Treasury yield curve in 2023. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show.

Stocks have seen a much better start to 2023 than anticipated. But can this upswing continue, or is this merely the last bear market rally before the market reaches its final lows?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, January 30th and 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. 2023 is off to a much better start than most expected when we entered the year. Part of this was due to the fact that the consensus had adopted our more bearish view that we pivoted back to in early December. Fast forward three weeks, however, and that view has changed almost 180 degrees, with most investors now adopting the new, more positive narrative of the China reopening, falling inflation and U.S. dollar and the possibility of a Fed pause right around the corner. While we acknowledge these developments are real net positives, we remind listeners that these were essentially the exact same reasons we cited back in October when we turned tactically bullish. However, at that point, the S&P 500 was trading 500 points lower with valuations that were almost 20% lower than today. In other words, this new narrative that seems to be gaining wider attention has already been priced in our view. In fact, we exited our tactical trade at these same price levels in early December. What's happening now is just another bear market trap in our view, as investors have been forced once again to abandon their fundamental discipline in fear of falling behind or missing out. This FOMO has only been exacerbated by our observation that most missed the rally from October to begin with, and with the New Year beginning they can't afford to not be on the train if it's truly left the station. Another reason stocks are rallying to start the year is due to the January effect, a seasonal pattern that essentially boost the prior year's laggards, a pattern that can often be more acute following down years like 2022. We would point out that this past December did witness some of the most severe tax loss selling we've seen in years. Prior examples include 2000-2001, and 2018 and 19. In the first example, we experienced a nice rally that faded fast with the turn of the calendar month. The January rally was also led by the biggest laggards, the Nasdaq handsomely outperformed the Dow and S&P 500 like this past month. In the second example, the rally in January did not fade, but instead saw follow through to the upside in the following months. The Fed was pivoting to a more accommodative stance in both, but at a later point in the cycle in the 2001 example, which is more aligned with where we are today. In our current situation we have slowing growth and a Fed that is still tightening. As we have noted since October, we agree the Fed is likely to pause its rate hikes soon, but they are still doing $95 billion a month in quantitative tightening and potentially far from cutting rates. This is a different setup in these respects from January 2001 and 2019, and arguably much worse for stocks. A Fed pause is undoubtedly worth some lift to stocks, but once again we want to remind listeners that both bonds and stocks have rallied already on that conclusion. That was a good call in October, not today. The other reality is that growth is not just modestly slowing, but is in fact accelerating to the downside. Fourth quarter earnings season is confirming our negative operating leverage thesis. Furthermore, margin headwinds are not just an issue for technology stocks. As we have noted many times over the past year, the over-earning phenomena this time was very broad, as indicated by the fact that 80% of S&P 500 industry groups are seeing cost growth in excess of sales growth. Bottom line, 2023 is off to a good start for stocks, but we think this is simply the next and hopefully the last bear market rally that will then lead to the final lows being made in the spring, when the Fed tightening from last year is more accurately reflected in both valuations and growth outlooks. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show.

Investing is all about choices, so what should investors know when choosing between holding a financial asset or cash?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, January 27th at 2 p.m. in London. Investing is about choices. In any market at any moment, an investor always has the option to hold a financial asset, like stocks or bonds, or hold cash. For much of the last decade, cash yielded next to nothing, or less than nothing if you were in the Eurozone. But cash rates have now risen substantially. 12-month Treasury bills now yield about 2.5% more than the S&P 500. When an asset yields less than what investors earn in cash, we say it has negative carry. For the S&P 500 that carry is now the worst since August of 2007. But this isn't only an equity story. A U.S. 30 year Treasury bond yields about 3.7%, much less than that 12 month Treasury bill at about 4.5%. Buying either U.S. stocks or bonds at current levels is asking investors to accept a historically low yield relative to short term cash. Just how low? For a 60/40 portfolio of the S&P 500 and 30 year Treasury bonds the yield, relative to those T-bills, is the lowest since January of 2001. To state the obvious low yields relative to what you can earn in cash isn't great for the story for either stocks or bonds. But we think bonds at least get an additional price boost if growth and inflation slow in line with our forecasts. It also suggests one may need to be more careful about picking one's spots within Treasury maturities. For example, we think 7 year treasuries look more appealing than the 30 year version. For stocks, we think carry is one of several factors that will support the outperformance of international over U.S. equities. Many non-U.S. stock markets still offer dividend yields much higher than the local cash rate, including indices in Europe, Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Australia. This sort of positive carry has historically been a supportive factor for equity performance, and we think that applies again today. Investing is always about choices. For investors, rising yields on cash are raising the bar for what stocks and bonds need to deliver. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.

European equities have been outperforming U.S. stocks. What’s driving the rally, and will it continue?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Graham Sacker, Head of Morgan Stanley's European Equity Strategy Team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the recent outperformance of European equities and whether this could be the start of a longer upturn. It's Thursday, January the 26th at 4 p.m. in London. After a tricky period through last summer, the fourth quarter of 2022 saw European equities enjoy their best period of outperformance over U.S. stocks in over 30 years. Such was the size of this rally that MSCI Europe ended last year as the best performing region globally in dollar terms for the first time since 2000. In addition, the relative performance of Europe versus U.S. stocks has recently broken above its hundred week moving average for the first time since the global financial crisis. We do not think this latter event necessarily signals the start of a multi-year period of European outperformance going forward, however we do think it marks the end of Europe's structural underperformance that started in 2008. When we analyze the drivers behind Europe's recent rally, we can identify four main catalysts. Firstly, the economic news flow is holding up better in Europe than the U.S., with traditional leading indicators such as the purchasing managers surveys stabilizing in Europe over the last few months, but they continue to deteriorate in the U.S. Secondly, European gas prices continue to fall. After hitting nearly $300 last August, the price of gas is now down into the $60's and our commodity strategist Martin Rats, forecasts it falling further to around $20 later this year. Thirdly, Europe is more geared to China than the U.S., both economically and also in terms of corporate profits. For example, we calculate that European companies generate around 8% of their sales from China, versus just 4% for U.S. corporates. And then lastly, companies in Europe have enjoyed better earnings revisions trends than their peers in the U.S., and that does tend to correlate quite nicely with relative price performance too. The one factor that has not contributed to Europe's outperformance is fund flows, with EPFR data suggesting that European mutual fund and ETF flows were negative for each of the last 46 weeks of 2022. A consistency and duration of outflows we haven't seen in 20 years, a period that includes both the global financial crisis and the eurozone sovereign debt crisis. While the pace of recent European equity outperformance versus the U.S. is now tactically looking a bit stretched, improving investor sentiment towards China and still low investor positioning to Europe should continue to provide support. In addition, European equities remain very inexpensive versus their U.S. peers across a wide variety of metrics. For example, Europe trades at a 29% discount to the U.S. on a next 12 month price to earnings ratio of less than 13 versus over 17 for the S&P. European company attitudes to buybacks have also started to change over the last few years, such that we saw a record $220 billion of net buyback activity in 2022, nearly double the previous high from 2019. At 1.7%. Europe's net buyback yield does still remain below the U.S. at around 2.6%. However, when we combine dividends and net buybacks together, we find that Europe now offers a higher total yield than the U.S. for the first time in over 30 years. For those investors who are looking to add more Europe exposure to their portfolios, first we are positive on luxury goods and semis. Two sectors in Europe that should be beneficiaries of improving sentiment towards China, and our U.S. strategists forecast that U.S. Treasury yields are likely to move down towards 3%. A move lower in yields should favor the longer duration growth stocks, of which luxury and semis are two high profile ones in Europe. Secondly, we continue to like European banks, given a backdrop of attractive valuations, high cash returns and superior earnings revisions. Third, we prefer smaller mid-caps over large caps given that the former traditionally outperform post a peak in inflation and in periods of euro currency strength. Our FX strategists expect euro dollar to rise further to 115 later this year. The bottom line for us is that we think there is a good chance that the recent outperformance of Europe versus U.S. equities can continue as we move through the first half of 2023. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. 

Last week, the U.S. Treasury hit the debt ceiling. How will markets respond as Congress decides how to move forward? Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets and Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research Michael Zezas discuss.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Morgan Stanley's Chief Cross-Asset Strategist. Michael Zezas: And I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research. Andrew Sheets: And on this special episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing the U.S. debt ceiling. It's Wednesday, January 25th at 2 p.m. in London. Michael Zezas: And 9 a.m. in New York. Andrew Sheets: Mike, it's great to be here with you. I'm sure many listeners are familiar with the U.S. debt ceiling, but it's still probably worthwhile to spend 30 seconds on what it is and what hitting the debt ceiling really means. Michael Zezas: Well, in short, it means the government hit its legal limit, as set by Congress, to issue Treasury bonds. And when that happens, it can't access the cash it needs to make the payments it's mandated to make by Congress through appropriations. Hitting this limit isn't about the U.S. being unable to market its bonds, it's about Congress telling Treasury it can't do that until Congress authorizes it to have more bonds outstanding. Now, we hit the debt ceiling last week, but Treasury can buy time using cash management measures to avoid running out of money. And so what investors need to pay attention to is what's called the X date. So that's when there's actually not enough cash left on hand or coming in to pay all the obligations of the government. At that point, Treasury may need to prioritize some payments over others. That X date, it's a moving target and right now the estimates are that it will occur sometime this summer. Andrew Sheets: So I often see the debt ceiling and government shutdowns both used as reference points by investors, but the debt ceiling and government shutdowns are actually quite different things, right?Michael Zezas: That's right. So take a step back, the easiest way to think about it is this: Congress makes separate laws dictating how much revenue the government can collect, so taxes, how much money the government has to spend, and then how much debt it's allowed to incur. So within that dynamic, a debt ceiling problem is effectively a financing problem created by Congress. This problem eventually occurs if Congress' approve spending in excess of the tax revenue it's also approved, that makes a deficit. If, in that case, if Congress hasn't also approved a high enough level of debt to allow Treasury to meet its legal obligation to make sure Congress's approved spending gets done. And if then you also pass the X date, you're unable to fund the full operations of the government, potentially including principal and interest on Treasury bonds. But alternately a government shutdown, that's a problem if Congress doesn't authorize new spending. So if Congress says the government's authorized to spend X amount of dollars until a certain date, after that date, the government can't legally spend any more money with the exception of certain mandated items like principal and interest and entitlement programs. So in that case, the government shuts down until Congress can agree on a new spending plan.Andrew Sheets: So, Mike, let's bring this forward to where we are today in the current setup. How would you currently summarize the view of each camp when it comes to the debt ceiling? Michael Zezas: Well, Republicans say they won't raise the debt ceiling unless it comes with future spending cuts to reduce the budget deficit. Democrats say they just want a clean, no strings attached hike to the debt ceiling because the debate about how much money to spend is supposed to happen when Congress passes its budget, not afterwards, using the government's creditworthiness as a bargaining chip. But these positions aren't new. What's new here are two factors that we think means investors need to take the debt ceiling risk more seriously than at any point since the original debt ceiling crisis back in 2011. The first factor is that like in 2011, the debt ceiling negotiation is happening at a time when the U.S .economy is already flirting with recession. So any debt ceiling resolution that ends with reduced government spending could, at least in the near-term, cause some market concern that GDP growth could go negative. The second factor is the political dynamic, which is trickier than at any point since 2011. So Democrats control the White House and Senate, where Republicans have a slim majority in the House. And House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, he's in a tenuous position. So per the rules he agreed to with his caucus, any one member can call for a vote of no confidence to try and remove him from the speakership. And public reports are that he promised he wouldn't allow the debt ceiling to be raised without spending cuts. So the dynamic here is that both Republicans and Democrats are motivated to bring this negotiation to the brink. And because there's no obvious compromise, they'll have to improvise their way out. Andrew Sheets: So this idea of bringing things to the brink Mike, is I think a really nice segue to the next thing I wanted to discuss. There is a little bit of a catch 22 here where markets currently seem relatively relaxed about this risk. But the more relaxed markets are when it comes to the debt ceiling, the less urgency there might be to act, because one of the reasons to act is this risk that a default for the world's largest borrower would be a major financial disruption. So it's almost as if things might need to get worse in order to catalyze a resolution for things to get better. Michael Zezas: Yeah, I think that's right. And as you recall, that's pretty much what happened in 2011. The debt ceiling was a major story in May and June with extraordinary measures set to run out in early August. But markets remained near their highs until late July on continued hope that lawmakers would work something out. And this dynamic has been repeated around subsequent debt ceiling crisis over the last 11 or 12 years, and markets have almost become conditioned to sort of ignore this dynamic until it gets really close to being a problem. Andrew Sheets: And that's a great point, because I do think it's worth going back to 2011, as you mentioned, you know, there you had a situation by which you needed Congress and the White House to act by early August. And then it was only then, at kind of the last moment, that things got volatile in a hurry. You know, over the course of two weeks, starting in late July of 2011, the U.S. stock market dropped 17% and U.S. bond yields fell almost 1%. Michael Zezas: Right. And the fact that government bond yields fell, which meant government bond prices went up as the odds of default went up, it's a bit counterintuitive, right? Andrew Sheets: Yes. I think one would be forgiven for thinking that's an unusual result, given that the issue in question was a potential default by the issuer of those bonds, the U.S. government. But, you know, I actually think what the market was thinking was that the near-term nonpayment risk would be relatively short lived, that maybe there would be a near-term disruption, but Congress and the government would eventually reach a conclusion, especially as market volatility increased. But that the economic impact of that would be longer lasting, would lead to weaker growth over the long term, which generally supports lower bond yields. So, you know, I think that's something that's worth keeping in mind when thinking about the debt ceiling and what it means for portfolios. The most recent major example of the debt ceiling causing disruption was equities lower, but bond prices higher. Michael Zezas: So, Andrew, then, given that dynamic, is there really anything investors can do right now other than watch and wait and be prepared to see how this plays out? Andrew Sheets: Well, I do think 2011 carries some important lessons to it. One, it does say that the debt ceiling is an important issue. It really mattered for markets. It caused really large moves lower in stocks, in large moves higher in bond prices. But it also was one where the market didn't really have that reaction until almost the last minute, almost up until a couple of weeks before that final possible deadline. So I think that suggests that this is an important issue to keep an eye on. I think it suggests that if one is trying to invest over the very short term, other issues are very likely to overwhelm it. But I also think this generally is one more reason why we're approaching 2023, relatively cautious on U.S. assets. And we generally expect Bonds to do well now. Now, the debt ceiling is not the primary reason for that, but we do think that bonds are going to benefit from an environment of continued volatility and also slower growth over the course of this year. On a narrower level, this is an event that could cause disruption depending on what the maturity of the government bond in question is. And I think we've seen in prior instances where there's been some question over delays or payment, that delay matters a lot more for a 3 month bond that is expecting to get that money back quite quickly than a 10 year or a 30 year bond that is much more of an expression of where the market thinks interest rates will be over a longer period of time. So, again, you know, I think if we look back to 2011, 2011 turned out to be quite good for long term bonds of a lot of different stripes, but it certainly could pertain to some more disruption at the very front end of the bond market if that's where you happen to be to be investing. Andrew Sheets: Mike, thanks for taking the time to talk. Michael Zezas: Andrew, thanks so much for talking. Andrew Sheets: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today. 

As economic pressures continue to drive consumption in the U.S., how will the health of the economy influence the soft lines industry? Head of Retail and Consumer Credit for Fixed Income Research Jenna Giannelli and U.S. Soft Lines Retail Equity Analyst Alex Straton discuss----- Transcript -----Jenna Giannelli: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jenna Giannelli, Head of Retail and Consumer Credit within Morgan Stanley's Fixed Income Research. Alex Straton: And I'm Alex Straton, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Soft Lines Retail Equity Analyst. Jenna Giannelli: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market we'll discuss soft lines from two different but complementary perspectives, equity and corporate credit. It's Tuesday, January 24th at 10 a.m. in New York. Jenna Giannelli: Our economists here at Morgan Stanley believe that tighter monetary policy and a slowing labor market will be the key drivers of consumption in the U.S. this year. Against this still uncertain backdrop where we're cautious on the health of the U.S. consumer, we're at an interesting moment to think about the soft lines industry. So let's start with the equity side. Alex, you recently said that you see 2023 as a 'tale of two halves' when it comes to soft lines. What do you mean by that and when do you see the inflection point? Alex Straton: So, Jenna, that's right, we are describing 2023 as a 'tale of two halves'. That's certainly one of the taglines we're using, the other being 'things are going to go down before they go up'. So let's start with a 'tale of two halves'. I say that because in the first half what retailers are facing are harder compares from a PNL perspective, an ongoing excess inventory overhang and likely recessionary conditions from a macro perspective. On top of that, what we've got is 2023 street EPS estimates sitting about 15% too high across our coverage. As we know, earnings revisions are the number one driver of stock prices in our space. So if we have negative revisions ahead, it's likely that we're also going to have our stocks move downwards, hence the bottom I'm calling for some time here in the first quarter, while that may seem like a pretty negative view to start the year, the story is actually very different when we move to the back half of the year. Hence, the 'tale of two halves' narrative and the 'down before up'. So what do I mean by that? In the back half, really, what we're facing is retailers with easier top line compares and returns that should enjoy year over year margin relief. That's on freight, cotton, promotions, there's a number of others there. On top of that, what we've got is inventory that should be mostly normalized. And then finally a recovering macro, I think with this improving backdrop and the fact that our stocks are the quintessential early cycle outperformers, they could quickly pivot off these bottoms and see some nice gains. Jenna Giannelli: Okay, Alex, that all makes a lot of sense. So what are the key factors that you're watching for to know when we've hit that bottom? Alex Straton: So on our end, it's really a few things. I think first it's where 2023 guidance comes in across our space. And, I think secondly, its inventory levels. Cleaner levels are essential for us to have a view on how long this margin risk we've seen in the back half of 2022 could potentially linger into this year. And then really finally, it's a few macro data points that will confirm that, you know, a recession is here, an early cycle is on the horizon. Jenna Giannelli: I mean, look, you touched on a bit just on inventory, but last year there was a lot of discussion around the inventory problem, right, which was seen as a key risk to earnings with oversupply, lagging demand weighing on margins. Where are we, in your view, on this issue now? And specifically, what is your outlook on inventory for the rest of the year? Alex Straton: So look, retailers and department stores, they made really nice progress in the third quarter. They worked levels down by about a little over ten points. But then from the preannouncements we had at ICR and using our work around our expectations for inventory normalization, it really seems like retailers might be able to bring that down by another ten points in the fourth quarter. But even though, you know, this rate of trend and clean up is good and people are getting a little bullish on that, I wouldn't say we're clean by any means. Inventory  to forward sales spreads are still nearly just as wide as they were at the peak of last year. And to give people a perspective there, what a retailer wants to be to assume that inventory levels are clean is that the inventory growth should be in line with forward sales growth. But I think looking ahead, you know, department stores could be in good shape as soon as this upcoming quarter, that's a fourth quarter, so really remarkable there. It'll then probably be followed by the specialty retailers in the first quarter. And then finally it'll be most of the brands in the second quarter or later. The one exception though, is the off price. And these businesses have suffered from arguably the opposite problem in the last couple of years, which is no inventory because of all the supply chain problems and the fact that it's just become this year when inventory’s been realized as a problem. So let me turn it over to you, Jenna, and shift our focus to high yield retail. The high yield retail market is often fertile ground for finding equity-like returns, and you believe there are a number of investment opportunities today. So tell me, what's your view on the high yield retail sector and what are the key factors that are informing that view? Jenna Giannelli: So, look, we have a very nuanced and very bottoms up company specific approach to the sector, we're looking at cash flow, we're looking at liquidity, we're looking at balance sheets and all in all in the whole for 23 things look okay. And so that's our starting point. So going into 2023, we're taking a slightly more constructive approach that there are some companies in certain categories, in certain channels up in quality that actually could provide nice returns for investors. So from a valuation standpoint, you know, look, I think that the primary drivers of what frame our view are very similar to yours, Alex. It really comes down to fundamentals and valuation. From the valuations and retail credit, levels are attractive versus historical standpoints. So to give some context, the high yield market was down 11% last year, high yield retail was down 21%. And this significant underperformance is still despite the fact that the overall balance sheet health of the average credit quality right now in this sector is better than in the five years leading up to COVID. So essentially, simply put, it means you're getting paid more to invest in this sector than you would have historically, despite balance sheets being in a generally better place. You know, from a fundamental standpoint, we fully incorporate caution on the consumer in 2023. We do take a slightly more constructive view on the higher end consumer. Taking that all together, you know, valuation’s more attractive, earnings outlook is actually neutral when we look at the full 2023 with pressure in the first half and expected improvement in the second half. Alex Straton: All right, Jenna, that's a helpful backdrop for how you're thinking about the year. I think maybe taking a step back, can you walk us through what the framework is that you use as you assess these companies more broadly? Jenna Giannelli: Sure. So we use a framework that we've dubbed our five C's, and this is really our assessment of the five key factors that allow us to rank order our preference from, you know, favorite to least favorite of all the companies in our coverage universe. So when we think about it, what are those five C's? What are these most important factors? They're content, they're category, channel, catalysts, and compensation. You know, in the case of content, this is probably the most intangible, but we're looking at brand value, brand trajectory and how that company's product really speaks to the consumer. Oftentimes when I talk to investors we're discussing: does it have an identity, what is the company and who do they and what do they represent? In the category bucket we're assessing whether the business is in a category that's growing or outperforming, like beauty is one that we've been very constructive on, or if it's heavily concentrated in mid-tier apparel, which has been, you know, underperforming. In the case of channel, look, we like diversification. That's the primary driver. So those that offer their products everywhere, similar to what the consumer would want. When we're thinking about catalysts for a company, as this is very important on the kind of the shorter term horizon, what are the events that are pending, whether with, you know, company management acquisition or restructuring related. And then of course, finally on compensation, this may be the more obvious, but are we getting paid appropriately versus the peer set? And in the context of the, you know, the risk of the company? And if you don't rank highly, at least in most or all of those boxes, we're probably not going to have a favorable outlook on the company. Alex Straton: Now, maybe using these five C's and applying them across your space, what are the biggest opportunities that you're seeing? Jenna Giannelli: So we definitely are more constructive on the categories, like a beauty or in casual footwear, right? Companies that fall in that arena. Or again, that have exposure to more luxury, luxury as a category. Look, there's been a lot of debate around the high end consumer and whether we're going to see, ya know, start to see softening there. Within our recommendations, we are less constructive on those names that are heavily apparel focused. Activewear is actually a negative, because we're lapping such really significant comps versus, you know, strength in COVID. And so there's still some pressure of lapping that strength. I think long term, the category still has some really nice upside and potential, but short term, we're still seeing that, you know, that pressure from the reopening and return to occasions and work and social events that keep the demand for that category a little bit lower. There are also companies that might have exposure to occasion based apparel. So that is where we would be more constructive. It's a little bit more nuanced, I'd say, than just general apparel, but where we're most negative, it's sort of in that mid-tier women's apparel where brands are particularly struggling. Alex Straton: Well, Jenna, I feel like I learned quite a bit and so thanks for taking the time to talk with me. Jenna Giannelli: Thank you, Alex. Great speaking with you. Alex Straton: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show.

While there seemed to be a consensus that U.S. Equities will struggle through the first half of the year before finishing strong, views are now varying on the degree and timing of a potential recession.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, January 23rd at 11am in New York. So let's get after it. Coming into this year, the number one investor concern was that everyone seemed to have the same outlook for U.S. equities - a tough first half followed by a strong finish. Views varied on the degree of the drawdown expected and magnitude of the rebound, but a majority expected a U.S. recession to begin sooner rather than later. Fast forward just a few weeks and the consensus view has shifted materially, particularly as it relates to the recession view. More specifically, while more investors are starting to entertain a soft landing for the economy, many others have pushed out the timing of a recession to the second half of the year. This change is due in part to China's reopening gaining steam and the sharp decline in European natural gas prices. While these are valid considerations for investors to modify their views, we think that price action has been the main influence. The rally this year has been led by low quality and heavily shorted stocks. It's also witnessed a strong move in cyclical stocks relative to defensive ones. This cyclical rotation in particular is convincing investors they are missing the bottom and they must reposition. Truth be told, it has been a powerful shift, but we also recognize that bear markets have a way of fooling everyone before they're done. The final stages of the bear are always the trickiest. In bear markets like last year, when just about everyone loses money, Investors lose confidence. They question their process as the price action and cross-currents in the data create a hall of mirrors. This hall of mirrors only increases the confusion. This is exactly the time one must trust their own work and ignore the noise. Suffice it to say we're not biting on this recent rally because our work in process is so convincingly bearish on earnings. Importantly, our call on earnings is not predicated on the timing of a recession or even if one occurs this year. Our work continues to show further erosion with the gap between our model and the forward estimates as wide as it's ever been. Could our model be wrong? Of course, but given its track record, we don't think it will be wrong directionally, particularly given the collection of leading series and models we published that point to a similar outcome. This is simply a matter of timing and magnitude, and we think the timing is imminent. We find the shift in investor tone helpful for our call for new lows in the S&P 500, which will finish this bear market later this quarter or early in the second quarter. Getting more specific, our forecasts are predicated on margin disappointment and the evidence in that regard is increasing. When costs are growing faster than sales, margins erode. This is very typical during any unexpected revenue slowdown. Recessions in particular lead to significant negative operating leverage for that very reason. In other words, sales fall off quickly and unexpectedly, while costs remain sticky in the short term. Inventory bloating, less productive headcount and other issues are the primary culprits. This is exactly what is happening in many industries already, and this is without a recession. It's also right in line with our forecast and the thesis that companies would regret adding costs so aggressively a year ago when sales and demand were running so far above trend. Bottom line, after a very challenging 2022, many investors are still bearish fundamentally, but are questioning whether negative fundamentals have already been priced into stocks. Our view has not changed as we expect the path and earnings in the U.S. to disappoint the consensus, expectations and current valuations. In fact, we welcome the change in sentiment positioning over the past few weeks as a necessary development for the last stage of this bear market to play out. Bear markets are like a hall of mirrors designed to confuse investors and take their money. We advise staying focused on the fundamentals and ignoring the false signals and misleading reflections. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show.

The financial landscape is filled with predictions about what comes next for markets, but how do investors use these forecasts to put a portfolio together?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, January 20th at 2 p.m. in London. The financial landscape is filled with predictions about what markets will do. But how are these predictions used? Today, I want to take you through a quick journey through how Morgan Stanley research thinks about forecasting, and how those numbers can help put a portfolio together. Forecasting is difficult and as such it's always easier to be more vague when talking about the future. But when we think about market expectations, being specific is essential. That not only gives an expectation of which direction we think markets will go, but by how much and over a specific 12 month horizon. Details here can also really matter. For example, making sure you add dividends back to equity returns, adjusting bond forecasts for where the forwards are, and thinking about all asset classes in the same currency. In this case, U.S. dollars. Consistency in assumptions is another factor that is difficult but important. We try to set all of our forecasts to scenarios from our global economics team. That is more likely to produce asset class returns that are consistent with each other and to the economy we expect. With these returns in hand, we can then ask, "what's an optimal asset allocation based on our forecasts?" Now, everyone's investment objectives are different. So in this case we'll define optimal as a portfolio that will generate higher returns than a benchmark with a similar or better ratio of return to volatility. This type of analysis will consider expected return and historical risk, but also how well different asset classes diversify each other. As Morgan Stanley's forecasts currently stand this approach suggests U.S. equities are relatively unattractive. Sitting almost exactly at the year end price target of my colleague Mike Wilson, our U.S. Equity Strategist, expected returns are low, while volatility is high and U.S. stocks offer minimal benefits for diversification. Stocks in Japan and emerging markets look better by comparison. But the real winner of this approach continues to be fixed income. Morgan Stanley's rate strategists in the U.S. and Europe continue to think that moderating inflation in 2023 will help bond yields either hold around current levels, or push lower, resulting in returns that are better than equities with less volatility. Our expected returns for emerging market bonds are also higher, with less volatility than U.S. and European stocks. Forecasting the future is difficult, and it's very possible that either our market forecasts or the economic assumptions to back them will be off to some degree. Still, considering what is optimal based on these best estimates, is a useful anchor when thinking about strategy. And for the moment, this still favors bonds over stocks. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.

With housing data from the last few months of 2022 coming in weaker than expected, what might be in store for mortgage investors? Co-Heads of U.S. Securitized Products Research Jim Egan and Jay Bacow discuss.----- Transcript -----Jim Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, Co-Head of U.S. Securitized Products Research here at Morgan Stanley. Jay Bacow: And I'm Jay Bacow, the other Co-Head of U.S. Securitized Products Research. Jim Egan: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing the U.S. housing and mortgage markets. It's Thursday, January 19th at 11 a.m. in New York. Jay Bacow: So, Jim, the housing data hasn't been looking all that great recently. We've talked about this bifurcated outlook for the U.S. housing market, still holding that view? Jim Egan: So to catch people up, the bifurcated housing narrative was between housing activity. And by that we mean sales and housing starts and home prices. We thought there was going to be a lot more weakness in sales and starts at the end of 2022 and throughout 2023, then home prices, which we thought would be more protected. Since we came out with that outlook, it's safe to say that sales have been materially weaker than we thought they'd be. To put that into a little bit of context, existing home sales for the most recent month of data, which was November, showed the largest year over year decrease for that time series since the early 1980s. Pending home sales, we only have that data going back to 2001, but pending home sales just showed their weakest November in the entire history of that time series, so weaker than it was during the great financial crisis. Now, Jay, when we talk about those kind of weaker than anticipated sales volumes, what does that mean for your markets? Jay Bacow: Right. So while homeowners clearly are going to care about home prices, mortgage investors care more about the housing activity. And they care about that because that housing activity, those home sales, that results in supply to the market and it actually results in supply to the market from two different sides. There's the organic net supply from home sales. And then furthermore, because the Fed is doing QT, the faster the pace of home sales, the more the Fed balance sheet runoff is. And so as those home sales numbers come down, you get less supply to the market, which is inarguably good for mortgage investors. Now, the problem is mortgage spreads have repriced to reflect that at this point. Jim Egan: Now Jay, a lot of things have repriced. Jay Bacow: Right. And I think the question now is, is that going to keep up? But turning it over to you, what's causing this slowdown in home sales? And do we think that's going to continue? Jim Egan: I think in a word, it's affordability. A lot of the underlying premises behind our bifurcated narrative, we still see those there they're just impacting the market a little bit more than we thought they would. From an affordability perspective, and we've said this on this podcast before, the monthly mortgage payment as a percentage of household income has deteriorated more over the past year than really any year we have on record. From a numbers perspective, that payment's gone up over $700. That's a 58% increase. That's making it more difficult for first time buyers to buy homes and therefore pulling sales activity down. But where the bifurcation part of this narrative comes from, a lot of current homeowners have very low, call it maybe 3-3.5%, 30 year fixed rate mortgages. They're not incentivized to list their homes in this current environment and we're seeing that. Listing volumes are close to 40 year lows. In a month in which sales fall as sharply as they just did, we would expect months of supply at least to move higher and that roughly stayed flat. And so you have this lack of inventory, people aren't selling their homes, that means they're also not buying a home on the follow which pulls sales volumes down, leading to some of those numbers we talked about on top of just how long it's been since we've seen sales fall as sharply as they have. But on the other side of the equation, that's also keeping home prices a little bit more protected. Jay Bacow: Okay. So you mentioned affordability is impacting home sales, but then what's happening to actual home prices? Are they holding up then? Jim Egan: We think they will now. Don't hear what I'm not saying, that doesn't mean that home prices keep climbing. It just means that the pace with which they're going to slow down or the pace with which they're going to fall isn't as substantial as what we're going to see on the activity front. Now year over year HPA most recently up 9.2%. We think in the next month's print, that's going to slow to a little bit below 8% down to 7.9%. On a month over month basis from peak in June of 2022, home prices are off 3%. We think they'll fall a further 4% in 2023. But to kind of put some guardrails around that bifurcation narrative, that drop only brings us to the fourth quarter of 2021. That's 30% above where home prices were onset of the pandemic in March of 2020. On the sale side, our base case was that we were going to fall back to 2013 levels of transactions. And given how data has come in since then, it looks like we're heading lower than that. Jay Bacow: All right. So we think housing activity is going to continue to fall, but that slowdown in housing activity means that home prices, while seeing the first year on year decline since 2012, are going to be well supported. Jay Bacow [00:04:51] Jim, always a pleasure talking to you. Jim Egan: Great talking to you, too, Jay. Jay Bacow: And thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on the Apple Podcasts app, and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

At a recent meeting of analysts from around the globe, we identified three central transitions for 2023 that may help investors shift towards a focus on long-term trends as opportunities.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between public policy and financial markets. It's Wednesday, January 18th at 10 a.m. in New York. What do you get when 45 global research analysts gather in a room for two days to debate secular market trends? A plan. In particular, a plan to deal with a world where key underpinnings of the global political economy are changing rapidly. For investors, we think that means concentrating on multi-year secular trends as an opportunity. In markets where short-term focus has become the norm, it stands to reason that there's less competition and more potential outperformance to be earned by analyzing the market impacts of longer-term trends. That's why we recently gathered analysts from around the globe to identify the key secular themes that Morgan Stanley research should focus on this year. The agenda for our meeting included over 30 topics, but the discussion gravitated around a smaller subset of themes whose potential market impact was substantial, but perhaps beyond what analysts could plausibly perceive or analyze individually. Understanding these three global transitions appeared central to the questions of inflation, interest rates and the structure of markets themselves. The first is rewiring global commerce for a multipolar world, one with more than one meaningful power base and commercial standard, where companies and countries can no longer seek efficiencies through global supply chains and market access without factoring in geopolitical risks. We've spoken much about that in this space, but our analysts believe the practical implications of this trend are not yet well understood. The second is decarbonization. While this isn't a new theme, we think investors need to shift from debating whether it will be meaningfully attempted to sizing up the impact of that attempt. After all, 2022 saw both U.S. and European policymakers putting the power of government behind decarbonization. Now we'll focus on helping investors grapple with both the positive and negative market impacts of this transition, which the International Energy Agency estimates could cost about $70 trillion over the next 30 years. Identifying the companies, sectors and macro markets that will benefit, or face fresh challenges, is thus essential work. Finally, we'll remain focused on tech diffusion. Once again, not a new theme, but what is new is the speed and breadth with which tech diffusion can impact sectors that were previously untouched. Fragmented industries or those with high regulatory barriers look poised for a multi-year transition via tech diffusion. Opportunities may appear in finance, health care and biopharma. We expect the next five years of tech diffusion to move meaningfully faster than the last five, and so we'll focus on delivering important market related insights. So, you'll be hearing more from us over the course of 2023 on these three transitions and their impacts on markets. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

At the start of each new year, we identify 10 overarching themes for the year and beyond. So what should investors be keeping an eye on in the coming months?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ed Stanley, Morgan Stanley's Head of Thematic Research in Europe. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be discussing 10 key themes for 2023. It's Tuesday, January the 17th at 2 p.m. in London. At the start of the New Year, we identify 10 overarching, long-term themes that we believe will command investor attention throughout the year and beyond. If you're a regular listener to the show, you may have heard my colleagues and I discussing some of these topics over the past year. We will certainly revisit them in 2023 as we develop new insights, but let me offer you a roadmap to navigate these themes in the coming months. First, company earnings and margins are likely to come under pressure this year as pricing power declines and costs remain sticky. Both the U.S. and Europe look at risk from this theme. The S&P 500 earnings will likely face significant pressure and enter an earnings recession, and Europe earnings similarly will likely fall 10%. Second is inflation. Last year we flagged that inventory had grown sharply, while demand, especially demand for goods, is falling. In 2023, companies will need to decide how they want to handle that excess inventory, and we believe many will turn to aggressive discounting. Up next is China. We've talked a lot over the last few months about China's expected reopening, and we believe a V-shaped recovery in China's growth is now likely, given the sudden change in prior COVID zero policy. We expect a 5.4% GDP growth for China in 2023. Our fourth theme is ESG. We think that what we call ESG rate of change, i.e. companies that are leaders in improving environmental, social and governance metrics, will be a critical focus for investors looking to identify opportunities that can both generate alpha on the one hand and ESG impact on the other. Next, in Q4 last year, you may have heard us talk about Earthshots, which is our fifth theme. These are radical technological decarbonization accelerants or warming mitigants. Clean tech funding is one of the most resilient segments in venture, and breakthroughs are becoming more frequent. We're keeping a close eye on the key technologies that we think will hold the greatest decarbonization potential in 2023 and beyond. Sixth, we're in the upswing of unicorns, i.e. privately held startup companies with a valuation over $1 billion, needing to re raise capital to maintain operations and growth. In the absence of unicorn consolidation, we expect money to flow out of public equities to support or compensate for the weakness in private investments. This will be the year of the down round, in our view, where companies need to raise additional funds at lower valuations than prior rounds. But also we expect it to be a year of opportunity for crossover investors and a potential reopening of the IPO market. Next, I've already mentioned our China forecasts, but we are also in the early innings of the "India Decade", which is our seventh theme. India has the conditions in place for an economic boom fueled by offshoring, investment in manufacturing, the energy transition and the country's advanced digital infrastructure. This is an underappreciated multi-year theme, but importantly one that is gathering momentum right now. Our other regional theme to watch this year is Saudi Arabia, which is also undergoing an unprecedented transformation with sweeping social and economic reforms. With about $1 trillion in "gigaproject" commitments, and rapid demographic shifts, it's our eighth big theme. And one that we think could easily leave people behind given the blistering speed of change. Penultimately, with the emergence of ChatGPT, the future of work is set to be further disrupted. We believe that we are on a secular trajectory towards the workforce, particularly the younger Gen Z, entering what we call the "multi-earner era" - one where workers pursue multiple earning streams rather than a single job. There are a vast array of enabler stocks for this multi-year era, in our view.  And finally, last but not least, we believe obesity is the "new hypertension" and that investing in obesity medication is moving from a linear secular theme to an exponential one, with social media creating a virtuous feedback loop of education, word of mouth, and heightened demand for weight loss drugs. So that's it. Hopefully we've given you some thought provoking macro, micro, regional and ESG ideas for the year ahead. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.

One of the frequent questions regarding Emerging Markets is whether outperformance will hold for the short term or the long term. So what factors should investors consider when evaluating the cross asset performance of EM?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, January 13th at 2 p.m. in London. A common question when talking about almost any market is whether the view holds for the short term or the long term. Call it a question of whether to "rent" versus "own". Is this a strategy that could work over the next six months or is it geared to the next six years? This question comes up most frequently when we discuss emerging market or EM assets. We like EM on a cross-asset basis. We think equities in EM outperform those in the U.S. We think EM currencies outperform the U.S. dollar and the British pound. And we think EM sovereign bonds perform well on an outright basis and also relative to U.S. high yield. Several factors underlie this positive view. First, as we've discussed in this program before, a number of key themes for 2023 look like the mirror image of 2022. Last year saw U.S. growth outperform China, inflation rise sharply and central banks hike aggressively, a combination that was pretty tough in emerging market assets. But this year we see growth in China accelerating while the U.S. slows, inflation falling and central banks pausing, a reversal that would seem much better for EM. And this is all happening at a time when EM assets still enjoy a valuation advantage. Emerging market equities, currencies and sovereign bonds all still trade at larger than average discounts to their U.S. peers. All of that supports the near-term case for outperformance in emerging markets, in our view. But what about the longer term story? Here we admit there are still some uncertainties. On one hand, there are some countries where there's a quite positive long run outlook in the eyes of my research colleagues. I'd highlight Mexico here, a country that we think could be a major long term beneficiary of U.S. companies looking to shorten supply chains and bring more production back from Asia. But there are also major long term uncertainties, especially related to earnings power. The case for EM equities is often based around the idea that you get the higher growth of the developing world at lower valuations, an attractive combination that offsets the higher political and economic volatility. But as my colleague Jonathan Garner, Head of Asia and Emerging Market Equity Strategy, has noted, earnings for the EM market have been surprisingly weak over the long run and are still at levels similar to 2010. Growth so far has been elusive. Uncertainty around that long term earnings power is one of several reasons that it may be too early to say that EM will be a multiyear outperformer. But for the time being, we think those longer term concerns will be secondary to near-term support and continue to expect cross-asset outperformance from EM assets this year. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.

At this week’s North American Leaders Summit, the U.S., Canada and Mexico committed to boosting the semiconductor industry in another key step on the path towards a multipolar world.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between public policy and financial markets. It's Thursday, January 12th at 10 a.m. in New York. This week, the presidents of the United States, Canada and Mexico gathered for the North American Leaders Summit. For investors, the key result was a commitment by the countries to work together to boost the semiconductor industry in North America. While the practical details of this commitment will matter greatly, the agreement in principle underscores a few key themes for investors. The first is that the trend toward a multipolar world is ongoing, one where geopolitics increase commercial barriers and create the need for multiple supply chains, product standards and economic ecosystems. So countries and companies must rewire their own approach to production in order to cope. This semiconductor commitment is the result of a determination by the U.S. that it's in its own interest to develop a substantial and secure semiconductor industry in its own backyard, in order to mitigate supply chain risks to key industries like automobile production. In this way, the country's economy is less susceptible to overseas disruptions. And the U.S. was likely able to achieve this commitment with its neighbors by enacting the CHIPS+ legislation with bipartisan support. You may recall that legislation appropriated money to attract the construction of semiconductor facilities in the U.S. This brings us to our second point, which is that this commitment underscores the opportunity for Mexico to benefit from U.S. led nearshoring. As we've discussed on this podcast with our Mexico strategist, Nik Lippman, Mexico has a sizable manufacturing labor force and proximity to the U.S. For semiconductors, that means Mexico could potentially be a supplier or at least a supplier of the goods materials that go into fabrication. It's one of the key reasons that Nik has upgraded Mexico stocks to overweight. So in short, this meeting was another step on the path toward a multipolar world, a key trend we're tracking in 2023. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

In 2022 it seemed like there was nowhere to hide from the negative returns in traditional investing. But if we look to quantitative strategies, we may find more flexibility for the year ahead.----- Transcript -----Vishy Tirupattur Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's head of fixed income research and director of Quantitative Research.Stephan Kessler And I'm Stephan Kessler, Morgan Stanley's global head of Quantitative Investment Strategies Research.Vishy Tirupattur And on this special episode of the podcast, we will discuss the return of quantitative investing. It's Wednesday, January 11th, at 10 a.m. in New York.Stephan Kessler And 3 p.m. in London.Vishy Tirupattur Stephan, 2022 was a pretty dismal year for traditional investment strategies across various asset classes. You know, equities, credit, government bonds—all of them had negative total returns for the year. And in fact, for traditional investment strategies, there really was nowhere to hide. That said, 2022 turned out to be a pretty decent year for systematic investing or factor investing or quantitative investing strategies. So can you start us off by giving us an overview of what systematic factor strategies are and how they performed in 2022 versus traditional investment strategies?Stephan Kessler Absolutely. So, if you look at quant strategies, or systematic strategies, key is 'systematic.' So we look at repetitive, persistent patterns in the markets which can be beneficial for investors. Usually they're data driven. So we look at data which can be price data, fundamental data like economic growth data and the like, which then gives us signals for our investment. Those strategies tend to have low long-term exposures to traditional markets such as equities and fixed income. So they work as diversifiers and the rationale for why they work comes from academic theory, by and large, where we look at risk premia, we look at structural or behavioral patterns that are well known in the academic world. So common strategies that investors apply can be carry investing, for example. So we benefit here from interest rate differentials where we borrow, for example, money in low yielding regions or currencies, and then we invest in high yielding currencies, clipping the difference in the interest rate between these regions. Value investing is another important style that investors implement, where they simply identify undervalued investments, undervalued assets by looking at price to book ratios, by looking at dividend yields, for example, to identify what appears to be cheap. Momentum investing is probably the third most important strategy here, which is where we benefit from the price trends in markets which we know to be persistent. So those are the, I think, the important styles—carry, value and momentum—but there are also more complex strategies where we model and identify very minute details in markets. We go really deep into the functionality of markets. Then the final point I would make is that these strategies tend to be long-short so they are not long biased as traditional investing is, but they can go really both directions in terms of their positioning.Vishy Tirupattur Investors often ask how quant strategies, that are typically predicated on historical data patterns, can handle volatile market environments with very few historical precedents. 2022 was anything but normal. Don't such market aberrations break quant strategies?Stephan Kessler That's a really good question. If you look at it from the higher level, it does seem like this was a unique market that actually should be challenging for systematic strategies which look at historical patterns. When you dig a little bit deeper, it becomes actually more nuanced. So the strong outperformance of quant in '22, we think is driven by the different catalysts that we saw in the markets. So for example, the tightening by central banks led to substantial and durable macro trends that can be captured by trend following. We saw a reemergence of interest rates across the globe through this monetary policy, which sparked the revival of carry investing. And then equity value investing reemerged as higher rates forced investors to focus more on fundamental valuations, and that led to an increase in efficiency of the value factor.Vishy Tirupattur Will any of the performance patterns that you saw in 2022 carry over into 2023? Or do you think the investment landscape for quant investors would be very different in this year?Stephan Kessler 2023 we think we'll look, of course, different from the past year. So, we'll move into an environment of low inflation where terminal rates are going to be reached by many central banks. And then equities will start the year in Q1 likely down to then end the year rather flat according to our equity strategists. Now, from a quant perspective, while this is different in terms of the actual dynamics, what remains is that we are likely to see market swings, which tend to favor short- to mid-term trend following strategies. The differences in central bank policies are also likely to remain so there's going to be a dispersion in rates and this dispersion in rates will help, in our expectation, carry strategies. It makes carry strategies attractive. Indeed, if you think about being exposed to, say, for example, carry in fixed income, where we go long bonds with high yields, we go short bonds with low yields and clip the difference, those bonds with particularly high interest rates are likely to also benefit from a normalization of rates. So, you could actually see an additional benefit where being invested in high yielding bonds will be then doubly positive because you earn the carry, but you also benefit from a normalization of rates and the increase in prices of those bonds. And finally, when we look at, you know, value investing, we think that is also likely to remain important because higher rates simply force investors to be focused on the valuations, to be focused on the financing of business activities, to be focused on healthy companies. And so we think that the market dynamics, while different, will continue to favor quant investing.Vishy Tirupattur So Stephan, you talked about a wide range of investment strategies within the quant world. Which of those strategies, what kinds of strategies do you think will drive outperformance in 2023?Stephan Kessler Yeah, I think it's specific forms of what I've mentioned is generally strategies which will do well. So, you know, if we start again with trend following, the market should be positive for it. There are though iterations of trend falling where we bias. And we think these types of biases—we have a long-bias or as we call it defensively-biased trend following strategies—those will be particularly positively performing because they will benefit from the higher rates that we see. We also think that some of the pricing out of inflation and then eventually in terms of the lower rates that we see, that should be beneficial for rates value strategies, where rates converge to longer term levels. And then something we haven't talked much about yet; volatility carry we feel is particularly interesting. Volatility carry means we are selling options in the markets. We sell a call option, a put option in the market, we earn the premium and then we hedge the beta that is embedded. So, we essentially try to earn the option premium without taking directional market risk, which works quite well in terms of harvesting a carry in calm market environments. But it tends to be causing negative returns, when you see spikes in volatility, when you see jumps in markets. We think that this is going to be an interesting investment opportunity, first on the Treasury side and then, once equity markets through this more difficult slowdown that we see at the moment, we also think volatility should get lower and that should benefit generally volatility carry in equities. So, selling equity options into the market. So those would be the particularly strong strategies. And then, as I already mentioned, there's this crossing of equity value and quality is a theme that we believe is particularly well-suited for the environment.Vishy Tirupattur If you're thinking about the outlook for 2023 for quant investors, what are the real risks? What can go wrong?Stephan Kessler So I think there's, of course, a range of things that can go wrong in such a dynamic and fluid market environment as we are at the moment. So one is that rates could continue to increase more than we expect at the moment, possibly driven by inflation being more resilient. That would not be good for rates carry strategies which tend to underperform in such environments because they are long. And so as those assets build up further, as the rates go up, the price of those assets would be hit. And on the back of that, the carry strategies would suffer. We also think that against all odds, growth is very resilient. There's a growth rally. That would, of course, hurt value type strategies, maybe through higher efficiency or resilience of tech stocks, for example. And then finally, if markets become to gap-y, i.e., if they don't trend but they really jump around through this market environment, that that might actually be negative for trend following strategies.Vishy Tirupattur Looks like 2023 will be a fascinating year ahead for quant investing strategies. So, Stephan, thanks for taking the time to talk to us.Stephan Kessler Great speaking with you, Vishy.Vishy Tirupattur And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

As 2023 begins, most market participants agree the first half of the year could be challenging. But when we dig into the details, that's where the agreement ends.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Tuesday, January 10th at 10 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it.To start the year, we return to a busy week of client meetings and calls. While our conversations ranged across a wide swath of topics, the most consistently asked question was, "if everybody has the same view, how can that be right?" The view I'm referring to is that most sell-side strategists and buy-side investors believe the first half of the year will be a challenging one, but the second half will be much better. Wrapped into this view is the notion that we will experience a mild recession starting in the first half. The Fed will cut rates in response and a new bull market will begin. Truth be told, this is generally our view too. So, how do we reconcile this dilemma of how the consensus can be right? We think the answer is that the consensus can be right directionally, but it will be wrong in the magnitude and rationale which may inhibit its ability to monetize the swings we envision. More importantly, our biggest issue with the consensus view is how nonchalant many investors seem to be about the risk of a recession. When we ask investors how low they think the S&P 500 will trade in a mild recession, most suggest 35-3600 will suffice, and the October lows will hold. One rationale for this more constructive view is that we are closer to a Fed pause, and that pivot will put a floor under stock valuations.The other reason we hear is that everyone is already bearish and expects a recession. Therefore, it must already be priced. We would caution against those conclusions as recessions are never priced until they arrive and we're not so sure the Fed is going to be coming to the rescue as fast as usual, given the inflation dynamics unique to this cycle.The other way we think the consensus is likely to be wrong is on earnings. With or without an economic recession, the earnings forecasts for 2023 remain materially too high in our view. Our base case forecast for 2023 S&P 500 earnings per share is $195, and this assumes no recession, while our bear case forecast of a recession leads to $180. This compares to the bottoms up consensus forecast of $230, which nearly every institutional investor agrees is too high. However, most are in the camp that the S&P 500 earnings per share won't be as bad as we think, with the average client around $210-$215. Coincidentally, this is in line with the consensus sell-side strategists' forecast of $210 as well. In summary, even if we don't experience an economic recession, investor expectations for earnings remain too high based on our forecasts and conversations with clients. This leaves equity prices unattractive at current levels.Our well-below-consensus earnings forecast is centered around a theme of negative operating leverage driven by falling inflation. One of the most consistent pieces of pushback we have received to our negative earnings outlook centers around the idea that higher inflation means higher nominal GDP and therefore revenue growth that can remain positive even in the event of a mild real GDP recession. Therefore, earnings should hold up better than usual. While we agree with the premise of this view that revenue growth can remain positive this year, even if we have a mild recession, it ignores the fact that margins are likely to materially disappoint. This is because the rate of change on cost inflation exceeds the rate of change on sales. Indeed, margins have started to fall and the consensus forecasts for fourth quarter results currently assume negative operating leverage. But we think this dynamic is likely to get much worse before it gets better.The bottom line, equity markets still appear to be overly focused on inflation and the Fed, as evidenced by the still meaningfully negative correlation between real yields and equity returns. Last week, we saw expectations improve slightly for inflation and the Fed's reaction to it. And stocks rallied sharply into the end of the week. We think this ignores the ramifications of falling prices on profit margins, which is likely to outweigh any benefit from increased Fed dovishness.In short, we think we're quickly approaching the point where bad news on growth is bad. And we see 3900 on the S&P 500 as a good level to be selling into again in front of what is likely to be another weak earnings season led by poor profitability and the broader introduction of 2023 guidance.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show.

With an eventful year for the oil market behind us, what are the factors that might influence the supply, demand, and ultimately the pricing of oil and gas in 2023?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley's Global Commodity Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss some of the key uncertainties that the global oil market will likely face in 2023. It's Monday, January 9th at 3 p.m. in London. Looking back, 2022 was an eventful year for the oil market. The post-COVID demand recovery of 2021 continued during the first half and by June demand was back to 2019 levels. For a brief period the demand recovery appeared complete. Over the same period non-OPEC supply growth mostly disappointed, OPEC's spare capacity declined and inventories drew. Which eventually meant that oil markets had to start searching for the price level where demand destruction kicked in. Eventually, this forced prices of key oil products such as gasoline and diesel, to record levels of around $180-$290 a barrel in June. Clearly, those prices did the trick. Together with new mobility restrictions in China, aggressive rate hikes by central banks and rising risk of recession, particularly in Europe, they effectively stalled the oil demand recovery. And by September, global oil demand was once again below September 2019 levels. By late 2022, brent prices that retraced much of their earlier gains and other indicators, such as time spreads and refining margins, had softened too. Now, looking into 2023 we don't see this changing soon. Counting barrels of supply and demand suggest that the first quarter will still be modestly oversupplied. Also, declining GDP expectations, falling PMIs and central bank tightening are still weighing heavily on the oil market today. Eventually, however, we see a more constructive outlook emerging, say from the spring onwards. First, we expect to see a recovery in aviation. Global jet fuel consumption is still well below 2019 levels, and we think that a substantial share of that demand will return this year. Another key development will be China's reopening. At the end of 2022 China's oil demand was still well below 2020 and 2021 levels, held back by lockdowns and mobility restrictions. We expect China's oil demand to start recovering after the first quarter of this year. Shifting over to Europe and the EU embargo on Russian oil, as of last November, the EU still imported 2.2 million barrels a day of Russian crude oil and oil products. Now, especially after the EU's embargo on the import of oil product kicks in, which will be on February 5th, Russia will need to find other buyers and the EU will need to find other suppliers for much of this oil. Now, some of this has already been happening, but the full rearrangement of oil flows around the world as a result of this issue will probably not be full, smooth, fast and without price impact. As a result, we expect that some Russian oil will be lost in the process and Russian oil production is likely to decline in coming months. In the U.S., capital discipline and supply chain bottlenecks have already held back the growth in U.S. shale production. However, well performance and drilling inventory depth are emerging additional concerns putting further downward pressure on the production outlook. Eventually, the slowdown in U.S. shale will put OPEC in the driver's seat of the oil market. Also last year saw an unprecedented release of oil from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve. But this source of supply is now ended and the U.S. Energy Department will likely start buying back some of this oil in coming months. Finally, investment in new oil and gas production is rebounding, but it comes from a very low base and the recovery has so far been modest. Much of it is simply to absorb cost inflation that has also happened in the industry. In other words, the industry isn't investing heavily in new oil production, which has implications for the longer term outlook for oil supply. Eventually, we think these factors will combine in a set of tailwinds for oil prices. If we are wrong on those, the market would be left with the status quo, which would be neutral. But we believe that these risks will eventually skew positively later in 2023. We expect the oil market to return to balance in the second quarter, and be undersupplied in the second half of this year. With a limited supply buffer only, we think brent will return to over $100 a barrel by the middle of the year. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Discover what 2022, a historic year for markets, can teach investors as they navigate the new year.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, January 6th at 2 p.m. in London.For the year ahead, we think U.S. growth slows while China accelerates, inflation moderates and central banks pause their rate hikes while keeping policy restrictive enough to slow growth. We think that backdrop favors bonds over stocks, emerging over developed markets and international over U.S. equities.But there'll be plenty of time to discuss those views and more in the coming weeks. Today, I wanted to take a step back and talk a little about the year that was. 2022 was historic and within these unusual swings are some important lessons for the year ahead.First, for the avoidance of doubt, 2022 was not normal. It was likely the first year since at least the 1870s that both U.S. stocks and long-term bonds fell more than 10% in the same calendar year. We don't think that repeats and forecast small positive total returns for both U.S. stocks and bonds in the year ahead.Second, it was a year that challenged some conventional wisdom about what counts as a risky part of one's portfolio. So-called defensive stocks—those in consumer staples, health care and utilities—outperformed significantly, which isn't a surprise given the poor market environment. But other things were more unusual. Small cap stocks and value stocks, which are often seen as riskier, actually outperformed. Financial equities were the second-best performing sector in Europe, Japan and emerging markets despite being seen as a riskier sector. And both the stock market and currencies of Mexico and Brazil, markets that are seen as high beta, gained in dollar terms despite the historically difficult market environment.This is all a great reminder that the riskiness of an asset class is not set in stone. And it shows the importance of valuation. Small caps, value stocks and Mexico and Brazilian assets all entered 2022 with large historical valuation discounts, which may help explain why they were able to hold up so well. For this year, we think attractive relative valuation could mean international equities are actually less risky than U.S. equities, bucking some of the historical trends.Finally, 2022 was a great year for the so called 'momentum factor.' Factor investing is the idea that you favor a certain characteristic over and over. So, for example, always buying assets that are cheaper, the 'value factor,' buying assets that pay you more, the 'carry factor,' or always buying assets that are doing better, the 'momentum factor.'In 2022, buying what had been rising, both outright or relative to its peers, worked pretty well across assets despite the simplicity of this strategy. Our work has suggested that momentum has a lower return than these other factors but is often very helpful in more difficult market environments. It's a good reminder that it's not always best to be contrarian and sometimes going with the trend is a simple but effective strategy, especially in commodities and short-term interest rates.2022 is in the record books. It was an unusual year but one that still provides some useful and important lessons for the year that lies ahead.Happy New Year and thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen and leave us to review. We'd love to hear from you.

With the fight against inflation quieting down in many regions, Asia saw a relatively small step up in inflation. Will that leave 2023 open to the possibility of growth outperformance?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia Economist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be discussing our 2023 outlook for Asia economics. It's Thursday, January 5th at 9 a.m. in Hong Kong. If 2022 was all about inflation, we believe 2023 will be about the aftermath of this battle with inflation. All eyes are now on how the world's largest economies will stack up after this battle with inflation. While Asia, along with the rest of the world, face multiple stagflationary shocks in 2022, we think that Asia weathered these shocks better. Indeed, we believe Asia will enter a rapid phase of disinflation and is well-positioned for growth outperformance in 2023. The step up in Asia's inflation was smaller compared to other regions. Furthermore, Asia's inflation had more of a cost-push element, meaning it was driven to a large extent by increases in cost of raw materials. And we believe Asia's inflation already peaked in third quarter of 2022. Asia's inflation should be rapidly returning towards central bank's comfort zone. We expect this to be the case for 90% of Asian economies by mid 2023. Cost-push factors are fading, resulting in lower food and energy inflation. Core good prices are descending rapidly, given the deflation in goods demand. Moreover, labor markets were not that tight in Asia, and wage growth has remained below its pre-COVID rates. Because of this backdrop, we've argued that central banks in Asia do not need to take policy rates deeper into restrictive territory. In fact, all of the central banks in the region will likely stop tightening in first quarter of 2023. This pause in Asia's rate hiking cycle, coupled with an easing in U.S. 10 year bond yields and with the peak of USD behind us, should lead to easier financial conditions in 2023. While weak external demand will remain a drag at least through the first half of 2023, Asia's domestic demand is supported by three factors. First, the easing of financial conditions will lift the private sector sentiment. Second, we are witnessing a strong uplift in large economies like India and Indonesia, supported by healthy balance sheets. Finally, China's reopening will lift consumption growth and have a positive effect on economies in the region, principally via the trade channel, helping Asian economies to get onto the path of growth outperformance. We expect Asia's growth to improve from a trough of 2.8% in first quarter of 2023, to 4.9% in second half of 2023, while DM growth will slow from 0.9% in first quarter of 2023 to 0.3% in second half of 23. Growth differentials will likely swing back in Asia's favor, rising back towards the levels last seen in 2017 and 2018. There are, of course, risks to our optimistic outlook for Asia. If U.S. inflation stays elevated for longer, this would lead to more tightening by the Fed than is expected and could drive renewed strength in the USD. This in turn would prolong the rate hike cycle in Asia, keeping financial conditions tight and exert downward pressures on growth. A delayed reopening in China could impact China's growth trajectory with adverse spillover implications for the rest of the region. Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.

The House of Representatives continues its struggle to appoint a new Republican Speaker. What should investors consider as this discord sets the legislative tone for the year?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between public policy and financial markets. It's Wednesday, January 4th, at 10 a.m. in New York. The focus in D.C. this week has been on choosing the new speaker of the House of Representatives. Choosing this leader, who largely sets the House's voting and workflow agenda, is a necessary first step to opening a new Congress following an election. This process is usually uneventful, with the party in the majority typically having decided who they'll support long before any formal vote. But this week, something happened, which hasn't in 100 years. The House failed to choose a speaker on the first ballot. As of this recording, we're now three ballots in and the Republican majority has yet to agree on its choice. So is this just more DC noise? Or do investors need to be concerned? While it's too early to tell, and there don't appear to be any imminent risks, we think investors should at least take it seriously. The House of Representatives will eventually find a way to choose a speaker, but the Republicans' rare difficulty in doing so suggests it's worth tracking governance risk to the U.S. economic outlook that could manifest later in the year. To understand this, we must consider why Republicans have had difficulty choosing a speaker. In short, there's plenty of intraparty disagreement on policy priorities and governance style. And with a thin majority, that means small groups of Republican House members can create the kind of gridlock we're seeing in the speaker's race. This dynamic certainly isn't new, but the speaker's situation suggests it may be worse than in recent years. So whoever does become the next speaker of the House could have, even by recent standards, a higher degree of difficulty keeping their own position and holding the Republican coalition together. That's a tricky dynamic when it comes to negotiating on politically complex but economically impactful issues, such as raising the debt ceiling and keeping the government funded, two votes that will likely take place after the summer. On both counts, some conservatives have in the past been willing to say they will vote against those actions and in some cases have actually followed through. But aside from the debt ceiling situation in 2011, these votes have largely been protests and did not result in key policy changes. That's still the most likely outcome this year. And as listeners of this podcast are aware, we've typically dismissed debt ceiling and shutdown risks as noise that's not worth much investor attention. But we're not ready to say that today. Because while policymakers are likely to find a path to raising the debt ceiling, this negotiation could look and feel a lot more like the one in 2011 where party disagreements appeared intractable, even if they ultimately were not. That could remind investors that the compromise involved contractionary fiscal policy, which could weigh on markets if the U.S. economy is also slowing considerably per our expectations. This is a risk both our Chief Global Economist, Seth Carpenter, and I flagged in the run up to the recent U.S. midterm election. Of course, it's only January, and 6 to 9 months is a lifetime in politics. So, we don't think there's anything yet for investors to do but monitor this dynamic carefully. We'll be doing the same and we'll keep you in the loop. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

As new weight management medications are being developed, might the obesity market parallel the likes of hypertension or high blood pressure to become the next blockbuster Pharma category?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Terence Flynn, Head of the U.S. Pharma Sector for Morgan Stanley Research. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll talk about the global obesity challenge and some of the key developments we expect in 2023. It's Tuesday, January 3rd, at 4 p.m. in New York. If you're like most people, you're probably seeing a lot of post-holiday ads for gym memberships, diet apps and nutrition services. So this seems like a relevant time to provide an update on obesity. A few months ago, we hosted an episode on this show discussing the global obesity epidemic and how it's now reached an inflection point because of new weight management drugs that show a lot of promise and benefits. We continue to believe that obesity is the "new hypertension or high blood pressure", and that it looks set to become the next blockbuster pharma category. Obesity has been classified by the American Medical Association, and more recently the European Commission, as a chronic disease, and its treatment is on the cusp of moving into mainstream primary care management. Essentially, the obesity market is where the treatment of high blood pressure was in the mid to late 80's, before it transformed into a $30 Billion market by the end of the 90's. One of the main reasons the narrative around obesity is inflecting is because the focus is shifting to the upstream cause, as opposed to the downstream consequences of diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Now, given this change in focus, we expect excess weight to become a treatment target. The World Health Organization estimates that about 650 million people are living with obesity, and the associated personal, social and economic costs are significant. Over time, we're expecting about a quarter of obese individuals will engage with physicians, up from about 7% currently. Now, this compares to approximately 80% for high blood pressure and diabetes. Furthermore, well over 300 million of these people could potentially receive a new anti-obesity medicine. Looking back historically, previous medicines for obesity had minimal efficacy and were plagued by safety issues, which also contributed to limited reimbursement coverage. In our view, this is all poised to change as the more efficacious GLP-1 drugs are adopted and utilized and the companies begin to generate outcomes data to support the derivative benefits of these drugs beyond weight loss. Of course, as with biopharma, there are many de-risking clinical, regulatory and commercial steps in the development of the obesity market. This year, we're most focused on a key phase three outcomes trial called "SELECT", which we expect to read out this summer to conclude that "weight management saves lives". Furthermore, we think the innovation wave should continue as companies are working on a next generation of injectable combo drugs that could come to the market later this decade for obesity and Type two diabetes. And beyond the possibility of turning the tide on the obesity epidemic, it's also exciting to see room in the markets for multiple players and investment opportunities in a market that could reach over $50 billion by 2030. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Original Release on November 15th, 2022: As we look ahead to 2023, we see a divergence away from the trends of 2022 in key areas across growth, inflation, and central bank policy. Chief Cross Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets and Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter discuss.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Morgan Stanley's chief cross-asset strategist. Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's global chief economist. Andrew Sheets: And on the special two-part episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing Morgan Stanley's Global Year Ahead outlook for 2023. Today, we'll focus on economics, and tomorrow we'll turn our attention to strategy. It's Tuesday, November 15th at 3 p.m. in London. Seth Carpenter: And it's 10 a.m. in New York. Andrew Sheets: So, Seth I think the place to start is if we look ahead into 2023, the backdrop that you and your team are forecasting looks different in a number of important ways. You know, 2022 was a year of surprisingly resilient growth, stubbornly high inflation and aggressively tightening policy. And yet as we look ahead, all three of those elements are changing. I was hoping you could comment on that shift broadly and also dig deeper into what's changing the growth outlook for the global economy into next year. Seth Carpenter: You're right, Andrew, this year, in 2022, we've seen growth sort of hang in there. We came off of last year in 2021, a super strong year for growth recovering from COVID. But the theme this year really has been a great deal of inflation around the world, especially in developed markets. And with that, we've seen a lot of central banks everywhere start to raise interest rates a great deal. So what does that mean as we end this year and go into next year? Well, we think we'll start to see a bit of a divergence. In the developed market world where we've seen both a lot of inflation and a lot of central bank hiking, we think we get a great deal of slowing and in fact a bit of contraction. For the euro area and for the U.K, we're writing down a recession starting in the fourth quarter of this year and going into the beginning of next year. And then after that, any sort of recovery from the recession is going to be muted by still tight monetary policy. For the US, you know, we're writing down a forecast that just barely skirts a recession for next year with growth that's only slightly positive. That much slower growth is also the reflection of the Federal Reserve tightening policy, trying to wrench out of the system all the inflation we've seen so far. In sharp contrast, a lot of EM is going to outperform, especially EM Asia, where the inflationary pressures have been less so far this year, and central banks, instead of tightening aggressively to get restrictive and squeeze inflation out, they're actually just normalizing policy. And as a result, we think they'll be able to outperform. Andrew Sheets: And Seth, you know, you mentioned inflation coming in hot throughout a lot of 2022 being one of the big stories of the year that we've been in. You and your team are forecasting it to moderate across a number of major economies. What drives a change in this really important theme from 2022? Seth Carpenter: Absolutely. We do realize that inflation is going to continue to be a very central theme for all sorts of markets everywhere. And the fact that we have a forecast with inflation coming down across the world is a really important part of our thesis. So, how can we get any comfort on the idea that inflation is going to come down? I think if you break up inflation into different parts, it makes it easier to understand when we're thinking about headline inflation, clearly, we have food, commodity prices and we've got energy prices that have been really high in part of the story this year. Oil prices have generally peaked, but the main point is we're not going to see the massive month on month and year on year increases that we were seeing for a lot of this year. Now, when we think about core inflation, I like to separate things out between goods and services inflation. For goods, the story over the past year and a half has been global supply chains and we know looking at all sorts of data that global supply chains are not fixed yet, but they are getting better. The key exception there that remains to be seen is automobiles, where we have still seen supply chain issues. But by and large, we think consumer goods are going to come down in price and with it pull inflation down overall. I think the key then is what goes on in services and here the story is just different across different economies because it is very domestic. But the key here is if we see the kind of slowing down in economies, especially in developed market economies where monetary policy will be restrictive, we should see less aggregate demand, weaker labor markets and with it lower services inflation. Andrew Sheets: How do you think central banks respond to this backdrop? The Fed is going to have to balance what we see is some moderation of inflation and the ECB as well, with obvious concerns that because forecasting inflation was so hard this year and because central banks underestimated inflation, they don't want to back off too soon and usher in maybe more inflationary pressure down the road. So, how do you think central banks will think about that risk balance and managing that? Seth Carpenter: Absolutely. We have seen some surprises, the upside in terms of commodity market prices, but we've also been surprised at just the persistence of some of the components of inflation. And so central banks are very well advised to be super cautious with what's going on. As a result. What we think is going to happen is a few things. Policy rates are going to go into restrictive territory. We will see economies slowing down and then we think in general. Central banks are going to keep their policy in that restrictive territory basically over the balance of 2023, making sure that that deceleration in the real side of the economy goes along with a continued decline in inflation over the course of next year. If we get that, then that will give them scope at the end of next year to start to think about normalizing policy back down to something a little bit more, more neutral. But they really will be paying lots of attention to make sure that the forecast plays out as anticipated. However, where I want to stress things is in the euro area, for example, where we see a recession already starting about now, we don't think the ECB is going to start to cut rates just because they see the first indications of a recession. All of the indications from the ECB have been that they think some form of recession is probably necessary and they will wait for that to happen. They'll stay in restrictive territory while the economy's in recession to see how inflation evolves over time. Andrew Sheets: So I think one of the questions at the top of a lot of people's minds is something you alluded to earlier, this question of whether or not the US sees a recession next year. So why do you think a recession being avoided is a plausible scenario indeed might be more likely than a recession, in contrast maybe to some of that recent history? Seth Carpenter: Absolutely. Let's talk about this in a few parts. First, in the U.S. relative to, say, the euro area, most of the slowing that we are seeing now in the economy and that we expect to see over time is coming from monetary policy tightening in the euro area. A lot of the slowing in consumer spending is coming because food prices have gone up, energy prices have gone up and confidence has fallen and so it's an externally imposed constraint on the economy. What that means for the U.S. is because the Fed is causing the slowdown, they've at least got a fighting chance of backing off in time before they cause a recession. So that's one component. I think the other part to be made that's perhaps even more important is the difference between a recession or not at this point is almost semantic. We're looking at growth that's very, very close to zero. And if you're in the equity market, in fact, it's going to feel like a recession, even if it's not technically one for the economy. The U.S. economy is not the S&P 500. And so what does that mean? That means that the parts of the U.S. economy that are likely to be weakest, that are likely to be in contraction, are actually the ones that are most exposed to the equity market and so for the equity market, whether it's a recession or not, I think is a bit of a moot point. So where does that leave us? I think we can avoid a recession. From an economist perspective, I think we can end up with growth that's still positive, but it's not going to feel like we've completely escaped from this whole episode unscathed. Andrew Sheets: Thanks, Seth. So I maybe want to close with talking about risks around that outlook. I want to talk about maybe one risk to the upside and then two risks that might be more serious to the downside. So, one of the risks to the upside that investors are talking about is whether or not China relaxes zero COVID policy, while two risks to the downside would be that quantitative tightening continues to have much greater negative effects on market liquidity and market functioning. We're going through a much faster shrinking of central bank balance sheets than you know, at any point in history, and then also that maybe a divided US government leads to a more challenging fiscal situation next year. So, you know, as you think about these risks that you hear investors citing China, quantitative tightening, divided government, how do you think about those? How do you think they might change the base case view? Seth Carpenter: Absolutely. I think there are two-way risks as usual. I do think in the current circumstances, the upside risks are probably a little bit smaller than the downside risks, not to sound too pessimistic. So what would happen when China lifts those restrictions? I think aggregate demand will pick back up, and our baseline forecast that happens in the second quarter, but we can easily imagine that happening in the first quarter or maybe even sometime this year. But remember, most of the pent-up demand is on domestic spending, especially on services and so what that means is the benefit to the rest of the global economy is probably going to be smaller than you might otherwise think because it will be a lot of domestic spending. Now, there hasn't been as much constraint on exports, but there has been some, and so we could easily see supply chains heal even more quickly than we assume in the baseline. I think all of these phenomena could lead to a rosier outlook, could lead to a faster growth for the global economy. But I think it's measured just in a couple of tenths. It's not a substantial upside. In contrast, you mentioned some downside risks to the outlook. Quantitative tightening, central banks are shrinking their balance sheets. We recently published on the fact that the Fed, the Bank of England and the European Central Bank will all be shrinking their balance sheet over the next several months. That's never been seen, at least at the pace that we're going to see now. Could it cause market disruptions? Absolutely. So the downside risk there is very hard to gauge. If we see a disruption of the flow of credit, if we see a generalized pullback in spending because of risk, it's very hard to gauge just how big that downside is. I will say, however, that I suspect, as we saw with the Bank of England when we had the turmoil in the gilt market, if there is a market disruption, I think central banks will at least temporarily pause their quantitative tightening if the disruption is severe enough and give markets a chance to settle down. The other risk you mentioned is the United States has just had a mid-term election. It looks like we're going to have divided government. Where are the risks there? I want to take you back with me in time to the mid-term elections in 2010, where we ended up with split government. And eventually what came out of that was the Budget Control Act of 2011. We had split government, we had a debt limit. We ended up having budget debates and ultimately, we ended up with contractionary fiscal policy. I think that's a very realistic scenario. It's not at all our baseline, but it's a very realistic risk that people need to pay attention to. Andrew Sheets: Seth, thanks for taking the time to talk. Seth Carpenter: Andrew, I always like getting a chance to talk to you. Andrew Sheets: And thanks for listening. Be sure to tune in for part two of this episode where Seth and I will discuss Morgan Stanley's year ahead. Strategy Outlook. If you enjoy thoughts of the market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share this podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Original Release on December 7th, 2022: As India enters a new era of growth, investors will want to know what’s driving this growth and how it may create once-in-a-generation opportunities. Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research Michael Zezas and Chief India Equity Strategist Ridham Desai discuss.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research. Ridham Desai: And I'm Ridham Desai, Morgan Stanley's Chief India Equity Strategist. Michael Zezas: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll discuss India's growth story over the next decade and some key investment themes that global investors should pay attention to. It's Wednesday, December 7th, at 7 a.m. in New York. Michael Zezas: Our listeners are likely well aware that over the past 25 years or so, India's growth has lagged only China's among the world's largest economies. And here at Morgan Stanley, we believe India will continue to outperform. In fact, India is now entering a new era of growth, which creates a once in a generation shift in opportunities for investors. We estimate that India's GDP is poised to more than doubled to $7.5 trillion by 2031, and its market capitalization could grow 11% annually to reach $10 trillion. Essentially, we expect India to drive about a fifth of global growth in the coming decade. So Ridham, what in your view are the main drivers behind India's growth story? Ridham Desai: Mike, the full global trends of demographics, digitalization, decarbonization and deglobalization that we keep discussing about in our research files are favoring this new India. The new India, we argue, is benefiting from three idiosyncratic factors. The first one is India is likely to increase its share of global exports thanks to a surge in offshoring. Second, India is pursuing a distinct model for digitalization of its economy, supported by a public utility called India Stack. Operating at population scale India stack is a transaction led, low cost, high volume, small ticket size system with embedded lending. The digital revolution has already changed the way India handles documents, the way it invests and makes payments and it is now set to transform the way it lends, spends and ensures. With private credit to GDP at just 57%, a credit boom is in the offing, in our view. The third driver is India's energy consumption and energy sources, which are changing in a disruptive fashion with broad economic benefits. On the back of greater access to energy, we estimate per capita energy consumption is likely to rise by 60% to 1450 watts per day over the next decade. And with two thirds of this incremental supply coming from renewable sources, well in short, with this self-help story in play as you said, India could continue to outperform the world on GDP growth in the coming decade. Michael Zezas: So let's dig into some of the specifics here. You mentioned the big surge in offshoring, which has resulted in India's becoming "the office of the world". Will this continue long term? Ridham Desai: Yes, Mike. In the post-COVID environment, global CEOs appear more comfortable with work from home and also work from India. So the emergence of distributed delivery models, along with tighter labor markets globally, has accelerated outsourcing to India. In fact, the number of global in-house captive centers that opened in India over the past two years was double of that in the prior four years. During the pandemic years, the number of people employed in this industry in India rose by almost 800,000 to 5.1 million. And India's share in global services trade rose by 60 basis points to 4.3%. In the coming decade we think the number of people employed in India for jobs outside the country is likely to at least double to 11 million. And we think that global spending on outsourcing could rise from its current level of U.S. dollar 180 billion per year to about 1/2 trillion U.S. dollars by 2030. Michael Zezas: In addition to being "the office of the world", you see India as a "factory to the world" with manufacturing going up. What evidence are we seeing of India benefiting from China moving away from the global supply chain and shifting business activity away from China? Ridham Desai: We are anticipating a wave of manufacturing CapEx owing to government policies aimed at lifting corporate profits share and GDP via tax cuts, and some hard dollars on the table for investing in specific sectors. Multinationals are more optimistic than ever before about investing in India, and that's evident in the all-time high that our MNC sentiment index shows, and the government is encouraging investments by building both infrastructure as well as supplying land for factories. The trends outlined in Morgan Stanley's Multipolar World Thesis, a document that you have co authored, Mike, and the cheap labor that India is now able to offer relative to, say, China are adding to the mix. Indeed, the fact is that India is likely to also be a big consumption market, a hard thing for a lot of multinational corporations to ignore. We are forecasting India's per capita GDP to rise from $2,300 USD to about $5,200 USD in the next ten years. This implies that India's income pyramid offers a wide breadth of consumption, with the number of rich households likely to quintuple from 5 million to 25 million, and the middle class households more than doubling to 165 million. So all these are essentially aiding the story on India becoming a factory to the world. And the evidence is in the sharp jump in FDI that we are already seeing, the daily news flows of how companies are ramping up manufacturing in India, to both gain access to its market and to export to other countries. Michael Zezas: So given all these macro trends we've been discussing, what sectors within India's economy do you think are particularly well-positioned to benefit both short term and longer term? Ridham Desai: Three sectors are worth highlighting here. The coming credit boom favors financial services firms. The rise in per capita income and discretionary income implies that consumer discretionary companies should do well. And finally, a large CapEx cycle could lead to a boom for industrial businesses. So financials, consumer discretionary and industrials. Michael Zezas: Finally, what are the biggest potential impediments and risks to India's success? Ridham Desai: Of course, things could always go wrong. We would include a prolonged global recession or sluggish growth, adverse outcomes in geopolitics and/or domestic politics. India goes to the polls in 2024, so another election for the country to decide upon. Policy errors, shortages of skilled labor, I would note that as a key risk. And steep rises in energy and commodity prices in the interim as India tries to change its energy sources. So all these are risk factors that investors should pay attention to. That said, we think that the pieces are in place to make this India's decade.Michael Zezas: Ridham, thanks for taking the time to talk. Ridham Desai: Great speaking with you, Mike. Michael Zezas: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people find the show.

Original Release on December 2nd, 2022: While 2022 saw the fastest pace of policy tightening on record, has the Fed’s hiking cycle properly set the U.S. economy up for a soft landing in 2023?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ellen Zentner, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss our 2023 outlook for the U.S. economy. It's Friday, December 2nd, at 10 a.m. in New York. Let's start with the Fed and the role higher interest rates play in the overall growth outlook. The Fed has delivered the fastest pace of policy tightening on record and now feels comfortable to begin slowing the pace of interest rate increases. We expect it to step down the pace to 50 basis points at its meeting later this month and then deliver a final hike in January to a peak rate of between 4.5 and 4.75%. But in order to keep inflation on a downward trajectory, the Fed will likely keep rates at that peak level for most of next year. This shift to a more cautious stance from the Fed we think will help the U.S. economy narrowly miss recession in 2023. And we think only in the back half of 2024 will the pace of growth pick back up as the Fed gradually reduces the policy rate back toward neutral, which is around 2.5%. Altogether, we forecast 2023 GDP growth of just 0.3% before rebounding modestly to 1.4% in 2024. One bright spot in the outlook is that inflation seems to have reached a turning point. Mounting evidence points to a slowing in housing prices and rents, though they continue to drive above target inflation. Core goods inflation should turn to disinflation as supply chains normalize and demand shifts to services and away from goods. Used vehicle prices are a big contributor to lower overall inflation in our forecast, as our motor vehicle analysts believe that used car prices could be down as much as 10 to 20% next year. So overall, we expect core PCE - or personal consumption expenditures inflation - to slow from 5% this year, to 2.9% in 2023, and further to 2.4% in 2024. Throughout 2022, rising interest rates have raised borrowing costs, which has weighed on consumption. And we expect that to continue into 2023 as the cumulative effects of past policy hikes continue to flow through to households. On the income side, we expect a rebound in real disposable income growth in 23, because inflation pressures abate while job growth continues to be positive. So if I put those together, slower consumption and rising incomes should lift the savings rate from 3.2% this year, to 5.1% in 2023, and 6.2% in 2024. So households will start to rebuild that cushion. Now we're in the midst of a sharp housing correction, and we expect a double digit decline in residential investment to continue. But we don't expect a commensurate drop in home valuations. Our housing strategies predict just a 4% drop in national home prices in 2023, and further price declines are likely in the years ahead, but that's a much milder drop in home valuations compared with the magnitude of the drop off in housing activity. So we think that residential wealth, real estate wealth will continue to be a strong backdrop for household balance sheets. Now going forward, mortgage rates will start to fall again after reaching these peaks around 7%. And with healthy job gains, and that increase in real disposable income growth affordability should begin to ease somewhat, we think starting in the back half of 2024. Turning to the labor market, while signs of falling inflation is important to the Fed, so are signs that the labor market is softening and we expect softer demand for labor and further labor supply gains to create the slack in the labor market the Fed is looking for. So we expect job growth will likely fall below the replacement rate by the second quarter of 2023, pushing up the unemployment rate to 4.3% by the end of next year and 4.4% by the end of 2024. In sum, we think the U.S. economy is at a turning point, but not a turning point toward recession, a turning point toward what is likely to prove to be two sluggish years of growth in the economy. The Fed's hiking cycle is working as it should. The labor market is softening. The inflation rate is coming down. And we think that puts the U.S. economy on track for a soft landing in 2023. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Original Release on November 22nd, 2022: The year ahead outlook is a process of collaboration between strategists and economists from across the firm, so what were analysts debating when thinking about 2023, and how were those debates resolved? Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets and Head of Fixed Income Research Vishy Tirupattur discuss.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Morgan Stanley's Chief Cross Asset Strategist. Vishy Tirupattur: And I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Head of Fixed Income Research. Andrew Sheets: And on this special episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing some of the key debates underpinning Morgan Stanley's 2023 year ahead outlook. It's Tuesday, November 22nd at 3 p.m. in London. Vishy Tirupattur: And 10 a.m. in New York. Andrew Sheets: So Vishy, within Morgan Stanley research we collaborate a lot, but I think it's not an exaggeration to say that when we sit down to write our year ahead outlooks for strategy and economics, it's probably one of the most collaborative exercises that we do. Part of that is some pretty intense debate. So that's what I was hoping to talk to you about, kind of give listeners some insight into what are the types of things that Morgan Stanley research analysts were debating when thinking about 2023 and how we resolved some of those issues. And I think maybe the best place to start is just this question of inflation, right? Inflation was the big surprise of 2022. We underestimated it. A lot of forecasters underestimated inflation. As we look into 2023, Morgan Stanley's economists are forecasting inflation to come down. So, how did that debate go? Why do we have conviction that this time inflation really is going to moderate? Vishy Tirupattur: Thanks, Andrew. And it is absolutely the case that challenging each other's view is critically important and not a surprise that we spent a lot of time on inflation. Given that we have many upside surprises to inflation throughout the year, you know, there was understandable skepticism about the forecasts that US inflation will show a steady decline over the course of 2023. Our economists, clearly, acknowledge the uncertainty associated with it, but they took some comfort in a few things. One in the base effect. Two, normalizing supply chains and weaker labor markets. They also saw that in certain goods, certain core goods, such as autos, for example, they expect to see deflation, not just disinflation. And there's also a factor of medical services, which has a reset in prices that will exert a steady drag on the core inflation. So all said and done, there is significant uncertainty, but there are still clearly some reasons why our economists expect to see inflation decline. Andrew Sheets: I think that's so interesting because even after we published this outlook, it's fair to say that a lot of investor skepticism has related to this idea that inflation can moderate. And another area where I think when we've been talking to investors there's some disagreement is around the growth outlook, especially for the U.S. economy. You know, we're forecasting what I would describe as a soft landing, i.e., U.S. growth slows but you do not see a U.S. recession next year. A lot of investors do expect a U.S. recession. So why did we take a different view? Why do we think the U.S. economy can kind of avoid this recessionary path? Vishy Tirupattur: I think the key point here is the U.S. economy slows down quite substantially. It barely skirts recession. So a 0.5% growth expectation for 2023 for the U.S. is not exactly robust growth. I think basically our economists think that the tighter monetary policy will stop tightening incrementally early in 2023, and that will play out in slowing the economy substantially without outright jumping into contraction mode. Although we all agree that there is a considerable uncertainty associated with it. Andrew Sheets: We've talked a bit about U.S. inflation and U.S. growth. These things have major implications for the U.S. dollar. Again, I think an area that was subject to a lot of debate was our forecast that the dollar's going to decline next year. And so, given that the U.S. is still this outperforming economy, that's avoiding a recession, given that it still offers higher interest rates, why don't we think the dollar does well in that environment? Vishy Tirupattur: I think the key to this out-of-consensus view on dollar is that the decline in inflation, as our economists forecast and as we just discussed, we think will limit the potential for US rates going much higher. And furthermore, given that the monetary policy is in restrictive territory, we think there is a greater chance that we will see more downside surprises in individual data points. And while this is happening, the outlook for China, right, even though it is still challenging, appears to be shifting in the positive direction. There's a decent chance that the authorities will take steps towards ending the the "zero covid" policy. This would help bring greater balance to the global economy, and that should put less upward pressure on the dollar. Andrew Sheets: So Vishy, another question that generated quite a bit of debate is that next year you continue to see quantitative tightening from the Fed, the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve is shrinking, it's owning fewer bonds and yet we're also forecasting U.S. bond yields to fall. So how do you square those things? How do you think it's consistent to be forecasting lower bond yields and yet less Federal Reserve support for the bond market? Vishy Tirupattur: Andrew, there are two important points here. The first one is that when QT ends, really, history is really not much of a guide here. You know, we really have one data point when QT ended, before rate cuts started happening. And the thinking behind our thoughts on QT is that the Fed sees these two policy tools as being independent. And stopping QT depends really on the money market conditions and the bank demand for reserves. And therefore, QT could end either before or after December 2023 when we anticipate normalization of interest rate policy to come into effect. So, the second point is that why we think that the interest rates are going to rally is really related to the expectation of significant slowing in the economic growth. Even though the U.S. economy does not go into a contraction mode, we expect a significant slowing of the U.S. economy to 0.5% GDP growth and the economy growing below potential even into 2024 as the effects of the tighter monetary policy conditions begin to play out in the real economy. So we think the rally in U.S. rates, especially in the longer end, is really a function of this. So I think we need to keep the two policy tools a bit separate as we think about this. Andrew Sheets: So Vishy, I wanted us to put our credit hats on and talk a little bit about our expectations for default rates. And I think here, ironically, when we've been talking to investors, there's been disagreement on both sides. So, you know, we're forecasting a default rate for the U.S. of around 4-4.5% Next year for high yield, which is about the historical average. And you get some investors who say, that expectation is too cautious and other investors who say, that's too benign. So why is 4-4.5% reasonable and why is it reasonable in the context of those, you know, investor concerns? Vishy Tirupattur: It's interesting, Andrew, when you expect that some some people will think that the our expectations are too tight and others think that they are too wide and we end up somewhat in the middle of the pack, I think we are getting it right. The key point here is that the the maturity walls really are pretty modest over the next two years. The fundamentals, in terms of coverage ratios, leverage ratio, cash on balance sheets, are certainly pretty decent, which will mitigate near-term default pressures. However, as the economy begins to slow down and the earnings pressures come into play, we will expect to see the market beginning to think about maturity walls in 2025 onwards. All that means is that we will see defaults rise from the extremely low levels that we are at right now to long-term average levels without spiking to the kinds of default rates we have seen in previous economic slowdowns or recessions. Andrew Sheets: You know, we've had this historic rise in mortgage rates and we're forecasting a really dramatic drop in housing activity. And yet we're not forecasting nearly as a dramatic drop in U.S. home prices. So Vishy, I wanted to put this question to you in two ways. First, how do we justify a much larger decrease in housing activity relative to a more modest decrease in housing prices? And then second, would you consider our housing forecast for prices bullish or bearish relative to the consensus? Vishy Tirupattur: So, Andrew, the first point is pretty straightforward. You know, as mortgage rates have risen in response to higher interest rates, affordability metrics have dramatically deteriorated. The consequence of this, we think, is a very significant slowing of housing activity in terms of new home sales, housing starts, housing permits, building permits and so on. The decline in those housing activity metrics would be comparable to the kind of decline we saw after the financial crisis. However, to get the prices down anywhere close to the levels we saw in the wake of the financial crisis, we need to see forced sales. Forced sales through foreclosures, etc. that we simply don't expect to see happen in the next few years because the mortgage lending standards after the financial crisis had been significantly tighter. There exists a substantial equity in many homes today. And there's also this lock-in effect, where a large number of current mortgage holders have low mortgage rates locked in. And remember, US mortgages are predominantly fixed rate mortgages. So the takeaway here is that housing activity will drop dramatically, but home prices will drop only modestly. So relative to the rest of the street, our home price forecast is less negative, but I think the key point is that we clearly distinguish between what drives home pricing activity and what drives housing activity in terms of builds and starts and sales, etc.. And that key distinction is the reason why I feel pretty confident about our housing activity forecast and home price forecast. Andrew Sheets: Vishy, thanks for taking the time to talk. Vishy Tirupattur: Always a pleasure talking to you, Andrew. Andrew Sheets: Happy Thanksgiving from all of us at Thoughts on the Market. We have passed yet another exciting milestone: over 1 million downloads in a single month. I wanted to say thank you for continuing to tune in and share the show with your friends and colleagues. It wouldn't be possible without you, our listeners. SummaryThe year ahead outlook is a process of collaboration between strategists and economists from across the firm, so what were analysts debating when thinking about 2023, and how were those debates resolved? Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets and Head of Fixed Income Research Vishy Tirupattur discuss.

Original Release on November 17th, 2022: With risks to both home sales and home prices continuing to challenge the housing market, investors will want to know what is keeping the U.S. housing market from a sharp fall mirroring the great financial crisis? Co-heads of U.S. Securitized Products Research Jim Egan and Jay Bacow discuss.----- Transcript -----Jim Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, Co-head of U.S. Securitized Products Research here at Morgan Stanley. Jay Bacow: And I'm Jay Bacow, the other Co-head of U.S. Securities Products Research. Jim Egan: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing our year ahead outlook for the U.S. housing market for 2023. It's Thursday, November 17th, at 1 p.m. in New York. Jay Bacow: So Jim, it's outlook season. And when we think about the outlook for the housing market, we’re not just looking in 2023, people live in their houses for their whole lives.Jim Egan: Exactly. We are contemplating what's going to happen to the housing market, not just in 23, but beyond in this year's version of the outlook. But just to remind the listeners, we have talked about this on this podcast in the past, but our view for 2023 hasn't changed all that much. What we think we're going to see is a bifurcation narrative in the housing market between activity, so home sales and housing starts, and home prices. The biggest driver of that bifurcation, affordability. Because of the increase in prices, because of the incredible increase in mortgage rates that we've seen this year, affordability has been deteriorating faster than we've ever seen it. That's going to bring sales down. But the affordability for current homeowners really hasn't changed all that much. We're talking about deterioration for first time homebuyers, for prospective homebuyers. Current homeowners in a lot of instances have locked in very low 30 year fixed rate mortgages. We think they're just incentivized to keep their homes off the market, they're locked into their current mortgage, if you will. That keeps supply down, that also means they're not buying a home on the follow, so it means that sales fall even faster. Sales have outpaced the drop during the great financial crisis. We think that continues through the middle of next year. We think sales ultimately fall 11% next year from an already double digit decrease in 2022 on a year over year basis. But we do think home prices are more protected. We think they only fall 4% year over year next year, but when we look out to 2024, it's that same affordability metric that we really want to be focused on. And, home prices plays a role, but so do mortgage rates. Jay, how are we thinking about the path for mortgage rates into 2024? Jay Bacow: Right. So obviously the biggest driver of mortgage rates are first where Treasury rates are and then the risk premium between Treasury rates and mortgages. The drive for Treasury rates, among other things, is expectations for Fed policy. And our economists are expecting the Fed to cut rates by 25 basis points in every single meeting in 2024, bringing the Fed rate 200 basis points lower. When you overlay the fact that the yield curve is inverted and our interest rate strategists are expecting the ten year note to fall further in 2023, and risk premia on mortgages is already pretty wide and we think that spread can narrow. We think the mortgage rate to the homeowner can go from a peak of a little over 7% this year to perhaps below 6% by 2024. Jim, that should help affordability right, at least on the margins. Jim Egan: It should. And that is already playing a role in our sales forecasts and our price forecasts. I mentioned that sales are falling faster than they did during the great financial crisis. We think that that pace of change really inflects in the second half of next year. Not that home sales will increase, we think they'll still fall, they're just going to fall on a more mild or more modest pace. Home prices, the trajectory there also could potentially be more protected in this improved affordability environment because I don't get the sense that inventories are really going to increase with that drop in mortgage rates. Jay Bacow: Right. And when we look at the distribution of mortgage rates in America right now, it's not uniformly distributed. The average mortgage rate is 3.5%, but right now when we think how many homeowners have at least 25 basis points of incentive to refinance, which is generally the minimum threshold, it rounds to 0.0%. If mortgage rates go down to 4%, about 2.5 points below where they are right now, we're still only at about 10% of the universe has incentive to refinance. So while rates coming down will help, you're not going to get a flood of supply. Jim Egan: We think that’s important when it comes to just how far home prices can fall here. The lock in effect will still be very prevalent. And we do think that that continues to support home prices, even if they are falling on a year over year basis as we look out beyond 2023 into 2024 and further than that. Now, the biggest pushback we get to this outlook when we talk to market participants is that we're too constructive. People think that home prices can fall further, they think that home prices can fall faster. And one of the reasons that tends to come up in these conversations is some anchoring to the great financial crisis. Home prices fell about 30% from peak to trough, but we think it's important to note that that took over five years to go from that peak to that trough. In this cycle home prices peaked in June 2022, so December of next year is only 18 months forward. The fastest home prices ever fell, or the furthest they ever fell over a 12 month period, 12.7% during the great financial crisis. And that took a lot of distress, forced sellers, defaults and foreclosures to get to that -12.7%. We think that without that distress, because of how robust lending standards have been, the down 4% is a lot more realistic for what we could be over the course of next year. Going further out the narrative that we'll hear pretty frequently is, well, home prices climbed 40% during the pandemic, they can reverse out the entirety of that 40%. And we think that that relies on kind of a faulty premise that in the absence of COVID, if we never had to deal with this pandemic for the past roughly three years, that home prices would have just been flat. If we had this conversation in 2019, we were talking about a lot of demand for shelter, we were talking about a lack of supply of shelter. Not clearly the imbalance that we saw in the aftermath of the pandemic, but those ingredients were still in place for home prices to climb. If we pull trend home price growth from 2015 to 2019, forward to the end of 2023, and compare that to where we expect home prices to be with the decrease that we're already forecasting, the gap between home prices and where that trend price growth implies they should have been, 9%. Till the end of 2024 that gap is only 5%. While home prices can certainly overcorrect to the other side of that trend line, we think that the lack of supply that we're talking about because of the lock in effect, we think that the lack of defaults and foreclosures because of how robust lending standards have been, we do think that that leaves home prices much more protected, doesn't allow for those very big year over year decreases. And we think peak to trough is a lot more control probably in the mid-teens in this cycle. Jay Bacow: So when we think about the outlook for the U.S. housing market in 2023 and beyond, home sale activity is going to fall. Home prices will come down some, but are protected from the types of falls that we saw during the great financial crisis by the lock in effect and the better outlook for the credit standards in the U.S. housing market now than they were beforehand. Jay Bacow: Jim, always greatv talking to you. Jim Egan: Great talking to you, too, Jay. Jay Bacow: And thank you all for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on the Apple Podcasts app, and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today. 

When attempting to determine what the global economy looks like, some economic indicators at an investors disposal may be more useful, while others lag behind.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Thursday, December 22nd at 2 p.m. in London. At the heart of investment strategy is trying to determine what the global economy will look like and what that could mean to markets. But this question has a catch. Market prices often move well ahead of the economic data, partly because markets are anticipatory and partly because it takes time to collect that economic data, creating lags. When thinking about all the economic indicators that an investor can look at, a consistent question is which of these are most and least useful in divining the future? One early indicator we think has relatively powerful forecasting properties is the yield curve, specifically the difference between short term and long term government borrowing costs. These differences can tell us quite a bit about what the bond market thinks the economy and monetary policy is going to do in the future, and can move before broader market pricing. One example of this, as we discussed on the program last week, is that an inverted yield curve like we see today tends to mean that the end of Fed rate hikes are less helpful to global stock markets than they would be otherwise. But at the other end of the spectrum is data on the labor market, which tends to be much more lagging. At first glance, that seems odd. After all, jobs and wages are very important to the economy, why aren't they more effective in forecasting cross-asset returns? But drill deeper and we think the logic becomes a little bit more clear. As the economy initially weakens, most businesses try to hang on to their workers for as long as possible, since firing people is expensive and disruptive. As such, labor markets often respond later as growth begins to slow down. And the reverse is also true, coming out of a recession corporate confidence is quite low, making companies hesitant to add new workers even as conditions are recovering. Indeed, with hindsight, one of the ironies of market strategy is it's often been best to sell stocks when the labor market is at its strongest, and buy them when the labor market is weakest. And then there's wages. Wage growth is currently quite high, and there's significant concern that high wage growth will lead to excess inflation, forcing the Federal Reserve to keep raising interest rates aggressively. While that's possible, history actually points in a different direction. In 2001, 2007, and 2019, the peak in U.S. wage growth occurred about the same time that the Federal Reserve was starting to cut interest rates. In other words, by the time that wage growth on a year over year basis hit its zenith, other parts of the economy were already showing signs of slowing, driving a shift towards easier central bank policy. Investors face a host of economic indicators to follow. Among all of these, we think the yield curve is one of the most useful leading indicators, and labor market data is often some of the most lagging. Happy holidays from all of us here at Thoughts on the Market. We'll be back in the new year with more new episodes. And thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.

As congress wraps up for 2022, and we look towards a divided government in 2023, there are a few possible legislative moves on the horizon that investors will want to be prepared for.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between public policy and financial markets. It's Wednesday, December 21st at 11 a.m. in New York. As Congress wraps up its business for the year, it's a good time to level-set on what investors should watch out for out of D.C. in 2023. While it's not an election year, and a divided government means legislative achievements will be tough to come by, it's always a good idea to be prepared. So here's three things to watch for. First, cryptocurrency regulations. Turmoil in the crypto market seems to have accelerated lawmaker interest in tackling the thorny issue. And even if Democrats and Republicans can't come together on regulation, the Biden administration has been studying how regulators could use existing laws to roll out new rules. For investors, the most tangible takeaway from our colleagues is that crypto regulation could support large cap financials by evening the regulatory playing field with the crypto firms. Second, watch for permitting reform on oil and gas exploration. While a late year effort led by Democratic Senator Joe Manchin didn't muster enough votes for passage. It's possible Republicans may be willing to revisit the issue in 2023 when they control the House of Representatives. If this were to pass, watch the oil markets, which might be sensitive to perceptions of future increased supply, supporting the recent downtrend in prices. Lastly, keep an eye out for the U.S. to raise more non-tariff barriers with regard to China. While we're not aware of any specific deadlines in play, many of the laws passed in recent years that augment potential actions like export controls put the U.S. government on a sustained path toward drawing up more tariff barriers. Hence the continued momentum toward restricting many types of trade around semiconductors. We'll be particularly interested in 2023 if the U.S. takes actions that start to relate to other industries, which would reflect a broadening scope of U.S. intentions and the US-China trade conflict. That is potentially a challenge to our strategists' currently constructive view on China equities. Of course, these aren't the only three things out of D.C. that investors should watch for, and history tells us to expect the unexpected. We'll do just that and keep you in the loop here. In the meantime, happy holidays and have a safe and blessed new year. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

With the recent breakthrough in fusion energy technology, the debate around the feasibility of nuclear fusion as a commercialized energy source may leave investors wondering, is it a holy grail or a pipe dream? Global Head of Sustainability Research and North American Clean Energy Research Stephen Byrd and Head of Thematic Research in Europe Ed Stanley discuss.----- Transcript -----Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Sustainability Research and North American Clean Energy Research. Ed Stanley: And I'm Ed Stanley, Morgan Stanley's Head of Thematic Research in Europe. Stephen Byrd: And on the special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll discuss the potential of nuclear fusion technology in light of a key recent breakthrough in the space. It's Tuesday, December 20th, at 10 a.m. in New York. Ed Stanley: And 2 p.m. in London. Stephen Byrd: Ed, you recently came to this podcast to discuss your team's work on "Earthshots", technologies that can accelerate the pace of decarbonization and mitigate some of the climate change that's occurring as a result of greenhouse gas emissions, trapping the sun's heat. In a sense, Earthshots can be defined as urgent solutions to an intensifying climate crisis and nuclear fusion as one of these potential radical decarbonization technologies. So, Ed, I wondered if you could just start by explaining how nuclear fusion fits into your excellent Earthshots framework. Ed Stanley: Absolutely. So in Earthshots we laid out six technologies we thought could be truly revolutionary and changed the course of decarbonization. Three of those were environmental and three were biological innovations. In order of investability, horizon carbon capture was first, smart grids were next, and then further out was nuclear fusion on the environmental side. In early December the U.S. Department of Energy announced the achievement of fusion ignition at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. So Steve, passing back to you, can you give us a sense of why this was considered such an important moment? Stephen Byrd: Yeah Ed, you know, as you mentioned, ignition was achieved at the government lab. And this is very exciting because this shows the potential for fusion to create net energy as a result of achieving fusion. So essentially what happened was two megajoules of energy went into the process of creating the ignition, and three megajoules of energy were produced as a result. So a very exciting development. But as we'll discuss, a lot of additional milestones yet to achieve. Ed Stanley: And there's been significant debates around nuclear fusion in recent days caused by this. And from the perspective of a seasoned utilities analyst, but also with your ESG hat on, is fusion the Holy Grail it's often touted to be, or do you think it's more of a pipe dream? And compared to nuclear fission, how much of a step change would it be? Stephen Byrd: You know, that's a fascinating question in terms of the long term potential of fusion. I do see immense long term potential for fusion, but I do want to emphasize long term. I think, again, we have many steps to achieve, but let's talk fundamentally about what is so exciting about fusion energy. The first and foremost is abundant energy. As I mentioned, you know, small amount of energy in produces a greater amount of energy out, and this can be scaled up. And so this could create plentiful energy that's exciting. It's no carbon dioxide, that's also very exciting. No long live radioactive waste, add that to the list of exciting things. A very limited risk of proliferation, because fusion does not employ fissile materials like uranium, for example. So tremendous potential, but a long way to go likely until this is actually put into the field. So in the meantime, we have to be looking to other technologies to help with the energy transition. So Ed, just building on what we're going to really need to achieve the energy transition and thinking through the development of fusion, what are some of the upcoming milestones and technology advancements that you're thinking about for the development and deployment of fusion energy? Ed Stanley: The technology milestones to watch for, I think, are generally known and ironically, actually relatively simple for this topic. We need more power out than in, and we need more controlled energy output, and certain technology breakthroughs can help with that. But we also need more time, more money, more computation, more facilities with which to try this technology out. But importantly, I think the next ten years is going to look very different from the last ten years in terms of these milestones and breakthroughs. I think that's going to be formed by four different things: the frequency, geographically, disciplinary and privately. And by those I mean on frequency it took about 25 years for JET in 2020 to break its own output record that it set in 1995. And then all of a sudden in 2021, 22, we saw four more notable records broken. Geographically, two of those records broken were in China, which is incredibly interesting because it shows that international competition is clearly on the rise. Third, we're seeing interdisciplinary breakthroughs to your point on integrating new types of technology. And finally, the emergence of increasingly well-funded private facilities. And this public private competition can and should accelerate the breakthroughs occurring in unexpected locations. But Stephen, I suppose if we cut to the chase on the when, how long do you think commercial scale fusion will take to come to fruition? Stephen Byrd: You know, it's a great question Ed. I think the Department of Energy officials that gave the press release on this technology development highlighted some of the challenges ahead. Let me talk through three big technology challenges that will need to be overcome. The first is what I think of as sort of true net energy production. So I mentioned before that it just took two mega jewels to ignite the fuel and then the output was three megajoules. That's very exciting. However, the total energy needed to power the lasers was 300 megajoules, so a massive amount. So we need to see tremendous efficiency improvements, that's the first challenge. The second challenge would be what we think of as repeatable ignition. That relates to creating a consistent, stable set of fusion, which to date has not been possible. Lastly, for Tokamak Technologies, Tokamaks are essentially magnetic bottles. The crucial element for commercialization is making these high temperature superconducting magnets stronger. That would enable everything else to be smaller and that would lead to cost improvements. So I think we have a long way to go. So Ed, just building on that idea of commercialization, you know, with the economics of fusion technologies looking more attractive now than previously given this breakthrough that we've seen at the U.S. DOE lab, what's happening on the policy and regulatory side. Do you see support for nuclear fusion? And if you do, in which countries do you see that support? Ed Stanley: I mean, it's a great question. And governments and electorates around the world, particularly in Europe, where I'm sitting, have what can only be described as a complicated relationship with nuclear energy. But on support for fusion broadly, yes, I think there is tentative support. It depends on the news flow and I think excitement last week shows exactly that. But personally, I think we are still too early to worry too much about policy and regulation. In simple terms, you can't actually regulate and promote and subsidize something where the technology isn't actually ready yet, which is part of the point you've made throughout. But that question also reminds me of a time about 15 years ago when I received national security clearance to visit the U.K.'s Atomic Energy Authority in Europe. And at that time, they were the clear global leader in fusion research. Obviously, that was hugely exciting as a young teenager. But something that the lead scientist said to me at that point struck me and it remains true today, that no R&D project on the planet receives as much funding relative to its frequency of breakthroughs as Fusion does. Which tells you just how committed that governments and now corporates around the world are in trying to unlock carbon free nuclear waste, free energy. But as you have said, quite rightly, that has taken and it will continue to take patience. Stephen Byrd: That's great. Ed, thanks for taking the time to talk. Ed Stanley: It's great speaking with you, Stephen. Stephen Byrd: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show.

As focus begins to shift from inflation and interest rates to a possible oncoming earnings recession, what has the market already priced in? And what should investors be looking at as risk premiums begin to rise?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, December 19th, at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. While many commentators blame last week's selloff in stocks on the Fed, we think it was more about the equity market looking ahead to the oncoming earnings recession that we think is getting worse. The evidence for this conclusion is last week's drop in valuations, which was driven exclusively by a rising equity risk premium as 10 year yields remain flat. In fact, since mid-November, the equity risk premium has risen 50 basis points to 2.5%. While still very low relative to where we think it will eventually settle out next year, it's a good step in the right direction that tells us the equity market is at least contemplating the earnings risk. Until now, all of the bear market valuation compression has been about inflation, the Fed's reaction to it and the rise in interest rates. While we called for the end of the tactical rally two weeks ago, last week's price action provided the technical reversal to confirm it. Specifically, the softer than expected inflation report on Tuesday drove the equity markets up sharply in the morning, only to fail at the key resistance levels we highlighted two weeks ago. More importantly, the price action left a negative tactical pattern that looks like the mere image of the pattern back in October, when the September inflation report came in hotter than expected. We made our tactical rally call on the back of that positive technical action in October and last week provides the perfect bookend to our trade. Seasonally, the setup is now bearish too. At the end of every calendar quarter, many asset managers play a game of chasing markets higher or lower to protect or enhance their relative year to date performance. Most years, the equity markets tend to drift higher into year end, as liquidity dries up, asset managers are able to push prices higher of the stocks they own. However, in down years like 2022, the ability and/or willingness to do that is lower, which reduces the odds of a year end rally lasting all the way until December 31st. This is the other reason we pulled the plug on our tactical rally call. With last week's technical reversal so clear, we think the set up is now more bearish than bullish. Meanwhile, we are feeling more confident about our 2023 forecast for S&P 500 earnings per share of $195. This remains well below both the bottoms up consensus of $231 and the top down forecasts of $215. In fact, the leading macro survey data has continued to weaken. I bring this up because we often hear from clients that everyone knows earnings are too high next year, and therefore the market has priced it. However, we recall hearing similar things in August of 2008, the last time the spread between our earnings model and the street consensus was this wide. The good news is that we don't expect a balance sheet recession next year or systemic financial risk. Nevertheless, the earnings recession by itself could be similar to what transpired in 2008 and 09. The main message of today's podcast is don't assume the market prices this negative of an earnings outcome until it happens. Secondarily, if our earnings forecast proves to be correct, the price declines for equities will be much worse than what most investors are expecting. Based on our conversations, the consensus view on the buy side is now that we won't make new lows on the S&P 500 next year, but will instead defend the October levels or the 200 week moving average, approximately 3500 to 3600 on the S&P 500. We remain decidedly in the 3000 to 3300 camp with a bias toward the low end given our view on earnings. With the year end Santa Claus rally now fading, there is reason to believe the decline from last week is the beginning of the move lower into the first quarter for stocks that we've been expecting, and when a more sustainable low is likely to be made. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show.

As cross-asset performance has continued to be weak, there is hope that the end of the Fed’s rate hiking cycle could give markets the boost they need, but does history agree with these investor’s hopes?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, December 16th, at 3 p.m. in London. We expect the Federal Reserve to make its last rate hike in the first quarter of next year. What does that mean? Aggressive rate increases from the Fed this year have corresponded to weak cross-asset performance, leading to a lot of hope that the end of these rate hikes will provide a major boost to markets, especially to riskier, more volatile assets like stocks and high yield bonds. But the lessons of history are more complicated. While on average, both stocks and bonds do well once the Fed stops raising rates, there's an important catch. Stock performance is weaker in the handful of instances where the Fed has stopped while short term yields are higher than long term yields. That so-called inverted yield curve is exactly what we see today and suggests it's not so straightforward to say that the end of rate hikes means that stocks outperform. Specifically, we can identify 11 instances since 1980 when the Federal Reserve was raising rates and then stopped. In most of these instances, the yield curve was flat and slightly upward sloping, which means 2 year yields were a little bit lower than 10 year yields. That means  the market thought that interest rates at the time of the last Fed rate hike could stay at those levels for some time, applying that they were in a somewhat stable equilibrium and that the economy wouldn't see major change. Unsurprisingly, the markets seemed to like that stability, with global equities up about 15% over the next year in these instances. But there's another, somewhat rare set of observations where the last Fed rate hike has occurred with short term interest rates higher than expected rates over the long term. That happened in 1980, 1981, 1989, and the year 2000, and suggests that the market at that time thought that interest rates were not in a stable equilibrium, would not stay at current levels, and might need to adjust down rather significantly. That's more consistent of bond markets being concerned about slower growth. And in these four instances, global equity markets did much worse, falling about 3% over the following 12 month period. We see a couple of important implications for that. First, as we sit today, the yield curve is inverted, suggesting that that rarer but more challenging set of scenarios could be at work. My colleague Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Equity Strategist and CIO, is forecasting S&P 500 to end 2023 at similar levels to where it is today, suggesting that the equity outlook isn't as simple as the market rallying after the Fed stops raising rates. Secondly, for bond markets, returns are more consistently strong after the last Fed rate hike, whether the yield curve is inverted or not. From a cross-asset perspective, we continue to prefer investment grade bonds over equities in both the U.S. and Europe. Questions of when the Fed stops raising rates and what this means remains a major debate for the year ahead. While an end to rate hikes is often a broad based positive, this impact isn't as strong when the yield curve is inverted like it is today. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.

While the consumer has been a pillar of strength this year, continued high inflation, household debt and slowing payroll growth could pose challenges to consumer spending. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Sarah Wolfe from Morgan Stanley's U.S. Economics Team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I will give you a year end 2022 update on the U.S. consumer with a bit of our outlook for 2023. It's Thursday, December 15th, at 10 a.m. in New York. So it's very clear the consumer has been a pillar of strength this year amid a very tough macro environment, but as rates keep rising and the labor market slows, consumers will likely need to find ways to cut costs. We are already seeing some weakness in subprime consumers and trade down among middle and higher income households. While the wallet shift away from goods and towards services is definitely playing out, we continue to see relatively more strength than expected from consumers across both categories. This is because households have lowered their savings rates significantly as they draw down excess savings. We do not expect a material drawdown in excess savings, however, into next year as savings dwindle. We are already seeing it this morning in the November retail sales data, where spending slowed down fairly dramatically across most goods categories. We're talking about home furnishing, electronics and appliances, sporting goods, motor vehicles. On the other hand, the one category of retail sales that reflects the services side of the economy, dining out, was very strong in the retail sales report and has continued to be very strong. Looking at the trends that will  force consumers to spend less, rising interest rates are lifting the direct costs of new borrowing and slowly feeding through into higher overall debt service costs. For example, new car loan rates are at their highest level since 2010, mortgage rates are at 20 year highs, they've come off a little bit,  and commercial bank interest rates on credit card plans are at 30 year highs. It takes time for new debt issued at higher rates to lift household debt service costs, especially as over 90% of outstanding household debt is locked in at a fixed rate. But it's happening. Looking at the data by household income shows more stress from higher rates among subprime borrowers. Credit card delinquencies are modestly below pre-COVID levels, but are accelerating at the fastest pace since the financial crisis. In the auto space, delinquencies across subprime auto ABS surpassed 2019 levels earlier this year and have stabilized at relatively high rates over the last six months. Lower income households are also most affected by the combination of higher interest rates and higher inflation. They rely more heavily on higher interest rate loan products and variable rate credit card lines. Consider this, the bottom 20% income quintile spend 94% of their disposable income on essential items, including food, energy and shelter. This compares to only 20% of disposable income for the top 20% income quintile. As such, higher inflation on essential items weighs more heavily on lower income households. Higher inflation is also pushing lower income households to buy fewer full price items and wait for promotions. They are also choosing smaller items, value packs, or less expensive brands. While price inflation has turned a corner, it's not enough to ease the pressure on consumers from elevated price levels, rising rates and additionally a decelerating labor market. We expect labor income growth to slow next year alongside a weakening labor market, troughing in mid 2023, in line with sharply slower payroll growth and softer wage gains. Wage pressures are coming off in industries that saw the largest wage gains over the past year due to labor shortages, including leisure and hospitality and wholesale trade. But for the moment, with jobs still growing, consumer spending remains positive as well. Together, our base case for real spending is a weak 1% year over year growth in 2023, down from 2.6% this year. In the end, the extent that consumers pull back spending will hinge on how the labor market fares. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

While “Moonshots” attempt to address climate concerns with disruptive technology, more immediate solutions are needed, so what are “Earthshots”? And which ones should investors pay attention to? Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research Michael Zezas and Head of Thematic Research in Europe Ed Stanley discuss.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research. Ed Stanley: And I'm Ed Stanley, Morgan Stanley's Head of Thematic Research in Europe. Michael Zezas: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll discuss the potential of "Earthshots" as an investment theme in the face of intensifying climate concerns. It's Wednesday, December 14th, at 10 a.m. in New York. Ed Stanley: And 3 p.m. in London. Michael Zezas: While climate continues to be a key political and economic debate, it's clear we're moving into a new phase of climate urgency. There's a significant mismatch between the pace of climate technology adoption, and the planet's need for those solutions. Here at Morgan Stanley we've done work around "Moonshots", ambitious and radical solutions to seemingly insurmountable problems using disruptive technology. There are some big hurdles with moonshots, however. First, they require significant political support. Also, the process of gradual, iterative decarbonization technology adoption will occur more slowly than investors expect. Given this backdrop, there's a growing need for urgent solutions. Enter what we call "Earthshots". Michael Zezas: Ed, can you maybe start by explaining what Earthshots are and what the framework for identifying these Earthshots is relative to Moonshots? Ed Stanley: So a Moonshot is an early stage technology with high uncertainty, but also high potential to solve a very difficult problem. And for Moonshots, the key investments are in R&D and proof of concept. An Earthshot, on the other hand, is more of a middle stage technology with generally lower uncertainty, proven potential and Earthshots the key investment here is really around scaling the technology quickly and cheaply. And Earthshots are more radical alternatives to otherwise slow and steady status quo in the decarbonization world. And we think about them broadly in two sets. Some are nearer term decarbonization accelerants, and others are longer term warming mitigations and adaptations. And I guess we can get into a bit more detail on examples in a minute. But to your question on frameworks, it's exactly the same framework that we used in Moonshots, and that is academia, patenting, venture capital and then public markets. Academia around breaking new ground and how quickly that's happening. Patenting to protect that intellectual property. Then venture steps in to provide some proof of concept for that idea. And then public investment is typically needed to scale it. And you can track almost any invention over time using that sequence of events all the way back to the patent for the light bulb in 1880, all the way up to carbon capture today. Michael Zezas: Ed, what types of specific problems are Earthshots trying to solve, and which ones should investors pay particular attention to, both near-term and longer term? Ed Stanley: So if you look at the nearly 40 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions that we put into the atmosphere every year and you split it by industry, our Earthshot technologies catered to over 80% of those emissions. Be it electrification, manufacturing, food emissions, there's a radical Earthshot technology for decarbonizing each of those. But if we break them down into two categories, we have environmental Earthshots and biological Earthshots. On the environmental side, we have carbon capture, smart grids, fusion energy. And on the biological, we have cell based meat, synthetic biology and disease re-engineering. If we go into a bit more detail on the environmental Earthshots, there's been a lot of noise in fusion in recent days. But I think carbon capture for now is where investors need to focus. And for those thinking how is carbon capture an Earthshot, we've been hearing about this technology for years now, well, the unit economics and tech maturity are only really now getting to that critical balance where it can scale. And the 21 facilities globally that are doing this only capture around 0.1% of global emissions. The largest project in Iceland annually captures around 3 seconds worth of global emissions. So we're still very early days and it's all about scale, scale, scale now. On the biological side, I think the $4 trillion TAM in synthetic biology, which is the harnessing of biology and molecules to create net carbon negative products, is truly fascinating. But the one that piqued my interest the most doing this research, and has actually seen comparatively negligible funding is disease re-engineering. And if the planet does continue to warm, despite our best efforts in decarbonizing and carbon capture, then another 720 million people by 2050 will be in zones that are susceptible to malaria, mainly in Europe and the U.S. And companies using gene editing are having great success. There's a 99.9% efficiency and efficacy of wiping out malaria in the zones that these trials have taken place. Perhaps less pressing immediately than carbon capture, but from a social perspective, with half a million people dying per year from malaria and that number set to grow if warming grows, I don't think it's a theme that investors can ignore for very much longer. Michael Zezas: Got it. And Ed, it's often said that each decade has one investment theme that outpaces others. And while this decade's in its early innings, there's several contenders. There's the new commodity supercycle, there's digitalized assets and cybersecurity. Another theme in the running is Clean Transition Technologies. How does Earthshots fit into the investment megatrends for the next decade? Ed Stanley: I mean, that's absolutely fair. Markets move in ebbs and flows of macro themes and micro themes being the winning investment each decade. We had gold in the seventies, oil in the 2000, and then interspersed with that Japanese equities and U.S. Tech in the eighties and nineties respectively. And we do appreciate it's rare when you look back in time for hard assets, which clean tech and Earthshot technologies typically are, for hard assets to win that secular theme crown, so to speak. But we're already seeing a changing of the guards in private markets away from long secular bets on technology, SAS, fintech towards hard assets and security infrastructure. So that is the shift in investing from bits to atoms, which is well underway. And that's happening because not since the Industrial Revolution really have we been so uniformly mobilized to transition to a new paradigm in such a short space of time. But opposing that, I guess we should ask where could we be wrong? Well, for climate tech to be the winning investment trade of the next ten years, the irony is that this trade no longer lies in the tech proving itself necessarily or reaching cost parity. I think we've done that in many cases, that is in the bag. The success or otherwise of this being the secular investment theme for the 2020s will lie much more in reducing permitting bottlenecks, for example, and skills bottlenecks around the installation of some of this Earthshot technology. And that, too, actually is where investors can find opportunities in vast reskilling that's needed. But on balance, yes, this, in my view anyway, is the secular trade of the next decade. Michael Zezas: And you've argued that a challenging macro environment is precisely the time to dig into Moonshots. It seems that would even be truer of Earthshots, would you agree? Ed Stanley: I think that's a reasonable assumption, yes. If you look at companies over time, over 30% of Fortune 500 companies were founded during recession years, and many more of those were founded coming out of recessions as well. And crudely, the reasons are twofold. One, product market fit and unit economics have to be ideal in a downturn when you have consumers feeling the pinch and business customers reining back on spending. But secondly, investors pull back on their duration and risk appetite, clearly, and capital becomes more concentrated, and the R&D bang for your buck you get in downturns, ironically, is better. But when you add on to that current stimulus packages like the IRA in the US, you have all of the component parts you need for innovation breakthrough. And I would actually stress even more simply, we need some of these breakthroughs, more physical world breakthroughs than digital ones. Because without these breakthroughs, we simply won't have enough lithium for the EV rollout, for example, we'll be 22% light. It's not just will this happen in a downturn, it has to happen in a downturn, irrespective of the macro. So, yes, now I think is an excellent time to be looking at Earthshots and not simply just at the peak of frothy markets. Michael Zezas: Well, Ed, thanks for taking the time to talk. Ed Stanley: It's great speaking with you, Mike. Michael Zezas: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show. 

Over the past few years, the airline industry has faced fluctuations between too hot and too cold across demand, capacity and costs. Could conditions in 2023 be just right for increased profitability?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ravi Shankar, Morgan Stanley's Freight Transportation and Airlines Analyst. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss our 2023 outlook for the airline space and some key takeaways for investors. As 2022 draws to a close, the outlook for airlines going into next year continues to be bullish. We think that 2023 is going to be what we call a "Goldilocks" year for the airlines, simply because we go from three years of conditions being either too cold during the pandemic, or too hot last year, to conditions being just right. This should be enough for the airlines to remain stable and to top 2019 levels in terms of profitability. However, the biggest question in the space is about the macro backdrop and consumer resilience. Everything we are seeing so far suggests that there are no real cracks in terms of the demand environment. We expect a slight cool down on the leisure side, but some uptick on the corporate and international side going into next year. As for pricing, when the irresistible force of demand met the immovable object of capacity restrictions in 2022, the net result was a significant increase in price, which was up 20 to 25% above pre-pandemic levels. This is arguably the biggest debate between the bulls and the bears in the space, regarding where the industry eventually ends up. We believe the pricing environment will cool slightly sequentially as capacity incrementally returns, but will stabilize well above 2019 levels. In addition, the return of corporate and international travel will be a mixed tailwind to yield in 2023. Costs have been another big debate for the space over the last 18 to 24 months. New pilot contracts are one of the things that we are closely tracking. And we do think that inflation should start to moderate in the back half of the year as we lap some really difficult comps in the cost side, but also as airlines get a little more capacity in the sky with the delivery of new, larger gauge planes and the return of some pilots. There might be some risk for the space in 2024 and beyond, but for 23 we still think that capacity is going to be relatively constrained in the first half of the year, and only start to really ease up in the second half of the year. And lastly, jet fuel has been very volatile for much of 2022. Given this, we model jet fuel flat versus current levels, but continue to expect volatility in price and note that current levels already imply a year over year tailwind for most of 2023. So all in all, we do expect that 2023 earnings will be above 2019 levels. And we point out that the market has not yet priced this into the airline stocks, which are currently trading at roughly year end 2020 levels. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share thoughts on the market with a friend or colleague today.

Looking to 2023, Emerging Markets and fixed income assets are forecasted to outperform, so what should investors pay close attention to in the new year? Head of FX and EM Strategy James Lord and Global Head of EM Sovereign Credit Strategy Simon Waever discuss.----- Transcript -----James Lord: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm James Lord, Morgan Stanley's Head of FX and EM Strategy. Simon Waever: And I'm Simon Waever, Global Head of EM Sovereign Credit Strategy. James Lord: And on this special episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing our 2023 outlook for global emerging markets and fixed income assets and what investors should pay close attention to next year. Simon Waever: It's Monday, December 12th, at 11 a.m. in New York. James Lord: A big theme from Morgan Stanley's year ahead outlook is the outperformance we're expecting to see from emerging markets. This isn't just about emerging market fixed income, though, which is what Simon and I focus on, but also equities. So across the board, we're expecting much brighter days ahead for EM assets. Simon Waever: And of course, the dollar is always key and it has been extremely strong this year. But what about next year? What do you think? James Lord: Yeah. So we are expecting the dollar to head down over 2023. In fact, it's already losing ground against a variety of G10 and EM currencies, and we're expecting this process to continue. So why do we think that? Well, there are a few key reasons. First, U.S. CPI should fall significantly over the next 12 months. This is because economic growth should slow as the rate hikes delivered this year by the U.S. Fed begin to bite. Supply chains are also finally normalizing as the world is getting back to normal following the pandemic. This should also help the Fed to stop hiking rates, and this has been a big reason for the dollar's rally this year. Simon Waever: Right. So that's in the U.S., but what about the rest of the world? And what about China specifically? James Lord: Yeah so, inflation is expected to fall across the whole world as well. And that is going to be a stepping stone towards a global economic recovery. Global economic recovery is usually something that helps to push the dollar down. So this is something that will be very helpful for our call. And third, we see growth outside of the U.S. doing better than the U.S. itself. This is something that will be led by China and other emerging markets. China is moving away from its zero-covid strategy and as they do so over the coming quarters, economic activity should rebound, benefiting a whole range of different economies, emerging markets included. So all of that points us in the direction of U.S. dollar weakness and EM currency strength over 2023. Simon, how does EM look from your part of the world? Simon Waever: Right, so away from effects, the main way to invest in EM fixed income are sovereign bonds and they can be either in local currency or hard currency. And the hard currency bond asset class is also known as EM sovereign credit, and these are bonds denominated in U.S. dollar or euro. We think sovereign credit will do very well in 2023 and we kept our bullish view that we've had since August. I would say external drivers were key this year in explaining why the asset class was down 27% at its worst. So that included hawkish global central banks, higher U.S. real yields, wider U.S. credit spreads and a stronger dollar. We think the same external factors will be key next year, but now they're going to be much more supportive as a lot of them reverses. James Lord: What about fundamentals, Simon? How are they looking in emerging markets? Simon Waever: Right. They do deserve a lot of focus themselves as well because after all, debt is very high across EM, far from all have access to financing and growth is not what it used to be. But they're also very dispersed across countries. For instance, you have the investment grade countries that despite not growing as high as they used to, still have resilient credit profiles and only smaller external imbalances this time around. Then you have the oil exporters that clearly benefit from high oil prices. Of course, there are issues in particularly those countries that have borrowed a lot in dollars but now have lost market access due to the very high cost. Some have, in fact, already defaulted, but on the other hand, a lot are also being helped by the IMF. And if we look ahead to 2023, there are actually not that many debt maturities for the riskiest countries. James Lord: And what about valuation, Simon? Is the asset class still cheap? Simon Waever: Yeah, I would say the asset class is still cheap despite the recent rebound, and that's both outright and versus other credit asset classes. We also see positioning as light, which is a result of the significant outflows from EM this year and investors having moved into safer and higher rated countries. So putting all that together, it leaves us projecting tighter EM sovereign credit spreads, and for the asset class to outperform within global bonds. And that includes versus U.S. corporate credit and U.S. treasuries. Within the asset class, we also expect high yield to outperform investment grade. But that's it for the hard currency bonds, what about the local currency ones? James Lord: Local currency denominated bonds could be a great way to position in emerging markets because you get both the currency and currency exposure, as well as the potential for bond prices to actually rise too. The bonds that you were just talking about Simon, are mostly dollar denominated, so you don't get that currency kicker. So not only do we think EM currencies should rally against the U.S. dollar, but yields should also come lower too, as inflation drops in emerging markets and central banks start cutting interest rates over the course of 2023, and do so much earlier than central banks in developed economies. We've also seen very little in the way of inflows into this part of the asset class over the past five years or so. So if the outlook improves, we could start seeing asset allocators taking another look, resulting in larger inflows over 2023. James Lord: Simon, thanks very much for taking the time to talk. Simon Waever: Great speaking with you, James. James Lord: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on Apple Podcasts' app. It helps more people to find the show. 

2022 was an unusual year for stocks and bonds, and while the future is hard to predict, the start of 2023 is shaping up to look quite different across several metrics.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, December 9th, at 5 p.m. in London. We try to be forward looking on this program, but let's take a moment to appreciate just how deeply unusual this year has been. Looking back over the last 150 years of U.S. equity and long term bond performance, 2022 is currently the only year where both stocks and long term bonds are down more than 10%. Several factors conspired to create such an unusual outcome. To start, valuations for both stocks and bonds were expensive. Growth was weak in China, but surprisingly resilient in the developed markets. That resilient growth helped drive the highest rates of U.S. inflation in 40 years. And that high inflation invited a strong response from central banks, with the Federal Reserve's target rate rising at its fastest pace, over a 12 month period, since the early 1980s. Looking ahead, the next 12 months look different across all of those factors. First, starting valuations look different. U.S. BBB-rated corporate bonds began the year yielding just 3.3%, they currently yield 5.4%. The S&P 500 stock index began the year at 22x forward earnings, that's now fallen to 17.5x. And U.S. Treasury yields relative to inflation, the so-called real yield, have gone from -1% to positive 1.1%. Second, the mix of growth changes on Morgan Stanley's forecasts. After 12 months where U.S. growth outperformed China, U.S. growth should now decelerate while growth in China picks up as the country exits zero-covid. We think growth in Europe is likely to see a recession, further emphasizing a shift from developed market to emerging market leadership in global growth. That weaker developed market growth should mean weaker developed market inflation. After hitting 40 year highs in 2022, our forecasts show U.S. headline inflation falling sharply next year, with U.S. CPI hitting a year on year rate of just 1.9% by the end of 2023. Weaker demand, high inventories, lower commodity prices, healing supply chains, a cooler housing market, and easier year on year comparisons, are all part of Morgan Stanley's lower inflation forecast. As growth slows and inflation moderates, central banks will likely gain more confidence that they have taken rates high enough. After the fastest rate hiking cycle in 40 years, the next 12 months could see both the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank make their final rate hike in the first quarter of 2023. We think different dynamics should mean different results. After a run of underperformance, we think these changes will help emerging market assets now do better and outperform developed market assets. After an unusually bad year for bonds, we continue to think that these shifts will support high grade fixed income. While the future is always hard to predict, we think investors should prepare for some very different stories. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

As investors have kept China’s road to reopening top of mind, what comes after reopening and how might the Chinese economy and equity markets be impacted? Chief China Economist Robin Xing and Chief China Equity Strategist Laura Wang discuss.----- Transcript -----Laura Wang: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Laura Wang, Morgan Stanley's Chief China Equity Strategist. Robin Xing: I'm Robin Xing, Morgan Stanley's Chief China Economist. Laura Wang: On this special episode of the podcast we'll discuss our 2023 outlook for China's economy and equity market, and what investors should focus on next year. It's Thursday, December 8th at 9 a.m. in Hong Kong. Laura Wang: So, Robin, China's reopening is a top most investor concern as we head into next year. You've had a long standing call that China will be reopening by spring of 2023. Is that still your view, given the recent COVID policy changes? Robin Xing: Yes, that's still our view. In fact, recent developments have strengthened our conviction on that reopening view. After several weeks of twists and turns following the initial relaxation on COVID management on November 10th, we think policymakers have made clear their intent to stay on the reopening path. We have seen larger cities, including Beijing, Guangzhou and Chongqing, all relaxed COVID restrictions in last week. We have seen the top policymakers confirmed shift in the country's COVID doctrine in public communication, and COVID Zero slogan is officially removed from any press conference or official document. They started the vaccination campaign, and last but not least, we have also see a clear focus on how to shift the public perception with a more balanced assessment of the virus. All of these enhanced our conviction of a spring reopening from China. Laura Wang: What are some of the key risks to this view? Robin Xing: Well, I think the key risk is the path towards a reopening. Before full reopening in the spring, China will try to flatten the curve in this winter. That is, to prevent hospital resources being overwhelmed, thus limiting access and mortality during the reopening process. This is because the vaccination ratio among the elderly remains low, with only 40% of people aged 80 plus have received the booster shot. Meanwhile, the medical resources in China are unevenly distributed between larger cities and the lower tier areas. As a result, we do expect some lingering measures during the initial phase of reopening. Restrictions that could still tighten dynamically in lower tier cities should hospitalizations surge, but we will likely see more incremental relaxation in large cities. So cases might rise to a high level, before a more nonlinear increase occurs after the spring full reopening. So this is our timeline of reopening, basically flattening the curve in the winter when the medical system is ready, to a proper full reopening in the spring. Laura Wang: That's wonderful. We are finally seeing some light at the end of the tunnel. With all of these moving parts, if China does indeed reopen on this expected timeline, what is your growth outlook for Chinese economy both near-term and longer term? Robin Xing: Well, given this reopening timeline, we expect that GDP growth in China to remain subpar in near term. The economy is likely to barely grow in the fourth quarter this year, corresponding to a 2.8% year over year. Growth were likely improved marginally in the spring, but still subpar as the continued fear of the virus on the part of the population will likely keep consumption at a subpar level up to early second quarter. But as normalization unfolds from the spring, the economy will rebound more meaningfully in the second half. Our full year forecast for the Chinese growth is around 5%, which is above market consensus, and that will be largely led by private consumption. We are expecting pent up demand to be unleashed once the economy is fully reopened by summertime. Robin Xing: So Laura, the macro backdrop we have been discussing have made for a volatile 2022 in the Chinese equity market. With widely anticipated policy shifts on the horizon, what is your outlook for Chinese equities within the global EM framework, both in near-term and the longer term? Laura Wang: This is actually perfect timing to discuss it as we have just upgraded Chinese equities to overweight within the global emerging market context, after staying relatively cautious for almost two years since January 2021. We now see multiple market influential factors improving at the same time, which is for the very first time in the last two years. Latest COVID policy pivot, as you just pointed out, and property market stabilization measures will help facilitate macro recovery and will also alleviate investors concerns about policy priority. Fed rate hikes cycle wrapping up will improve the liquidity environment, stronger Chinese yuan against U.S. dollar will also improve the attractiveness for Chinese assets. Meanwhile, we are also seeing encouraging signs on geopolitical tension front, as well as the regulatory reset completion front. Therefore, we believe China will start to outperform the broader emerging market again. We expect around 14% upside towards the end of the year with MSCI China Index. Robin Xing: How should investors be positioned in the year ahead and what effects do you think will be the biggest beneficiaries of China's reopening? Laura Wang: Two things to keep in mind. Number one, for the past three years, we've been overweight A-Shares versus offshore space, which had worked out extremely well with CSI 300 outperforming MSCI China by close to a 20% on the currency hedged basis over the last 12 months. We believe this is a nice opportunity for the relative performance to reverse given offshore's bigger exposure to reopening consumption, higher sensitivity to Chinese yuan strengthening and to the uplifting effect from the PCAOB positive result. Secondly, it is time to overweight consumer discretionary with focus on services and durables. Consumption recovery is on the way. Robin Xing: What are some of the biggest risks to your outlook for 2023, both positive and negative? Laura Wang: I would say the positive risks are more associated with earlier and faster reopening progress, whereas the negative risk would be more around higher fatality and bigger drag to economy, which means social uncertainty as well as bigger macro and earnings pressure will amount. And then geopolitical tension is also worth monitoring in the course of the next 12 to 24 months. Laura Wang: Robin, thanks for taking the time to talk. Robin Xing: Great speaking with you, Laura. Laura Wang: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleagues today.

As India enters a new era of growth, investors will want to know what’s driving this growth and how it may create once-in-a-generation opportunities. Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research Michael Zezas and Chief India Equity Strategist Ridham Desai discuss.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research. Ridham Desai: And I'm Ridham Desai, Morgan Stanley's Chief India Equity Strategist. Michael Zezas: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll discuss India's growth story over the next decade and some key investment themes that global investors should pay attention to. It's Wednesday, December 7th, at 7 a.m. in New York. Michael Zezas: Our listeners are likely well aware that over the past 25 years or so, India's growth has lagged only China's among the world's largest economies. And here at Morgan Stanley, we believe India will continue to outperform. In fact, India is now entering a new era of growth, which creates a once in a generation shift in opportunities for investors. We estimate that India's GDP is poised to more than doubled to $7.5 trillion by 2031, and its market capitalization could grow 11% annually to reach $10 trillion. Essentially, we expect India to drive about a fifth of global growth in the coming decade. So Ridham, what in your view are the main drivers behind India's growth story? Ridham Desai: Mike, the full global trends of demographics, digitalization, decarbonization and deglobalization that we keep discussing about in our research files are favoring this new India. The new India, we argue, is benefiting from three idiosyncratic factors. The first one is India is likely to increase its share of global exports thanks to a surge in offshoring. Second, India is pursuing a distinct model for digitalization of its economy, supported by a public utility called India Stack. Operating at population scale India stack is a transaction led, low cost, high volume, small ticket size system with embedded lending. The digital revolution has already changed the way India handles documents, the way it invests and makes payments and it is now set to transform the way it lends, spends and ensures. With private credit to GDP at just 57%, a credit boom is in the offing, in our view. The third driver is India's energy consumption and energy sources, which are changing in a disruptive fashion with broad economic benefits. On the back of greater access to energy, we estimate per capita energy consumption is likely to rise by 60% to 1450 watts per day over the next decade. And with two thirds of this incremental supply coming from renewable sources, well in short, with this self-help story in play as you said, India could continue to outperform the world on GDP growth in the coming decade. Michael Zezas: So let's dig into some of the specifics here. You mentioned the big surge in offshoring, which has resulted in India's becoming "the office of the world". Will this continue long term? Ridham Desai: Yes, Mike. In the post-COVID environment, global CEOs appear more comfortable with work from home and also work from India. So the emergence of distributed delivery models, along with tighter labor markets globally, has accelerated outsourcing to India. In fact, the number of global in-house captive centers that opened in India over the past two years was double of that in the prior four years. During the pandemic years, the number of people employed in this industry in India rose by almost 800,000 to 5.1 million. And India's share in global services trade rose by 60 basis points to 4.3%. In the coming decade we think the number of people employed in India for jobs outside the country is likely to at least double to 11 million. And we think that global spending on outsourcing could rise from its current level of U.S. dollar 180 billion per year to about 1/2 trillion U.S. dollars by 2030. Michael Zezas: In addition to being "the office of the world", you see India as a "factory to the world" with manufacturing going up. What evidence are we seeing of India benefiting from China moving away from the global supply chain and shifting business activity away from China? Ridham Desai: We are anticipating a wave of manufacturing CapEx owing to government policies aimed at lifting corporate profits share and GDP via tax cuts, and some hard dollars on the table for investing in specific sectors. Multinationals are more optimistic than ever before about investing in India, and that's evident in the all-time high that our MNC sentiment index shows, and the government is encouraging investments by building both infrastructure as well as supplying land for factories. The trends outlined in Morgan Stanley's Multipolar World Thesis, a document that you have co authored, Mike, and the cheap labor that India is now able to offer relative to, say, China are adding to the mix. Indeed, the fact is that India is likely to also be a big consumption market, a hard thing for a lot of multinational corporations to ignore. We are forecasting India's per capita GDP to rise from $2,300 USD to about $5,200 USD in the next ten years. This implies that India's income pyramid offers a wide breadth of consumption, with the number of rich households likely to quintuple from 5 million to 25 million, and the middle class households more than doubling to 165 million. So all these are essentially aiding the story on India becoming a factory to the world. And the evidence is in the sharp jump in FDI that we are already seeing, the daily news flows of how companies are ramping up manufacturing in India, to both gain access to its market and to export to other countries. Michael Zezas: So given all these macro trends we've been discussing, what sectors within India's economy do you think are particularly well-positioned to benefit both short term and longer term? Ridham Desai: Three sectors are worth highlighting here. The coming credit boom favors financial services firms. The rise in per capita income and discretionary income implies that consumer discretionary companies should do well. And finally, a large CapEx cycle could lead to a boom for industrial businesses. So financials, consumer discretionary and industrials. Michael Zezas: Finally, what are the biggest potential impediments and risks to India's success? Ridham Desai: Of course, things could always go wrong. We would include a prolonged global recession or sluggish growth, adverse outcomes in geopolitics and/or domestic politics. India goes to the polls in 2024, so another election for the country to decide upon. Policy errors, shortages of skilled labor, I would note that as a key risk. And steep rises in energy and commodity prices in the interim as India tries to change its energy sources. So all these are risk factors that investors should pay attention to. That said, we think that the pieces are in place to make this India's decade.Michael Zezas: Ridham, thanks for taking the time to talk. Ridham Desai: Great speaking with you, Mike. Michael Zezas: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people find the show.

As bond markets appear to have already priced in what central banks will likely do in 2023, how will this path impact inflation and currencies around the world?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Macro Strategy. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll talk about our 2023 outlook and how investors should view some key macro trends. It's Tuesday, December 6th, at 10 a.m. in New York. During the pandemic in 2020 and 2021, central banks provided the global economy a safety net with uber-accommodative interest rate and balance sheet policies. In 2022, central banks started to aggressively pull away that safety net. In 2023, we expect central banks to finish the job. And in 2024, central banks will likely start to roll out that safety net again, namely by lowering interest rates. Bond markets, which are forward looking discounting machines, are already pricing in the final stages of what central banks will likely do in 2023. The prospect of easier central bank policies should bring with it newfound demand for long term government bonds, just at a time when supply of these bonds is falling from decade long highs seen in 2021 and 2022. Central bank balance sheets will continue to shrink in 2023, meaning central banks are not aggressively buying bonds - but investors shouldn't be intimidated. These expected reductions in central bank purchases are already well understood by market participants and largely in the price already. In addition, for the largest central bank balance sheets, the reductions we forecast simply take them back to the pre-pandemic trend. Of course, for central bank policies and macro markets alike, the path of inflation and associated expectations will exert the most influence. We think inflation will fall faster than investors expect, even if it doesn't stabilize at or below pre-pandemic run rates. Lower inflation around the world should allow central banks to stop their policy tightening cycles. As lower U.S. inflation brings a less hawkish Fed to bear, the markets should price lower policy rates and a weaker U.S. dollar. Lower inflation in Europe and the U.K. should encourage a less hawkish ECB and Bank of England. This should help growth expectations rebound in those vicinities as rates fall, which will result in euro and sterling currency strength. We do think the U.S. dollar has already peaked and will decline through 2023. A fall in the U.S. dollar is usually something that reflects, and also contributes to, positive outcomes in the global economy. Typically, the U.S. dollar falls during periods of rising global growth and rising global growth expectations. As we anticipate the dollar's decline through 2023, it's worth noting that in emerging markets, U.S. dollar weakness and EM currency strength actually tend to loosen financial conditions within emerging market economies, not tighten them. Emerging markets that have U.S. dollar debt will also see their debt to GDP ratios fall as their currencies rise, further helping to lower borrowing costs and, in turn, boosting growth. In a nutshell, we see the negative feedback loops that were in place in 2022 reversing, at least somewhat in 2023 via virtuous cycles led by lower U.S. inflation, lower U.S. interest rates, and a weaker U.S. dollar. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show.

The tactical rally in stocks has continued and treasury bonds have experienced their own rally, leaving investors to wonder when this bear market might run out of steam.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, December 5th, at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it.  Last week, the tactical rally in stocks took another step forward after Fed Chair Jay Powell's speech at the Brookings Institution. After his comments and interview, long term Treasury yields came down sharply and continued into the end of the week. This sparked a similar boost higher in equities, led by the most interest rate sensitive and heavily shorted stocks. This fits nicely with our view from a few weeks ago, which suggests that any further rally would require lower long term interest rates. It also makes sense in the context of what we think has been driving this tactical rally in the first place - the growing hope for a Fed pivot that kick saves the economic cycle from a recession. So maybe the biggest question is why did Treasury bonds rally so much? First, we think it mostly had to do with Powell now pushing back on the recent loosening of financial conditions. Many investors we spoke with early last week thought Powell would try to cool some of the recent excitement, to help the Fed get inflation under control. Furthermore, investors seem positioned for that kind of hawkish rhetoric, so when that didn't happen we were off to the races in both bonds and stocks. Second, the jobs data on Friday were stronger than expected, which sparked a quick sell off in bonds and stocks on Friday, but neither seemed to gain any momentum to the downside. Instead, bonds rallied back sharply, with longer term bonds ending up on the day. Meanwhile, the S&P 500 held its 200 day moving average after briefly looking like a failed breakout on Friday morning. In short, the surprising strength in the labor market did not scare away the newly minted bond bulls, which is more focused on growth slowing next year and the Fed pausing its rate hikes. A few weeks ago, we highlighted how breadth in the equity market has improved significantly since the rally began in October. In fact, breath for all the major averages is now well above the levels reached during the summer rally. This is a net positive that cannot be ignored. It's also consistent with our view that even if the S&P 500 makes a new low next year as we expect, the average stock likely will not. This is typically how bear markets end with the darlings of the last bull finally underperforming to the degree that is commensurate with their outperformance during the prior bull market. Third quarter earnings season was just the beginning of that process, in our view. In other words, improving breadth isn't unusual at the end of a bear market. Given our negative outlook for earnings next year, even if we skirt an economic recession, the risk reward of playing for any further upside in U.S. equities is poor. This is especially true when considering we are now right into the original resistance levels of 4000 to 4150 we projected when we made the tactically bullish call seven weeks ago. Bottom line, the bear market rally we called for seven weeks ago is running out of steam. While there could be some final vestiges of strength in the year end, the risk reward of trying to play forward is deteriorating materially given our confidence in our well below consensus earnings forecast for next year. From a very short term perspective, we think 4150 is the upside this rally can achieve and we would not rule that out over the next week or so. Conversely, a break of last week's low, which coincides with the 150 day moving average around 3940, would provide some confirmation that the bear market is ready to reassert the downtrend in earnest. Defensively oriented stocks should continue to outperform until more realistic earnings expectations for next year are better discounted. We expect that to occur during the first quarter and possibly into the spring. At that point, we will likely pivot more bullish structurally. Until then, bonds and defensively oriented bond proxies like defensive stocks should prove to be the best harbor for this storm. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show.

While 2022 saw the fastest pace of policy tightening on record, has the Fed’s hiking cycle properly set the U.S. economy up for a soft landing in 2023?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ellen Zentner, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss our 2023 outlook for the U.S. economy. It's Friday, December 2nd, at 10 a.m. in New York. Let's start with the Fed and the role higher interest rates play in the overall growth outlook. The Fed has delivered the fastest pace of policy tightening on record and now feels comfortable to begin slowing the pace of interest rate increases. We expect it to step down the pace to 50 basis points at its meeting later this month and then deliver a final hike in January to a peak rate of between 4.5 and 4.75%. But in order to keep inflation on a downward trajectory, the Fed will likely keep rates at that peak level for most of next year. This shift to a more cautious stance from the Fed we think will help the U.S. economy narrowly miss recession in 2023. And we think only in the back half of 2024 will the pace of growth pick back up as the Fed gradually reduces the policy rate back toward neutral, which is around 2.5%. Altogether, we forecast 2023 GDP growth of just 0.3% before rebounding modestly to 1.4% in 2024. One bright spot in the outlook is that inflation seems to have reached a turning point. Mounting evidence points to a slowing in housing prices and rents, though they continue to drive above target inflation. Core goods inflation should turn to disinflation as supply chains normalize and demand shifts to services and away from goods. Used vehicle prices are a big contributor to lower overall inflation in our forecast, as our motor vehicle analysts believe that used car prices could be down as much as 10 to 20% next year. So overall, we expect core PCE - or personal consumption expenditures inflation - to slow from 5% this year, to 2.9% in 2023, and further to 2.4% in 2024. Throughout 2022, rising interest rates have raised borrowing costs, which has weighed on consumption. And we expect that to continue into 2023 as the cumulative effects of past policy hikes continue to flow through to households. On the income side, we expect a rebound in real disposable income growth in 23, because inflation pressures abate while job growth continues to be positive. So if I put those together, slower consumption and rising incomes should lift the savings rate from 3.2% this year, to 5.1% in 2023, and 6.2% in 2024. So households will start to rebuild that cushion. Now we're in the midst of a sharp housing correction, and we expect a double digit decline in residential investment to continue. But we don't expect a commensurate drop in home valuations. Our housing strategies predict just a 4% drop in national home prices in 2023, and further price declines are likely in the years ahead, but that's a much milder drop in home valuations compared with the magnitude of the drop off in housing activity. So we think that residential wealth, real estate wealth will continue to be a strong backdrop for household balance sheets. Now going forward, mortgage rates will start to fall again after reaching these peaks around 7%. And with healthy job gains, and that increase in real disposable income growth affordability should begin to ease somewhat, we think starting in the back half of 2024. Turning to the labor market, while signs of falling inflation is important to the Fed, so are signs that the labor market is softening and we expect softer demand for labor and further labor supply gains to create the slack in the labor market the Fed is looking for. So we expect job growth will likely fall below the replacement rate by the second quarter of 2023, pushing up the unemployment rate to 4.3% by the end of next year and 4.4% by the end of 2024. In sum, we think the U.S. economy is at a turning point, but not a turning point toward recession, a turning point toward what is likely to prove to be two sluggish years of growth in the economy. The Fed's hiking cycle is working as it should. The labor market is softening. The inflation rate is coming down. And we think that puts the U.S. economy on track for a soft landing in 2023. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

As Asia and Emerging Markets move from a year of major adjustment in 2022 towards a less daunting 2023, investors may want to change their approach for the beginning of a new bull market.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jonathan Garner, Chief Asia and Emerging Market Equity Strategist at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, in this episode on our 2023 outlook, I'll focus on why we recently turned more bullish on our coverage. It's Thursday, 1st of December at 8 a.m. in Singapore. 2022 was a year of major adjustment, with accelerating geopolitical shifts towards a multipolar world, alongside macro volatility caused by a surge in developed markets inflation, and the sharpest Fed tightening cycle since the Paul Volcker era 40 years ago. This took the U.S. dollar back to early 1980s peaks in real terms, and global equities fell sharply, with most markets down by double digit percentages. North Asian markets performed worse as a slowdown in tech spending, and persistently weak growth in China, weighed on market sentiment. But structural improvement in macro stability and governance frameworks was rewarded for Japan equities, as well as markets in Brazil, India and Indonesia. Our 2023 global macro outlook paints a much less daunting picture for equity markets, despite a slower overall GDP growth profile globally than in 2022. Current market concerns are anchored on inflation and that central banks will keep hiking until the cycle ends with a deep recession, a financial accident en route, or perhaps worse - that they leave the job half done. But, and crucially, our economists forecast that U.S. core PCE inflation will fall to 2.5% annualized in the second half of next year. Alongside slowing labor market indicators, our team sees January as the last Fed hike, with rates cuts coming as soon as the fourth quarter of 2023, down to a rate of 2.375% at the end of 2024. Meanwhile, inflation pressures in Asia remain more subdued than elsewhere. This top down outlook of growth, inflation and interest rates all declining in the U.S. and continued reasonable growth and inflation patterns in Asia should lead to a weaker trend in the U.S. dollar, which tends to be associated with better performance from Asia and emerging market equities.Meanwhile, for the China economy, we think a gradual easing of COVID restrictions and credit constraints on the property sector deliver a cyclical recovery, which drives growth reacceleration from 3.2% in 2022 to 5.0% in 2023. Consumer discretionary spending, which is well represented in the offshore China equity markets, should show the greatest upturn year on year as 2023 progresses. Crucially, this means that we expect corporate return on equity in China, which has declined in both absolute and relative terms in recent years, to pick up on a sustained basis from the current depressed level of 9.5%. We also think that end market weakness in semiconductors and technology spending, consequent upon the reversal of the COVID era boom, should gradually abate. Our technology and hardware teams expect PC and server end markets to trough in the fourth quarter of this year, whereas smartphone has already bottomed in the third quarter. They recommend looking beyond the near-term weakness to recognize upside risks, with valuations for the sector now at prior market troughs and the current pain and fundamentals priced in by recent earnings estimates downgrades in our view. We therefore upgraded Korea and Taiwan and the overall Asia technology sector in early October and expect these parts of our coverage to lead the new bull market into 2023. Finally, given greater GDP growth resilience and less sector exposure to global downturns, Southeast Asian markets such as Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand, collectively ASEAN, tend to outperform emerging markets in Asia during bear markets, but underperform in bull markets given their low beta nature. Having seen a sharp spike in ASEAN versus Asia, relative performance in the prior bear market, which we think is now ending, our view is that the trend should reverse from here. Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and recommend Thoughts on the Market to a friend or colleague today. 

As China tries to smooth out its COVID caseload, investors should take note of the impacts those COVID policies have on global economies and key markets.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between public policy and financial markets. It's Wednesday, November 30th, at 11 a.m. in New York. Investors remain intently focused on China's COVID policies, as the tightening and loosening of travel and quarantine policies has implications for key drivers of markets. Namely the outlook for global inflation, monetary policy and global growth. We're paying close attention, and here's what we think you need to know. Importantly, our China economics team thinks that China's restrictive COVID zero policy will be a thing of the past come spring of 2023, but there will be many fits and starts along the way. Increased vaccination, availability of medical treatment and public messaging about the lessening of COVID dangers will be signposts for a full reopening of China, but we should expect episodic returns to restrictions in the meantime as China tries to smooth out its COVID caseload. This dynamic is important to understand for its implications to the outlook for the global economy and key markets. For example, the economic growth story for Asia should be weak in the near term, but begin to improve and outperform the rest of the world from the second quarter of 2023 through the balance of the year. In the U.S., the reopening of the China economy should help ease inflation as the supply of core goods picks up with supply chains running more smoothly. This, in turn, supports the notion that the Fed will be able to slow and eventually pause its rate hikes in 2023, even if headline inflation sees a rebound via higher gas prices from higher China demand for oil. And where might this overall economic dynamic be most visible to investors? Look to the foreign exchange markets. China's currency should relatively benefit, particularly if reopening leads investors back to its equity markets. The U.S. dollar, however, should peak, as the Fed approaches pausing its interest rate hikes and, accordingly, ceasing the increase in the interest rate advantage for holding U.S. dollar assets versus the rest of the world. Of course, the evolution of the COVID pandemic has been anything but straightforward. So we'll keep monitoring the situation with China and adjust our market views as needed. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

Traditional ESG investing strategies highlight companies with top scores across ESG metrics, but new research shows value in focusing instead on those companies who have a higher rate of change as they improve their ESG metrics.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Sustainability Research. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll focus on our new approach to identifying opportunities that can generate both Alpha and ESG impact. It's Tuesday, November 29th, at 10 a.m. in New York. On previous episodes of this podcast we've discussed how, although sustainable investing has been a trend over the past decade, it has faced significant pushback from critics arguing that ESG strategies - or environmental, social and governance - sacrifice long term returns in favor of the pursuit of certain ESG objectives. We have done some new work here at Morgan Stanley, suggesting that it is possible to identify opportunities that can deliver excess returns, or alpha, and make an ESG impact. Our research found that what we call "ESG rate of change", companies that are leaders on improving ESG metrics, should be a critical focus for investors looking to identify companies that meet both criteria. What do we mean by "ESG rate of change"? Traditional ESG screens focus on "ESG best-in-class" metrics. That is, companies that are already scoring well on sustainability factors. But there is a case to be made for companies that are making significant improvements. For example, we find that there are companies using innovative technologies that can reduce costs and improve efficiency. These companies, which we call deflation enablers, generally screen very favorably on a range of ESG metrics and are reaping the financial benefits of improved efficiency. A surprisingly broad range of technologies are dropping in cost to such an extent that they offer significant net benefits, both financial and ESG oriented. Some examples of such technologies are very cheap solar, wind and clean hydrogen, energy storage cost reductions, cheaper carbon capture, improved molecular plastics recycling, more efficient electric motors, a wide range of recycling technologies, and a range of increasingly inexpensive waste to energy technology. To get even more specific, as we look at these various technologies and the sectors they touch, we think the utility sector is arguably the most advantaged among the carbon heavy sectors in terms of its ESG potential. Why is that? Because many utilities have the potential to create an "everybody wins" outcome in which customer bills are lower, CO2 emissions are reduced, and utility earnings per share growth is enhanced. This is a rare combination. In the U.S. utility sector many management teams are shutting down expensive coal fired power plants and building renewables, energy storage and transmission, which achieve superior earnings per share growth. Many of these stocks would screen negatively on classic ESG metrics such as carbon intensity, but these ESG improvers may be positioned to deliver superior stock returns and play a critical role in the transition to clean energy. As with most things, applying this new strategy we're proposing isn't simply a matter of looking at companies with improving ESG metrics. It's about really understanding what's driving these changes. Here's where sector specific expertise is key. In fact, we believe that in the absence of fundamental insight, ESG criteria can be misapplied and could lead to unintended outcomes. The potential for enhanced performance, in our view, comes from a true marriage of ESG investing principles and deep sector expertise. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show. 

As we head into a new year, Europe faces multiple challenges across inflation, energy and financial conditions, meaning investors will want to keep an eye on recession risk, the ECB, and European equities. Chief European Equity Strategist Graham Secker and Chief European economist Jens Eisenschmidt discuss.----- Transcript -----Graham Secker Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Graham Secker, Morgan Stanley's Chief European Equity Strategist.Jens Eisenschmidt And I'm Jens Eisenschmidt, Morgan Stanley's Chief European Economist.Graham Secker And on this special episode of the podcast, we'll discuss our 2023 outlook for Europe's economy and equity market, and what investors should pay close attention to next year. It's Monday, November the 28th, at 3 p.m. in London.Graham Secker So Jens, Europe faces multiple challenges right now. Inflation is soaring, energy supply is uncertain, and financial conditions are tightening. This very tricky environment has already impacted the economy of the euro area, but is Europe headed into a recession? And what is your growth outlook for the year ahead?Jens Eisenschmidt So yes, we do see a recession coming. In year-on-year terms we see negative growth of minus 0.2% next year. There's heterogeneity behind that, Germany is most affected of the large countries, Spain is least affected. In general, the drivers are that you mentioned, we have inflation that eats into real disposable income that is bad for consumption. We have the energy situation, which is highly uncertain, which is not great for investment. And we do have monetary policy that's starting to get restrictive, leading to a tightening in financial conditions which is actually already priced into markets. And, you know, that's the transmission lack of monetary policy. So that leads to lower growth predominantly in 23 and 24.Graham Secker And maybe just to drill into the inflation side of that a little bit more. Specifically, do you expect inflation to rise further from here? And then when you look into the next 12 months, what are the key drivers of your inflation profile?Jens Eisenschmidt So inflation will rise, according to our forecast, a little bit further, but not by an awful lot. We really see it peaking in December on headline terms. Just to remind you, we had an increase to 10.7 in October that was predominantly driven by energy and food inflation, so around 70% of that was energy and food. And of course, it's natural to look into these two components to see what's going to happen in the future. Here we think food inflation probably has still some time to go because there is some delayed response to the input prices that have peaked already at some point past this year. But energy is probably flat from here or maybe even slightly falling, which then gets you some base effects which will lead and are the main driver of our forecast for a lower headline inflation in the next year. Core inflation will be probably more sticky. We see 4% this year and 4% next. And here again, we have these processes like food inflation, services inflation that react with some lag to input prices coming down. So, it will take some time. Further out in the profile, we do see core inflation remaining above 2% simply because there will be a wage catch up process.Graham Secker And with that core inflation profile, what does that mean for the ECB? What are your forecasts for the ECB's monetary policy path from here?Jens Eisenschmidt We really think that the ECB needs to have seen the peak in inflation, and that's probably you're right, both core and headline. We see a peak, as I said, in December, core similarly, but at a high level and, you know, convincingly only coming down afterwards. So, the ECB will have to see it in the rear mirror and be very, very clear that inflation now is really falling before they can stop their rate hike cycle, which we think will be April. So, we see another 50 basis point increase in December 25, 25 in February, in March for the ECB then to really stop its hiking cycle in April having reached 2.5% on the deposit facility rate, which is already in restrictive territory. So, Graham, turning to you, bearing in mind all that just said about the macro backdrop, how will it impact European equities both near-term and longer term?Graham Secker Having been bearish on European equities for much of this year, at the beginning of October we shifted to a more neutral stance on European equities specifically. But we've had pretty strong rally over the course of the last couple of months, which sets us up, we think, for some downside into the first quarter of next year. In my mind, I really have the profile that we saw in 2008, 2009 around the global financial crisis. Then equity valuations, the price to earnings ratio troughed in October a weight, the market rallies for a couple of months, but then as the earnings downgrades kicked in the start of 2009, the actual index itself went back down to the lows. So, it was driven by earnings and that's what we can see happening again now. So perhaps Europe's PE ratio troughed at the end of September. But once the earnings downgrades start in earnest, which we think probably happens early in 2023, we can see that taking European equities back down towards the lows again. On a 12-month view from here we see limited upside. We have 1-2% upside to our index target by the end of next year. But obviously, hopefully if we do get that correction in the first quarter, then there'll be more to play for. We just got a time entry point.Jens Eisenschmidt Right. So how should I, as an investor, be positioned then in the year ahead?Graham Secker From a sector perspective, we would be underweight cyclicals. We think European earnings next year will fall by about 10% and we think cyclicals will be the key area of earnings disappointment. So, we want to be underweight the cyclicals until we get much closer to the economic and earnings trough. Having been positive on defensives for much of this year, we've recently moved them to neutral. We've upgraded the European tech sector, the medtech sector, and also luxury goods as well.Jens Eisenschmidt So what are the biggest risks then to your outlook for 23, both on the positive and the negative side?Graham Secker So on the positive side, I'd highlight two. Firstly, we have the proverbial soft landing when it comes to the economic backdrop, whether that's European and or global. That would be particularly helpful for equities, if that was accompanied by a bigger downward surprise on inflation. So, if inflation falls more quickly and growth holds up, that would be pretty positive for equity markets. A second positive would be any form of geopolitical de-escalation that would be very helpful for European risk appetites. And then on the negative side, the first one would be a bigger profit recession. If earnings do fall 10% next year, which is our projection, that would be very mild in the context of previous downturns. So in our base case, we see European earnings falling 20%, not the 10% decline that we see in that base case. The other negatives that I think a little bit about is whether or not what we've seen in the UK over the last couple of months could happen elsewhere. I.e., interest rates start to put more and more pressure on government finances and budget deficits, and we start to see a shift in that environment. So that could be something that could weigh on markets next year as well.Graham Secker But, Jens, thanks for taking the time to talk today.Jens Eisenschmidt Great speaking with you, Graham.Graham Secker And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

As we enter the holiday shopping season, the challenges facing consumers and retailers look quite different from 2021, so how will inflation and high inventory impact profit margins?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver from the Morgan Stanley's U.S. Equity Strategy Team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss our outlook for holiday spending in the U.S. It's Friday, November 25th, at 1 p.m. in New York. With the holiday shopping season just around the corner, we collaborated with the Morgan Stanley U.S. economics team and several of the consumer teams, namely airlines, consumer goods, e-commerce and electronics, to analyze our consumer survey data around holiday spending. The big takeaway is that this year's holiday shopping season is going to be quite different from the one we had last year. In 2021, we saw major supply chain malfunctions that impacted inventories and caused shoppers to start buying much earlier in the season. Limited supplies also gave companies a lot of pricing power, and this year the situation looks like it is shaping up to be the exact opposite. High inventory levels should push stores to offer discounts as they attempt to clear merchandise off shelves. Companies offering the biggest discounts will be able to grab the largest wallet share, but this will likely be a hit to their profit margins. Additionally, inflation has weighed heavily on consumers throughout the year, and it remains their number one concern heading into the holiday shopping season. This year, we're likely to see a very bargain savvy consumer. Our survey showed that 70% of shoppers are waiting for stores to offer discounts before they begin their holiday shopping, and the majority are waiting to see deals in excess of 20%. Additionally, consumers are likely to be more price sensitive this year. About a third of consumers said they would buy a lot less gifts and holiday products if stores raise prices. U.S. consumers are largely expecting to spend about the same amount on holiday gifts and products this year versus last year. So retailers will be competing for a similarly sized pool of revenue as last year, and will have to offer competitive prices to get shoppers to choose their products. This creates a really tough environment for profit margins. We also asked consumers specifically if they are planning to spend more or less this year in a variety of popular gift areas. The biggest spending declines are expected for luxury gifts, sports equipment, home and kitchen and electronics, all areas where we saw overconsumption during lockdown. Looking at the industry implications, services are expected to hold up better than goods overall. Department stores and specialty retailers, consumer durable goods, large volume retailers and tech hardware are all likely to face a more challenging season. On the other hand, demand for travel and flights remains very strong, and the Morgan Stanley transportation team remains bullish on the U.S. airlines overall, as they believe travel interest remains resilient despite consumer and macro fears. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

While the recent meeting between U.S. President Biden and China’s President Xi has signaled near term stability for the relationship between the two countries, investors will need to understand what this means for future economic disconnection.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on  the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between U.S. public policy and financial markets. It's Wednesday, November 23rd, at 10 a.m. in New York. Last week, many of my colleagues and I were in Singapore meeting with clients for Morgan Stanley's annual Asia Pacific Summit. Top of mind for many was the recent meeting between U.S. President Biden and China's President Xi. In particular, there was much Thanksgiving that the two sides seemed to agree on a few points that would create some near-term stability in the relationship. But we caution investors not to read more into their meeting beyond that, and accordingly continue to prepare for a multipolar world where the U.S. and China disassociate in key economic areas. True, there were statements of respect for each other's position on Taiwan, a return to key policy dialogs, and a recognition on both sides of the importance of the bilateral relationship to the well-being of the wider world. But that doesn't mean the two sides found a way to remain interconnected economically. Rather, it just signals that economic disconnection may be orderly and spread out as opposed to disorderly and quick. Look beyond the soothing statements from the meeting, and you see policies on both sides showing work toward economic disconnection with industrial policies and trade barriers aimed at creating separate economic and technological ecosystems. An orderly transition to this state may be costly, but it need not be disruptive. This dynamic still leaves plenty of cross-currents for markets. It's good news overall for the macroeconomic outlook as it takes a potential growth shock off the table. It's also good for key geographies that will benefit from investment towards supply chain realignment, such as Mexico, as we recently highlighted in collaborative research with our Mexico strategist. But it poses challenges for companies that will be compelled to take on higher labor and CapEx costs as the U.S. seeks distance from China on key technologies. Semiconductors have been and will continue to be a key space to watch as the sector incrementally shifts production to higher cost areas in order to comply with U.S. regulatory demands. So bottom line, we should all feel a bit better about the outlook for markets following the Biden/Xi meeting, but just a bit. The U.S.-China relationship isn't going back to its inter-connected past, and the cost of disconnecting in key areas is sure to hurt some investments and help others. With Thanksgiving this week, I want to take a moment to thank you, our listeners, for sharing this podcast with your friends and colleagues. As we pass another exciting milestone of 1 million downloads in a single month, we hope you continue to tune in to thoughts on the market as we navigate our ever changing world. Happy Thanksgiving from all of us here at Morgan Stanley.

The year ahead outlook is a process of collaboration between strategists and economists from across the firm, so what were analysts debating when thinking about 2023, and how were those debates resolved? Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets and Head of Fixed Income Research Vishy Tirupattur discuss.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Morgan Stanley's Chief Cross Asset Strategist. Vishy Tirupattur: And I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Head of Fixed Income Research. Andrew Sheets: And on this special episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing some of the key debates underpinning Morgan Stanley's 2023 year ahead outlook. It's Tuesday, November 22nd at 3 p.m. in London. Vishy Tirupattur: And 10 a.m. in New York. Andrew Sheets: So Vishy, within Morgan Stanley research we collaborate a lot, but I think it's not an exaggeration to say that when we sit down to write our year ahead outlooks for strategy and economics, it's probably one of the most collaborative exercises that we do. Part of that is some pretty intense debate. So that's what I was hoping to talk to you about, kind of give listeners some insight into what are the types of things that Morgan Stanley research analysts were debating when thinking about 2023 and how we resolved some of those issues. And I think maybe the best place to start is just this question of inflation, right? Inflation was the big surprise of 2022. We underestimated it. A lot of forecasters underestimated inflation. As we look into 2023, Morgan Stanley's economists are forecasting inflation to come down. So, how did that debate go? Why do we have conviction that this time inflation really is going to moderate? Vishy Tirupattur: Thanks, Andrew. And it is absolutely the case that challenging each other's view is critically important and not a surprise that we spent a lot of time on inflation. Given that we have many upside surprises to inflation throughout the year, you know, there was understandable skepticism about the forecasts that US inflation will show a steady decline over the course of 2023. Our economists, clearly, acknowledge the uncertainty associated with it, but they took some comfort in a few things. One in the base effect. Two, normalizing supply chains and weaker labor markets. They also saw that in certain goods, certain core goods, such as autos, for example, they expect to see deflation, not just disinflation. And there's also a factor of medical services, which has a reset in prices that will exert a steady drag on the core inflation. So all said and done, there is significant uncertainty, but there are still clearly some reasons why our economists expect to see inflation decline. Andrew Sheets: I think that's so interesting because even after we published this outlook, it's fair to say that a lot of investor skepticism has related to this idea that inflation can moderate. And another area where I think when we've been talking to investors there's some disagreement is around the growth outlook, especially for the U.S. economy. You know, we're forecasting what I would describe as a soft landing, i.e., U.S. growth slows but you do not see a U.S. recession next year. A lot of investors do expect a U.S. recession. So why did we take a different view? Why do we think the U.S. economy can kind of avoid this recessionary path? Vishy Tirupattur: I think the key point here is the U.S. economy slows down quite substantially. It barely skirts recession. So a 0.5% growth expectation for 2023 for the U.S. is not exactly robust growth. I think basically our economists think that the tighter monetary policy will stop tightening incrementally early in 2023, and that will play out in slowing the economy substantially without outright jumping into contraction mode. Although we all agree that there is a considerable uncertainty associated with it. Andrew Sheets: We've talked a bit about U.S. inflation and U.S. growth. These things have major implications for the U.S. dollar. Again, I think an area that was subject to a lot of debate was our forecast that the dollar's going to decline next year. And so, given that the U.S. is still this outperforming economy, that's avoiding a recession, given that it still offers higher interest rates, why don't we think the dollar does well in that environment? Vishy Tirupattur: I think the key to this out-of-consensus view on dollar is that the decline in inflation, as our economists forecast and as we just discussed, we think will limit the potential for US rates going much higher. And furthermore, given that the monetary policy is in restrictive territory, we think there is a greater chance that we will see more downside surprises in individual data points. And while this is happening, the outlook for China, right, even though it is still challenging, appears to be shifting in the positive direction. There's a decent chance that the authorities will take steps towards ending the the "zero covid" policy. This would help bring greater balance to the global economy, and that should put less upward pressure on the dollar. Andrew Sheets: So Vishy, another question that generated quite a bit of debate is that next year you continue to see quantitative tightening from the Fed, the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve is shrinking, it's owning fewer bonds and yet we're also forecasting U.S. bond yields to fall. So how do you square those things? How do you think it's consistent to be forecasting lower bond yields and yet less Federal Reserve support for the bond market? Vishy Tirupattur: Andrew, there are two important points here. The first one is that when QT ends, really, history is really not much of a guide here. You know, we really have one data point when QT ended, before rate cuts started happening. And the thinking behind our thoughts on QT is that the Fed sees these two policy tools as being independent. And stopping QT depends really on the money market conditions and the bank demand for reserves. And therefore, QT could end either before or after December 2023 when we anticipate normalization of interest rate policy to come into effect. So, the second point is that why we think that the interest rates are going to rally is really related to the expectation of significant slowing in the economic growth. Even though the U.S. economy does not go into a contraction mode, we expect a significant slowing of the U.S. economy to 0.5% GDP growth and the economy growing below potential even into 2024 as the effects of the tighter monetary policy conditions begin to play out in the real economy. So we think the rally in U.S. rates, especially in the longer end, is really a function of this. So I think we need to keep the two policy tools a bit separate as we think about this. Andrew Sheets: So Vishy, I wanted us to put our credit hats on and talk a little bit about our expectations for default rates. And I think here, ironically, when we've been talking to investors, there's been disagreement on both sides. So, you know, we're forecasting a default rate for the U.S. of around 4-4.5% Next year for high yield, which is about the historical average. And you get some investors who say, that expectation is too cautious and other investors who say, that's too benign. So why is 4-4.5% reasonable and why is it reasonable in the context of those, you know, investor concerns? Vishy Tirupattur: It's interesting, Andrew, when you expect that some some people will think that the our expectations are too tight and others think that they are too wide and we end up somewhat in the middle of the pack, I think we are getting it right. The key point here is that the the maturity walls really are pretty modest over the next two years. The fundamentals, in terms of coverage ratios, leverage ratio, cash on balance sheets, are certainly pretty decent, which will mitigate near-term default pressures. However, as the economy begins to slow down and the earnings pressures come into play, we will expect to see the market beginning to think about maturity walls in 2025 onwards. All that means is that we will see defaults rise from the extremely low levels that we are at right now to long-term average levels without spiking to the kinds of default rates we have seen in previous economic slowdowns or recessions. Andrew Sheets: You know, we've had this historic rise in mortgage rates and we're forecasting a really dramatic drop in housing activity. And yet we're not forecasting nearly as a dramatic drop in U.S. home prices. So Vishy, I wanted to put this question to you in two ways. First, how do we justify a much larger decrease in housing activity relative to a more modest decrease in housing prices? And then second, would you consider our housing forecast for prices bullish or bearish relative to the consensus? Vishy Tirupattur: So, Andrew, the first point is pretty straightforward. You know, as mortgage rates have risen in response to higher interest rates, affordability metrics have dramatically deteriorated. The consequence of this, we think, is a very significant slowing of housing activity in terms of new home sales, housing starts, housing permits, building permits and so on. The decline in those housing activity metrics would be comparable to the kind of decline we saw after the financial crisis. However, to get the prices down anywhere close to the levels we saw in the wake of the financial crisis, we need to see forced sales. Forced sales through foreclosures, etc. that we simply don't expect to see happen in the next few years because the mortgage lending standards after the financial crisis had been significantly tighter. There exists a substantial equity in many homes today. And there's also this lock-in effect, where a large number of current mortgage holders have low mortgage rates locked in. And remember, US mortgages are predominantly fixed rate mortgages. So the takeaway here is that housing activity will drop dramatically, but home prices will drop only modestly. So relative to the rest of the street, our home price forecast is less negative, but I think the key point is that we clearly distinguish between what drives home pricing activity and what drives housing activity in terms of builds and starts and sales, etc.. And that key distinction is the reason why I feel pretty confident about our housing activity forecast and home price forecast. Andrew Sheets: Vishy, thanks for taking the time to talk. Vishy Tirupattur: Always a pleasure talking to you, Andrew. Andrew Sheets: Happy Thanksgiving from all of us at Thoughts on the Market. We have passed yet another exciting milestone: over 1 million downloads in a single month. I wanted to say thank you for continuing to tune in and share the show with your friends and colleagues. It wouldn't be possible without you, our listeners. 

While the outlook for 2023 may seem relatively unexciting, investors will want to prepare for a volatile path to get there, and focus on some key inflection points.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, November 21st, at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. Last week, we published our 2023 U.S. equities outlook. In it, we detail the path to our 2023 year end S&P 500 price target of 3900. While the price may seem unexciting relative to where we're currently trading, we think the path will be quite volatile with several key inflection points investors will need to trade to make above average returns next year. The main pushback in focus from investors has centered around the first inflection - the near-term tactical upside call we made about a month ago.Let's review a few key points of the call as we discuss how the rest of the year may play out. First, the primary tactical driver to our bullish call was simply respecting the 200 week moving average. As noted when we made the call last month, the 200 week moving average does not give way for the S&P 500 until a recession is undeniable. In short, until it is clear we are going to have a full blown labor cycle where the unemployment rate rises by at least 1-1.5%, the S&P 500 will give the benefit of the doubt to the soft landing outcome. A negative payroll release also does the trick. Second, in addition to the 200 week moving averages key support, falling interest rate volatility led to higher equity valuations that are driving this rally. Much like with the 200 week moving average, though, this factor can provide support for the higher PE's achieved over the past month, but is no longer arguing for further upside. In other words, both the 200 week moving average and the interest rate volatility factors have run their course, in our view. However, a third factor market breadth has emerged as a best tactical argument for higher prices before the fundamentals take over again. Market breadth has improved materially over the past month. As noted last week, both small caps and the equal weighted S&P 500 have outperformed the market weighted index significantly during this rally. In fact, the equal weighted S&P 500 has been outperforming since last year, while the small caps have been outperforming since May. Importantly, such relative moves by the small caps and average stocks did not prevent the broader market from making a new low this fall. However, the improvement in breadth is a new development, and that indicator does argue for even higher prices in the broader market cap weighted S&P 500 before this rally is complete. Bottom line tactically bullish calls are difficult to make, especially when they go against one's fundamental view that remains decidedly bearish. When we weigh the tactical evidence, we remain positive for this rally to continue into year end even though the easy money has likely been made. From here, we expect more choppiness and misdirection with respect to what's leading. For example, from the October lows it's been a cyclical, smallcap led rally with the longer duration growth stocks lagging. If this rally is to have further legs, we think it will have to be led by the Nasdaq, which has been the laggard. In the end, investors should be prepared for volatility to remain both high intraday and day to day with swings in leadership. After all, it's still a bear market, and that means it's not going to get any easier before the fundamentals take over to complete this bear market next year. As we approach the holiday, I want to say a special thank you to our listeners. We've recently passed an exciting milestone of over 1 million downloads in a single month, and it's all made possible by you tuning in and sharing the podcast with friends and colleagues. Happy Thanksgiving to you and your families.

At the recent 20th Party Congress in China, policy makers made economic growth a top priority, but what are the roadblocks that may be of concern to global investors?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Robin Xing, Morgan Stanley's Chief China Economist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I will discuss the outlook for China after the 20th Party Congress. It's Friday, November 18th, at 8 a.m. in Hong Kong. China's Communist Party convenes a national Congress every five years to unveil mid to long term policy agenda and reshuffle its leadership. The one concluded two weeks ago marks the 20th Congress since the party's founding in 1921. One of the key takeaways is that economic growth remains the Chinese government's top priority, even as national security and the supply chain self-sufficiency have gained more importance. The top leadership's goal is to grow China to an income level on par with medium developed country by 2035. We think this suggests a per capita GDP target of $20,000, up from $12,000 today, and it would require close to 4% average growth in GDP in the coming decade. Well, this growth target is achievable, but only with continued policy focus on growth. While China's economy has grown 6.7% a year over the last decade, its potential growth has likely entered a downward trajectory, trending toward 3% at the end of this decade, there is aging of the Chinese population, which is a main structure headwind. That could reduce labor input and the pace of capital accumulation. Meanwhile, productivity growth might also slow as geopolitical tensions increase the trend towards what Morgan Stanley terms slowbalization. The result of which is reduced foreign direct investment, particularly among sectors considered sensitive to national security. In this context, we believe Beijing will remain pragmatic in dealing with geopolitical tensions because of its reliance on key commodities and the fact exports account for a quarter of Chinese employment. So China is very intertwined with global economy and it relies a lot on the access to global market. Another issue of concern to global investors is China's regulatory reset since 2020 and its impact on the private sector. It seems to have entered a more stable stage. We don't expect major regulatory surprises from here considering that the party Congress didn't identify any new areas with major challenges domestically, except for population aging and the self-sufficiency of supply chain. As investors adopt a "seeing is believing" mentality towards their long term concerns around China's growth, policy, geopolitics, the more pressing near-term risk remains COVID zero. This is likely the biggest overhang on Chinese economic growth and the news flow around reopening have tended to trigger market volatility. We see rising urgency for an exit from COVID zero in the context of its economic cost, including lower income growth, elevated youth unemployment and even fiscal sustainability risks. We think Beijing will likely aim for a calibrated COVID exit, and the three key signposts are necessary to facilitate a smooth reopening, elderly vaccination, availability of domestic COVID treatment pills and facilities, and continued effort to steer public opinion away from fear of the virus. Considering it could take 3 to 6 months for the key signposts to play out, we expect a full reopening next spring at the earliest. This underpins our forecast of a modest recovery starting in the second quarter of 2023, led by private consumption. Before a full reopening, we see growth continue to muddle through at the subpar level, sustained mainly by public CapEx. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

With risks to both home sales and home prices continuing to challenge the housing market, investors will want to know what is keeping the U.S. housing market from a sharp fall mirroring the great financial crisis? Co-heads of U.S. Securitized Products Research Jim Egan and Jay Bacow discuss.----- Transcript -----Jim Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, Co-head of U.S. Securitized Products Research here at Morgan Stanley. Jay Bacow: And I'm Jay Bacow, the other Co-head of U.S. Securities Products Research. Jim Egan: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing our year ahead outlook for the U.S. housing market for 2023. It's Thursday, November 17th, at 1 p.m. in New York. Jay Bacow: So Jim, it's outlook season. And when we think about the outlook for the housing market, we’re not just looking in 2023, people live in their houses for their whole lives. Jim Egan: Exactly. We are contemplating what's going to happen to the housing market, not just in 23, but beyond in this year's version of the outlook. But just to remind the listeners, we have talked about this on this podcast in the past, but our view for 2023 hasn't changed all that much. What we think we're going to see is a bifurcation narrative in the housing market between activity, so home sales and housing starts, and home prices. The biggest driver of that bifurcation, affordability. Because of the increase in prices, because of the incredible increase in mortgage rates that we've seen this year, affordability has been deteriorating faster than we've ever seen it. That's going to bring sales down. But the affordability for current homeowners really hasn't changed all that much. We're talking about deterioration for first time homebuyers, for prospective homebuyers. Current homeowners in a lot of instances have locked in very low 30 year fixed rate mortgages. We think they're just incentivized to keep their homes off the market, they're locked into their current mortgage, if you will. That keeps supply down, that also means they're not buying a home on the follow, so it means that sales fall even faster. Sales have outpaced the drop during the great financial crisis. We think that continues through the middle of next year. We think sales ultimately fall 11% next year from an already double digit decrease in 2022 on a year over year basis. But we do think home prices are more protected. We think they only fall 4% year over year next year, but when we look out to 2024, it's that same affordability metric that we really want to be focused on. And, home prices plays a role, but so do mortgage rates. Jay, how are we thinking about the path for mortgage rates into 2024? Jay Bacow: Right. So obviously the biggest driver of mortgage rates are first where Treasury rates are and then the risk premium between Treasury rates and mortgages. The drive for Treasury rates, among other things, is expectations for Fed policy. And our economists are expecting the Fed to cut rates by 25 basis points in every single meeting in 2024, bringing the Fed rate 200 basis points lower. When you overlay the fact that the yield curve is inverted and our interest rate strategists are expecting the ten year note to fall further in 2023, and risk premia on mortgages is already pretty wide and we think that spread can narrow. We think the mortgage rate to the homeowner can go from a peak of a little over 7% this year to perhaps below 6% by 2024. Jim, that should help affordability right, at least on the margins. Jim Egan: It should. And that is already playing a role in our sales forecasts and our price forecasts. I mentioned that sales are falling faster than they did during the great financial crisis. We think that that pace of change really inflects in the second half of next year. Not that home sales will increase, we think they'll still fall, they're just going to fall on a more mild or more modest pace. Home prices, the trajectory there also could potentially be more protected in this improved affordability environment because I don't get the sense that inventories are really going to increase with that drop in mortgage rates. Jay Bacow: Right. And when we look at the distribution of mortgage rates in America right now, it's not uniformly distributed. The average mortgage rate is 3.5%, but right now when we think how many homeowners have at least 25 basis points of incentive to refinance, which is generally the minimum threshold, it rounds to 0.0%. If mortgage rates go down to 4%, about 2.5 points below where they are right now, we're still only at about 10% of the universe has incentive to refinance. So while rates coming down will help, you're not going to get a flood of supply. Jim Egan: We think that’s important when it comes to just how far home prices can fall here. The lock in effect will still be very prevalent. And we do think that that continues to support home prices, even if they are falling on a year over year basis as we look out beyond 2023 into 2024 and further than that. Now, the biggest pushback we get to this outlook when we talk to market participants is that we're too constructive. People think that home prices can fall further, they think that home prices can fall faster. And one of the reasons that tends to come up in these conversations is some anchoring to the great financial crisis. Home prices fell about 30% from peak to trough, but we think it's important to note that that took over five years to go from that peak to that trough. In this cycle home prices peaked in June 2022, so December of next year is only 18 months forward. The fastest home prices ever fell, or the furthest they ever fell over a 12 month period, 12.7% during the great financial crisis. And that took a lot of distress, forced sellers, defaults and foreclosures to get to that -12.7%. We think that without that distress, because of how robust lending standards have been, the down 4% is a lot more realistic for what we could be over the course of next year. Going further out the narrative that we'll hear pretty frequently is, well, home prices climbed 40% during the pandemic, they can reverse out the entirety of that 40%. And we think that that relies on kind of a faulty premise that in the absence of COVID, if we never had to deal with this pandemic for the past roughly three years, that home prices would have just been flat. If we had this conversation in 2019, we were talking about a lot of demand for shelter, we were talking about a lack of supply of shelter. Not clearly the imbalance that we saw in the aftermath of the pandemic, but those ingredients were still in place for home prices to climb. If we pull trend home price growth from 2015 to 2019, forward to the end of 2023, and compare that to where we expect home prices to be with the decrease that we're already forecasting, the gap between home prices and where that trend price growth implies they should have been, 9%. Till the end of 2024 that gap is only 5%. While home prices can certainly overcorrect to the other side of that trend line, we think that the lack of supply that we're talking about because of the lock in effect, we think that the lack of defaults and foreclosures because of how robust lending standards have been, we do think that that leaves home prices much more protected, doesn't allow for those very big year over year decreases. And we think peak to trough is a lot more control probably in the mid-teens in this cycle. Jay Bacow: So when we think about the outlook for the U.S. housing market in 2023 and beyond, home sale activity is going to fall. Home prices will come down some, but are protected from the types of falls that we saw during the great financial crisis by the lock in effect and the better outlook for the credit standards in the U.S. housing market now than they were beforehand. Jay Bacow: Jim, always greatv talking to you. Jim Egan: Great talking to you, too, Jay. Jay Bacow: And thank you all for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on the Apple Podcasts app, and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today. 

In looking ahead to 2023, the big dynamics of this year are poised to shift and investors will want to look for safety amidst the coming uncertainty. Chief Cross Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets and Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter discuss.----- Transcript -----Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's global chief economist. Andrew Sheets: And I'm Andrew Sheets, Morgan Stanley's chief cross-asset strategist. Seth Carpenter: And on part two of this special two-part episode of the podcast, we're going to focus on Morgan Stanley's Year Ahead strategy outlook. It's Wednesday, November 16th, at 10 a.m. in New York. Andrew Sheets: And 3 p.m. in London. Seth Carpenter: Andrew, on the first part of this, you spent a bunch of time asking me questions about the outlook for the global economy. I'm going to turn the tables on you and start to ask you questions about how investors should be thinking about different asset prices going forward. There really was a big change this year, we came out of last year with big growth, things slowed down, but inflation surprised everyone to the upside. Central banks around the world started hiking rates aggressively. We've seen massive moves in FX markets, especially in the dollar. Things look very, very different. If you were to say, looking forward from here to the next year, what the biggest conviction call you have in terms of asset allocation, what would it be? Andrew Sheets: Thanks, Seth. It's that high grade bonds do very well. You know, I think this is a backdrop where 2022 was defined by surprisingly resilient growth, surprisingly high inflation, and surprisingly hawkish monetary policy relative to where I think a lot of investors thought the year would start. And, you know, if I think about 2023 and what you and the economics team are forecasting, it's big shifts to all three of those dynamics. It's much softer growth, it's softer inflationary pressure. And it's central banks pausing their tightening cycles and then ultimately easing as we look further ahead. So, you know, 2022 is exceptionally bad for high grade bonds, investment grade rated bonds, whether they're governments or mortgages or securitized bonds or municipals. So as the economy slows, as investors are looking for some safety amidst all that economic uncertainty, we think high grade bonds will be the place to be. Seth Carpenter: What is it that's so special about investment grade bonds as opposed to, for example, high yield bonds? And what is it about fixed income securities instead of equities that you think is so attractive? Andrew Sheets: Yeah. Thanks, Seth. So I do think there's an important distinction here because, you know, if I think about a lot of different assets in the market, I think there are a lot of assets that are primarily concerned at the moment with rate uncertainty or policy uncertainty. When will the ECB finally stop hiking rates? When will the Fed finally stop hiking rates? How high will Fed funds go? Now there's another group of assets, and I think you could put the S&P 500 here, U.S. high yield bonds here that are concerned about those questions of interest rates. Obviously, interest rates matter for these markets, but those markets are also concerned about the economic slowdown and how much will the economy slow. So I think when people look into the year ahead, what you want to focus on are assets that are much more about whether or not rate uncertainty falls than they are about how much will the economy decelerate. So we think of high grade bonds as a perfect example of an asset class that cares quite a bit about interest rate uncertainty while being a lot less vulnerable to the risk that the economy slows. And I think emerging market assets are also an example of an asset class that's really sensitive, maybe more sensitive to the question of how high will the Fed hike rates? And just given where it's currently priced, given how much it's already declined this year, might be a lot less sensitive of that question of, you know, whether or not the U.S. goes into recession or whether or not Europe goes into recession. So good for high grade bonds and then we think good for emerging market assets. Seth Carpenter: Okay. That makes a lot of sense. High grade bonds, fixed income, obviously, you talked a little bit about where some of the risks are. And whenever I think about fixed income securities and I think about risk, how are you advising clients to think about market-based risks around the world as we're going into the next year?  Andrew Sheets: I think you a point that you and your team have made that central banks, especially the Fed, are very aware of the liquidity risks around quantitative tightening and might modify it if they felt it was starting to lead to less functional markets. I think that's important. I think if that's our assumption, then investors shouldn't avoid these markets simply because there's a possibility that they could have a more liquidity challenge backdrop. Secondly, and I think this is also an important point, while central banks are going to be backing away from the government bond markets, we think there's a good chance that households and other investors will be moving towards these markets. So, you know, we think that there's actually some pretty good potential for households to do a little bit of reallocation, to have less money in equities, to have a little bit more money in bonds, and that the much higher yields that these households are seeing could be a catalyst for that. Seth Carpenter: We're sitting here having a conversation, looking around the world. One of the natural topics to get on to if you're thinking globally is about currencies and exchange rates. How should we be thinking about where currency markets will be going from here forward into next year? What's the outlook for different currencies? Is there a set of currencies that might outperform? Are there ones where investors still need to be very wary? Andrew Sheets: Yeah. So I think when talking about currencies, we have to start with the dollar, which in some ways is the benchmark against which everything else is measured. And you know, our foreign exchange strategists do think the dollar has peaked. Looking into next year, if we see slower growth, less inflation, less hawkish policy, you know, we think that will be less good for the dollar, maybe even negative for the dollar. So we see the dollar peaking and declining over the course of 2023. We think the euro does better, as we do think investors will look to reengage in European assets next year and so investment flows can be more supportive. We do think some of the more cyclical currencies, things like the Australian dollar and New Zealand dollar can do a little bit better as the market gets maybe a little bit more optimistic about better Chinese growth next year. And we think some of the large EM currencies can also outperform relative to their forward. Seth Carpenter: That makes a lot of sense. I guess the other point that you and I discussed in the first part of this podcast is about inflation and how commodity prices have factored into the evolution of inflation over the past couple of years. How should we be thinking about commodities for investors going into 2023 as a place to step back from risk? What do you think? Andrew Sheets: So commodities were an asset class that we liked at this time last year when we wrote our 2022 outlook. It was an asset class that we were overweight and we maintained that position through this year. But I think that picture is changing a little bit. You know, first, the attractiveness of other asset classes is now better because those other asset classes have fallen a lot relative to commodities over the course of 2022. And, you know, commodities are an asset class that can be sensitive to when growth actually slows. They tend to be less anticipatory. And so they've held up well, I think even as other asset classes have become more worried about the prospect of a recession. And so if the odds of a recession are rising, even if they're not the base case in the US and then they are the base case in Europe, maybe that presents a little bit more danger. But that needs to be balanced against the fact that commodities do have a number of attractive properties. They provide a hedge against inflation and some commodities, especially energy commodities, pay a quite high carry or a quite high yield for holding them, buying them on a forward basis and holding them to maturity. In the case of oil, we think prices will come in well ahead, more than 20% ahead of where kind of the market is implying the price next year. So it's a more nuanced story. It's a story where we think energy continues to outperform metals within the commodities complex, but more of a relative value story than a directional story for the year ahead. Seth Carpenter: So what I'm taking away from what you've told me so far, that if a shift to a year of fixed income, maybe the dollar has peaked, and then a more nuanced story when it comes to commodities, what would you leave our listeners with as a closing story? Where would you want to wrap things up in terms of leaving our listeners with advice? Where do they need to be the most cautious? And are we going to go into a year where volatility finally comes down from the sort of tumult that we've seen this year? Andrew Sheets: So I think this idea that we might not have an all clear on recession risk in the US kind of well into the start of 2023, the idea that Europe will be in recession at the start of 2023, I think that makes us a little bit cautious to buy cyclical assets here and I think that applies to things like metals, copper, that applies to high yield bonds and loans. And then we think the S&P 500 will also be tricky. So we think the S&P 500 is probably worse risk reward than other asset classes. It doesn't fall over the course of the year on our forecasts, but it has a very choppy range. And when we think about sector and style, I think it's being open to having different preferences depending on where you're looking. And we think EM assets will be on the leading edge of any recovery. That is where we're more favorable towards early cycle sectors like tech and tech hardware. You know, in Europe you're kind of in the middle. That's where we like banks and energy kind of deep value sectors that have quite high dividend yields. And in the US we're more defensive. But you know, something that links all of those themes is that both US defensive, equities, banks and energy in Europe, and tech and semis and Asia, they're all quite high yielding sectors. And so we do think this is a backdrop where the idea of gaining income is not just about high grade bonds, that there are a lot of different pockets of the market where, you know, this is a year to look for the more solid income candidate and income strategy on a cross asset basis. You know, don't swing for the fences yet in terms of buying cyclicality, and we think we'll wait for a better opportunity to do that as we move into 2023. Seth Carpenter: All right, Andrew. Well, I have to say, that was a great summary at the end. I really appreciate you taking the time to talk. Andrew Sheets: Great speaking with you, Seth. Seth Carpenter: And thank you to our listeners. If you enjoy thoughts on the market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

As we look ahead to 2023, we see a divergence away from the trends of 2022 in key areas across growth, inflation, and central bank policy. Chief Cross Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets and Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter discuss.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Morgan Stanley's chief cross-asset strategist. Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's global chief economist. Andrew Sheets: And on the special two-part episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing Morgan Stanley's Global Year Ahead outlook for 2023. Today, we'll focus on economics, and tomorrow we'll turn our attention to strategy. It's Tuesday, November 15th at 3 p.m. in London. Seth Carpenter: And it's 10 a.m. in New York. Andrew Sheets: So, Seth I think the place to start is if we look ahead into 2023, the backdrop that you and your team are forecasting looks different in a number of important ways. You know, 2022 was a year of surprisingly resilient growth, stubbornly high inflation and aggressively tightening policy. And yet as we look ahead, all three of those elements are changing. I was hoping you could comment on that shift broadly and also dig deeper into what's changing the growth outlook for the global economy into next year. Seth Carpenter: You're right, Andrew, this year, in 2022, we've seen growth sort of hang in there. We came off of last year in 2021, a super strong year for growth recovering from COVID. But the theme this year really has been a great deal of inflation around the world, especially in developed markets. And with that, we've seen a lot of central banks everywhere start to raise interest rates a great deal. So what does that mean as we end this year and go into next year? Well, we think we'll start to see a bit of a divergence. In the developed market world where we've seen both a lot of inflation and a lot of central bank hiking, we think we get a great deal of slowing and in fact a bit of contraction. For the euro area and for the U.K, we're writing down a recession starting in the fourth quarter of this year and going into the beginning of next year. And then after that, any sort of recovery from the recession is going to be muted by still tight monetary policy. For the US, you know, we're writing down a forecast that just barely skirts a recession for next year with growth that's only slightly positive. That much slower growth is also the reflection of the Federal Reserve tightening policy, trying to wrench out of the system all the inflation we've seen so far. In sharp contrast, a lot of EM is going to outperform, especially EM Asia, where the inflationary pressures have been less so far this year, and central banks, instead of tightening aggressively to get restrictive and squeeze inflation out, they're actually just normalizing policy. And as a result, we think they'll be able to outperform. Andrew Sheets: And Seth, you know, you mentioned inflation coming in hot throughout a lot of 2022 being one of the big stories of the year that we've been in. You and your team are forecasting it to moderate across a number of major economies. What drives a change in this really important theme from 2022? Seth Carpenter: Absolutely. We do realize that inflation is going to continue to be a very central theme for all sorts of markets everywhere. And the fact that we have a forecast with inflation coming down across the world is a really important part of our thesis. So, how can we get any comfort on the idea that inflation is going to come down? I think if you break up inflation into different parts, it makes it easier to understand when we're thinking about headline inflation, clearly, we have food, commodity prices and we've got energy prices that have been really high in part of the story this year. Oil prices have generally peaked, but the main point is we're not going to see the massive month on month and year on year increases that we were seeing for a lot of this year. Now, when we think about core inflation, I like to separate things out between goods and services inflation. For goods, the story over the past year and a half has been global supply chains and we know looking at all sorts of data that global supply chains are not fixed yet, but they are getting better. The key exception there that remains to be seen is automobiles, where we have still seen supply chain issues. But by and large, we think consumer goods are going to come down in price and with it pull inflation down overall. I think the key then is what goes on in services and here the story is just different across different economies because it is very domestic. But the key here is if we see the kind of slowing down in economies, especially in developed market economies where monetary policy will be restrictive, we should see less aggregate demand, weaker labor markets and with it lower services inflation. Andrew Sheets: How do you think central banks respond to this backdrop? The Fed is going to have to balance what we see is some moderation of inflation and the ECB as well, with obvious concerns that because forecasting inflation was so hard this year and because central banks underestimated inflation, they don't want to back off too soon and usher in maybe more inflationary pressure down the road. So, how do you think central banks will think about that risk balance and managing that? Seth Carpenter: Absolutely. We have seen some surprises, the upside in terms of commodity market prices, but we've also been surprised at just the persistence of some of the components of inflation. And so central banks are very well advised to be super cautious with what's going on. As a result. What we think is going to happen is a few things. Policy rates are going to go into restrictive territory. We will see economies slowing down and then we think in general. Central banks are going to keep their policy in that restrictive territory basically over the balance of 2023, making sure that that deceleration in the real side of the economy goes along with a continued decline in inflation over the course of next year. If we get that, then that will give them scope at the end of next year to start to think about normalizing policy back down to something a little bit more, more neutral. But they really will be paying lots of attention to make sure that the forecast plays out as anticipated. However, where I want to stress things is in the euro area, for example, where we see a recession already starting about now, we don't think the ECB is going to start to cut rates just because they see the first indications of a recession. All of the indications from the ECB have been that they think some form of recession is probably necessary and they will wait for that to happen. They'll stay in restrictive territory while the economy's in recession to see how inflation evolves over time. Andrew Sheets: So I think one of the questions at the top of a lot of people's minds is something you alluded to earlier, this question of whether or not the US sees a recession next year. So why do you think a recession being avoided is a plausible scenario indeed might be more likely than a recession, in contrast maybe to some of that recent history? Seth Carpenter: Absolutely. Let's talk about this in a few parts. First, in the U.S. relative to, say, the euro area, most of the slowing that we are seeing now in the economy and that we expect to see over time is coming from monetary policy tightening in the euro area. A lot of the slowing in consumer spending is coming because food prices have gone up, energy prices have gone up and confidence has fallen and so it's an externally imposed constraint on the economy. What that means for the U.S. is because the Fed is causing the slowdown, they've at least got a fighting chance of backing off in time before they cause a recession. So that's one component. I think the other part to be made that's perhaps even more important is the difference between a recession or not at this point is almost semantic. We're looking at growth that's very, very close to zero. And if you're in the equity market, in fact, it's going to feel like a recession, even if it's not technically one for the economy. The U.S. economy is not the S&P 500. And so what does that mean? That means that the parts of the U.S. economy that are likely to be weakest, that are likely to be in contraction, are actually the ones that are most exposed to the equity market and so for the equity market, whether it's a recession or not, I think is a bit of a moot point. So where does that leave us? I think we can avoid a recession. From an economist perspective, I think we can end up with growth that's still positive, but it's not going to feel like we've completely escaped from this whole episode unscathed. Andrew Sheets: Thanks, Seth. So I maybe want to close with talking about risks around that outlook. I want to talk about maybe one risk to the upside and then two risks that might be more serious to the downside. So, one of the risks to the upside that investors are talking about is whether or not China relaxes zero COVID policy, while two risks to the downside would be that quantitative tightening continues to have much greater negative effects on market liquidity and market functioning. We're going through a much faster shrinking of central bank balance sheets than you know, at any point in history, and then also that maybe a divided US government leads to a more challenging fiscal situation next year. So, you know, as you think about these risks that you hear investors citing China, quantitative tightening, divided government, how do you think about those? How do you think they might change the base case view? Seth Carpenter: Absolutely. I think there are two-way risks as usual. I do think in the current circumstances, the upside risks are probably a little bit smaller than the downside risks, not to sound too pessimistic. So what would happen when China lifts those restrictions? I think aggregate demand will pick back up, and our baseline forecast that happens in the second quarter, but we can easily imagine that happening in the first quarter or maybe even sometime this year. But remember, most of the pent-up demand is on domestic spending, especially on services and so what that means is the benefit to the rest of the global economy is probably going to be smaller than you might otherwise think because it will be a lot of domestic spending. Now, there hasn't been as much constraint on exports, but there has been some, and so we could easily see supply chains heal even more quickly than we assume in the baseline. I think all of these phenomena could lead to a rosier outlook, could lead to a faster growth for the global economy. But I think it's measured just in a couple of tenths. It's not a substantial upside. In contrast, you mentioned some downside risks to the outlook. Quantitative tightening, central banks are shrinking their balance sheets. We recently published on the fact that the Fed, the Bank of England and the European Central Bank will all be shrinking their balance sheet over the next several months. That's never been seen, at least at the pace that we're going to see now. Could it cause market disruptions? Absolutely. So the downside risk there is very hard to gauge. If we see a disruption of the flow of credit, if we see a generalized pullback in spending because of risk, it's very hard to gauge just how big that downside is. I will say, however, that I suspect, as we saw with the Bank of England when we had the turmoil in the gilt market, if there is a market disruption, I think central banks will at least temporarily pause their quantitative tightening if the disruption is severe enough and give markets a chance to settle down. The other risk you mentioned is the United States has just had a mid-term election. It looks like we're going to have divided government. Where are the risks there? I want to take you back with me in time to the mid-term elections in 2010, where we ended up with split government. And eventually what came out of that was the Budget Control Act of 2011. We had split government, we had a debt limit. We ended up having budget debates and ultimately, we ended up with contractionary fiscal policy. I think that's a very realistic scenario. It's not at all our baseline, but it's a very realistic risk that people need to pay attention to. Andrew Sheets: Seth, thanks for taking the time to talk. Seth Carpenter: Andrew, I always like getting a chance to talk to you. Andrew Sheets: And thanks for listening. Be sure to tune in for part two of this episode where Seth and I will discuss Morgan Stanley's year ahead. Strategy Outlook. If you enjoy thoughts of the market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share this podcast with a friend or colleague today.

As we transition away from our fire and ice narrative and into the late cycle stage, investors will want to change up their strategies as we finish one cycle and begin another.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, chief investment officer and chief U.S. equity strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, November 14th, at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. Last year's fire and ice narrative worked so well, we decided to dust off another Robert Frost jewel to describe this year's outlook, with The Road Not Taken. As described by many literary experts, and Frost himself, the poem presents the dilemma we all face in life that different choices lead to different outcomes, and while the road taken can be a good one, these choices create doubt and even remorse about the road not taken. For the year ahead, we think investors will need to be more tactical with their views on the economy, policy, earnings and valuation. This is because we are closer to the end of the cycle at this point, and that means that trends in these key variables can zig and zag before the final path is clear. In other words, while flexibility is always important to successful investing, it's critical now. In contrast, the set-up was so poor a year ago that the trends in all of the variables mentioned above were headed lower in our view. Therefore, the right choice or strategy was about managing or profiting from the new downtrend. After all, Fire and Ice the poem is not a debate about the destination, it's about the path to that destination. In the case of our bear market call, it was a combination of both fire and ice - inflation and slowing growth, a bad combination for stocks. As it turned out, the cocktail has been just as bad for bonds, at least so far. However, as the ice overtakes the fire and inflation cools off, we're becoming more confident that bonds should beat stocks in this final verse that has yet to fully play out. That divergence can create new opportunities and confusion about the road we are on, and why we have recently pivoted to a more bullish tactical view on equities. In the near term, we maintain our tactically bullish call as we transition from fire to ice, a window of opportunity when long term interest rates typically fall prior to the magnitude of the slowdown being reflected in earnings estimates. This is the classic late cycle period between the Fed's last hike and the recession. Historically, this period is a profitable one for stocks. Three months ago, we suggested the Fed's pause would coincide with the arrival of a recession this cycle, given the extreme inflation dynamics. In short, the Fed would not be able to pause until payrolls were negative, the unequivocal indicator of a recession, but too late to kick save the cycle or the downtrend for stocks. However, the jobs market has remained stronger for longer, even in the face of weakening earnings. More importantly, this may persist into next year, leaving the window open for a period when the Fed can slow or pause rate hikes before we see an unemployment cycle emerge. That's what we think is behind the current rally, and we think it can go higher. We won't have evidence of the hard freeze for a few more months, and markets can dream of a less hawkish Fed, lower interest rates and resilient earnings in the interim. Last week's softer than expected inflation report was a critically necessary data point to fuel that dream for longer. We expect long duration growth stocks to lead the next phase of this rally as interest rates fall further. That means Nasdaq should catch up to the Dow's outsized move higher so far. Unfortunately, we have more confidence today than we did a few months ago in our well below consensus earnings forecast for next year, and that means the bear market will likely resume once this rally is finished. Bottom line, the path forward is much more uncertain than a year ago and likely to bring several twists and periods of remorse for investors wishing they had traded it differently. If one were to take our 12 month S&P 500 bear, base and bull targets of 3500, 3900, and 4200 at face value, they might say it looks like we are expecting a generally boring year. However, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, we would argue the past 12 months have been boring because a bear market was so likely we simply set our defensive strategy and stayed with it. That strategy has worked well all year, even during this recent rally. But that kind of strategy won't work over the next 12 months, in our view. Instead, investment success will require one to turn over the portfolio more frequently as we finish one cycle and begin another. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show.

Education technology, or EdTech, saw significant adoption during the COVID-19 pandemic, yet opportunity remains in this still young industry if one looks long-term. Head of Products for European Equity Research Paul Walsh and Head of the European Internet Services Team Miriam Josiah discuss.----- Transcript -----Paul Walsh:] Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's Head of Products for European Equity Research. Miriam Josiah: And I'm Miriam Josiah, Head of the European Internet Services Team within Morgan Stanley Research. Paul Walsh: And on this very special episode of the podcast series, we'll be talking about the long-term outlook for education technology, or EdTech. It's Friday, it's the 11th of November, and it's 2 p.m. here in London. Paul Walsh: So Miriam, next week you'll be heading to Barcelona for Morgan Stanley's annual Tech, Media and Telecom Conference, which focuses on key debates and trends in these industries. EdTech, while still in its infancy, is a segment where your team sees a lot of potential for growth. But before we get there, let's please start with the basics. What exactly is EdTech? Miriam Josiah: So people often think of it as online learning for K-12 or university students. But we found EdTech to be quite a broad term for the digitalization of learning. So there are actually dozens of segments within EdTech. One of them is workforce education, which we think is particularly interesting and underappreciated. Paul Walsh: And certainly many of us got a firsthand look at EdTech during COVID-19 lockdowns, whether through our children—as was the case for me personally—work related training or for our own amusement. And not surprisingly, companies in the education technology space saw a huge spike from pandemic-driven demand. So what's happening now that schools and businesses have reopened? Miriam Josiah: So here's one of the reasons our team looked closely at EdTech. Essentially, even as we've returned to in-person training and education, the demand for remote learning hasn't dropped off. Yes, COVID 19 accelerated industry growth by about two years, but the global EdTech market, currently valued at $300 billion, is still expected to grow at an annual rate of 16% to reach $400 billion by 2025. So this demand is here to stay. Paul Walsh: It sounds like it, and that's tremendously interesting. So can you explain why that is, please? Miriam Josiah: So we think there are a few reasons EdTech demand will continue to grow. Firstly, the pandemic changed our behaviors in many ways, including how we think about learning. For example, in many classrooms, students watch the lecture on their own time and use the classroom for more hands-on learning. This is one reason demand is still growing, particularly within K-12 education. Paul Walsh: And if we take a step back, Miriam, does a challenging macroeconomic environment help or hurt the outlook for EdTech? And can you help us understand why? Miriam Josiah: So, in many ways, we think it helps. You have global teacher shortages, rising school costs and, in the case of workplace, there's a need to reskill and upskill workers. So these are a few of the important drivers. Meanwhile, there's a few other positives for EdTech, such as a growing global population and lower penetration rates. To put things in perspective, global spending on education is around $6.5 trillion a year and even with double digit growth over the next few years, EdTech will only represent around 5% of total education spending in 2025. Suffice to say, we are in the very early stages of growth. Paul Walsh: Yeah, absolutely. It sounds like it. And thinking about stock valuations, they soared for companies that saw surging demand during the pandemic. And since then, we've seen that trend reverse, in some cases really quite dramatically. So where does that leave us today? Miriam Josiah: So one thing to note is that this segment is very fragmented with many small companies, some of which are not publicly traded. Among the larger players in the space, we've seen a similar trend with stock prices soaring and now correcting. And so valuations are attractive. And we think this is a good entry point for investors, especially if they have a longer time horizon. At the same time, the market's seeing a fair bit of M&A activity, which may present opportunities for upside for investors. Paul Walsh: Absolutely no doubt. Industries that are fragmented, hard to define and still in their infancy can really be fertile ground for investors who have the time and the wherewithal to research and invest in individual companies. So what are the biggest risks to your growth outlook for the EdTech industry? Miriam Josiah: So firstly, as I mentioned, a lot of the sector is made up of private companies and a lot of these are loss-making startups. So in an environment of tighter access to capital, this may be a growth inhibitor for some of the startups and we're already seeing companies starting to trim headcount as a way to cut costs. Another risk is government budget cuts. Remember, education spending is around 4% of GDP, and so cuts here could impact the B2B market in particular. The counter is that tighter budgets could lead to schools turning to EdTech instead, but this still does remain a risk. And then finally, the consumer willingness to pay is also being questioned in a recessionary environment. Paul Walsh: Miriam, that's really clear. I want to thank you very much for taking the time to talk. It's obviously been quite educational. Good luck with the TMT Conference in Barcelona next week. Miriam Josiah: Thank you. Great chatting with you, Paul. Paul Walsh: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.  

It’s almost two full days after the midterm elections in the U.S. and while we still don’t know the outcome, markets may know enough to forecast its impact.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Jesus, Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between public policy and financial markets. It's Thursday, November 10th, at 3 p.m. in New York. It's nearly two full days after polls closed across America, and we still don't know which party will control Congress. But for investors, we very likely know all we need to know at this point. Let me explain. It may take several days, maybe weeks to determine which party will control the Senate. But knowing which party controls the Senate won't matter much if Republicans gain a majority in the House of Representatives, as they appear likely to do as of this recording. That's because Republicans controlling at least one chamber of Congress is enough to yield a divided government, meaning that the party in control of the White House is not also in control of Congress and so can't unilaterally choose its legislative path. For bond markets, this is a mostly friendly outcome. It takes off the table the scenario that could have led to fiscal policy from Congress that would cut against the Fed's inflation goals. That scenario would have been one where Democrats keep control of the House and expand their Senate majority. That outcome might have suggested inflation was less a political and electoral concern than previously thought, and through a broader Senate majority, given Democrats more room to legislate. If markets perceived that combination of a willingness and ability to legislate as increasing the probability of enacting spending measures, like a child tax credit, that would support aggregate demand in the US economy, then investors would also have to price in the possibility of a higher than expected peak Fed funds rate, pushing Treasury yields higher. Of course, this appears not to be what happened. So, the bottom line, the election outcome is important and still up in the air, but markets may know enough to move on. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show. 

Critics of sustainable investing have said that Environmental, Social, and Governance strategies require investors to sacrifice long-term returns, but is this really the case?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephan Kessler, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Quantitative Investment Strategies. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss the value of a quantitative approach to low carbon investing. It's Wednesday, November 9th, at 2 p.m. in London. Sustainable investing has been a hot trend over the past decade, and most recently the new Inflation Reduction Act in the U.S. has brought it into even sharper focus. Short for environmental, social and governance, ESG covers a broad range of topics and themes, for example, carbon emissions, percentage of waste recycled, employee engagement scores, human rights policies, independent board members, and shareholder rights. This breadth, however, has made defining sustainable investing a key challenge for investors. Furthermore, critics of ESG have also pushed back, arguing that ESG strategies sacrifice long term performance in favor of alignment with what has been disparagingly termed "woke capitalism". This ongoing market debate shows no sign of abating any time soon, and so investors are looking for rigorous ways to assess ESG factors, with decarbonization being top of mind. In some recent work by quant analyst Jacob Lorenzen and myself, we decided to focus on climate change and more specifically carbon emissions as the key metric. Our systematic approach uses mathematic modeling to analyze how investors can integrate a low carbon tilt in various strategy portfolios and what kind of results they can expect. So what did this analysis tell us? Essentially, we found little evidence that incorporating an ESG tilt substantially affects a risk adjusted performance of equity portfolios, positively or negatively. While potentially disappointing to investors looking for outperformance via ESG overlays, this conclusion may be encouraging to others because it suggests that investors can create low carbon portfolios without sacrificing performance. In other words, our results for equity benchmark, smart beta and long/short portfolios argue that environmentally aware investing could be considered one of the few "free lunches" in finance. Our framework focused on carbon reduction portfolios, but also takes other ESG aspects into account. When screening companies for environmental harm, fossil fuel revenue, or non ESG climate considerations, our results are robust. This result is important as it shows that investors can focus on a broad range of ESG criteria or carbon alone- in all cases, the performance impact on portfolios is minimal. Thus, investors can adapt our framework to their objectives without needing to worry about returns. And so what does the future hold for ESG investing? While overall we find ESG to have a minor impact on performance, their investment strategies and time periods of the past decade where it did matter and created positive returns. One possible explanation for this effect is a build up of an ESG valuation premium. ESG may have been riding its own wave as global investors increasingly incorporated ESG into their investments, whether for value alignment or in search of outperformance. As we look ahead, the long run outperformance of broad ESG strategies may be more muted. In fact, ESG guidelines and requirements may even require companies causing significant environmental harm to pay a premium for market access. However, we do believe there are potential alpha opportunities using specialized screens, or in specific industries such as utilities and clean tech. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. 

Increasingly, consumers are moving from traditional cable and satellite subscriptions to connected TV devices, so where do the advertisers go from here? U.S. Media Analyst Ben Swinburne and U.S. Internet Analyst Brian Nowak discuss.----- Transcript -----Ben Swinburne: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ben Swinburne, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Media Analyst. Brian Nowak: And I'm Brian Nowak, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Internet Analyst. Ben Swinburne: On this special episode of the podcast we'll focus on connected TV and the changing television space. It's Tuesday, November 8th, at 10 a.m. in New York. Ben Swinburne: Consumer behavior in the television space has been changing rapidly over the past decade, and the COVID pandemic further accelerated this trend. While most people still watch traditional linear TV through their cable and satellite subscription, consumers are shifting to streaming at a rapid pace. In fact, most of our listeners probably use some sort of connected TV, or CTV device at home that allows their television to support video content streaming. As our media analyst, I've watched how this has led to widespread "cord cutting", as an increasing number of customers cancel their traditional subscriptions in favor of only using these streaming or video on demand formats. So let's dig into the opportunities and challenges within the connected TV space and particularly interconnected TV advertising. Brian, let's start with some definitions. What is CTV advertising, what's so great about it? Brian Nowak: CTV advertising is nothing more than adding advertising to all that streaming engagement that you mentioned earlier. You talked about how people are increasingly watching connected television through streaming devices, through their televisions. The idea of showing ads around it is CTV advertising. As far as what's so great about it, for years traditional linear television has largely been driven by branded advertising to reach people. The hope with connected television over time is that not only will connected television enable you to have reach and strong branding capabilities, but also the potential for better targeting, a more direct link between an advertising dollar and an actual transaction from those ads. And the vision of connected television advertising over time is we may be able to have broad based performance advertising across all of the streaming television engagement. So with that as a backdrop Ben, who benefits in your view, from connected television? And which companies may be most at risk from this transition? Ben Swinburne: Well Brian, you talked about both targeting and performance ads, things that are not typically associated with broadcast or linear television advertising. So I have to say the biggest beneficiary of the shift to connected TV from an advertising point of view are marketers. Not only are marketers looking for ways to spend their money with a better return on an advertising spend, but they're facing rapidly declining audiences, meaning it's harder and harder to reach the audiences that they want to reach. Connected TV brings the promise of both greater audience, particularly "cord cutters", but also reaching them more effectively with performance based and targeting tools that don't exist in linear. Speaking of which, when we think about who may be at risk, well we don't think it's a complete zero sum game. And we do think connected TV expands the television ad market over the long term. We think the largest area of market share risk is linear television. Brian Nowak: So let's dig a little more into your point about linear television Ben. How do you think about the market share between linear television and connected television the next 5 to 10 years? And what role do sports and live sports play into that overall market share? Ben Swinburne: So we expect connected TV advertising to reach and ultimately surpass linear television by the end of the decade. It could happen faster, particularly we're focused on local markets, which right now connected TV doesn't really reach. And it it could also happen faster if sports moves quickly over from linear into streaming. Right now, live sports really dominates linear television. It is the by far source of the largest audiences, and those audiences are live, and it's really holding up the linear bundle more than any other kind of programing. But we are certainly starting to see sports content leak out into streaming services, which has both the potential to erode those live audiences that advertisers value so much, but also bring them into a streaming environment which would create more opportunities to use targeting and performance based tools. Brian, what are some of the challenges of connected TV advertising relative to linear? Brian Nowak: In the near term macro. Over the longer term proof that the technology works. As with any new, less proven advertising media, weaker macro backdrops can prove to be challenging. It is more difficult for advertisers to move large amounts of experimental dollars into new media when macro times are weaker. And if we think 2023 will be a more challenging macro backdrop, that could lead to slower overall adoption within the connected TV space. Over the long term, the technology has to be proven to work. We talked earlier about proving performance based advertising better, more directly linking advertising dollars to transactions. That technology has to be proven and built out. When you see an ad and you see an ad for a product directly linking that ad to the person actually buying that product is something that still has to be developed by some of the connected TV leaders. And so we're going to need to have better tools with more targeting, better attribution and scalability of the ad buys to really hit some of our longer term connected TV ad forecasts. Ben Swinburne: So Brian, you mentioned some of the macro weakness that we're seeing in the marketplace. What is the size of connected TV advertising right now, given that macro backdrop? And what's your near-term and long term outlook for online advertising more broadly and connected TV within that? Brian Nowak: In the United States the connected TV advertising market is currently about $17 billion. And as we look ahead, we expect the overall industry to grow at sort of a mid-teens rate, reaching $30 billion plus by 2026. And from a market share perspective, we do think that the largest four players across traditional media and big tech are going to drive a majority of that overall growth. Ben Swinburne: Brian, thanks for taking the time to talk. Brian Nowak: Great speaking with you, Ben. Ben Swinburne: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show.

With the Fed continuing to focus on inflation and the upcoming midterm elections suggesting market volatility, investors may be wondering, is the U.S. equity market rally really over?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, November 7th, at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. Last week's pullback in major U.S. stock indices was not a surprise as the Fed remained committed to its mandate of getting inflation under control. However, if our tactical rally in U.S. stocks is going to have legs, 10 year U.S. Treasury yields will need to come down from current levels. Otherwise, it will be difficult to see higher prices for the S&P 500, given how sensitive this large cap growth index is to interest rates. Furthermore, we remain of the view that 2023 earnings forecasts are as much as 20% too high, so it will be difficult for stocks to move higher without valuations expanding. Does this mean the U.S. equity rally is over? We don't think so, but it's going to remain very noisy in the near term. First, we have two more important events this week to contend with: the Consumer Price Index release on Thursday and the midterm elections on Tuesday. On the former, we aren't that focused on it because it tells us little about the trajectory of inflation going forward. Nevertheless, we appreciate that the bond market remains fixated on such data points and will trade it. Therefore, it's likely to keep interest rate volatility high through Thursday. If interest rate volatility falls with the passing of these data, equity valuations can then expand further. In terms of interest rate levels, we think next week's midterms could play a bigger role. Should the polls prove correct, the Republicans are likely to win at least one chamber of Congress. This should throw a wrench into the aggressive fiscal spending plans the Democrats would still like to get done. Furthermore, Republican leadership has talked about freezing spending via the debt ceiling, much like they did with the Budget Control Act in 2011. This would be a sharp reversal from the past few years when budget deficits reached levels not seen since World War II. In our view, a clean sweep by the Republicans on Tuesday could greatly raise the odds of such an outcome. Such a decisive win should invoke the kind of rally and 10 year Treasury bonds to keep the equity market moving higher. One caveat to consider is that the election results may not be clear on Tuesday night, given the delay in counting mail in ballots. That means we can expect price volatility in equity markets will remain high and provide fodder for bears and bulls alike. Bottom line, we remain tactically bullish on U.S. equities, assuming longer term interest rate levels begin to fall. This week's midterm elections provide a potential catalyst in that regard. If the Republicans win decisive control of both the House and Senate, as some polls and betting markets are suggesting. Because this is purely a tactical trading view and not in line with our core fundamental view which remains bearish, we will remain disciplined on how much leash to give it. Last week we said that 3700 on the S&P 500 is our stop loss level for this rally, and markets traded exactly to that level after Friday's strong labor report before recovering nicely. For this week, we think that level could be challenged again given the uncertainty around election results. Anxiety around the Consumer Price Index Thursday morning is another reason to think both interest rate and equity volatility will remain high. Therefore, we are willing to give a bit more wiggle room to our stop loss level for next week, something like 3625 to 3650, assuming the 10 year Treasury yields don't make a new high. Conversely, if 10 year Treasury yields do trade about 4.35% and the S&P 500 tests 3625, we would suggest clients to exit bullish trades at that point. In short, the bear market rally is likely to hang around for longer than most expect if it can survive this week's test. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show.

As prices for bonds go down and yields go up, investors may be asking why the price is so low, and what this shift may do to the broader market and asset allocation.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, November 4th, at 2 p.m. in London. The market is a funny thing. Relative to January 1st of this year, the U.S. 30 year Treasury bond is set to pay out all of the same coupons, and return the exact same amount of principal when it matures in 2052. But the market has decided that that same bond today is worth 36% less than at the start of the year. So what happened? Well, yields rose. That 30 year U.S. bond might be the exact same entity, but investors now need all of those future payments to yield 4.2% per year, not the 1.9% they needed on January 1st. It's another way of saying that there's been a major change in what's considered the minimal accepted return on safe assets. And that large jump in yields has led to the largest drop in bond prices that we've seen in recorded history. But the implications are broader. Many assets have bond-like characteristics, where you pay money today for a string of payments in the future. Whether it's an office building, a rental unit or a company with a future set of earnings, you can get very different current values for the exact same asset today by varying what sort of yield it's required to produce. And so if bonds are now priced lower to generate higher returns in the future, so should many other assets that have similar bond-like characteristics. For markets, we see a couple of implications. First, these rising yields have made bonds increasingly competitive relative to stocks. Currently, $100 of the S&P 500 is expected to yield about $6.25 of earnings next year. $100 of U.S. 1 to 5 year corporate bonds yields about $6 of interest, despite having just one sixth the volatility of the stock market. It's been 14 years since the earnings yield on stocks and the yield on corporate bonds has been so similar. Higher yields on safe assets may also shift broader asset allocation decisions. At this time last year, 30 year BBB- rated investment grade bonds yielded just 3.3%. Given such low returns, it's no wonder that many asset allocators, especially those with longer time horizons, pushed into alternative asset classes and private markets in an effort to generate higher returns. But that calculus now looks different. Yields on those same investment grade bonds have risen from that 3.3% to 6.3%. With public markets now offering many more opportunities for a safe, reliable, long run return, we'd expect asset allocators to start to swing back in this direction, especially favoring various forms of investment grade debt. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.

As developed markets heal from the pandemic, labor force participation has recovered in some areas faster than others, so how will a return to work impact the broader economy in places like the U.K. and the U.S.? U.S. Economist Julian Richers and European Economist Markus Guetschow discuss.----- Transcript -----Julian Richers: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Julian Richers from the Morgan Stanley U.S. Economics Team. Markus Guetschow: And I'm Markus Guetschow from the European Economics Team. Julian Richers: On this special episode of the podcast, we'll focus on the issue of labor force participation across developed markets and its broader economic implications. It's Thursday, November 3rd, at 10 a.m. in New York. Markus Guetschow: And 3 p.m. in London. Markus Guetschow: It's no secret that the COVID pandemic profoundly disrupted labor markets across the globe. Labor shortages, rather than unemployment, have now become the key challenge to economies everywhere, and the 'great resignation' has become a catchphrase. In the U.K. and U.S. in particular, are experiencing a slow recovery in labor participation post-COVID, which is adding to an already complex set of policy trade offs by the Fed and the Bank of England. At the same time, Europe looks like a bright spot. So Julian, 'nobody wants to work anymore' has become a punchline. What kind of picture do the data on labor supply really paint in the U.S.? Julian Richers: In the U.S. at least we have seen a massive decline in labor force participation at the onset of the pandemic and really an incomplete recovery so far. Less immigration and more retirements have been major contributors to that drop initially, but since then it also is that prime age workers, so workers age 25 to 54, have been slow to come back. Now in contrast to the U.S., I think your analysis shows that labor supply in the euro area has already fully recovered to pre-pandemic levels. What drove that faster rebound and what's your outlook for the euro area from here? Can we learn something about what this may mean for other countries? Markus Guetschow: We've seen a remarkably quick bounce back in the labor market in the euro area after the pandemic recession, with participation already one percentage point above pre-pandemic levels by mid 22, and also about the level implied by pre-crisis trends. We think that furlough schemes that kept workers in the jobs during COVID were a key supporting factor here. We don't expect to return to pre-crisis labor supply growth, however, with increasing headwinds from immigration and demographics increasingly a factor in the euro area. The U.K. had a similarly generous furlough scheme, but dynamics are in many ways more similar to the U.S., with participation almost one percentage point below 4Q 19 levels in the middle of 2022. Post-Brexit migration flows are one obvious reasons, but we also point to a record number of workers out of the labor force due to health reasons. But let me turn back to the U.S. What makes the US labor market so challenging right now, and how would a potential rise in labor supply affect the economic growth outlook and the Fed's monetary policy? Julian Richers: Well, really, the U.S. labor market has just remained extremely resilient, even though the overall economy has clearly slowed. The U.S. economy is also now producing a lot more output with about the same amount of workers as we did before the pandemic. So structurally, labor demand is still high. At the same time, a lot of the losses in participation among older workers will not reverse. But prime age workers have been coming back and there is still more room for them to go. So prime age, labor force participation should be increasing and that will be key for some relaxation in the labor market. For the Fed that's key, right? Removing pressure from the labor market is very important to feel more confident about the inflation outlook. Wage growth has been extremely high because there still is a pretty significant shortage of workers, and workers are quitting at high rates to go to higher paying jobs. Now, as the economy slows more and labor demand begins to cool, that should lessen. But really, getting more people into the labor force is just going to be key to see wage growth moderate and the unemployment rate go up for good reasons and not for job cuts. So an expansion in labor supply in particular, if it's coming from more primary workers, is really key to manage a soft landing the Fed is looking for. Marcus, how about the ECB in the Bank of England? Maybe walk us through the thinking there and give us a sense of the outlook for the U.K. and the euro area into 2023. Markus Guetschow: So the ECB is facing a different set of issues altogether. Labor market supply is closely monitored, but with rates growth really rather modest to date, despite record low unemployment, much less of a focus for monetary policy. Instead, with rates still arguably in stimulating territory, the near-term focus continues to be on policy normalization, eventually also QT, while fending off concerns about fragmentation. The picture for the Bank of England is somewhat more similar to the one faced by the Fed. The more labor supply bounces back, the less the Bank of England has to lean against demand. With recession ahead and a bearish outlook on participation, most of the slackening will likely be done via the demand channel, however. Julian Richers: Marcus, thanks for taking the time to talk. Markus Guetschow: Great speaking to you, Julian. Julian Richers: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

This coming Tuesday is the midterm election in the U.S., so what should investors watch out for as the results roll in? And which outcomes might influence market moves?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between public policy and financial markets. It's Wednesday, November 2nd at 10 a.m. in New York. On Tuesday, Americans will cast their ballots for members of Congress. Well, most Americans will. Many will have already voted by mail. And that's important to know, because it means that, like in 2020, investors may have to wait days to reliably know who will control Congress. And that uncertainty could spell volatility in the bond markets, under the right conditions. Allow me to explain. Like in 2020, the increased use of vote by mail means that early vote counts reported may not be a good indicator of who's winning a particular race, especially in races expected to be close. Mailin ballots are typically cast more often by Democrats than Republicans, and in many jurisdictions are counted after in-person voting. That means that early reported results may look favorable to Republicans, but like in 2020, leads can vanish over time. And so we'll need to reserve judgment on which party seems poised to control Congress. While that uncertainty is playing out, it helps to know which outcomes would be market movers and which ones might have no immediate impact. For example, let's consider what it would mean if Republicans take back control of one or both houses of Congress, which polls and prediction markets are pointing to as the most likely outcome. We wouldn't anticipate this 'divided government' outcome being a market mover, at least not in the near term. That's because the most we can take away from this are some hypothetical concerns. A divided government tends to deliver a weaker fiscal response to a recession. And Republicans have publicly touted their intent to use the debt ceiling and government funding deadlines as negotiating points to reduce government spending in 2023 and 2024. But in recent years, markets have dismissed those types of negotiations as political theater. So perhaps these events would only matter in the moment if the economy and or markets were already showing substantial weakness. But what if instead Democrats do what the polling data suggests they're very unlikely to do, not only keep control of Congress, but expand their majorities. If the early vote counting makes this seem like a real possibility, perhaps because Democrats outperform in early tallies in places like Pennsylvania, then expect market gyrations, particularly in the bond market. That's because if Democrats were to pull off such an outcome, bond markets could come to see a risk  that fiscal policy will be pulling in a different direction than monetary policy, meaning the Fed could have to hike rates even more than currently expected to bring inflation down to target. Expanded Democratic majorities could be a signal that inflation was not the electoral challenge many feared. Without that political constraint, investors could equate these expanded majorities with an increased chance that Democrats would revisit many of their previously abandoned spending plans. So bottom line, be prepared. The polls are showing Democrats are unlikely to expand majorities, but the history of markets is rife with examples of unexpected outcomes creating market volatility. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us for a view on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show. 

Over the last decade private markets have outperformed versus public markets, but given the recent public market volatility, will private markets continue to attract investors? Head of Brokers, Asset Managers, and the Exchanges Team Mike Cyprys and Head of European Asset Managers, Exchanges, and Diversified Financials Research Bruce Hamilton discuss.----- Transcript -----Mike Cyprys: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Cyprys, Morgan Stanley's Head of Brokers, Asset Managers and Exchanges Team. Bruce Hamilton: And I'm Bruce Hamilton, Head of European Asset Managers, the exchanges and Diversified Financials Research. Mike Cyprys: And on this special episode of the podcast, we'll talk about our outlook on the private markets industry against an uncertain macro backdrop and market upheaval. It's Tuesday, November 1st at noon in New York. Bruce Hamilton: And 4 p.m. in London. Mike Cyprys: We spend most of our time on this podcast talking about public markets, which are stocks and bonds traded on public exchanges like Nasdaq and Euronext. But today, we're going to talk a little bit about the private markets, which are equity and debt of privately owned companies. You probably know it as private equity, venture capital and private credit, but it also encompasses private real estate and infrastructure investments, all of this largely held in funds owned by institutions such as pension funds and endowments and increasingly high net worth investors. Today, there is nearly 10 trillion of assets held across these funds globally. But despite the different structure, private markets have been faced with the same macro challenges facing public markets here in 2022. So Bruce, before we get into some of the specifics, let's maybe set the context for our listeners. How have private markets fared vis a vis public markets over the last decade? Bruce Hamilton: So the industry has grown at around 12% per annum on average over the past decade in terms of asset growth and a faster 17% over the past three years, driven by increasing allocations from institutional investors attracted to the historic outperformance of private markets versus public markets, a smoother ride on valuations given that assets are not mark to market, unlike public markets, and an ability to source a more diversified set of exposures, including the faster growth in earlier stage companies. Mike Cyprys: And what are some of the near-term specific risks facing private markets right now amidst this challenging market backdrop? Bruce Hamilton: The near-term concerns really focus around the implications of a tougher economic environment, impacting corporate earnings growth at the same time that increasing central bank interest rates across the globe are feeding into increased borrowing costs for these companies. This raises questions on how this will impact the profitability and investment returns from these companies and whether investors will continue to view the private markets as an attractive place to allocate capital. The uncertain economic outlook has dramatically reduced the appetite to finance new private market deals. However, there are factors that mitigate the risks forced to refinance in the short term. Secondly, corporate balance sheets are in relatively good health in terms of profits to cover interest payments or interest cover. Moreover, flexibility built into financing structures such as hedging to lock in lower interest rates should reduce the impact of rising rates. Importantly, the private market industry also has significant dry powder, or available capital, to invest in new opportunities or protect existing investments. For players active in the private markets. We think that there are undoubtedly risks in the near term, linked to congested fundraising with many private market firms seeking to raise capital from clients against a decline in public markets, which has left clients with less money in their pockets. From the performance of existing portfolio companies, given the more difficult market and economic environment and from subdued company disposal and investment activity linked to the more difficult financing markets. This has kept us pretty cautious on the sector this year. Bruce Hamilton: But Mike, despite these near-term risks and concerns, you remain convicted in your bullish outlook on the next five years. In a recent work, you've outlined five key themes that you see lifting private markets to your 17 trillion assets under management forecast. What are these themes and how do you see them playing out over time? Mike Cyprys: Look, clearly, I would echo your concerns in the short term. And I do think growth moderates after an exceptional period here. But we do see a number of growth drivers that we feel are more enduring. Specifically, five key engines of growth, if you will. First is democratization of private markets that we think can spur retail growth and unlock a $17 trillion addressable market or TAM. This is the single largest growth contributor to our outlook. Product development, investor education and technological innovation are all helping unlock access here as retail investors look to the private markets for income and capital appreciation in addition to a smooth ride with lower volatility versus the public markets. The second growth zone is private credit that we think is poised to penetrate a $23 trillion TAM as traditional bank lenders retrench, providing an opportunity for private lenders to step in. For corporate issuers, private credit offers greater flexibility on structure and terms, and provides greater certainty of execution. For investors, it can provide higher yields and diversification from public credit. The third growth zone is infrastructure investing, which we think can help solve for decades-long underinvestment and addresses a $15 trillion funding gap over the next 20 years. This is underpinned by structural tailwinds for the 3 Ds of digitization, decarbonization and deglobalization. The fourth growth zone is around liquidity solutions. As you know, the private markets are illiquid. And so as the asset class grows, we do expect some investors will want to find ways to access some degree of liquidity over time. And that's where solutions such as secondaries and NAV based lending can be helpful. The fifth and final growth zone is around impact in ESG investing. In public markets, we've seen significant asset flows into ESG and impact investing strategies as investors look to have a positive impact on society. And we expect that this will also play a role in the private markets, though it's a bit earlier days. Today we estimate about 200 billion invested in private market impact strategies, and we think that can reach about 850 billion in five years time. Mike Cyprys: So for investors, this does boil down to an impact on publicly traded companies. Given the specific challenges of the current environment, Bruce, which business models do you think are best positioned to succeed both near-term and longer term? And what should investors be looking at? Bruce Hamilton: Well, Mike, whilst we think the challenging macro conditions could continue to weigh on the sector near-term, we think that investors may want to look at companies with the best exposure to the five growth themes that you mentioned, who are building out global multi-asset investment franchises with diverse earnings streams, a high proportion of durable management fee related earnings—rather than heavy reliance or more volatile carry or performance fees—and deployment skewed to inflation protected sectors like infrastructure or real estate. Mike Cyprys: Bruce, thanks for taking the time to talk. Bruce Hamilton: Great speaking with you, Mike. Mike Cyprys: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Despite companies beginning to report earnings misses and poor stock performance, the S&P 500 is on the rise, leading many to wonder how the Fed will react to this new data in their coming meeting.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, October 31st at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. Two weeks ago, we turned tactically bullish on U.S. equities. Some clients felt this call came out of left field, given our well-established bearish view on the fundamentals. To be clear, this call is based almost entirely on technicals rather than the fundamentals which remain unsupportive of most equity prices and the S&P 500. Today, we will put some meat around the fundamental drivers for why this call can work for longer than most expect. Last week was the biggest one for third quarter earnings season in terms of market cap reporting. More specifically it included all of the mega-cap tech stocks that make up much of the S&P 500. On one hand, these companies did not disappoint the fundamental bears like us who've been expecting weaker earnings to finally emerge. In fact, several of these large tech stocks reported third quarter results that were even worse than we were expecting. Furthermore, the primary driver of the downside was due to negative operating leverage, which is a core part of our thesis on earnings as described in the fire and ice narrative. However, these large earnings misses and poor stock performance did not translate into negative price performance for the S&P 500 or even the NASDAQ 100. This price action is very much in line with our tactical bullish call a few weeks ago. In addition to the supportive tactical picture we discussed in prior notes, we fully expected third quarter results to be weak. However, we also expected most companies would punt on providing any material guidance for 2023, leaving the consensus forward 12 month earnings per share estimates relatively unchanged. This is why the primary index didn't go down in our view, and actually rose 4%. The other driver for why the S&P 500 rose, in our view, is tied to the upcoming Fed meeting this week. While the Fed has hawkishly surprised most investors this year, we've now reached a point where both bond and stock markets may be pricing in too much hawkishness. First, other central banks are starting to slow their rate of tightening. Second, there are growing signs the labor market is finally at risk of a downturn as earnings disappoint and job openings continue to fall. Third, the 3 month 10 year yield curve is finally inverted, and that is one item Fed Chair Jay Powell has said he's watching closely as a sign the Fed has gone far enough. However, the best evidence the Fed has already done enough to beat inflation comes from the simple fact that money supply growth has collapsed over the past year. Money supply is now growing just 2.5% year over year. This is down from a peak of 27% year over year back in March of 2021. A monetarist which suggests inflation is likely to fall just as rapidly as it tends to lag money supply growth by 16 months. This means longer term interest rates are likely to follow, which can serve as a driver of higher valuations until the forward earnings per share estimates fall more meaningfully. What this all means for equity markets is that we have a window where stocks can rally on the expectation inflation is coming down, which allows the Fed to pause its rate hikes at some point in the near future, if not this week. Moreover, this pause must occur while earnings forecasts remain high. The bottom line is that we continue to think there's further upside toward 4000 - 4150 from the current 3900 level. However, for that to happen, longer term interest rates will need to come down, and that will likely require a less hawkish message from the Fed. That puts a lot of pressure on this week's Fed meeting for our tactical call to keep working. If the Fed comes in hawkish and squashes any hopes for a pause before it's too late, the rally could very well be over. More practically, anyone who jumped on board this tactical trade should use 3700 on the S&P 500 as a stop loss for remaining bullish. Conversely, should longer term interest rates fall after Wednesday's meeting, we would gain more confidence in our 4150 upside target for the trade and even consider further upside depending on the message from the Fed. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show. 

As the U.K. grapples with structural, political, and economic issues, how are markets affected across assets, and what stories may look better for investors than others? Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets and U.K. Economist Bruna Skarica discuss.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Morgan stanley's Chief Cross-Asset Strategist. Bruna Skarica: And I'm Bruna Skarica, Morgan Stanley's U.K. Economist. Andrew Sheets: And on part two of this special two part edition of the podcast, we'll be talking about the market implications of the latest political, economic and market developments in the U.K. It's Friday, October. 28th at 2 p.m. in London. Bruna Skarica: So Andrew, we already discussed the economic outlook for the U.K., and today I'd like to turn our conversation to you and your cross asset views. Obviously the current economic and political situation in the U.K. has a very significant impact on both macro and micro markets. Let's start with one of the number one investor questions around the U.K., which is the mortgage market. Roughly one in four mortgages has a variable rate and current estimates suggest that more than a third of UK mortgage holders will see their rates rise from under two to over 6% over the next year. What is your outlook for the mortgage market and its impact on the U.K. consumer, especially amid what is already severe cost of living crisis? Andrew Sheets: Like the U.S. most household debt in the U.K. is held in the form of mortgages. Unlike t,vhe U.S., though, those mortgages tend to have a quite short period where the rate is fixed. The typical U.K. mortgage, the rate is only fixed for 2 to 5 years. Which means that if you bought a house in 2020 or 2021, a lot of those mortgages are coming due for a reset very soon. And that reset is large. The mortgage, when it was taken out in 2020, might have had a rate of 2%. The current rate that it will reset to is closer to 6%. So that's a tripling of the interest rate that these homeowners face. So this is a very severe consumer shock, especially if you layer it on top of higher utility bills. This is, I think, a big challenge that, as you correctly identified in our conversation yesterday, that the Bank of England is worried about. And, you know, this is one reason why we think the pound will weaken. I'm sure we'll talk about the pound more, but if rate rises in the U.K. work their way into the household much faster because the mortgage fixed period is much shorter, maybe that means the Bank of England can't hike as much as markets expect. Whereas the Fed can because the dynamics in the mortgage market are so much different. Bruna Skarica: Indeed. Now, aside from that, U.K. rates have also seen a historical level of volatility this year. The pound as well has been weak all year, even though it has rallied a bit recently. Perhaps let's focus on the currency first. How do you see the pound from here? Do you think the downside risks have subsided or the structural risks still remain? Andrew Sheets: So the pound is a very inexpensive currency. It's inexpensive on a number of the different valuation measures that we look at, purchasing power parity, a real effective exchange rate and it's certainly fallen a lot. But our view is that the pound will fall further and that this temporary bounce that the pound has enjoyed in the aftermath of another new leadership team in the country is ultimately going to be short lived. A lot of the economic challenges that were there before the mini budget are still there. Weak economic growth, a large current account deficit, trade friction coming out of Brexit. And also I think this part about the Bank of England maybe not raising rates as much as the market expects, there's that much less interest income for investors for holding the pound. We forecast a medium term level for the pound relative to the dollar, about 1.05, so still lower from here. And we do think the pound will be the underperformer across U.K. assets. Bruna Skarica: Now aside from the pound I've mentioned, investors have been very focused on the UK rates market where we have indeed seen a lot of volatility in recent weeks. Now what do valuations look like here after all the fiscal U-turns? And is Morgan Stanley still bearish on gilts? Andrew Sheets: It's common to talk about historic moves in the global market and sometimes you realize you're talking about a market that's been around for 10 years or 20 years. The U.K. bond market's been around for hundreds of years. And we saw some of the largest moves in that history over the last 2 months. So these have been really extreme moves, both up and down, as a result of the fallout from that mini budget. But going forward we think U.K. rates will rise further from here, we think bonds will underperform and there are a couple of reasons for that. One is that the real interest rate on U.K. gilts, the yield above expected inflation, it's not very high, it's about zero actually. Whereas if I invest in a U.S. inflation protected security, I get about 1.5% more than the inflation rate. And then I think you add on this challenge of it's a smaller market, you add on the challenge of there's more political uncertainty, and then you add in the the risk that inflation stays higher than the Bank of England expects, that core inflation remains more persistent. And I think all of these are reasons why the market could inject a little bit more risk premium into the gilt market. One other thing that's been highlighted by our colleagues in interest rate strategy, is just simply there's a lot of supply gilts. There's supply of gilts not just because the governments running a deficit, but there's supply because the Bank of England was a major buyer and a major holder of gilts during the year of quantitative easing and it's shifting towards quantitative tightening. So heavy supply, low real rates, and I think a potential for kind of a higher risk premium are all reasons why we think gilts underperform both bonds and treasuries. Bruna Skarica: Now that you mentioned quantitative tightening, of course, the Bank of England is planning to sell its credit holdings as well. What is the situation in the sterling credit market? Can you walk us through the challenges and opportunities there right now for both domestic and foreign investors? Andrew Sheets: Yeah. So I think the credit market in the U.K. is actually one of the better stories in this market. Now it's not particularly liquid. But I think where sterling credit has some advantages is, one, it's actually a relatively international market. Only about half of it references U.K. companies, the other half of it is global companies, including a lot of U.S. issuers. So the credit market is not a particularly domestically focused index to the extent people are worried about the U.K. domestic situation. It's a market that trades at a spread discount to the U.S., both because of some of the recent volatility and the fact it's a little bit less liquid. this is a market that yields around 6.5% - 6.75% on investment grade credit. That's, I think, a pretty good return relative to expected inflation, relative to where we think credit risk is in that market. So, you know, amidst some other more difficult stories, we think the credit market might end up being a relatively better one. Bruna Skarica: Finally, let's take a step back perhaps, and take a look at some of the U.K.'s structural vulnerabilities. The U.K. has a very weak net international investment position, it's reliant on foreign money to fund some of its deficit and despite the recent fiscal U-turns, the U.K.'s fiscal deficit is still relatively large. In the context of these vulnerabilities, can you maybe discuss how recent events have affected foreign investors' confidence, and how do you see things going forward? Andrew Sheets: Yes, so I think this is a really important issue and maybe a good one to close on. The U.K., as you just mentioned, runs a very large current account deficit. It imports much more than it exports, and when you do that you need to attract foreign capital to make up that difference. Now the U.S. also imports more than it exports, the U.S. also runs a large current account deficit, but because the U.S. is this large deep capital market, it's seen as a relative winner in the global economy in terms of both the makeup of its companies and its longer term growth it tends to have an easier time attracting that foreign capital. The U.K. has more challenges there. It's a much smaller market, it doesn't have the same sort of tech leadership that you see in the U.S. and in terms of attracting the foreign capital into the equity market, well, that's been more difficult because you've had some uncertainty over what U.K. corporate tax policy will be. The U.K. equity market also tends to be quite energy and commodity focused. So in an ESG focused world, it's more complicated to attract inward investment. And then on the bond market side, the U.K.'s bonds don't yield more than U.K. inflation at the moment. So again, that's probably worked against attracting foreign investment. So maybe one other factor there that is important and we've touched this in a glancing way throughout this conversation, is brexit. That the U.K.'s exit from the European union does still present a number of big uncertainties around how U.K. companies and the U.K. economy will operate relative to its largest trading partner. And so, again, we can see a scenario where just simply higher risk premiums or lower valuations are ultimately needed to clear the market. Andrew Sheets: So Bruna, thanks for taking the time to talk. Bruna Skarica: Thanks, Andrew. Andrew Sheets: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

As the U.K. deals with a bout of market volatility, political transitions, and sticky inflation, how will policy makers and the Bank of England respond, and where might the U.K. economy be headed from here? Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets and U.K. Economist Bruna Skarica discuss.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Morgan Stanley's Chief Cross-Asset Strategist. Bruna Skarica: And I'm Bruna Skarica, Morgan Stanley's U.K. Economist. Andrew Sheets: And on this special two part edition of the podcast, we'll be focused on the latest political, economic and market developments in the United Kingdom and how investors should think about the situation now and going forward. It's Thursday, October 27th at 2 p.m. in London. Andrew Sheets: So Bruna, the world's eyes have been on the U.K. over the last couple of months, not only because it's the world's sixth largest economy, but because it's been experiencing an unprecedented level of market volatility, and it also has had an unusually large amount of political volatility. So I think a good place to start this discussion is just taking a step back. How would you currently frame the economic challenges facing the U.K.? Bruna Skarica: Indeed, the level of volatility has truly been historic, both in the macro space, in the market and in politics. Now, in terms of what Prime Minister Sunak has on his tray coming into number 10, first let me mention the fiscal challenges. Chancellor Hunt, who's currently in number 11, has already reversed nearly all the measures from the mini budget, which was the catalyst of all this turbulence. Still, there is more to come. We think another £30 billion of fiscal tightening will be needed to stabilize debt to GDP ratio in the medium term. So more austerity, which of course, will be negative for growth. Now, this fiscal tightening, of course, comes in order to facilitate Bank of England's monetary tightening and help return inflation to the 2% target. The Bank of England has already hiked the bank rate to 2.25%, and we expect further hikes to come. So a lot of monetary tightening weighing on growth, too. And all of this is coming in the context of a very large external shock, that is the energy price move that has led to a spike in utility bills that the state is helping to counter, but that is weighing on UK's disposable income.Andrew Sheets: Given all of these challenges, how do you think the Bank of England is going to react? They have an upcoming meeting on November 3rd, and they’re facing a backdrop where on the one hand the U.K. has some of the highest core inflation in the developed world, and on the other hand it has a number of these risks to growth which you just outlined. How do you think they try to thread that needle and what do you think they ultimately do? Bruna Skarica: Indeed, the Bank of England has this year had a really complicated task at its hand. What started as the energy shock to inflation first impacting headline inflation, then spread on to pretty much every part of the consumer basket. The Bank of England we think has no choice but to tighten further from here. Chief Economist Pearl, in the aftermath of the mini budget, said that there will be a significant monetary response to the fiscal news and financial market volatility. As I mentioned, the mini budget was almost entirely scrapped, volatility subsided and so we think this significant response on November 3rd will come in the form of a 75 basis point hike. And we also see clear messaging from the Bank of England next week that this should be perceived as a one off level shift and that the pace of tightening will slow from December, as a lot of monetary tightening has already been delivered. We're expecting a 50 basis point move from the bank then and then two more 25 basis points hikes in the first quarter of next year, leaving the terminal rate at 4%. Andrew Sheets: In the Bank of England's thinking, how does inflation come down? You know, because you still have imported inflation from a weak currency, you still have some of the higher friction cost to trade coming through from Brexit, you still have quite high core inflation. What do you think the Bank of England is looking at that gives it conviction? Alternatively, what do you think is the most likely way those predictions could be wrong? Bruna Skarica: Well, the first thing to mention is the energy price inflation. It is true that our in-house Morgan Stanley view is that energy prices, for example natural gas prices, will not meaningfully correct from here. However, even if they stay at their current levels, inflation itself is going to slow and that's going to be a big drag on headline inflation over the course of next year and more so into 2024 and 2025. Additionally, the U.K. has seen a very sharp increase in traded goods inflation and our Morgan Stanley in-house view is that some of this is going to come off next year in the U.S. and the DM space more broadly, which we think will help lower U.K.'s headline and core inflation over the course of next year too. We do think services inflation will remain stickier. We think it's going to average around 5% next year actually, because our labor market's very tight and wage growth will remain at levels that are not consistent with meeting the 2% inflation target. However, the traded goods and energy prices we think should help with lowering headline inflation, and that is what the Bank of England is reflecting in its forecasts.Andrew Sheets: So Bruna you mentioned the strength of the U.K. labor market holding up despite, you know, a number of these macroeconomic challenges. What's going on there? What do you think explains the strength and how big of a problem do you think that is for the Bank of England's policy challenges? Bruna Skarica: That's a great question because our employment levels are actually not yet back to where they were pre-COVID. So a question arises as to why is our labor market this tight? And it's all about supply, really. The U.K.'s participation rate has been very subdued in the aftermath of the COVID shock. Some of it has to do with Brexit, a slowdown in migration flows from the EU from 2020 onwards because of course we've seen COVID and the Brexit shock coincide. However, much of it is to do with the drop in participation of U.K. born labor. For example, we now have a record high number of potential workers out with the labor force due to self-reported health issues. The health care backlog and NHS waiting lists are at an all time high and we now seem to have very limited fiscal space to address this. So we actually took down our own labor supply growth forecasts recently. This means that we do expect the slowdown in employment growth and when the recession comes shedding of employees over the course of next year, and that to be the main factor driving the rise in the unemployment rate. Andrew Sheets: So you have been calling for a recession around the end of the year in the U.K. and weak growth really through the middle of 2023. Is that still your forecast and what are the most likely factors that could change it? Bruna Skarica: Yes, that is still the case. We are looking for a 1% contraction in 2023 and for a recession to kick off in the second half of 2022. In terms of positive catalysts, I would say if natural gas prices fall further, the government will have more fiscal space to support the economy as opposed to using the funds to counter the external energy price hit. It would, of course, help with keeping the inflation somewhat lower. More resilient consumer spending, perhaps as some of those pandemic excess savings are spent, is another upside risk. But we see a very low probability of this happening. And finally, a more aggressive global disinflation, something I've mentioned when it comes to global traded goods inflation, leading to a faster return to positive real income growth, that's another factor to think about, and that would be beneficial for consumers and of course for overall U.K. GDP growth. So those are the main positive factors, I would say. Andrew Sheets: Bruna, thanks for taking the time to talk. Bruna Skarica: Great speaking with you, Andrew. Andrew Sheets: And thanks for listening. Be sure to tune in for the upcoming Part two of our conversation about the U.K. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

As the U.K. attempts stabilize its debt to GDP ratio, as well as curb inflation, the question becomes, to what extent will the Bank of England continue to tighten monetary policy?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Global Chief Economist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about recent developments in the U.K. and what the implications might be for other economies. It's Wednesday, October 26th, at 10 a.m. in New York.The political environment in the U.K. is fluid, to say the least. For markets, the most important shift was the fiscal policy U-turn. The tax cuts proposed by former Chancellor Kwarteng have been withdrawn apart from  two measures related to the National Health Service and property taxes. In total, the reversal of the mini budget tax cuts brings in £32 billion of revenue for the Treasury. Media reports suggested that Chancellor Hunt was told by the fiscal watchdog, the OBR, that medium term stability of the debt to GDP ratio would require about £72 billion of higher revenue. There's a gap of about £40 billion implying tighter fiscal policy to come. The clearest market impact came from the swings in gilt yields following the original fiscal announcement. The 80 basis point sell off in 30 year gilts prompted the Bank of England to announce an intervention to restore financial stability for a central bank about to start actively selling bonds to change course and begin buying anew was a delicate proposition. But so far, the needle appears to have been threaded. And yet, despite the recent calm, the majority of client conversations over the past month have included concern about other possible market disruptions. Part of the proposed fiscal plan was meant to address surging energy prices. Inflation in the UK is 10.1% of which only 6.5% is core inflation. The large share of inflation from food and energy prices works like a tax. From a household perspective, the average British household has a disposable income of approximately £31,000 a year and went from paying just over £1,000 a year for electricity and gas to roughly £4,000. Households lost 10% of their disposable income. Of course, the inflation dynamics in the U.K. resemble those in the euro area, in the latter headline inflation is 10%, but core inflation constitutes just under half of that. The hit to discretionary income is even larger for the continent. Our Europe growth forecasts have been below consensus for this reason. We look for more fiscal measures there, but our basic view is that fiscal support can only mitigate the depth of the recession, not avoid it entirely. Central banks are tightening monetary policy to restrain demand and thereby bring down inflation. The necessary outcome, then, is a shortfall in economic activity. For the U.K. the structural frictions from Brexit exacerbate the issue and the Bank of England, like our U.K. team, expect the labor force itself to remain inert. Consequently, after the recession, even when growth resumes, we expect the level of GDP to be about one and a half percent below the pre-COVID trend at the end of 2023. For the Bank of England, we are looking for the bank rate to rise to 4%, below market expectations. The shift in the fiscal stance tipped the balance for our U.K. economist Bruna Skarica. She revised her call for the next meeting down to 75 basis points from 100 basis points. And so while the next meeting may be a close call, in the bigger picture we think there will be less tightening than markets are pricing in because of the tighter fiscal outlook. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

The Biden administration recently imposed new trade restrictions on exports to China, but what sectors will be impacted and will we continue to see more policy pressure from the U.S. to China?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between U.S. public policy and financial markets. It's Tuesday, October 25th, at 10 a.m. in New York. On October 7th, the Biden administration announced another round of controls on the export of advanced computing and semiconductor equipment to China. The stated goal is to protect U.S. national security and foreign policy interests by limiting China's ability to develop cutting edge chip and computing technology. This news drove volatility in equity markets in China recently, but we think it shouldn't come as a surprise to investors. In fact, we argue that investors should expect the U.S. to continue pressing forward with trade restrictions on China. It's all part of our slowbalization and multipolar world frameworks. In short, as China's economy grows into a legit challenger to U.S. hegemony, U.S. policy has changed to protect its economic and military advantages. Export controls are one of those policies springing from a law passed in 2018, one of the few pieces of legislation that received bipartisan support during the Trump administration. And this law gives broad authority to the executive branch to decide what's in scope for export restrictions. So as the competition between the U.S. and China grows and new technologies over time become old technologies, expect export controls and other non-tariff barriers to spread across multiple industries. Other policy barriers could arise, too. As we've stated in prior podcasts, we still see scope for Congress to create an outbound investment control function for the White House. All in all, the net result is a managed delinking of the U.S. and China economies in some key sectors. For investors, the read through is clear; the policy pressure from the U.S. and China is unlikely to abate any time soon. The bad news from this? It means new costs to fund the supply chains that will have to be built, a particular challenge for tech hardware companies globally. The good news? This isn't a hard decoupling of the U.S. and China. Slowly but surely, these measures set up new rules of engagement and coexistence for the U.S. and China economies, meaning the worst outcomes for the global economy are likely to be avoided. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

As equities enjoy their best week since the summer highs in June, investors seem at the mercy of powerful market trends, so when might these trends take a turn to the downside?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, October 24th, at 11:30 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. Last week, we made a tactically bullish call for U.S. equities, and stocks did not disappoint us. The S&P 500 had its best week since June 24th, which was the beginning of the big summer rally. As a reminder, this is a tactical call based almost purely on technicals rather than fundamentals, which remain unsupportive of higher equity prices over the next 3 to 6 months. Furthermore, the price action of the markets has become more technical than normal, and investors are forced to do things they don't want to, both on the upside and the downside. Witness September, which resulted in the worst month for U.S. equities since the COVID lockdowns in March of 2020. The same price action can happen now on the upside, and one needs to respect that in the near term, in our view. As noted last week, the 200 week moving average is a powerful technical support level for stocks, particularly in the absence of an outright recession, which we don't have yet. While some may argue a recession is inevitable over the next 6 to 12 months, the market will not price it, in our view, until it's definitive. The typical signal required for that can only come from the jobs market. While nonfarm payrolls is a lagging indicator that gets revised later, the equity market tends to be focused on it. More specifically, it usually takes a negative payroll reading for the market to fully price a recession. Today, that number is a positive 265,000, and it's unlikely we get a negative payroll number in the next month or two. Of course, we also appreciate the fact that if one waits for such data to arrive, the opportunity to trade it will be missed. The question is one of timing. In the absence of hard data from either companies cutting guidance significantly for 2023 or unemployment claims spiking, the door is left open for a tactical trade higher before reality sets in. Finally, as we begin the transition from fire to ice, falling inflation expectations could lead to a period of falling interest rates that may be interpreted by the equity market as bullish, until the reality of what that means for earnings is fully revealed. Given the strong technical support just below current levels, the S&P 500 can continue to rally toward 4000 or 4150 in the absence of capitulation from companies on 2023 earnings guidance. Conversely, should interest rates remain sticky at current levels, all bets are off on how far this equity rally can go beyond current prices. As a result, we stay tactically bullish as we enter the meat of what is likely to be a sloppy earnings season. We just don't have the confidence that there will be enough capitulation on 2023 earnings to take 2023 earnings per share forecasts down in the manner that it takes stocks to new lows. Instead, our base case is, that happens in either December when holiday demand fails to materialize or during fourth quarter earnings season in January and February, when companies are forced to discuss their outlooks for 2023 decisively. In the meantime, enjoy the rally. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show.

The U.K.’s economy continues to face a host of challenges, including high inflation and a weak currency, and while these problems are not insurmountable, they may weigh significantly on the economic outlook.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, October 21st at 2 p.m. in London. The eyes of the financial world remain on the United Kingdom, the world's 6th largest economy that is facing a complicated, interwoven set of challenges. We talked about the U.K. several weeks ago on this program, but I wanted to revisit it. It's a fascinating cross-asset story. First, among these challenges is inflation. High U.K. Inflation is partly due to global factors like commodity prices, but even excluding food and energy core inflation is about 6.5%. And since the U.K. runs a large current account deficit, importing much more than it exports, a weak currency is driving even higher costs through all those imported items. Meanwhile, Brexit continues to reduce the supply of labor and increase the costs of trade, further boosting inflation and reducing the benefit that a weaker currency would otherwise bring. The circularity here is unmissable; high inflation is driving currency weakness and vice versa. High inflation has depressed U.K. real interest rates, making the currency less attractive to hold. And high inflation relative to other countries undermines valuations. On an inflation adjusted basis, also known as purchasing power parity, the British pound hasn't fallen that much more than, say, the Swiss franc over the last year. If inflation is high, why doesn't the Bank of England simply raise rates to slow its pace? The bank is moving, but the Bank of England has raised rates by less than the market expected in 6 of the last 8 meetings. The Bank of England's hesitation is understandable, most UK mortgage debt is only fixed for 2 to 5 years, which means that roughly $100,000 loans are resetting every month. The impact is that higher rates can flow through into the economy unusually fast, much faster than, say, in the United States. Another way to slow inflation will be through tighter fiscal policy. But here we've seen some rather volatile recent political headlines. The U.K. government initially proposed a plan to loosen fiscal policy, but following a volatile market reaction has now changed course and reversed a number of those proposals. It still remains to be seen exactly what policy the U.K. government will settle on and what response the markets will have. The UK's problems are not insurmountable, but for now they remain significant. Our U.K. interest rate strategists think that expectations for 5 year inflation can move higher, along with yields. While our foreign exchange strategists are forecasting a lower British pound against the dollar. The one bright spot for the U.K. might be its credit market. Yielding over 7%, U.K. investment grade credit actually represents issuers from all over the world, including the United States. While less liquid than some other markets, we think it looks increasingly attractive as a combination of stability and yield amidst an uncertain environment. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you. 

While European earnings have been remarkably resilient this year, and consensus estimates for earnings and corporate margins remain high, there may be reason to believe there’s further yet to fall. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Graham Secker, Head of Morgan Stanley's European Equity Strategy Team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the outlook for European earnings for the upcoming third quarter reporting season and beyond. It's Thursday, October the 20th, at 2 p.m. in London. Having been cautious on European equities for much of this year, we have recently started to flag the potential for more two-way price action in the near-term, reflecting a backdrop of low investor positioning, coupled with the potential for an inflection in U.S. inflation and interest rates over the next few months. To be clear, we haven't seen either of these two events occur yet, however we are conscious that each week that passes ultimately takes us closer to just such an outcome. Given that high inflation and rising interest rates have been the key drivers pushing equity valuations lower this year, any sign that these two metrics are peaking out would suggest that we are approaching a potential floor for equity PE ratios. However, while this is good news to a degree, history suggests that we need to be closer to a bottom in the economic and earnings cycle before equity markets put in their final price low. So far this year, European earnings have stood out for their remarkable resilience, with the region enjoying double digit upgrades on the back of currency weakness and a doubling of profitability for the energy sector. Looking into the third quarter reporting season, we expect this resilience to persist for a bit longer yet. Currency effects are arguably even more supportive this quarter than last, and the global and domestic economies have yet to show a more material slowdown that would be associated with recessionary conditions. Our own third quarter preview survey also points to a solid quarter ahead, with Morgan Stanley analysts expecting 50% of sectors to beat consensus expectations this quarter versus just 13% that could miss. Longer term, however, this same survey paints a more gloomy picture on the profit outlook, with our analysts saying downside risks to 2023 consensus forecasts across 70% of European sectors and upside risks in just 3; banks, insurance and utilities. In the history of this survey, we have never seen expectations this low before, nor such a divergence between the short term and longer term outlooks. From our own strategy perspective, we remain cautious on European earnings and note that most, if not all of our models are predicting a meaningful drop in profits next year. Specifically, consensus earnings look very optimistic in the context of Morgan Stanley GDP forecasts, current commodity prices, dividend futures and the latest readings from the economic indicators we look at, such as the purchasing managers indices. In addition to a likely top line slowdown associated with an economic recession, we see significant risks around corporate margins, too. Over the last 12 to 18 months, inflation has positively contributed to company profitability, as strong pricing power has allowed rising input costs to be passed on to customers. However, as demand weakens, this pricing power should wane, leaving companies squeezed between rising input costs and slowing output prices. In this vein, our own margin lead indicator suggests that next year could see the largest fall in European margins since the global financial crisis. However, consensus estimates assume that 16 out of 20 European sectors will actually see their margins expand next year. Our concern around overly optimistic earnings and margin assumptions next year is shared by many investors we speak to. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that all of the bad news is already in the price. Analyzing prior profit cycles suggests that equity markets tend to bottom 1 to 2 months before earnings revisions trough, and that it takes about 7 to 8 months for provisions to reach their final low. If history repeats itself in this cycle, this would point to a final equity low sometime in the first quarter of 2023, even if price to earnings ratios bottom later this year. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

As the EU puts new regulations on sustainability funds, how will categorization of these funds be impacted, and how might that change investment strategies? Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research Michael Zezas and Head of Fixed Income and ESG Research Carolyn Campbell discuss.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research. Carolyn Campbell: And I'm Carolyn Campbell, I lead our Fixed Income and ESG Research Team. Michael Zezas: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll focus on sustainability funds and their investment strategies within an evolving regulatory context. It's Wednesday, October 19th, at 10 a.m. in New York. Michael Zezas: There are just over 1400 dedicated fixed income sustainability funds with assets under management, around $475 billion off from a peak of $545 billion at the end of 2021. This is a sizable market, but as EU regulators weigh in on what these funds can and can't own, it begs the question what kinds of bonds might they start buying? So Carolyn, let's maybe start with the essentials behind the EU Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation, SFDR, and what it requires of financial market participants. Specifically, what are Article 8 and Article 9 products? Carolyn Campbell: So under the SFDR, fund managers are required to classify their funds in one of three ways. The first, Article 8, or what's known as a light green fund, is a sustainability fund that promotes environmental or social characteristics. The dark green funds, which are Article 9 funds, invest in sustainable investments and have an environmental or a social factor as an objective. They also, importantly, cannot do significant harm to other environmental or social objectives. And then lastly, we have the non sustainability funds which are Article 6. Michael Zezas: And despite the regulator's goal to increase transparency and accountability, there's still a high degree of uncertainty in the regulatory landscape around what can and should be included in sustainability funds. What does this uncertainty mean for the types of products that are currently being included in these funds, and how might that change in the future? Carolyn Campbell: So by and large, the regulatory uncertainty has meant that funds are more likely to take a conservative approach when constructing their holdings for fear of regulatory repercussions or just reputational risk. In particular, where investors need to have a "sustainable investment" that does not do significant harm to other environmental objectives, which is what we have in Article 9, we expect to see them gravitate increasingly towards high quality green bonds. And as a reminder, green bonds are different from regular bonds because the net proceeds of those bonds goes towards green projects. Think of it as retrofitting buildings to be more environmentally friendly, investing in climate change adaptation solutions, or building out clean transportation infrastructure. Green bonds fit pretty neatly into these Article 9 funds because they're demonstrably sustainable investments. And since you know where the proceeds are going, it's less likely that they're violating that last part, the ‘do no significant harm’. So some of the Article 9 funds are full green bond funds. But the ones that are not actually only hold around an average of 10% of their fund in green bonds or other types of ESG label bonds like social or sustainability bonds. And we see similar figures in the Article 8 funds as well. So we expect that green bonds of higher quality, meaning that they're aligned with the more rigorous EU green bond standard that report on impact have limited amounts of proceeds going towards refinancing, have limited look back periods etc.. Those stand to benefit from an increased appetite from these sustainability funds for the best types of green bonds. Michael Zezas: Carolyn, you've noted that most ESG funds currently favor low emission sectors, particularly financials. What about sectors that were previously maligned by ESG funds, the so-called high emitting or hard to abate sectors? What is the rate of change approach that might benefit these sectors? Carolyn Campbell: So the SFDR is structured in a way to favor the low emitting sectors because they have to report on the principal adverse impacts and because they can't do significant harm. But what we're increasingly hearing is an appetite to invest directly in the transition. So allocating funds to the higher emitting companies, but those that have viable decarbonization plans and for which an improvement on different ESG metrics may drive better financial performance. When we look to the fund holdings of the fixed income sustainability funds, we see that they're currently underweight these sectors despite some real opportunity from the transition. As ESG has evolved this year, so too should the types of strategies that we see adopted across the funds. And companies that are leading the way in their sectors stand to benefit from increased demand from sustainability funds that adopt these approaches, particularly in those sectors that are hard to abate or traditionally high emitting. Michael Zezas: Finally flows into fixed income sustainability funds increased throughout 2021, topping out at $17 billion in February. But inflows have been on a downward trajectory throughout the first half of 2022. What are the key drivers behind this decrease and what's your outlook for the secular growth story for ESG, both near-term and longer term? Carolyn Campbell: So there are a couple of things driving those declining inflows. First and foremost, the macro backdrop has significantly changed this year versus last year. We've seen regular large rate hikes from central banks around the world to combat high inflation, increased market volatility. It's a tougher environment all around this year in general, and it's not just sustainability funds that are seeing slowing inflows and even outflows. In fact, sustainability fund flows have held up remarkably well given all of this. Then you add in the fact that ESG is facing a bit of a reckoning. There's more vocal pushback in the press, from politicians and from those in the industry themselves on what ESG is and what are its merits. But we don't think this will hurt the growth of ESG in the long term. Rather, we think that sustainability strategies are undergoing an evolution towards more nuance and rigor, away from more simplistic approaches that we've seen adopted in the past. Climate change and sustainability more broadly will be a defining trend for at least the next decade, and this transition requires significant capital. That provides an interesting and unique opportunity for investors, and we've seen sustained demand from both institutional and retail clients for these different types of ESG strategies. Michael Zezas: So Carolyn, thanks for taking the time to talk. Carolyn Campbell: Great speaking with you, Michael. Michael Zezas: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show.

As U.S. Public Debt continues to break records, should investors be concerned by the amount debt has risen? Or are there other, more influential factors at play?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Macro Strategy. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about how macro investors may want to view rising U.S. public debt. It's Tuesday, October 18th, at 10 a.m. in New York. U.S. public debt made breaking news headlines this month by rising above $31 trillion for the first time. In a decade, it's projected to hit $45 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office or CBO. By the time new hires today are ready to retire, U.S. debt to GDP could be at 185%. The CBO argues that high and rising debt could increase the likelihood of a fiscal crisis, because investors might lose confidence in the U.S. government's ability to service and repay its debt. They also believe that it could lead to higher inflation expectations, erode confidence in the U.S. dollar as a reserve currency, and constrain policymakers from using deficits in a countercyclical way. The government debt load in Japan has stood as a notable counterpoint to concerns of this nature for decades. With gross debt a whopping 263% of GDP, and no fiscal crisis that has occurred or appears to be on the horizon, Japan's situation should mitigate some of the CBO's concerns. Still, the amount of debt matters, especially to those invested in it. As both the level of debt and interest rates rise further, net interest income for U.S. households may contribute more to total income over time. Nevertheless, the level of government debt vis a vis the size of the economy and its contribution to societal income, are not the most pressing issues. The problem with debt has always been predicting the price at which it gets bought and the value it provides investors. The current size of the debt at $31 trillion is just a distraction. This staggering number fundamentally diverts attention from what matters most here. So what does matter the most here? First, the speed at which the debt accumulates. Second, the risk characteristics of the debt that investors will buy. Third, the price at which investors will buy it and the value it provides at that price. And fourth, the major drivers of the yields in the marketplace for it. The amount of debt, the Federal Reserve's retreat from buying it, and foreign investors' waning appetite have left some analysts and investors wondering who will buy at all. The relevant question for macro investors, however, is not who will buy the securities, but at what price. The marginal buyer or seller moves prices, not the largest. Consider that at least 3.5% of outstanding U.S. Treasuries change hands every single day. That's an open invitation for many investors, including those who use leverage, to move prices. So what determines the level of Treasury yields over time? In the end, the most important factor, at least over the past 30 years, has been the Fed's interest rate policy and forward guidance around it. So, bottom line, macro investors should pay more attention to the Fed and the economic data that the Fed care most about than the overall amount of government debt investors will need to purchase or which investors will do the buying. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show.

Last week's September inflation data brought a subsequent rally in stocks, but can this rally hold while the bond market continues to follow the Fed?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, October 17th, at 1 p.m. in New York. So, let's get after it.No rest for the weary as days feel like weeks and weeks feel like months in terms of price action in the financial markets. While there's always a lot going on and worth analyzing, it's fair to say last week was always going to be about the September inflation data one way or another.From our vantage point, inflation has peaked. While 8% is hardly a rate the Fed can live with, the seeds have been sown for lower prices in many goods and services. Housing is at a standstill, commodity prices have fallen substantially since April, and inventory is starting to balloon at many companies at a time when demand is falling. That means discounting should be pervasive this holiday shopping season. Finally, the comparisons get much more challenging next year, which should bring the rate of change on inflation down substantially on a year-over-year basis.At the end of last year, the bond market may have looked to be the most mispriced market in the world. That underpricing of inflation and rates was a direct result of Fed guidance. Recall that last December the Fed was suggesting they would only hike 50 basis points in 2022. More surprisingly, the bond market bought it and ten-year yields closed out the year at just 1.5%. Fast forward to today and we think the bond market is likely making the same mistake but on the other side.We think inflation is peaking, as I mentioned, and we think it falls sharply next year. Shouldn't the rates market begin to ignore Fed guidance and discount that? We can't be sure, but if rates do fall under that premise, it will give legs to the rally in stocks that began last Thursday. As we have been noting in our last few podcasts, the downside destination of earnings-per-share forecasts for next year is becoming more clear, but the path remains very uncertain. More specifically, we're becoming skeptical this quarter will bring enough earnings capitulation from companies on next year's numbers for the final price lows of this bear market to happen now. Instead, we think it may be the fourth quarter reporting season that brings the formal 2023 guidance disappointment.So how far can this rally in stocks run? We think 4000 on the S&P 500 is a good guess and we would not rule out another attempt to retake the 200-day moving average, which is about 4150. While that seems like an awfully big move, it would be in line with bear market rallies this year and prior ones. The other factor we have to respect is the technicals. As noted two weeks ago, the 200-week moving average is a formidable level for the S&P 500 that's hard to take out without a fight. In fact, it usually takes a full-blown recession, which we do not yet have.Bottom line, we think a tradable bear market rally has begun last Thursday. However, we also believe the 200-week moving average will eventually give way, like it typically does when earnings forecasts fall by 20%+. The final price lows for this bear are likely to be closer to 3000-3200 when companies capitulate and guide 2023 forecasts lower during the fourth quarter earnings season that's in January and February. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show.

When investing in overseas markets, 'hedging' one's investment not only offers potential protection from the fluctuations of the local currency but potentially may also lead to higher returns.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, October 14th, at 2 p.m. in London.How much is the Japanese stock market down this year? That seems like a pretty basic question and yet, it isn't. If you're a Japan-based investor who thinks about the world in Japanese yen, the market has dropped about 6% year-to-date, a pretty mild decline, all things considered. But if you're a U.S. investor, who thinks about the world in U.S. dollars, the market has fallen 26%.That's a big difference, and it's entirely linked to the fact that when investing overseas, your return is a function of both the changes in that foreign market and the changes in its currency's value versus your own. When a U.S. investor buys Japanese equities, the actual transaction will look something like this. The investor sells their dollars for yen and then uses those yen to buy Japanese stocks. When the investor eventually goes to sell their investment, they need to reverse those steps, selling yen and buying the dollars back. This means that the investor is ultimately exposed to fluctuations in the value of the yen.Given this, there's an increased focus on investing overseas but removing the impact of currency fluctuations, that is, 'hedging' the foreign exchange exposure. There are a few reasons that this can be an attractive strategy for U.S. based investors.First, it reduces a two-variable problem to a one-variable problem. We reckon that most stock market investors are more comfortable with stocks than they are with currencies. An unhedged investment, as we just discussed, involves both, while a hedged investment will more closely track just the local stock market return, the thing the investor likely has a stronger opinion on.Second, our deep dive into the historical impact of currency hedging shows encouraging results, with hedging improving both returns and diversification for U.S. investors when investing overseas. Historically, this has been true for stocks, but also for overseas bonds.Third, investors don't always need to pay extra to hedge. Indeed, hedging can provide extra yield. The general principle is that if you sit in a country with a higher interest rate than the country you're investing in, the hedge should pay you roughly the interest rate difference. One-year interest rates in the U.S. are about 4.5% higher than one-year rates in Japan. Buying Japanese stocks and removing the fluctuations of the yen will pay an investor an extra 4.5% for their trouble, give or take.So why is that? The explanation requires a little detour into foreign exchange pricing and the theory behind it.Foreign exchange markets price with the assumption that everything is in balance. So, if one country has higher one-year interest rates than another, its currency is assumed to lose value over the next year. So, if we think about the investor in our example, they still take their U.S. dollars, exchange them for yen and buy the Japanese equity market. But what they'll also do is go into the foreign exchange market where the dollar is expected to be 4.5% cheaper in one year's time and buy that foreign exchange forward, and 'hedge' the dollar at that weaker level. That means when they go to unwind their position in a year's time, sell their yen and buy dollars, they get to buy the dollar at that favorable lower locked-in exchange rate.Hedging comes with risks. If the US dollar declined sharply, investors may wish that they had more exposure to other currencies through their foreign holdings. But given wide interest rate differentials, volatile foreign exchange markets and the fact that the goal of most U.S. portfolios is to deliver the highest possible return in dollars, investing with hedging can ultimately be an attractive avenue to explore when looking for diversification overseas.Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.

Increasing ESG pervasiveness has led to increasing confusion, in particular around how investors might apply these criteria to the utility sector. Head of Sustainability Research and Clean Energy Stephen Byrd and Equity Analyst for the Power and Utilities Industry Dave Arcaro discuss. ----- Transcript -----Stephen Byrd Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Sustainability Research and Clean Energy.Dave Arcaro And I'm Dave Arcaro, Equity Analyst for the Power and Utilities Industry.Stephen Byrd And on this special episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing a new framework for investors to approach ESG analysis within the utility space. It's Thursday, October 13th, at noon in New York.Stephen Byrd Our listeners are no doubt well aware that ESG criteria—that is environmental, social and governance criteria—have become an increasingly important part of the investment process. This growth has been spurred by a continual search for better long term financial returns, as well as a conscious pursuit of better alignment with values. Yet despite ESG's seeming pervasiveness within the financial ecosystem, there's been a genuine confusion and even controversy among investors about how to apply ESG metrics to the utility sector in particular. And so, in an effort to bring clarity to this key market debate, today we're going to share an innovative framework designed to drive both Alpha, which is the returns aspect, and impact, which is the societal benefit. So Dave, let's start with the problem. What causes this investor confusion and how does the new ESG framework address this problem?Dave Arcaro There are a few sources of confusion or debate that we're hearing from investors. The first seems to be centered on the lack of a clear distinction between ESG criteria that are likely to have a direct impact on stock performance, and then those that are more focused on achieving the maximum positive impact on ESG goals. Secondly, there is too much focus directly on carbon emissions, and there isn't enough focus on the social and governance criteria in the utility space. These can also have an impact on stocks and on key utility constituents, things like lobbying, operations, customer relationships. The new ESG framework that we've introduced here addresses these issues. It expands the environmental assessment, incorporates specific social and governance criteria that are most relevant for utilities, like customer and lobbying metrics, and it adds a new perspective. For each of these metrics, we assess which ones truly have an impact on alpha generation and which ones have the largest purely societal impact.Stephen Byrd And stepping back, Dave, we've seen that the utility sector is arguably the best positioned among the carbon heavy sectors in terms of its ESG potential. Can you walk us through that thought?Dave Arcaro Utilities are in a unique position because they can often create an outcome in which everybody wins when it comes to decarbonizing. This is because when utilities shut down coal and replace it with renewables, it often has three benefits; carbon emissions decline, customer bills are reduced because renewables have gotten so cheap and the utility also grows its earnings. So, it's a strong incentive for utilities to set ambitious plans to decarbonize their fleets.Stephen Byrd Now Dave, typically, when considering the E, that is environmental criteria, ESG analysis tends to focus solely or primarily at least on carbon dioxide. Is this a fair approach or should investors be considering other factors?Dave Arcaro We think other factors should come into play here, and we recommend investors consider the rate of change in carbon emissions, the CO2 intensity of the fleet, risks from climate change, and also impacts on biodiversity. Some of these are more readily available than others, but we think the environmental assessment should expand beyond a simple look at carbon emissions.Dave Arcaro So, Stephen, I want to turn it to you. The E part of ESG is always drawing attention when investors talk about utilities. But so far it seems that there's been little focus on the S, social, and G, governance, criteria when assessing U.S. utilities. What are some of the key areas that investors should concentrate on?Stephen Byrd The utility sector really is one of the most heavily regulated sectors, so both social and governance factors can impact the success of the utility business and drive stock performance as well. The short list of metrics that we found to have a clear linkage to share price performance would be one, corporate spending on lobbying activities, especially through 501c4 entities. Two, operational excellence, which for utilities really reflects safety and reliability. Three, risk of customer defection due to high bills and worsening grid reliability. And four, impacts to low-income communities. So, we use these metrics to round out a holistic ESG assessment of the industry.Dave Arcaro And last but not least, how does the new Inflation Reduction Act legislation figure within the kind of ESG framework Morgan Stanley is proposing here?Stephen Byrd Yeah, the Inflation Reduction Act really is a big deal for our sector. To be specific, the Inflation Reduction Act provides significant, wide-ranging support for decarbonization technologies really across the board, including wind, solar, storage and clean hydrogen. As a result, this legislation could accelerate progress for utility decarbonization strategies in a way that also drives earnings and alpha. For that reason, within our framework, we specifically consider whether a utility is a beneficiary of the Inflation Reduction Act, given the potentially very large positive impacts on both the business and the environment.Stephen Byrd David, thanks for taking the time to talk.Dave Arcaro Great speaking with you, Stephen.Stephen Byrd And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

As consumption of goods slows post COVID, companies are experiencing a build up in inventory that could have far reaching implications. Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research Michael Zezas and U.S. Equity Strategist Michelle Weaver discuss.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research. Michelle Weaver: And I'm Michelle Weaver from the U.S. Equity Strategy Team. Michael Zezas: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll focus on what we see as an inventory problem with far reaching implications. It's Wednesday, October 12th, at 10 a.m. in New York. Michael Zezas: Michelle, can you start by taking us through some of the background on how we ended up with this problem of companies carrying high inventories, which could pressure them to discount prices leading to weaker earnings. Michelle Weaver: I'm sure listeners remember the COVID lockdowns when many of us overspent on a number of goods, especially things like furniture, tech products and leisure equipment. But now, with the recovery from COVID and supply chain bottlenecks easing, we're seeing a new challenge, inventory build coupled with slowing demand. Throughout 2022, we've been dealing with really high inflation, rising interest rates and declining consumer confidence. And while consumer confidence has rebounded from the all time lows that we saw this summer, it remains weak and we think consumers are still going to pare back spending in the face of macro concerns. We think inventory is one of the key problems that will weigh on S&P 500 earnings, and supports our negative call on earnings for the market. Michael Zezas: And how broad based is this problem? Which industries are most at risk? Michelle Weaver: This is a pretty broad problem for publicly traded companies. Inventory to sales for the median U.S. company have been on the rise since the financial crisis and are now at the highest level since 1990. And it's especially a problem for consumer staples, tech and industrials companies. We also looked at the difference between growth rates for inventory and sales. For the S&P 500 overall, there's an 8% mismatch between inventory growth and sales growth, meaning the median company is growing their inventory 8% faster than their growing sales. The median company within goods producing industries has a whopping 19% mismatch between inventory and sales growth. Consumer retailers face some of the biggest risks from these problems, and companies there are already seeing inventory pile up. They have already turned to discounting to try and move out some of this excess inventory. This is also a big problem for tech hardware companies, consumer markets and PCs have been the first to see excess inventory given how much overconsumption these goods saw during COVID. And the tech hardware team is expecting this to broaden out and start causing issues for enterprise hardware. Michael Zezas: And are there any beneficiaries from the current inventory situation? And if so, what drives the advantage for them? Michelle Weaver: Machinery is one industry where inventories remain tight and they're still seeing really strong demand. Inventories across machinery are still in line or below their longer term averages and there's especially big problems in agriculture equipment. Off price retailers who sell their excess inventory from other brands are another area that are expected to benefit from excess inventories. Michael Zezas: And Michelle, how do you expect companies to deal with the glut of inventory they're facing and how will this impact them in the final quarter of this year and into next year? Michelle Weaver: It's likely going to take several quarters for inventory to normalize, but it really varies by industry and we expect inventory to remain an issue for the market into 2023. Faced with a glut of inventory, companies are going to need to decide whether they want to accept high costs to keep holding inventory, destroy inventory, try and keep prices high and take a hit on the number of units sold, or slash prices to stimulate demand. And we think many are going to turn to aggressive discounting to solve their inventory issue. This could spark a race to the bottom as retailers try and cut prices faster than peers and move out as much inventory as possible. And this dynamic will weigh heavily on margins and fuel the earnings slowdown we are predicting. Michael Zezas: Well, Michelle, thanks for taking the time to talk. Michelle Weaver: Great speaking with you, Mike. Michael Zezas: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people find the show.

All over the world elections are taking place that will have profound effects on both local and global economies, so where are policy moves being made and how might investors use these moves to anticipate economic shifts? ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Global Chief Economist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about political economy and how elections have consequences. It's Tuesday, October 11th, at 8 a.m. in New York. Economics is a relatively new field, born in 1776 after the publication of Adam Smith's 'Wealth of Nations'. But until the 1900s, everyone called it political economy. Politics and economics are still hard to separate. Fiscal policy is only sometimes the result of economic events, but almost always a driver of economic outcomes. And because of its power, uncertainty about policy can be a drag all by itself. Brazil has a second round ballot on October 30th between the incumbent Bolsonaro and former President Lula. Both candidates are likely to change or scrap an existing fiscal rule that caps government spending, but most observers think that Lula is likely to have a looser fiscal stance of the two. And so while our LatAm team questions not whether fiscal deficits will increase, but by how much, last week's congressional elections could lead to a split government which is taken to mean a smaller size of any deficit widening. So our LatAm team is pointing to a different risk that a possible President Lula, and he currently leads in most polls, that there might be an unwinding of recent reforms for state owned enterprises, the public sector and labor markets that were meant to enhance Brazil's competitiveness. As is often the case, politics here is more about the medium term than the immediate. In the U.K., it wasn't exactly the same thing. The newly appointed UK Prime Minister, Liz Truss, announced an ambitious fiscal package, including an energy price freeze and the biggest set of tax cuts since the 1970s. The echo to 1980s supply side economics was plain in terms of politics. In terms of economics, boosting productivity might allow more growth and lower inflation at a time where the opposite of each is at hand. But in a country with a 95% debt to GDP ratio and following on fiscal expansion that drove inflation through demand, the lack of details on how to pay for the tax cuts and the energy subsidies elicited a sharp, immediate market reaction. The gilt curve sold off sharply, and the pound reached an all time low of 103 against the dollar. The Bank of England intervened, buying gilts to contain volatility and to lower rates. And in the wake of that turmoil, Chancellor Kwarteng scrapped the tax cuts for the top bracket but kept the rest, leaving about £43 billion a year of additional cost. The outcome now seems to be a faster pace of hiking by the bank and an awareness that the U.K. will not have the fiscal space needed to avoid a recession. Barring unorthodox moves like scrapping the remuneration of bank reserves at the Bank of England, the Chancellor is going to need to find 30 to £40 billion in spending cuts to stabilize the debt to GDP ratio over the next five years. In Italy, elections brought a center right populist coalition led by Giorgia Meloni to a majority in both the lower house and the Senate. The Coalition's stated policy goals are expansionary. More social spending and labor tax cuts are top priorities, along with increasing pension benefits. Our economists estimate that the proposed measures would increase the deficit by roughly 2 to 4 percentage points of GDP, boosting the debt to GDP ratio next year. Such policies will prove difficult during a time of rising interest rates and heightened market scrutiny about debt dynamics. So, Maloney recently expressed her willingness to respect the EU budget rules, but reconciling that view with the policy priorities is going to be a challenge. Our main concern is less a repeat of the U.K. experience, but rather medium term debt sustainability. So let me finish up back home. For the U.S. midterm elections polls have been shifting but most point to at least one house of the Congress changing hands, thus a split government. Our base case from my colleague Mike Zezas as a result is gridlock, but divided governments do not always lead to such benign outcomes. I was a Treasury official during a government shutdown. It was not fun. And in fact, following the 2010 midterms, divided government led to a debt ceiling standoff, government shutdown, and ultimately contractionary policy in the form of the Budget Control Act. Such an outcome is easily conceivable after this midterm election, and with inflation high, even with weak growth, we could easily see another installment of contractionary policy. With growth only expected to be barely positive, that's a real risk. Policy always matters. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Last week stocks rallied quickly but dropped just as fast as markets continue to hope for a more dovish Fed, but will this 2-way risk continue as evidence for a drop in earnings continues to accumulate?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the  Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, October 10th, at 1:30 p.m. in New York. So let's get after it. Last week started with one of the biggest 2 day rallies in history, only to give most of it back by Friday's close. The culprit for this higher 2-way volatility is a combination of deteriorating fundamentals with oversold technicals. As noted last week, September was one of the worst months in what's been a difficult year, and the equity market was primed for a rally, especially with the S&P 500 closing right at its 200 week moving average on the prior Friday. Low quality stocks led the rally as further evidence the rebound was just bear market action rather than the beginning of a new bull. There is also still lingering hope for a Fed pivot, but the economic data that matters the most for such a pivot, jobs and inflation, continue to dash any hopes for a more dovish Fed. The sellout of momentum and retail, to some degree, does keep 2-way risk alive in the short term as it gets quiet for the next few weeks on the earnings front. Over the past month, there has been evidence that our call for lower earnings next year is coming to fruition. Large, important companies across a wide swath of industries have either reported or preannounced earnings and guided significantly lower for the fourth quarter. Some of these misses were as much as 30%, which is exactly what's needed for next year's estimates to finally take the step function lower, we think is necessary for the bear market to be over. The question is, will enough of this happen during third quarter earnings season, or will we need to wait for fourth quarter reporting in January and February when companies tend to formally guide for the next year? We think the evidence is already there and should be strong enough for this quarter for bottoms up consensus estimates have finally come down to reality, but we just don't know for sure. Therefore, over the next two weeks, stocks could continue to exhibit 2-way risk and defend that 200 week moving average at around 3600. One interesting development that supports our less optimistic view on 2023 earnings is in the dividend futures market. More specifically, we've noticed that dividend futures have traded materially lower, even as forward earnings per share forecasts have remained sticky to the upside. One reason this might be happening now is that cash flows are weakening. This is tied to the lower quality earnings per share we predicted earlier this year as companies struggled with the timing and costs versus revenues as the economy fully reopened. Things like inventory, labor costs and other latent expenses are wreaking havoc on cash flow. Accrual accounting earnings per share will likely follow 6 to 12 months later. In short, it's just another sign that our materially lower than consensus earnings per share forecasts next year are likely to be correct. If anything, we are now leaning more toward our bear case on S&P 500 earnings per share for next year, which is $190. The consensus is at $238. Bottom line, the valuation compression in equity markets this year is due to interest rates rising rather than concern about growth. This is evidenced by the very low equity risk premium, currently 260 basis points, that we still observe. The bear market will not be over until either earnings per share forecasts are more in line with our view, or the valuation better reflects the risk via the equity risk premium channel. Bear markets are about price and time, price takes your money, time takes your patience. Let the market wear everybody else out. When nobody is calling for the bottom, you will then know it's finally time to step in. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show. 

While China’s policy objectives strive for common prosperity, the country’s strict COVID management poses risks to employment and income, so when might Chinese policymakers start to reopen and recover?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Chief Asia Economist at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be focusing on the expected reopening of China's economy. It's Friday, October 7th, at 8:30 a.m. in Hong Kong. When my colleagues and I discuss Asia's growth outlook with investors, one of the top questions we get is, when will China reopen and what the roadmap will look like. We believe a reopening will happen not because the rest of the world is now living with COVID, but because the effects of China's strict COVID management are now increasingly at odds with its policy objective of achieving common prosperity. The challenges of a sharp rise in youth unemployment and significantly lower income growth, especially for the low income segments of the population, have become more pronounced this year ever since the onset of Omicron. To put this in context, the youth unemployment rate is at 19% and our wage growth proxy has decelerated from around 9% pre-COVID, to just about 2.2% year on year. These issues are further exacerbated by the intensifying spillover effects from weaker exports and a continued drag from property sector. Over the next five quarters, growth in developed markets will likely remain below 2% year on year. The continued shift in DM consumer spending towards services will mean global goods demand will deflate further. And as exports weaken, manufacturing CapEx will also follow suit, which will further weigh on employment creation. As for the property market, the pace of resolution of funding issues and uncompleted projects are still relatively sluggish. With the outlook for the drivers of GDP growth weakening, we think the only meaningful policy lever is a shift in COVID management aimed at reopening, reviving consumption and allowing services sector activity to lift aggregate demand towards a sustainable recovery. As things stand, several steps are necessary for a smooth reopening. They are, number one, renewed campaign to lift booster vaccination rates, especially amongst the elderly population. Number two, shaping the public perception on COVID. And number three, ensuring adequate medical facilities, equipment and treatment methods in the next 3 to 6 months. We therefore anticipate that policymakers will, in the spring of 2023, with the peak COVID and flu season behind us, be able to proceed with a broader reopening plan. Of course, we think that reopening in China will be gradual, as policymakers will remain mindful of the potential burden on the health care system. Against this backdrop, we see the recovery strengthening from second quarter of 2023 onwards. In the next two quarters, we estimate GDP growth will be subpar at around 3%. But as China reopens from the spring of 2023, we expect GDP growth will strengthen to 5.5% in the second half of the year. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. 

As month over month data begins to show a downturn in home prices, will overall price growth and sales begin to fall steeper than expected? Co-Heads of U.S. Securitized Products Research Jim Egan and Jay Bacow discuss.----- Transcript -----Jim Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, Co-head of U.S. Securitized Products Research here at Morgan Stanley.  Jay Bacow: And I'm Jay Bacow, the other Co-head of U.S. Securitized Products Research. Jim Egan: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing why home prices could turn negative in 2023. It's Thursday, October 6th, at 3 p.m. in New York. Jay Bacow: Jim, it seems like every month the housing data is getting worse when we look at the sales activity. But, now I think I just saw something about home prices falling? What's going on there? I thought we call it home price appreciation, now we're seeing home price depreciation? Jim Egan: There is a lot going on out there. There's a lot of volatility, things are moving fast, and yes, there are home price indices that are showing negative numbers. I would caveat that a lot of those negative numbers are month over month, not the year over year that we've typically talked about here. But that doesn't mean it isn't important. Jay Bacow: In the past we've talked about this bifurcation narrative where we were going to get a big drop in home sales and housing starts, which we've seen, but home prices were more protected. Do you still believe that? Jim Egan: We do still believe in the bifurcation narrative, but the levels of the forecasts have changed, and they've changed for a couple of reasons. I think one reason is that there have been a number of forecast changes, expectations for 2023 are different. Our U.S. economics team has raised their hiking forecast 25 basis points in each of the next three meetings, and our interest rate team on the back of that forecast change has moved up their expectations for the 10 year Treasury. What that move means for us is that the incredible affordability deterioration that we've seen, probably isn't going to get a whole lot better next year. And that's happening in a world in which you mentioned some home prices turning negative. The home price deceleration that we were calling for, from plus 20% all the way down to plus 3% at the end of next year, that relied upon or I can say we expected home prices to fall month over month, but we thought that was going to start in September. It started in July. Sales volumes have been coming in weaker than we thought they would. When we take that weaker than expected housing data, we marry that with different expectations for affordability next year, the forecasts have to change. Jay Bacow: And so what exactly are we forecasting for this year and next year? Jim Egan: So in this world, we do think that sales are going to fall steeper than we thought. We think that starts are going to fall steeper than we thought, and that next year a single unit starts are going to be lower in 2023 than they were in 2022. We had originally been forecasting a return to growth in 2023, but the change to the forecast that's getting the most attention is that we went from plus 3% year over year growth in December of 2023 to -3% year over year growth by the end of next year. Jay Bacow: So if I buy a house today, it might be lower a year from now? That seems worrisome. Jim Egan: Yes. And I think there is a positive and a negative headline to that, right. The negative headline, the worrisome, if you will, that you mentioned is that not only is it down 3% next year, but that's down 7% from where we are right now. The positive headline is that even with that decrease in home prices from today, that only brings us back to January of 2022. That's 32% above where they were in March of 2020. Jay Bacow: All right, that doesn't seem so bad, given that stocks are a lot lower than where they were in January of 2022. So it's more stalling out than a real correction in home prices. But, why wouldn't home prices fall further from there? Jim Egan: We haven't seen anything in the data that changes kind of the underlying narrative that we've been discussing on this podcast in the past. In particular, two things. The first is how robust credit standards have been. If anything, lending standards, which were pretty tight to begin with in the first quarter of 2020, have tightened substantially since then. What that means, again, it constrains sales volumes. We think sales are going to fall more than home prices, but it also means that the likelihood of defaults and foreclosures is limited. And it is those distressed transactions, those forced sellers that we would need to see a leg down in prices. The other point is, away from defaults and foreclosures, actual inventory is still incredibly low. And because current homeowners sit on 30 year fixed rate mortgages, well below the current mortgage rate, when we talk about affordability deteriorating, we're not talking about it deteriorating for current homeowners. They're much more likely to stay in their home, much less likely to list their home for sale, they're not going to be selling into depressed bids. So that credit availability and those tight lending standards, we think that keeps home prices supported. Jay Bacow: So home prices are protected because we're not going to get the forced sellers that we saw during the financial crisis and the fundamentals of the housing market are in much stronger footing. What would actually get you, though, to forecast more of a real correction than just the stalling out? Jim Egan: I'm going to make this really complicated and say the supply and demand. If demand were to be weaker than we already think it is, and that could happen because the historic deterioration we've seen in affordability has a bigger impact than we think it will. Maybe because the unemployment rate picks up faster than we're expecting it to next year. If you have a much weaker demand environment than we're already envisioning, and you combine that with more supply, perhaps people who'd be a little bit more willing to part with their home at slightly lower prices than we expect them to, people who've owned their home for 10, 15, 20 years and might be looking to downsize. That's where you might have a little bit more of a marriage between uneconomic sellers and depressed demand that could bring home prices lower than we expect. Now, how does all of that, if we think about the implications to investors, what does all that mean for the MBS market? Jay Bacow: I'm going to make this really complicated, too. A lot of it comes down to supply and demand. The lack of housing activity and the lower home prices means that there's going to be less supply for mortgage investors to buy. That's good for the mortgage market. The rapid increase in unaffordability has been because of the rapid increase in implied volatility, which is bad for mortgage investors. This has brought nominal spread to the Treasury curve for agency mortgages to levels that are basically at the post GFC wides. And we think that move is a little bit overdone. And so for institutional investors we think this is an opportunity to own agency mortgages versus treasuries as a way to fade some of these moves, and take advantage of some of the more forward looking supply projections that we think will be coming as supply slows down. Jay Bacow: But Jim, it's always great talking to you. Jim Egan: Great talking to you too, Jay. Jay Bacow: And thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on the Apple Podcast app and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today. 

As globalization slows and companies begin to nearshore their supply chains, investors may be wondering what the costs and benefits are of bringing manufacturing back home.Important note regarding economic sanctions. This research references country/ies which are generally the subject of comprehensive or selective sanctions programs administered or enforced by the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), the European Union and/or by other countries and multi-national bodies. Any references in this report to entities, debt or equity instruments, projects or persons that may be covered by such sanctions are strictly informational, and should not be read as recommending or advising as to any investment activities in relation to such entities, instruments or projects. Users of this report are solely responsible for ensuring that their investment activities in relation to any sanctioned country/ies are carried out in compliance with applicable sanctions.----- Transcript -----Welcome the Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between U.S. public policy and financial markets. It's Wednesday, October 5th, at 10 a.m. in New York. We speak often here about the themes of slowing globalization, or slowbalization, and the shift to a multipolar world. It's important to understand these megatrends, as they will likely impact global commerce for decades to come and in many ways we cannot yet anticipate. But one impact we have anticipated is multinational companies spending money to shift their supply chains. Whereas globalization meant companies could focus on lowering their labor and transportation costs through 'just in time' logistics, 'just in case' logistics are the watchword of the multipolar world. Companies will have to invest money to nearshore or friend shore to protect their supply chains from seizing up due to geopolitical conflicts, be it war, such as Russia invading Ukraine leading to sanctions, or the proliferation of policies by Western governments, preventing companies from producing and/or sourcing sensitive technologies overseas. Now, we're increasingly seeing evidence that this dynamic is already at play. Take Apple, for example, which, according to the Wall Street Journal, recently released a supplier list showing that in September of 2021, 48 of its suppliers had manufacturing sites in the U.S., up from 25 just a year before. The article goes on to cite several semiconductor chip makers who have recently opened US based sites. One company recently agreed to invest as much as $100 billion in a semiconductor manufacturing facility in upstate New York. Another announced plans to invest $20 billion for chip factories in Ohio. So it's clear that companies are starting to respond to geopolitical incentives. The long term public policy benefits of these moves could prove to be quite sound, but in the short term they're a challenge to markets. These investments cost money and represent elevated costs relative to what these companies would have enjoyed had the geopolitical environment not become more challenging. That means investors have to price in yet another margin pressure on top of the ones our colleague Mike Wilson continues to highlight in U.S. equities, from labor costs and the fed hiking rates to engineer slower economic growth. So bottom line for investors, shifting to a new geopolitical world order may be necessary, but it will cost something along the way. And for the moment, that means extra pressure on a U.S. equity market that's already got its fair share. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show. 

With investors becoming pervasively bearish on stocks and bonds in the face of a worsening growth outlook, can the U.S. investment grade credit market provide shelter from the storm?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Global Director of Fixed Income Research. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll share why corporate credit markets may be a sheltering opportunity amid current turbulence. It's Tuesday, October 4th, at 11 a.m. in New York. At a September meeting, the Federal Open Market Committee delivered a third consecutive 75 basis point rate hike, just as consensus had expected. The markets took this to mean a higher peak and a longer hiking cycle, resulting in sharp spikes in bond yields and a sell off in equities. At the moment, both 2 and 10 year Treasury yields stand at decade highs, thanks to pervasively bearish sentiment among investors across both stocks and bonds. As regular listeners may have heard on this podcast, Morgan Stanley's Chief Global Economist, Seth Carpenter, has said that the worst of the global slowdown is still likely ahead. And our Chief U.S. Equity Strategist, Mike Wilson, recently revised down his earnings expectations for U.S. equities. Navigating this choppy waters is a challenge in both risk free and risky assets due to duration risk in the former, and growth or earnings risks in the latter. Against this backdrop, we think the U.S. investment grade corporate bonds, IG, particularly at the front end of the curve, which is to say 1 to 5 year segment, could provide a safer alternative with lower downside for investors looking for income, especially on the back of much higher yields. But investors may wonder, wont credit fundamentals deteriorate if economy slows, or worse, enters the recession and company earnings decline. Here is where the starting point matters. After inching higher in Q1, median investment grade leverage improved modestly in the second quarter and is well below its post-COVID peak in the second quarter of 2020. Gross leverage is roughly in line with pre-COVID levels. Notably, while median leverage is back to pre-COVID levels, the percentage of debt in the leverage tail has declined meaningfully. But if earnings were to decline, as our equity strategists expect, leverage ratios may pick back up. That said, interest coverage is the offsetting consideration. Given the amount of debt that investment grade companies have raised at very low coupons over the years, their ability to cover interest has been a bright spot for some time. Despite sharply higher rates, median interest coverage improved in the second quarter and is around the highest levels since early 1990. This modest improvement in interest coverage comes down to the fact that even though yields on new debt are higher than the average of all outstanding debt, the bonds that are maturing have relatively high coupons. Therefore, most companies have not had to refinance at substantially higher funding levels. In fact, absolute dollar level of interest expense paid out by IG companies actually declined in the quarter and is now well below the peaks of 2021. With limited near-term financing needs, higher rates are unlikely to dent these very healthy interest coverage ratios. The combination of strong in-place investment grade fundamentals, relatively low duration for the 1 to 5 year segment and yields at decade highs, suggests that this part of the credit market offers a relatively safe haven to weather the storms that are coming for the markets. History provides some validation as well. Looking back to the stagflationary periods of 1970s and 80's, while we saw multiple decisions and volatility in equity markets, IG credit was relatively stable with very modest defaults. And while history doesn't repeat, it does sometimes rhyme, so we look to the relative safety of IG credit once again in the current environment. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. 

With rates and currency markets experiencing increasing volatility, the state of global U.S. dollar supply has begun to force central bank moves, leaving the question of when and how the Fed may react up for debate.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, October 3rd, at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. The month of September followed its typical seasonal pattern as the worst month of the year, and given how bad this year has been, I don't say that lightly. But as bad as stocks have been, rates and currency markets have been even more volatile. With volatility this severe, some of the cavalry has been called in. The Bank of England's surprise move last week was arguably necessary to protect against a sharp fall in U.K. bonds. Some may argue the U.K. is in a unique situation, and so this doesn't portend other central banks doing the same thing. However, this is how it starts. In other words, investors can't be as adamant the Fed will choose or be able to follow through on its tough talk. Like it or not, the world is still dependent on U.S. dollars, which provide the oxygen for global economies and markets. Former U.S. Treasury Secretary John Connolly's famous quote that "the dollar is our currency, but it's your problem" continues to ring true. It's also one of the primary reasons why several countries have been working so hard to de-dollarise over the past decade. The U.S. dollar is very important for the direction of global financial markets, and this is why we track the growth of global dollar supply so closely. In fact, the primary reason for our mid-cycle transition call in March of 2021 was our observation that U.S. dollar money supply growth had peaked. Indeed, this is exactly when the most speculative assets in the marketplace peaked and began to suffer. Things like cryptocurrencies, SPACs, recent IPOs and profitless growth stocks trading at excessive valuations. Now we find global U.S. dollar money supply growth negative on a year over year basis, a level where financial and economic accidents have occurred historically. In many ways, that's exactly what happened in the U.K. bond market last week, forcing the Bank of England's hand. There are many reasons why a U.S. dollar liquidity is so tight; central banks raising rates and shrinking balance sheets, higher oil prices and inflation in many goods bought and sold in dollars, incremental regulatory tightening and lower velocity of money in the real economy as activity dries up in critical areas like housing. In short, U.S. dollar supply is tight for many reasons beyond Fed policy, but only the Fed can print the dollars necessary to fix the problem quickly. We looked at the four largest economies in the world, the U.S., China, the Eurozone and Japan, to gauge how much U.S. dollar liquidity is tightening. More specifically, money supply in U.S. dollars for the Big Four is down approximately $4 trillion from the peak in March. As already mentioned, the year over year growth rate is now in negative territory for the first time since March of 2015, a period that immediately preceded a global manufacturing recession. In our view, such tightness is unsustainable because it will lead to intolerable economic and financial stress, and the problem can be fixed very easily by the Fed if it so chooses. The first question to ask is, when does the U.S. dollar become a U.S. problem? Nobody knows, but more price action of the kind we've been experiencing should eventually get the Fed to back off. The second question to ask is, will slowing or ending quantitative tightening be enough? Or will the Fed need to restart quantitative easing? In our opinion, the answer may be the latter if one is looking for stocks to rebound sustainably. Which leads us to the final point of this podcast - a Fed pivot is likely at some point given the trajectory of global U.S. dollar money supply. However, the timing is uncertain and won't change the downward trajectory of earnings, our primary concern for stocks at this point. Bottom line, in the absence of a Fed pivot, risk assets are likely headed lower. Conversely, a Fed pivot, or the anticipation of one, can still lead to sharp rallies like we are experiencing this morning. Just keep in mind that the light at the end of the tunnel you might see if that happens, is actually the train of the oncoming earnings recession that even the Fed can't stop. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show.

Amidst increased volatility across credit, equity and FX markets, many investors this week are wondering, what is the path ahead for Fed intervention? Chief Cross Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets, Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter and Head of Thematic and Public Policy Research Michael Zezas discuss.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts in the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter. Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. Michael Zezas: And I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research. Andrew Sheets: And on this special edition of the podcast, we'll be talking about intervention, inflation and what's ahead for markets. It's Friday, September 30th at 9 a.m. in San Francisco. Michael Zezas: So, Andrew, Seth, we've been on the road all week seeing clients and that's come amidst some very unusual moves in the markets and interventions by a couple of central banks. Andrew, can you put in a context for us what's happened and maybe why it's happened? Andrew Sheets: Thanks, Mike. So I think you have the intersection of three pretty interesting stories that have been happening over the last couple of weeks. The first, and probably most important, is that core inflation in the U.S. remains higher than the Federal Reserve would like, which has kept Fed policy hawkish, which has kept the dollar strong and U.S. yields moving higher. Now, one of the currencies that the dollar has been strongest against is the Japanese yen, which has fallen sharply in value this year. Now we saw Japan finally intervene into the currency markets to a limited extent to try to support the yen but that support was short lived and we saw the dollar continue to strengthen. The other story that we saw occurred in the U.K., a country we discussed on this podcast recently about some of its unique economic challenges. The U.K. has also seen a weak currency against the dollar. But in addition to that, because of the market's reaction to recent fiscal policy proposals, we saw a very large rise in U.K. bond yields, which caused market dislocations and pushed the Bank of England to intervene in bond markets in a way that drove some of the largest moves in U.K. interest rates, really in recorded history. So a lot's been going on, Mike, it's been a very busy couple of weeks, but it's a story at its core about inflation leading to intervention, but ultimately not really changing a core backdrop of higher U.S. yields and a stronger U.S. dollar. Seth Carpenter: I completely agree with you on that, Andrew. And I think it brings up some of the questions that you and I have got in our client meetings this week, which is, 'where can this end?' Any trend that's not sustainable won't last forever, as the saying goes. So what would cause sort of an end to the dollar's run? And I think a natural place to look is, what would cause the Fed to stop hiking? I think the first thing that's worth strongly emphasizing is, from the Fed's perspective, a narrow monetary policy mandate, the rising dollar is actually a good thing. A stronger dollar means lower imported inflation. A stronger dollar means less demand for U.S. exports from the rest of the world. The Fed is fighting inflation by hiking interest rates, trying to slow the economy and thereby reduce inflationary pressures. Right now, this run in the dollar is doing their job for them. Michael Zezas: I would add to that that we've been getting a lot of questions about, 'when would the Fed or the Treasury see this weakness and want to intervene on behalf of markets?' And I think the answer is it's unlikely to happen anytime soon. And there's really kind of two reasons for that. One, doing so would contradict the Fed and the Treasury's own stated goals of fighting inflation right now. I think there are heavy political and policy incentives that haven't changed that support that being the policy direction for those institutions. And then the second is, even if you intervened right now, our FX research team has pointed out it's probably unlikely to work. At the moment, there aren't a tremendous amount of FX reserves in the system with which to intervene. And so any intervention would probably deliver short term results. So long story short, if the intervention is against your goals and wouldn't likely work anyway, it's probably not going to happen. So, Andrew, I think this kind of brings the conversation back around to you. If there really isn't going to be any net change in the Federal Reserve's stance towards monetary policy, then what should investors expect going forward? Andrew Sheets: So at the risk of sounding simplistic, if we're not going to see a change in policy response from the Fed, then we shouldn't expect a major change in market dynamics. Core inflation remains higher than we think the Fed is comfortable with. That will keep pressure on the Fed to keep making hawkish noises that should keep upward pressure on the front end of the curve and keep the curve quite inverted. We think that helps support the dollar because while the dollar might be expensive in many measures of foreign exchange valuation, the dollar is still paying investors much more than currencies like the yen or the UK pound in real interest rates. And that differential is powerful, that differential is important. And I think that differential will keep investors looking for the safety and stability and higher yields of the U.S. dollar. Look, taking a step back, I think markets are adjusting to this dynamic where the Fed is not your friend as an investor. Which is the pattern that we saw through most of financial market history, but was different in the post global financial crisis era, when the level of stress on the markets was so severe that the level of policy support had to be extraordinary. And so that is a dynamic that's shifting now that we're facing a stronger economy, now that we're facing much stronger consumer and corporate demand, we're facing the more normal tradeoff where strong labor markets, strong consumer demand leads to a Federal Reserve that's really trying to tighten the reins and slow the economy down, slow financial market activity down. So, you know, investors are still sailing into that headwind. We think that presents a headwind to risky assets. We think that presents a headwind to the S&P 500. And we think, with the Fed still sounding quite serious on inflation, still erring on the side of caution, that will lead investors to continue to think more rate hikes are possible and support the U.S. dollar against many other currencies in the developed market, which still have lower yields, especially on an inflation adjusted basis. Seth Carpenter: So, Andrew, I think I want to jump in on that because I think what you're saying is, for now, nothing's changing and so we should expect the same market dynamics. Which brings up the question that you and I have got this week as we've been seeing clients, which is, 'what would cause the Fed to pivot? What would cause the Fed to change its policies?' And I think there, I would break it into two parts. Going back to my first point about what the rising interest rates and the rising dollar have been doing, they've been doing exactly what the Fed wants, limiting demand in the United States, slowing growth in the United States, and, as a result, putting downward pressure on inflation. If we get to the point where the US economy is clearly slowing enough, if we get data that is convincing that inflation is on a downward trajectory, that's what the Fed is looking for to pause their hiking cycle. So I think that's the first answer. The other version, though, is the market volatility that we're seeing is being driven by some of this policy action. We could get feedback loops, we could get increasing bouts of volatility where markets start to break, we could get credit markets breaking, we could get more volatility and interest rate markets like we saw in the U.K.. I think at some point we can see where there's a feedback loop from financial market disruptions globally that threatens the United States. And at some point, that kind of feedback could be enough to cause the Fed to take a pause. Andrew Sheets: So Seth, that's a great point. And actually, I want to push you on specifics here. How do you and the economics team think about a scenario where, let's say inflation is 3/10 lower than expected next month, or where we go from a very strong level of reading in the labor market? What would be an indication of the type of market stress that the Fed would care about relative to something it would see as more the normal course of business? Seth Carpenter: I don't think one month's worth of data coming in softer than forecast would be enough to completely change the Fed's mind, but it would be enough to change the Fed's tone. I think in those circumstances, if both nonfarm payrolls and CPI came in substantially below expectations, you would hear Chair Powell at the November meeting saying things like, 'We got some data that came in softer and for now, we're going to monitor the data to see if this same downward trajectory continues.' I think that kind of language from Powell would be a signal that a pivot is probably closer than you might have thought otherwise. Conversely, when it comes to financial markets, I think the key takeaway is that it has to be the type of financial market disruptions that the Fed thinks could spill back to the U.S. and hurt overall growth enough to slow the economy, to bring inflation down. Credit market disruptions are a key issue there. Sometimes we've seen global risk markets and global funding markets get disrupted. I think it's very hard to say ex-ante what it would take. But the key is that it would have to be severe enough that it would start to affect U.S. domestic markets. Andrew Sheets: So, Seth, Mike, it's been great to talk to you. So just to wrap this up, we face a backdrop where inflation still remains higher than the Federal Reserve would like it. We think that keeps policy hawkish, which keeps the dollar strong. And even though we've seen some market interventions to a limited degree, we don't see much larger interventions reversing the direction of the dollar. And we don't think such interventions, at the moment, would be particularly effective. We think that keeps the dollar strong and we think that means headwinds for markets, which leaves us cautious on risky assets in the near term. As always, this is a fast evolving story and we'll do our best to keep you up to date on it. Andrew Sheets: Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show.

Asia and EM equities are on the verge of the longest bear market in their history, so what is the likelihood that a sharp fall in prices follows soon after?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jonathan Garner, Chief Asia and Emerging Market Equity Strategist at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be discussing the ongoing bear market in Asia and Emerging Market equities. It's Thursday, September the 29th at 8 a.m. in Singapore. We have repeatedly emphasized that patience may be rewarded during what will likely, by the end of this month, become the longest bear market in the history of Asia and Emerging Market equities. Indeed, we argued that the August Jackson Hole speech by Fed Chair Powell, and the mid-September upside surprise in U.S. CPI inflation likely accelerated a downward move towards our bear case targets near term. And in recent weeks, the MSCI Emerging Markets Index has indeed given back almost all of the gains it had recorded from the COVID recession lows. To our mind, this raises the likelihood that a classic capitulation trough, a sudden sharp fall in prices and high trading volumes, could be forming in a matter of weeks. Now, all cycles are not made alike, and this one is unusual in a number of key regards. Most notably, the dislocations in the supply side of the global economy caused by COVID and geopolitics. Moreover, China is not easing policy to the same extent as helped generate troughs in late 2008 and early 2016. Thus, caution is warranted in drawing too firm a set of conclusions from relationships that have held in the past. That said, by the end of this month, the current bear market will likely become the longest in the history of the asset class, overtaking in days duration that triggered by the dot com bust in the early 2000's. And after a more than 35% drawdown, the MSCI Emerging Markets Index is now trading close to prior trough valuations at only 10x price to consensus forward earnings. Our experience covering all previous bear markets back to 1997/1998 suggests to us ten sets of indicators to monitor. We've recently undertaken an exercise to score each indicator from 1, which equates to a trough indicator not enforced at all to 5, which indicates a compelling trough indicator already in place. Currently, the sum of the scores across the factors is 32 out of a maximum of 50, which we view as suggesting that a trough is approaching but not yet fully conclusive at this stage. In our view, the U.S. dollar, which continues to rise, including after the most recent FOMC meeting, gives the least sign of an impending trough in EM equities. Whilst the underperformance of the Korean equity market and the semiconductor sector, the recent sharp fall in oil price and the fall in the oil price relative to the gold price give the strongest signs. In this regard, we would note that within our coverage we recently downgraded the energy sector to neutral, upgrading defensive sectors, including telecoms and utilities. We intend to update the evolution of these indicators as appropriate as we attempt to help clients move through the trough of this unusually long Asia and Emerging Markets equity bear market. Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and recommend Thoughts on the Market to a friend or colleague today.

As the Fed continues to increase their peak rate of interest, the path for a soft landing narrows, so what deflationary indicators need to show up in the real economy to take the pressure off of policy tightening?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ellen Zentner, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss the narrowing path for a soft landing for the U.S. economy. It's Wednesday, September 28, at 10 a.m. in New York. Last week, we revised our outlook to reflect the expectation that the Fed will take its policy rate to a higher peak between 4.5% to 4.75% by early next year. And that's 75 basis points additional tightening than what we had envisioned previously. Tighter policy should push the real economy further below potential and substantially slow job gains. And while higher interest rates are needed to create that additional slack in the economy, this dynamic raises the risk of recession. There's still a path to a soft landing here, but it seems clear to us that path has narrowed. Now beyond directly interest sensitive sectors such as housing and durable goods, we've seen little evidence that the real economy is responding to the Fed's policy tightening. Just think about how strong monthly job gains remain in the range of 300,000. So in the absence of a broader slowdown, and facing persistent core inflation pressures such as a worrisome acceleration in rental prices, the Fed is on track to continue tightening at a faster pace than we had originally anticipated. Looking to the November meeting, we expect the Fed to hike rates by 75 basis points, and then begin to step down the pace of those rate hikes to 50 basis points in December and 25 basis points in January. We then expect the Fed to stay on hold until the first 25 basis point rate cut in December 2023. While inflation has remained stubborn, the growth environment has softened, and the lagged effect of monetary policy on economic activity points to further slowing ahead. So in response to substantially more drag from higher interest rates, we've lowered our 2023 growth forecast to just 0.5%. We then think a mild recovery sets in in the second half of 2023, but growth remains well below potential all year. In our forecast, weakness in economic activity will be spread more broadly, and monetary policy acts with a 2 to 3 quarter lag on interest rate sensitive sectors such as durable goods. So the sharper slowdown we envision in 2023 predominantly reflects a downshift in consumption growth. Business investment also tends to respond with a lag and will become a negative for growth in the first half of 2023. With growth falling more rapidly below potential, the labor market is on track to follow suit. We now see job gains bottoming at 55,000 per month by the middle of 2023. Lower job growth in combination with a rising participation rate, lifts the unemployment rate further to 4.4% by the end of next year. Inflation pressures have still not turned decisively lower, in particular because of rising shelter costs. High frequency measures point to eventual deceleration, though it should be gradual, even as the labor market loosens on below potential growth. We see core PCE inflation at 4.6% on a year over year basis in the fourth quarter of this year, and slow to 3.1% year over year in the fourth quarter of next year. So inflation is a good deal lower by the end of next year, but that's still too high to allow for rate cuts much before the end of 2023. Turning to risks, we think the risk to the outlook and monetary policy path now skew to the downside and a policy mistake is coming into focus. At the Fed's current pace of tightening uncertainty as to how the economy will respond a few months down the line is high. The labor market tends to be slow moving, but we and frankly monetary policymakers have no experience with interest rate changes of this magnitude. And activity could come to a halt faster than expected. Essentially, the higher the peak rate of interest the Fed aims for, the greater the risk of recession. We are already moving through sustained below potential GDP growth. We now need to see job gains slow materially over the next few months to ease the pressure on the pace of policy tightening. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

While the global oil market has seen a decrease in demand, supply issues are still prevalent, leaving investors to question where oil prices are headed next.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley's Global Commodity Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss the current state of the global oil market. It's Tuesday, September 27th, at 2 p.m. in London. U.S. consumers have no doubt noticed and appreciated a welcome relief from the recent pain at the gas pump. Up until last week, U.S. gas prices had been sinking every day for more than three months, marking the second longest such streak on record going back to 2005. This gas price plunge in the U.S. was driven in part by the unprecedented releases of emergency oil by the White House. But what else is happening globally on the macro level? Looking at the telltale signs in the oil markets, they tell a clear story that physical tightness has waned. Spot prices have fallen, forward curves have flattened, physical differentials have come in and refining margins have weakened. A growth slowdown in all main economic blocks has pointed to weaker oil demand for some time, and this is now also visible in oil specific data. China has been a particularly important contributor to this. However, prices have also corrected substantially by now. Adjusted for inflation, Brent crude oil is back below its 15 year average price. In this context, the current price is not particularly high. Also, the Brent futures curve has in fact flattened to such an extent that current time spreads would have historically corresponded with much higher inventories expressed in days of demand. That means, in short, that the market structure is already discounting a significant inventory built and/or a large demand decline. Then there is still meaningful uncertainty over what will happen to oil supply from Russia once the EU import embargo kicks in later this year for crude oil, and early next year for oil products. The EU still imports about three and a half million barrels a day of oil from Russia. Redirecting such a large volume to other buyers, and then redirecting other oil back to Europe is possible over time, but probably not without significant disruption for an extended period. For a while, we suspect that this will lead to a net loss of oil supply to the markets in the order of one and a half million barrels a day. To attract enough other oil to Europe, European oil prices will need to stay elevated. The relative price of oil in Europe is Brent crude oil. Elsewhere, there are supply issues too. We started off the year forecasting nearly a million barrels a day of oil production growth from the United States. But so far this year, actual growth in the first six months of the year has just been half that level. We still assume some back end loaded growth later this year, but have lowered our forecast already several times. Then Nigerian oil production has deteriorated much faster than expected, currently at the lowest level since the early 1970s. Kazakhstan exports via the CBC terminal are hampered, OPEC's spare capacity has fallen to just over 1%, and the rig count recovery in the Middle East remains surprisingly anemic. The long term structural outlook for the oil market still remains one of tightness, but for now this is overshadowed by cyclical demand challenges. As long as macroeconomic conditions remain so weak, oil prices will probably continue to linger on. However, that should not be taken as a sign that the structural issues in the oil market around investment and capacity are solved. As we all know, after recession comes recovery. Once demand picks up, the structural issues will likely reassert themselves. We have lowered our near-term oil price forecast, but still see a firmer market at some point in 2023 again. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

After last week’s Fed meeting and another rate hike, both stocks and bonds dropped back to June lows. The question is, will this turn to the downside continue to accelerate?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, September 26, at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. Last week's Fed meeting gave us the 75 basis point hike most investors were expecting, and similar messaging to what we heard at Jackson Hole a month ago. In short, the Fed means business with inflation and is willing to do whatever it takes to combat it. So why was there such a dramatic reaction in the bond and stock markets? Were investors still hoping the Fed would make a dovish pivot? Whatever the reason, both stocks and bonds are right back to their June lows, with many bellwether stocks and treasuries even lower. As we wrote a few weeks ago, we think investor hopes for a Fed pivot were misplaced, and Chair Powell has now made that crystal clear. Secondly, we noted last week that the only remaining hope for stocks would be if the bond market rallied at the back end on the view that the Fed was finally ahead of the curve and would win its fight against inflation, while slowing the economy materially. Instead, interest rates spiked higher, squelching any hopes for stocks. While 15.6x price earnings ratio is back to the June lows, that P/E still embeds what we think is a mispriced equity risk premium given the risk to earnings. Said another way, with a Fed pivot now off the table, the path on bond and equity prices will come down to growth - economic growth for bonds and earnings growth for stocks. On both counts we are pessimistic, particularly on the latter as supported by our recent cuts to earnings forecasts. We have been discussing these forecasts with clients for the past several weeks and while most are in agreement that consensus 2023 earnings estimates are too high, there is still a debate on how much. Suffice it to say, we are at the low end of client expectations. Interestingly, recent economic data have kept the economic soft landing view alive, and interest rates have moved above our rates team's year end forecast. From an equity market standpoint, that means no relief for valuations as earnings come down. This is a major reason why stocks sank to their June lows on Friday. Ultimately, we do think economic surprise data will likely disappoint again, but until it does there is no end in sight for the rise in 10 year yields, especially with the run off of the Fed's balance sheet increasing. As such, our rates team has raised its year end target for 10 year Treasury yields to 4% from 3.5%. This is a very tough backdrop for stocks and epitomizes our fire and ice thesis to a T. In other words, rising cost of capital and lower liquidity in the face of slower earnings growth or even outright declines. Finally, the Fed's historically hawkish action has led to record strength in the U.S. dollar. On a year over year basis the dollar is now up 21% and still rising. Based on our analysis that every 1% change in the dollar has a .5% impact on S&P 500 earnings growth, fourth quarter S&P 500 earnings will face an approximate 10% headwind to growth all else equal. This is in addition to the other challenges we've been discussing for months, like the pay back in demand and higher cost from inflation to name a few. Bottom line Part 2 of our Fire and ice thesis is now on full display, with rates and the U.S. dollar ratcheting higher, just as the negative revisions for earnings appear set to accelerate to the downside. In our view, the bear market in stocks will not be over until the S&P 500 reaches the range of our base and bear targets, i.e. 3000 to 3400 later this fall. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show.

After another Fed meeting and another historically high rate hike, it’s clear that the Fed is committed to fighting inflation, but how and when will the real economy see the effects? Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets and Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter discuss.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley Research. Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. Andrew Sheets:] And on this special edition of the podcast, we'll be talking about the global economy and the challenges that central banks face. It's Friday, September 23rd at 2 p.m. in New York. Andrew Sheets: So, Seth, it's great to talk to you. It's great to talk to you face to face, in person, we're both sitting here in New York and we're sitting here on a week where there was an enormous amount of focus on the challenges that central banks are facing, particularly the Federal Reserve. So I think that's a good place to start. When you think about the predicament that the Federal Reserve is in, how would you describe it? Seth Carpenter: I think the Federal Reserve is in a such a challenging situation because they have inflation that they know, that everyone knows, is just simply too high. So they're trying to orchestrate what what is sometimes called a soft landing, that is slowing the economy enough so that the inflationary pressures go away, but not so much that the economy starts to contract and we lose millions of jobs. That's a tricky proposition. Andrew Sheets: So we had a Federal Reserve meeting this week where the Fed raised its target interest rate by 75 basis points, a relatively large move by the standards of the last 20 years. What did you take away from that meeting? And as you think about that from kind of a bigger picture perspective, what's the Fed trying to communicate? Seth Carpenter: So the Federal Reserve is clear, they are committed to tightening policy in order to get inflation under control, and the way they will do that is by slowing the economy. That said, every quarter they also provide their own projections for how the economy is likely to evolve over the next several years, and this set of projections go all the way out to 2025. So, a very long term view. And one thing I took away from that was they are willing to be patient with inflation coming down if they can manage to get it down without causing a recession. And what do I mean by patient? In their forecasts, it's still all the way out in 2025 that inflation is just a little bit above their 2% target. So they're not trying to get inflation down this year. They're not trying to get inflation down next year. They're not trying to get inflation down even over a two year period, it's quite a long, protracted process that they have in mind. Andrew Sheets: One question that's coming up a lot in our meetings with investors is, what's the lag between the Fed raising interest rates today and when that interest rate rise really hits the economy? Because, you are dealing with a somewhat unique situation that the American consumer, to an unusual extent, has most of their debt in a 30 year fixed rate mortgage or some sort of less interest rate sensitive vehicle relative to history. And so if a larger share of American debt is in these fixed rate mortgages, what the Fed does today might take longer to work its way through the economy. So how do you think about that and maybe how do you think the Fed thinks about that issue? Seth Carpenter: It's not going to be immediate. In round terms, if you take data for the past 35 years and come up with averages, you know, probably take something like two or three quarters for monetary policy to start to affect the real side of the economy. And then another two or three quarters after that for the slowing in the real side of the economy to start to affect inflation. So, quite a long period of time. Even more complicated is the fact that markets, as you know as well as anyone, start to anticipate central bank. So it's not really from when the central bank changes its policy tools when markets start to build in the tightening. So that gives them a little bit of a head start. So right now, the Fed just pushed its policy rate up to just over 3%, but markets have been pricing in some hiking for some time. So I would say we're already feeling some of the slowing of the real side of the economy from the markets having priced in policy, but there's still a lot more to come. Where is it showing up? You mentioned housing. Mortgage rates have gone up, home prices have appreciated over the past several years, and as a result we have seen new home sales, existing home sales both turnover and start to fall down. So we are starting to see some of it. How much more we see and how deep it goes, I think remains to be seen. Andrew Sheets: So Seth, another issue that investors are struggling with is on the one hand, they're seeing all of these quite large moves by global central banks. We're also seeing a reduction in the central bank balance sheet, a reversal of the quantitative easing that was done to support the economy during COVID, the so-called quantitative tightening. How do you think about quantitative tightening? What is it? How should we think about it? Seth Carpenter: I have to say, during my time at the Federal Reserve, I wrote memos on precisely this topic. So what is quantitative tightening? It is in some sense the opposite of quantitative easing. So the Federal Reserve, after taking short term interest rates all the way to zero, wanted to try to stimulate the economy more. And so they bought a lot of Treasury securities, they bought a lot of mortgage backed securities with an eye to pushing down longer term interest rates even more to try to stimulate more spending. So quantitative tightening is finding a way to reverse that. They are letting the Treasury securities that they have on their balance sheet mature and then they're not reinvesting, and so their balance sheet is shrinking. They're letting the mortgage backed securities on their balance sheet that are prepaying, run off their balance sheet and they're not reinvesting it. And when they make that choice, it means that the market has to absorb more of these types of securities. So what does the market do? Well, the market has to make room for it in someone's portfolio, and usually what that means is to make room on a portfolio prices have to adjust somewhere. Now, markets have been anticipating this move for a long time, and I suspect our colleagues who are in the Rate Strategy Group suspect that most of the effect of this unwind of the balance sheet is already in the price. But the proof is always really in the pudding, and we'll see over time, as the private sector absorbs all these securities, just how much more price adjustment there has to be. Andrew Sheets: And then, I imagine this is a hard question to answer, but if the Fed started to think that it was tightening too much, if the economy was slowing a lot more than expected or there was more stress in the system than expected - do we think it's more likely that they would pause quantitative tightening or that they would pause the rate hikes that the market's expecting? Seth Carpenter: I feel pretty highly convicted that if the slowing in the economy that they're seeing is manageable, if it's within the range of what they're expecting, it's interest rates. Interest rates are, to refer once again to what Chair Powell has said many times, the primary tool for adjusting the stance of monetary policy. So they're hiking rates now, at some point they'll reduce the size of those rate hikes and at some point they'll stop those rate hikes. Then the economy, hopefully in their mind, will be slowing to reduce inflationary pressure. They might judge that it's slowing too much if they feel like the adjustment they have to make is to lower interest rates by 25 basis points, maybe 50 basis points, even a little bit more than that if it happens over the course of a year, I still think the primary tool is short term interest rates. However, if the world changes dramatically, if they feel like, oh my gosh, we totally misjudged that. Then I think they would curtail the run off of the balance sheet. Andrew Sheets: Seth, thanks for taking the time to talk. Seth Carpenter: Andrew, It's always my pleasure to talk to you. Andrew Sheets: And thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.

With high returns in mind, investors may be looking to get in on the ground floor with the next ambitious and disruptive technology, but how are these ‘moonshots’ identified and which ones could make a near-term impact? Head of Thematic Research in Europe Ed Stanley and Head of the Global Autos and Shared Mobility Team Adam Jonas discuss.----- Transcript -----Ed Stanley: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ed Stanley, Morgan Stanley's Head of Thematic Research based in London. Adam Jonas: And I'm Adam Jonas, Head of the Global Autos and Shared Mobility Team. Ed Stanley: And on this special episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing the bold potential of moonshot technologies, and particularly in the face of deepening global recession fears. It's Thursday, the 22nd of September, at 4 p.m. in London. Adam Jonas: And 11 a.m. in New York. Adam Jonas: Let me start with an eye popping number. Since 2000, 1% of companies have generated roughly 40% of shareholder returns by developing moonshots, that is ambitious and radical solutions to seemingly insurmountable problems using disruptive technology. So here at Morgan Stanley Research, we naturally spend a lot of time wondering what are the potential moonshots of the next decade? What's the next light bulb, airplane, satellite, internet? What technologies are developing literally as I record this that we'll be focused on in 2032? So Ed, I know you really want to dig into the specifics of some of the sectors that are touched on in the Moonshot Technologies report you wrote, but first can you maybe explain the framework for identifying these moonshots? Ed Stanley: So this is a totally different horizon and way of thinking to what most investors are used to. Typically, when looking for investable themes or technologies in public markets, we focus on those that are at or have surpassed a 20% adoption rate, those essentially with the wind at their back already. But clearly, with moonshots, we're looking much, much earlier, but with a much greater risk reward skew. There are a number of potentially groundbreaking technologies out there incubating right now. The next iPhone moment is out there, is being developed, and it should be all of our job to sniff out what, when and where that pivotal product will come from. But the question we've received is how do you whittle that funnel of potential technologies down? So we come at it from first principles. Academic research, either by individuals, governments or companies, tends to be the genesis for most groundbreaking ideas. This then feeds patenting, or in other words R&D, for small and big companies alike to build a moat around that research they pioneered. And then venture capital comes in to support some of those speculative innovations, but importantly, only those that have product market fit, which is what we focus on. Adam Jonas: So Ed, why do you think now is such an interesting time to be thinking about moonshots, given such a challenging macro backdrop? Ed Stanley: It's a great question. So if you take a step back, there are always reasons to be concerned in the markets. But moments of peak anxiety in hindsight tend to be the moments of peak opportunity. I'll steal an overused cliche, necessity is the mother of invention. We're more likely to see breakthroughs in energy technology, for example, at the moment, at the point of peak acute pain than five years ago when there was no real impetus. This is exactly why some of the most innovative companies are born during or just after recession or inflationary periods. In fact, if you look at the stats, one third of Fortune 500 companies were born in the handful of recessionary years over the last century. So macro may be getting worse, but we remain pretty committed to uncovering long term, game changing themes and investments. Adam Jonas: Can you give us a summary of the output and to which moonshots really stood out to you as having the potential for profound change over the medium term? Ed Stanley: Sure. So there are clearly some that are not only profound but frankly unfathomable in terms of their potential impacts. Things like life extension, a startup developing artificial general intelligence, also known as a singularity, and Web3 remains a fascinating sandbox of crypto and blockchain experiments. So there's a wealth of fascinating moonshots in there, but I'd focus on two that have more prescient implications for investors near-term. First is pre-fab housing. It's nothing new as a concept. It's essentially the process of bringing construction into the factory to increase efficiency. But we're now moving from 2D assemblies of walls and roof panels to the real moonshot, which is 3D assembly of the entire house, pre-made, and that is now happening. These pre-built whole houses can be 40 to 50% cheaper and quicker, and so coming back to your question around why now? Moonshots like this have little momentum in good years, but construction input costs up 20% year on year, suddenly you have the catalyst for innovative, greener, low waste pre-fab solutions. And the second one, I think is really fascinating and few people are well versed in it, is deepfakes and the new era of synthetic reality. These are livestream videos and voice renderings to create the impression that you are watching or speaking to someone that you are not. And I think by highlighting this, we are also trying to show that not all moonshots are good news. At the moment, the risk is fake news, but that is the tip of the iceberg. But with that said, Adam, I want to jump to you. You're the perfect person to speak to given your knowledge of EVs in particular. And just like the smartphone market, those were once considered to be far fetched moonshots by some people, and yet they're heading towards ubiquity. So you've written a lot in the last couple of years around the "muskonomy", as you call it. Before we get into some moonshots you're interested in, can you explain to us what the "muskonomy" is? Adam Jonas: We're referring to the portfolio of businesses and endeavors of Elon Musk, of course, across EVs and batteries and renewable energy and autonomous vehicles. Of course, his efforts in space and tunneling technology. Taken together we think he's in a position where any improvement in one of those businesses can help the advancement and accelerate development of the other three domains and then kind of feedback on itself and create a bit of velocity. But the point is, these businesses address huge physical markets. Markets that address the atomic economy, what I mean by that, the periodic table not the not the metaverse. Right, we need to kind of sort reality out here. These are high CapEx businesses, high moat businesses where trillions and trillions of capital will need to be redeployed with regulatory oversight, environmental planning, supply chain, industrialization, standards setting and of course, taxpayer involvement along the way. Ed Stanley: It's a fascinating point, which we touched on in some of our other research around the innovation stack and how building technology on top of other layers of technology accelerates the disruption. I'm keen to understand from an investability perspective, what time horizons do you think we could expect some of these breakthroughs in? And where are the tailwinds coming from? Adam Jonas: Right now, of course his efforts in EVs are well known. What I think is less appreciated is changing how manufacturing is done. Elon wants to make a car, ideally out of a single piece of injected molded aluminum in a 12,000 ton giga press. To really make a fuselage of a car and take the parts count down dramatically. And he wants to inject into this fuselage his structural battery pack, his 4680 battery battery pack. And so changing how vehicles are made and designing the battery into the car is something that really excites us in terms of finally getting that price of EVs down. So the other thing I would highlight that makes us very excited is his tunneling technology, we would watch that. And so we pay attention to Los Angeles and Las Vegas and Austin, Texas and San Antonio and Fort Lauderdale, Miami. These city, city pairs in states where we think Elon Musk can yield influence and we think this could be really the next big thing in infrastructure, not in a 2 to 3 year period, but certainly in a 5 to 10 year period with investment being attracted and relevant right now. Ed Stanley: Well, that's a fantastic synopsis. Plenty to whet the appetite on moonshots of the next 5 to 10 years. Adam, thanks very much for taking the time to talk. Adam Jonas: Great speaking with you, Ed. Ed Stanley: And thanks for listening. If you enjoyed Thoughts on the Market, please leave a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or a colleague today. 

Though the Fed continues to raise interest rates, inflation is still high year over year, so why haven’t rate hikes begun to bring inflation down yet?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between U.S. public policy and financial markets. It's Wednesday, September 21st at 10 a.m. in New York. The Fed continues to hike interest rates, but inflation is still running hot in the U.S. as demonstrated by last week's 8.3% year over year growth in the Consumer Price Index. When and how the Fed will eventually succeed in dampening inflation is an important consideration for markets, but investors should also focus on another question. Why hasn't fed hiking worked to bring down inflation yet? Well, there's a strong case to be made that the U.S. economy is less sensitive to changes in interest rates today than it has been in the past. In total, about 90% of all household debt today is fixed rate, meaning that as the Fed hikes rates and market rates rise, consumers’ debts don't cost them more to service. If they did, then rising interest rates would dampen economic growth by dampening aggregate demand. Those higher rates would in theory crimp consumption, as households direct less of their money toward buying goods and services and more toward paying their debts. That, in turn, would ease inflation. Understanding this dynamic is important for investors in a few ways. Take the housing market, for example. After the housing crisis that touched off the global financial crisis in 2008 and 2009, adjustable rate mortgages only now make up a small fraction of all mortgages. Sure, higher mortgage rates means buying a new home is effectively more expensive, but with so many more mortgages in the U.S. carrying a fixed rate and issued to individuals with higher credit scores, the cost of owning a home to current owners hasn't changed. That means there's little incentive for homeowners to sell and or reduce the asking price for their home. Hence, our housing strategists expect home sales to decline meaningfully, but you may not see a lot of price deterioration in the aggregate. The bond market is another place we see this dynamic on display. Our interest rate strategy team expects you'll see the yield curve continue to flatten and invert, with shorter maturity yields rising faster than longer ones. Why? Because shorter maturities typically track the Fed funds rate, which the Fed has clearly stated will continue going higher until there's clear evidence of inflation deceleration, which could take longer given the economy's lessened sensitivity to rising rates. For bond investors, the bottom line is you should consider something that historically has been pretty unusual - longer maturities might perform better even as rates go higher. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show. 

As the global economic outlook turns toward a slowdown in growth, some investors may look to China for stability, but, when they do, what will they find?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Robin Xing, Morgan Stanley's Chief China Economist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I will discuss whether China can stabilize global growth amid recession fears. It's Tuesday, September 20th at 9 AM in Hong Kong. The global economic outlook is dimming, and my colleagues have already discussed their expectations for slowdown in developed market economies driven by surging prices and aggressive monetary policy tightening. In this context, investors are likely to turn their attention to China, perhaps hoping it can once again stabilize global growth as it did after the 2008 global financial crisis. China's economy, however, appears to be fragile. While it has bottomed after the contraction due to Shanghai lockdown in the second quarter, it is still modeling not yet through. And we forecast a below consensus 2.8% GDP growth this year, and only a modest rebound to slightly above 5% in 2023. To date, China has deployed the monetary policy easing and the infrastructure investment spending. But these steps have not got a lot of traction because of two key hurdles; continuing COVID restrictions and the trouble in its housing market. We see growth rebounding in next year, but that recovery depends heavily on policy addressing these two key hurdles. Hence, we look for a more concerted policy response in the housing market, and a clearer path towards reopening post the upcoming 20th Party Congress in October. First, to limit the fallout from the housing sector, Beijing will likely ramp up policy support. It is true that China's aging population has pushed the housing market into a structural downward trajectory, but the pace of the recent collapse vastly exceeds that trend. The choke point is homebuyers lack of confidence in developers ability to deliver the pre-sold house, which shrinks new home sales and puts more stress on developers liquidity. We think that Beijing will provide additional funding and intervention to ensure contracted home construction is completed. This, combined with more home purchases, stimulus and the liquidity support to surviving developers could break the negative feedback loop. Second, we expect a gradual exit from COVID-zero next spring. With the more transmissive Omicron, the rolling lockdowns in China are taking their toll on consumption and even posing challenges to supply chains. The renewed lockdowns in several major cities and the recent slowdown in vaccination progress suggest that COVID-zero would not end swiftly after the Party Congress in October. But the key metrics to watch by then will be, first, the pace of vaccination, second, wider adoption of domestic covid treatment and finally shift in public opinion from fearing the virus to a more balanced assessment. Provided that policy can address these two hurdles I just described, China's economic recovery should firm up from second quarter 2023 onwards, with growth of slightly above 5% for next year are our numbers. But even with this rebound, the positives spill over to the rest of the world is unlikely to be on par with history. Construction activities might improve with the stabilizing property sector, which is a familiar driver of Chinese imports. But the key driver will be a turnaround in domestic private consumption, particularly of services, so that demand pull from other economies will be somewhat muted. Thus, while we doubt that China would tip the global economy into recession, neither do we see China at its salvation. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

From Europe, to China, to the U.S., global economies are facing unique challenges as the brewing storm of recession risks seem to still indicate a slowdown ahead.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Global Chief Economist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the rising risks of global recession and what might be ahead. It's Thursday, September 22nd at 10 a.m. in New York. About a year ago, I wrote about the brewing storm of recession risks around the world. Some downbeat economics news has come in since then, but the worst of the global slowdown is ahead of us, not behind us. We have an outright recession as our baseline forecast in the euro area and the U.K. The Chinese economy is on the brink with such weak growth that whether we have a global recession or not might just turn out to be a semantic distinction. First, Europe. It's hardly out of consensus at this point to call for a recession there, but we have been forecasting a recession since the start of the summer. The energy crisis caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine has created a cost shock that is now effectively locked into the outlook for the next couple of quarters. Consumer bills will stay high, sapping purchasing power, fiscal deficits will take a hit and industries are already rationing energy use. For the UK, leaving Europe has not left behind the energy crisis across the channel. And the UK is also suffering from structural changes to its labor supply and trade relationships, and that's dragging down growth beyond these cyclical movements. That said, new leadership in Parliament is pointing to a huge fiscal stimulus that will mitigate the pain to households and reduce the depth of the recession. Now turning to China, markets have looked at China as a possible buoy for global growth, but this time any such hope really needs to be tempered, China's economy is in a fragile position. In our forecasts growth this year will be about 2.75%, below consensus and well below the potential growth of the economy. And then we think there'll be a rebound in growth next year, we're only looking for a modest 5.25% next year. Those sorts of numbers are not the real game changers people hope for. So far, the fiscal and monetary policy that has been deployed has not got a lot of traction. There are two key restraints on the Chinese economy right now; trouble in the housing market and continuing COVID restrictions. After the party Congress in mid-October things should probably start to change, but we're not expecting a quick fix. Right now construction and delivery of new homes is not getting done, so the cash flow is drying up, creating an adverse feedback loop. So far, the PBOC has rolled out about 200 billion renminbi bank loans to support this delivery, and we expect more intervention and funding over time. So as easy as it is to be gloomy on the outlook, a catastrophic collapse in housing doesn't seem likely. As for COVID, we are now expecting only a gradual exit from COVID zero next spring. The key metrics to watch will be the pace of vaccinations and wider adoption of domestic COVID treatments and a shift in public opinion. In particular, we think getting the over 60 population to at least an 80% booster vaccination rate next spring will flag the removal of restrictions. If there is a silver lining, it's that we still think the U.S. avoids a near-term recession. Despite notching a technical recession in the first half of the year, the U.S. outlook is somewhat brighter. For the first half of the year nonfarm payrolls averaged almost 450,000 per month, that's hardly the stuff of nightmares. But we don't want to be too cheerful. From the Fed's perspective, the economy has to slow to bring down inflation. They are raising interest rates expressly to slow the economy. So far, the housing market has clearly turned, but payrolls have only slowed a bit, and the moderation in wage inflation is probably not as much as the Fed is looking for. To date, we have not seen much slowing in consumer durables, so the economy remains beyond its speed limit and the Fed will keep hiking. How much? Well, depends on how strong the economy stays. So there really isn't much upside, only downside. The Fed is committed to hiking until the demand pressures driving inflation back off, so one way or another, the economy is going to slow. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy this show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. 

While credit and equities have both suffered this year, economic conditions in the U.S. and Emerging Markets may lead to credit having a bit more stability in the coming months.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, September 16th, at 3 p.m. in London. Year-to-date, both credit and equities have suffered. Looking ahead, we think credit is better positioned in both the U.S. and emerging markets, given the outlook for growth, policy and relative valuations. Conventional wisdom can change quickly in markets. Two months ago, there was widespread concern that the United States was already in a recession, given weak readings of quarterly GDP and some of the lowest levels of consumer confidence since the 2009 financial crisis. That weakness drove hope over July and August. Maybe the Federal Reserve had raised interest rates enough. Maybe it was nearly done. But the data since points to an American economy that continues to trundle along. The labor market continues to look extremely healthy, with about 315,000 jobs added last month and over 3.5 million jobs added year-to-date. Manufacturing activity has expanded every month this year. And consumer spending remains solid, one of the reasons core inflation remains elevated. In short, if the U.S. economy is going to slow down, that risk lies ahead of us, not behind us. And as long as the data remains solid and core inflation remains elevated, the Federal Reserve will face pressure to air on the side of caution and keep raising rates to tamp down on inflationary pressure. For investors this backdrop, where economic activity is still solid but might slow in the future, where inflation is high and the central bank is hiking, and where the labor market is tight and the yield curve is inverted, is what's commonly referred to as a "late cycle" environment. It's a set of conditions that has historically been challenging for future returns overall, but it's often been worse for equities relative to credit over the following 12 months, as the former is more sensitive to a potential slowdown in growth that hasn't happened yet. In addition to the economic conditions, relative valuations have also moved in favor of credit markets relative to equities. In the US, 1 to 5 year corporate bonds now yield about 4.9%, rapidly nearing the current earnings yield of the S&P 500 at about 5.9%. Despite just a 1% difference in yield, those short dated bonds have about one fifth of the volatility of stocks over the last 30 days. We hold a similar view on Emerging Markets. The sovereign debt index yields about 7.7%, just 1% less than the earnings yield of the MSCI Emerging Market Equity Index. Not only is EM sovereign debt less volatile than EM equities, but it has more exposure to the countries our analysts think provide the better risk reward. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.

The White House recently announced a student loan forgiveness program, prompting questions about implementation, economic implications, and whether the program will have an impact on consumer spending. Sarah Wolfe of the U.S. Economics team and Arianna Salvatore of the U.S. Public Policy team discuss.----- Transcript -----Sarah Wolfe: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Sarah Wolfe from Morgan Stanley's U.S. Economics Team. Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore from Morgan Stanley's U.S. Public Policy Research Team. Sarah Wolfe: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll focus on student loans, in particular the recent student loan forgiveness program, and we'll dig into the impact on consumers and the economy. It's Thursday, September 15th, at 12 p.m. in New York. Sarah Wolfe: So, Ariana, the White House recently announced plans to forgive individuals up to $20,000 in federal student loans and extend the moratorium on interest payments. However, there was some confusion earlier in the year as both President Biden and Speaker Pelosi expressed doubts about the president's authority to cancel student debt. So is this something that requires an act of Congress, or can the president really do it alone? Ariana Salvatore: As you mentioned, prior to the announcement, there was some unresolved questions out there surrounding the legality of canceling student debt. In revealing the program, the administration cited authority from a 2003 law called the 'Heroes Act' that gives the executive the power to reduce or eliminate student debt during a national emergency, “when significant actions with potentially far reaching consequences are often required”. That being said, don't expect it to go over quietly. Reporting indicates that some Republican attorneys general are looking to bring legal challenges to the plan, which could present a risk to execution. But let's put questions about implementation aside for a second. What does reduced student debt impact more, longer term planning or immediate spending? And how do you quantify the impact on consumer spending? Sarah Wolfe: Thanks, Ariana. I'd like to just take a step back for a second before I talk about the economic impact, just so we could size up the program a bit. We estimate that there's going to be $330 to $390 billion in debt directly forgiven as part of this program. However, we estimate that the fiscal multiplier is actually quite small. So every dollar of debt that's forgiven that's going to get spent and put back into the economy, is really estimated at only 0.1. This is really small when you consider the fiscal multiplier of the COVID stimulus programs. So for example, the stimulus checks, supplemental unemployment benefits, that had a fiscal multiplier of 0.5 to 0.9. So it was much larger. The reason for this is because our survey work shows that people who have their student debt forgiven don't actually change their immediate spending patterns. Instead, it really impacts longer term planning. We're talking about paying down other debts, planning for retirement, perhaps buying a house or having a child earlier, and so there's not really an immediate spending impact on the economy. What does have a larger fiscal multiplier is forbearance coming to an end. Prior to COVID, people were on average paying $260 a month in student loan payments. That's been on hold for two and a half years. So when that resumes again in January, it's likely going to be less than $260 a month because of the loan forgiveness and other measures passed by the White House to limit loan payments per month. However, that's an immediate impact to discretionary income, and as a result, we're going to see a lot of households adjust their spending in the near term to make these new loan payments. Arianna, speaking of student loan forbearance, which I mentioned is set to end at the end of this year after a number of extensions, the White House is hoping that forgiveness is going to kick in right when forbearance comes to an end. Can we actually count on the timing working out like this? Ariana Salvatore: So there's definitely a risk that the program is delayed because of normal implementation hurdles, right. Things like determining eligibility for cancellation among millions of borrowers. The Department of Education memo that was released following the announcement says that 8 million borrowers may be eligible to receive relief automatically because relevant income data is already available. However, the department is also in the process of creating an application so borrowers can apply for forgiveness on their own, but that hasn't gone live yet. The DOE said it would be ready no later than when the pause on federal student loan repayments expires at the end of this year. Unfortunately, there's no real way to know when exactly that will be. Sarah Wolfe: So let me just get this clear. The Department of Education only has the information on 8 million student loan borrowers right now. So they're going to need to gather the information for the remaining borrowers up to 43 million in order to start this forgiveness program. Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, exactly. And that's why we tend to see large scale government programs like this take a little bit of time to ramp up rollout and have impacts on the economy. So in the event that all of those eligible to take advantage of the forgiveness program actually do so, let's focus in on the macroeconomic impacts. In this high inflation environment, wouldn't student loan forgiveness also have an additional inflationary effect? Sarah Wolfe: Definitely at face value, student loan forgiveness is inflationary. However, as I mentioned earlier, because it doesn't impact near-term spending decisions and is more about longer term planning, the inflationary impact, I think, is less than people would think. It's estimated to only add 0.1 to 0.5 percentage points to inflation 12 months following the cancellation. However, the forbearance program, as I mentioned, since that's going to have more of an immediate impact on spending decisions, that's going to have a deflationary impact. And it's estimated that forbearance programs are going to shave 0.2 percentage points off inflation over the 12 months following forbearance starting again. And so if you think about forgiveness being inflationary and forbearance being disinflationary, it's likely that forbearance is going to outweigh some of the inflationary impact, if not all of it, from forgiveness. Ariana Salvatore: Okay, so bringing it back to a more micro level. Last question for you here, Sarah. What are the implications for consumer credit and consumer ABS? Sarah Wolfe: We think that student loan payments restarting in January pose quite a bit of risk to consumer credit quality. Although we're seeing consumer credit quality today is very healthy and delinquencies are low, we are starting to see delinquencies rise for subprime borrowers in recent months. Also, if we dig into the data and look at how student loan borrowers have been paying down their student loans over the last 2.5 years versus those who haven't been, the credit quality for those who have not been is much worse than those who have been. That leads us to believe that come January, when everybody needs to start paying down their student loans, that in particular these more subprime, lower income borrowers are really going to struggle and it's going to deteriorate credit quality. Sarah Wolfe: Well, Ariana, thanks for taking the time to talk. Ariana Salvatore: Great speaking with you, Sarah. Sarah Wolfe: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

With only 60 days to go until the U.S. midterm elections, investors will want to know how different outcomes could impact markets, both locally and globally.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between U.S. public policy and financial markets. It's Wednesday, September 14th, at 10 a.m. in New York. We're less than 60 days from the U.S. midterm elections and investors should pay attention. A lot has changed since we published our midterm election guide earlier this year, so here's what you need to know now. First, there's still key policies in play. Sure, Democrats have had more legislative success in recent months than many expected. By enacting corporate tax increases, a prescription drug negotiation plan, a major appropriation to clean energy transformation, and the China competition bill, Democrats took off the table many of the policy variables whose outcomes would have relied on the outcome of the election. But some key policy variables remain that matter to markets. In particular tech regulation, crypto regulation and tougher China competition measures, such as outbound investment controls, become more possible if Democrats manage to keep control of Congress. That would give them a greater opportunity to enact policies that could otherwise be held up or watered down by partisan disagreement. Second, this means there's a lot at stake for some pockets of global markets. Tech regulation would be a fundamental challenge to the U.S. Internet sector. Crypto regulation could be a key support for financial services by putting the crypto industry on the same regulatory playing field as the banks. And outbound investment controls could be a clear challenge for China equities by putting a substantial amount of foreign direct investment at risk. Finally, investors should understand these impacts aren't just hypotheticals, because, unlike earlier this year, Democrats electoral prospects have improved. Better showings in polls on key Senate races and the generic ballot have translated into prediction markets and independent models, marking Democrats as a modest favorite to keep Senate control, though they're still rated as an underdog to keep control of the House of Representatives. While it's difficult to pinpoint what's driven this change, voter discontent with the Supreme Court's Roe decision, as well as easing of some inflation pressures, may have contributed. Bottom line, the midterm election remains a market catalyst and it's coming up quickly. We'll keep tracking developments and potential market impacts and keep you informed. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show. 

As various global markets contend with high inflation, recession risks, and monetary policy tightening, Japanese equities may provide some opportunities to diversify away from other developed markets.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Daniel Blake from Morgan Stanley's Asia and Emerging Markets Equity Strategy Team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss the resilience of Japanese equities in the face of an expected global downturn. It's Tuesday, September 13, at 8 a.m. in Singapore. As Morgan Stanley's Chief Global Economist Seth Carpenter noted in mid-August, the clouds of recession are gathering globally. In the U.S., the Fed is hiking rates and withdrawing liquidity. Europe is suffering from high inflation, looming recession and an energy shortage. And China is facing a rocky path to recovery. In this global context, the external risks for Japan are rising quickly. And yet, compared to the turbulence in the rest of the world, Japanese equities are enjoying rather calm domestic, macro and policy waters. In Japan, we see support for this cycle coming from three sources; domestic policy, the Japanese yen and capital discipline at the corporate sector. First, the monetary policy divergence between the Bank of Japan and global peers has been remarkable, and in our view justified by differences in inflation and growth backdrops. Japanese core inflation is just 1.4%, and if we strip out food and energy, inflation is a mere 0.4% year over year. And so we don't expect any tightening from the Bank of Japan or of fiscal policy over the next six months. Secondly, the Japanese yen is acting as a funding currency and a buffer for earnings, rather than the typical safe haven that historically tends to amplify earnings drawdowns in an economic downturn. And third, improving capital discipline is contributing to newfound earnings resilience and insulating the return on equity, with buybacks tracking at a record pace of ¥10 trillion annualized year to date. In addition to monetary and fiscal policy, Japan's more cautious approach to reducing COVID restrictions and employment focused stimulus programs have meant that the economy is in a different phase vis-a-vis other developed markets. Our expectation for Japan's economy is low but steady growth of 1.3% on average over 2022 and 2023. As for the Japanese yen, we believe that a weaker yen is still a tailwind for TOPIX earnings. As a result of policy and real rate divergence, as well as the negative terms of trade shock from higher commodity prices, the yen has fallen to fresh record lows on a real effective exchange rate basis. The impact of a historically weak currency on the overall economy is still the subject of some debate, but one of the largest transmission channels of a weaker yen into supporting domestic services and employment is through tourism activity, which has been constrained to date by COVID policies. But looking ahead, the combination of reopening and a highly competitive tourism offering should set up a very strong recovery in passenger volumes and spending, as we saw during the European summer this year. So where do all these global and domestic cross-currents leave us with respect to Japanese equities? We remain overweight on the TOPIX index versus our MSCI Asia-Pacific, ex-Japan and emerging markets coverage. We've been above consensus in forecasting an exceptional recovery in TOPIX earnings per share, but we acknowledge that to date it has been largely driven by export oriented stocks. But currently, the external environment for Asia's major exporters is weakening as a result of tighter policies, slower growth and a revision in spending from goods to services. So while this trend will impact, we think, Taiwan, Korea and Singapore more so, China and Japan will also feel the impacts given their large goods trade surpluses. But with all this said, the Japanese market still provides liquid opportunities to diversify away from the U.S. and Europe, where Morgan Stanley strategists are cautious. So while Japanese equities have historically underperformed in global downturns, the current setup leaves us more optimistic on Japan in particular, compared with other regions like the U.S. and Europe. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. 

Even as the European equity market contends with inflation, a slowing economy and a climate of decreased earnings, there are positives to be found if you know where to look.-----Transcript-----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Graham Secker, Head of Morgan Stanley's European Equity Strategy Team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the outlook for European equity markets for the remainder of this year. It's Monday, September 12th, at 2 p.m. in London. After a brief rally in European equities earlier in the summer, reality has reasserted itself over the last month with markets unable to escape a tricky macro backdrop characterized by central banks speeding up rate hikes into what is a deepening economic slowdown. In the last couple of weeks alone, our economists have raised their forecasts for ECB rate hikes and cut their GDP numbers to signal a deeper upcoming recession. So let's dig into the investment implications of these challenges in a bit more detail. First on rates, over the last 20 years there has been a close relationship between interest rates and equity valuations, whereby higher rates lead to lower price to earnings ratios. Hence, the fact that central banks are still in the early stages of their hiking cycle suggests a high probability that PE ratios have further to fall. In addition to higher base rates, the pace of quantitative tightening is also speeding up, and our bond strategists forecast higher sovereign yields ahead. Here in Europe, they see ten year bond yields rising to 2% or more later this year, which will be consistent with a further fall in Europe's PE ratio to around 10x or so. That would imply 15% lower equity prices from here. Second, we expect the European economy to slow over the next couple of quarters and this should put pressure on corporate profits which have been resilient so far this year, thanks to strong commodity sector upgrades and a material boost from the weakness we've seen in the euro and sterling. Looking forward, our models are flagging large downside risks to consensus earnings estimates for the next 12 to 18 months and we are 16% below consensus by the end of 2023. To provide some additional context, we note that consensus expects European earnings, excluding the commodity sectors, to grow faster next year than this year. This acceleration looks odd to us when you consider that our economists see slower GDP growth in 23 than 22, and our own margin lead indicator is suggesting we could face the largest year on year drop in corporate margins since the global financial crisis. Our concern on earnings is a significant factor behind our continued preference for defensives over cyclicals. While some investors argue that the latter group are now sufficiently cheap to buy, we question the sustainability of the earnings that is underpinning the low PE ratios given the, first, we have seen very few downgrades so far. Second, margins are currently at record highs for many of these cyclical sectors. And then lastly, cyclicals tend to see larger earnings declines during downturns than the wider market. This gives rise to the old adage that investors should buy cyclicals on high PE ratios, not low ones. Consistent with this view, we have recently downgraded three cyclical sectors to underweight from our top down perspective, these being autos, capital goods and construction. We are also underweight chemicals and retailing. So what do we like instead? Sectors with more defensive characteristics, such as health care, insurance, telecoms, utilities and energy. We also like stocks that offer a high and secure cash return yield, whether that be driven by dividends, buybacks or both. To end on a positive note, the level of buyback activity in Europe has never been stronger than what we are seeing today, whether we measure it by the number of companies that are repurchasing their shares or the amounts of money they are spending to do so. In addition, we note that those European companies who have offered a healthy buyback yield over time have been consistent outperformers. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. 

As the world turns to the U.K., the country faces a host of domestic and international economic challenges, but there may yet be some bright spots for investors.-----Transcript-----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape, and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, September 9th at 2:00pm in London.Queen Elizabeth II passed away yesterday. She was the only monarch most in Britain have ever known, a steady constant over a period of enormous global change. She defined an era, and will be missed. The eyes of the world have now turned to the United Kingdom, and they do so at a time when the country is facing an unusually high level of uncertainty.The U.K. economy, which was recently surpassed in size by India, is still the worlds sixth largest. But it’s currently being buffeted by a host of economic challenges. Some are domestic, some are international, but combined they create one of the trickiest stories in the global economy.First among these challenges is inflation. Rising costs for energy have driven Consumer prices in the U.K. up 10% year-over-year, but even excluding volatile food and energy, U.K. core inflation is still over 6%. And elevated inflation is not expected to be fleeting. Market-based estimates of U.K. inflation, over the next 10 years, are the highest since 1996.Those elevated prices have driven U.K. interest rates higher, but even so, U.K. rates relative to inflation are still some of the lowest of any major economy, which makes holding the currency less attractive. That has weakened the British Pound, but since the U.K. runs a current account deficit, and imports more than it exports, imported things have become more expensive, creating even more inflationary pressure.The U.K’s decision to leave the European Union, its largest trading partner, is another complication. By restricting the movement of labor, it’s created a negative supply shock and increased costs.  And it has increased the fiction in trading abroad, especially with Europe, making it harder for U.K. exporters to take advantage of the country’s weaker currency.The response to all this high inflation will likely be further rate hikes from the bank of England. But this has the potential to feed back into the economy unusually fast. Over here, many student loan payments are tied to the bank of England rate. And the rate on U.K. mortgages is often fixed for only 2 to 5 years, in contrast to the 30 year fixing common in the United States. That means the impact of higher interest rates into higher mortgage costs could be felt very soon.For U.K. assets, the fact that a 10 year U.K. Government bond yields less than a 6-month U.S. Treasury bill, and much less than U.K. inflation, creates poor risk/reward. The Pound could continue to weaken, given all of these myriad economic challenges. But one bright spot might be the equity market, the FTSE 100. Trading at about 9x next year earnings, and benefiting from a weaker currency as many of these companies sell product abroad, we forecast stocks in the U.K. to outperform those in the Eurozone.Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We’d love to hear from you.

The impact of quantitative monetary policies is hard to understand, for investors and academics alike, but why are these impacts so complex and how might investors better understand the market implications?-----Transcript-----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about global macro trends and how investors can interpret these trends for rates and currency markets. It's Thursday, September 8th, at 10 a.m. in New York. QT is the talk of the town. QT stands for quantitative tightening, which is meant to contrast it with QE, or quantitative easing. QT sounds intimidating, especially when respected investors mention the term and, at the same time, ring the fire alarm on financial news networks. Unfortunately, the exact workings of QT and QE and their ultimate impact on markets aren't well understood. And that's not just a comment about the general public's understanding. It even applies to investors who have long dealt with quantitative policies and for academics who have long studied them. There are four reasons why the impact of quantitative monetary policies, as the Fed has implemented them, is hard to understand. First, different institutions take the lead in determining the impact of QE versus QT. The Fed determines the first round impact of quantitative easing, while the U.S. Treasury and mortgage originators determine the first round impact of quantitative tightening. Second, as the phrase "first round impact" implies, there are second round impacts as well. In the case of quantitative easing, the first round occurs when the Fed buys a U.S. Treasury or Agency mortgage backed security, also known as an agency MBS, from an investor. The second round occurs when that investor uses the cash from the Fed to buy something else. In the case of quantitative tightening, the first round occurs when an investor sells something in order to raise the cash that it needs. What does it need the cash for? Well, to buy a forthcoming Treasury Security or agency MBS. The second round occurs when the U.S. Treasury auctions that security or when a mortgage originator issues an agency MBS in order to raise the cash that the Fed is no longer providing. Third, QE and QT affect different markets in different ways. QE affects the Treasury and agency MBS markets directly in the first round. But in the second round, investor decisions about how to invest that cash could affect a wide variety of markets from esoteric loan products to blue chip equities. In that sense, some of the impact of QE is indirect and could affect some markets more than others. Similarly with QT, investor decisions about what to sell could affect a large number of markets, again some more than others. In addition, what the U.S. Treasury issues and what mortgage originators sell can change over time with financing needs and different market environments. Finally, markets price these different effects with different probabilities and at different times. For example, when the Fed announces a QE program, we know with near certainty that the Fed will buy Treasuries and agency MBS and generally know how much of each the Fed will buy. So investors can price in those effects relatively soon after the announcement. But we don't know, with nearly the same probability, what the sellers of those treasuries and agency MBS will do with the cash until they actually get the cash from the Fed. And that could be months after the announcement when the Fed actually buys the securities. Figuring out the effect on markets from QT is even more complicated because even though we know what the Fed will no longer buy, we don't know exactly what or how much the U.S. Treasury or mortgage originators will sell. If all of this sounds complex, believe me it is. There are no easy conclusions to draw for your investment strategies when it comes to QT. So the next time someone rings the fire alarm and yells QT, first look for where there might be smoke before running out of the building or selling all of your risky assets. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show. 

While home price appreciation appears to be slowing, and a rapid increase in supply is hitting the market, how will housing prices fare through the rest of the year and into 2023? Co-Heads of U.S. Securitized Products Research Jay Bacow and Jim Egan discuss.-----Transcript------Jim Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, Co-Head of U.S. Securitized Products Research here at Morgan Stanley. Jay Bacow: And I'm Jay Bacow. The other Co-Head of U.S. Securities Products Research. Jim Egan: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing supply and demand in the U.S. housing market. It's Wednesday, September 7th, at 3 p.m. in New York. Jay Bacow: All right, Jim. Housing headlines have started to get a little more bleak. Home price appreciation slowed pretty materially with last week's print. Now, your call has been that activity is going to decrease, but home prices are going to keep growing. Where do we stand on that? Jim Egan: We would say that the bifurcation narrative still holds. We think housing activity metrics, and when we say housing activity we're specifically talking about home sales and housing starts, have some continued sharp declines in the months to come. But we do think that home prices are going to continue growing on a year over year basis, even despite a disappointing print that you mentioned from last week. Jay Bacow: But I have to askv, what are you looking at that gives you confidence in your home price call? Where could you be wrong given the slowdown we just saw? Jim Egan: We say a lot of fancy sounding things when we talk about the housing market, but ultimately they're just different ways of describing supply and demand. Demand is weakening. That's that drop in activity we're forecasting. But supply is also very tight and that contributes to our view that while home price growth needs to slow, it should remain positive on a year over year basis. Jay Bacow: All right, but haven't some metrics of supply been moving higher? Jim Egan: Look, we knew we were not going to be able to say that supply was historically tight forever. Existing inventories are now climbing year over year for the first time in 37 months. And another very popular metric of supply, months of supply, is effectively getting a 1-2 punch right now. Months of supply measures how much the current supply of housing listed for sale, would take to clear at current demand levels. So in a world in which supply is increasing and demand is falling, you have a numerator climbing and a denominator falling, so you're effectively supercharging months of supply, if you will. We were at a cycle low of 2.1 months of inventory, the lowest we've seen in at least three and a half decades, in January of this year. We're at 4.1 months of supply just six months later. Jay Bacow: So that number is a lot higher, but 4.1 months of supply is still really low. Isn't there some old saying that anything less than six months of supply is a seller's market? So wouldn't that be good for home prices? Jim Egan: Yes. And given recent work that we've done, we think that that saying is there for good reason. If we go back to the mid 1980s, so the Case-Shiller index that we're forecasting here that's as far back as this index goes. And every single time that months of supply has been below six, the Case-Shiller index was still appreciating six months forward. Home prices were still climbing, six months forward. So the absolute level of inventory is in a pretty healthy place despite the recent increases. However, that rate of change is a little concerning. We've gone from 2.1 months to 4.1 months over just six months of actual time, and when we look at that rate of change historically, it actually does tend to predict falling home prices a year forward. So, absolute level of inventory leaves us confident in continued home price growth, but the rate of change of that underlying inventory calls continued home price growth in 2023 into question. Jay Bacow: So we're going to have more inventory, but the pace has been accelerating. How do we think about the pace of that increase?Jim Egan: If that pace were to continue at its current levels, that would make us really concerned about home prices next year. But we do think the pace of inventory growth is going to slow and we think that for two main reasons. The two biggest inputs into inventory are new inventories and existing. New inventories, and we've talked about this on the podcast before, we think they're about to really slow down. Homebuilder confidence is down 43% from cycle peaks in November of 2020. Part of that's the affordability deterioration we talked about earlier, but it's also because of a backlog in the building process. Single unit starts are back to 1997 levels. Units under construction, so between starts and completions, are back to 2004 levels - it is taking longer to finish those homes. And we have had a forecast that we thought that was going to lead to single unit starts slowing down, it finally has over the past two months after plateauing for almost a year. We think they're going to continue to fall pretty precipitously in the back half of this year, which should mean that new inventory stop climbing at the same pace that they've been climbing. Existing inventories also should stop their current pace of climb because of the lock in effect that we've talked about here before. Effectively, current homeowners have been able to lock in very low mortgage rates over the course of the past two years. They're not going to be incentivized to list their homes at similar rates to historical places because of that lock in effect. So for both of those reasons, we think the pace of increase in inventory is going to slow, and that's why we continue to think that home prices are going to grow on a year over year basis. They're just going to slow from 18% now, to 9% by the end of this year, to 3% by the end of 2023. Jay Bacow: Okay. So effectively the low amount of absolute supply is going to keep home prices supported. The change in the amount of supply makes us  a little bit more cautious on home prices on a longer term outlook. But we think that pace of that change is going to slow down.Jay Bacow: Jim, always a pleasure talking to you. Jim Egan: Great talking to you too, Jay. Jay Bacow: And thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on the Apple Podcasts app and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

While interest rates have already weighed on asset markets this year and growth continues to slow, the Fed seems poised to continue on its tightening path, meaning investors may need to prepare for part two of our Fire and Ice narrative.-----Transcript-----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Tuesday, September 6th, at 9 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. At the risk of stating the obvious, 2022 has been a challenging year for stock investors of all stripes. The Russell 3000 is down approximately 18% year to date, and while growth stocks have underperformed significantly it's been no picnic for value investors either. As far as sectors only energy and utilities are up this year, and just 24% of all stocks in the Russell 3000 are in positive territory. To put that into context, in 2008, 48% of the Russell 3000 stocks were up on the year as we entered the month of September and then the bottom dropped out. Suffice it to say, this year has been historically bad for stocks. However, that is not a sufficient reason to be bullish in our view. As bad as has been for stocks, it's been even worse for bonds on a risk adjusted basis. More specifically, 20 year Treasury bonds are now down 24% year to date, and the Barclays AG Index is off by 11%. Finally, commodities have been a mixed bag too, with most commodities down on the year, despite heightened concerns about inflation. For example, the CRB RIND Index, which measures the spot prices of a wide range of commodities, is down 7% year to date. Cash, on the other hand, is no longer trash, especially if one has been able to take advantage of higher front end rates. So what's going on? In our view, asset markets are behaving right in line with the fire and ice narrative we laid out a year ago. In short, after ignoring the warning signs from inflation last year and thinking the Fed would ignore them too, asset markets quickly woke up and discounted the Fed's late but historically hawkish pivot to address the sharp rise in prices. Indeed, very rarely has the Fed tightened policy so quickly. Truth be told, as one of the more hawkish strategists on the street last December, I never would have bet the Fed would be doing multiple 75 basis point hikes this year, but here we are. And remember, don't fight the Fed. While the June low for stocks and bonds was an important one, we've consistently been in the camp that it wasn't the low for the S&P 500 in this bear market. Having said that, we are more confident it was the low for long term treasuries in view of the Fed's aggressive action that has yet to fully play out in the real economy. It may have also been the low for the average stock, given how bad the breadth was at that time and the magnitude of the decline in certain stocks. Our more pessimistic view on the major index is based on analysis that indicates all the 31% de-rating in the forward S&P 500 P/E that occurred from December was due to higher interest rates. We know this because the equity risk premium was flat during this period. Meanwhile, forward earnings estimates for the S&P 500 have come down by only 1.5%, and price earnings ratio's back up 9% from where it was. With interest rates about 25 basis points below the June highs, the equity risk premium has fallen once again to just 280 basis points. This makes little sense in a normal environment, but especially given these significant earnings cuts we think are still to come. With the Fed dashing hopes for a dovish pivot on this policy a few weeks ago, we think asset markets may be entering fire and ice part two. In contrast with part one, this time the decline in stocks will come mostly through a higher equity risk premium and lower earnings rather than higher interest rates. In fact, our earnings models are all flashing red for the S&P 500, and we have high confidence that the decline in forward S&P 500 earnings forecasts is far from over. In short, part two will be more icy than fiery, the opposite of the first half of the year. That's not to say interest rates don't matter, they do and we expect bonds to perform better than stocks in this icier scenario. Importantly, if last Thursday marked a short term low for long duration bonds, i.e. a high in yields, the S&P 500 and many stocks could get some relief again as rates come down prior to the next rounds of earnings cuts that won't begin until later this month. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show. 

There has been a lot of market movement in recent months, so as we exit the summer, what are the market stories and valuations that investors should be aware of?-----Transcript-----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, September 2nd at 3 p.m. in London. As summer draws to a close, there is quite a bit that investors are coming back to. Here's a state of play of our global economic story, and where cross-asset valuations sit today. The global economy faces challenges, but these challenges differ by region. The U.S. economy is seeing elevated inflation and still strong growth, as evidenced by today's report that the U.S. economy added another 315,000 new jobs last month. That makes it likely that the Federal Reserve will have to air on the side of raising rates more to bring inflation down, which would further invert the U.S. yield curve and, in our view, support the U.S. dollar. Europe also has high inflation, but of a different kind. Europe's inflation isn't nearly as pronounced in so-called core elements, and it isn't showing up in wages. Instead, Europe is in the midst of a major energy crunch, that in our base case will push the economy into a mild recession. Markets expect that the European Central Bank will raise rates significantly more than the U.S. Federal Reserve over the next 12 months, but given our risks to growth we disagree, a reason we forecast a weaker euro. The economic situation in the UK is also very challenged, leaving us cautious on gilts and the UK pound. China and Japan are very different and core inflation in both countries is less than 1%. China continues to face dual uncertainties from a weakening property market and zero-covid policy, factors that lead us to think it is still a bit too soon to buy China's equity market, despite large losses this year that have driven much better valuations. We remain more optimistic on Japanese equities on a currency hedged basis, given that it remains one of the few developed market economies where the central bank is not yet tightening policy. To take a closer look at those global equity markets we enter September with the U.S. S&P 500 stock index trading at about 17x earnings. That's down from over 20x earnings at the start of the year, but it's still above average. U.S. small cap valuations, at about 11x earnings, are less extreme. Stocks in Europe, Australia, Japan, China and emerging markets all trade at about 11 to 12x forward earnings at the index level. Of all of these markets our forecasts imply the highest returns, on a currency hedged basis, in Japan. In bonds, it's important to appreciate that yields remain much higher than they were a year ago. As we discussed last week, investors can now earn about 3.3% on 6 month U.S. government treasury bills, U.S. investment grade bonds yield almost 5% and U.S. high yield yields over 8.5%. In Europe, yields on European investment grade credit and Italian 10 year bonds are pretty similar, a spread at which we think European investment grade bonds are more attractive. Markets have been moving over the summer. We hope our listeners have managed some time to rest and recharge and that this discussion has given some helpful context to where the different stories and valuations in the market currently sit. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.

As consumers around the globe scale back on goods spending, how are Asian export markets impacted and where might opportunities lie?-----Transcript-----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanly's Chief Asia Economist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be focusing on the challenging landscape for Asia's exports post-COVID. It's Thursday, September 1st, at 8:30 a.m. in Hong Kong. As listeners of the show are no doubt aware, the post-COVID recovery around the world has not been uniform, and each region is facing its own specific challenges. In Asia, one of those challenges is that the Asia export engine seems to be losing steam as goods demand continues to deflate. For instance, real export growth decelerated to just an average of 3% on a year on year basis in the past six months, as compared to a peak of 30% in April 2021. Whichever way you slice and dice Asia's exports, it is evident that the underlying trends are soft everywhere. Whether by destination or by product, there is simply pervasive weakness. Let's start with product: when we look at Asia exports by product across the different categories of consumer, capital and intermediate goods exports, we are seeing a synchronized slowdown. Commodities are the only product category which is holding up, supported by trailing elevated prices. But with industrial commodity prices falling by some 30% since their March peak, we think there is every chance that commodity exports will slow significantly too in the coming months. Now let's turn to destination. Demand is slowing in 70% of Asia's export destinations. While exports to the U.S. are still holding up, we expect that the slowing in the U.S. economy plus the continued normalization in goods spending, will weigh on exports to the U.S. too. Against this backdrop of weak aggregate demand, we see more downside for Asia's exports to the U.S. in the coming months. One of the reasons why Asia's exports are deflating rapidly is because developed markets consumers are shifting back into spending on services after an outsized spending on goods earlier during the pandemic. As a case in point, US spending on goods had risen by 20% between January 2020 and March 2021. Since reaching its peak in March 21, goods spending has been on a decelerating path, declining by 5%. We expect further weakness in goods spending as the share of goods spending still has not normalized back towards pre-COVID levels. Against this backdrop, investors should look at countries where domestic demand offsets the weakness in external demand. We continue to be constructive on India, Indonesia and Philippines as they are well placed to generate domestic demand alpha. Within this group, we believe that India is the best placed economy within the region for three reasons. First, we see a key change in India's structural story. Policymakers have made a clear shift in that approach towards lifting the productive capacity of the economy and creating jobs while reducing the focus on redistribution. Second, the India economy is lifting off after a prolonged period of adjustment. The corporate sector has delivered and the balance sheet in the financial sector has also been cleaned up. This backdrop of healthy balance sheets and rising corporate confidence bodes well for the outlook for business investment. Third, against this backdrop, we are seeing unleashing of pent up demand, especially in areas like housing and consumer durables. Finally, what about China - the largest economy in Asia? Typically when export slows down, we would expect China to be able to stimulate domestic demand. But in this cycle, while easing is already underway, the recovery in domestic demand is being held back by the housing market problem and its COVID management approach. We think that China domestic demand recovery should pick up pace by early next year as the full effects of its stimulus kicks in and private confidence lifts, thanks to China's anticipated shift to a living with COVID stance. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple podcasts, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.

While markets wrestle with high inflation and recession worries, investors will want to keep an eye on the rise in risk premiums and the outlook for long-run returns.-----Transcript-----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's Head of Cross-Asset Strategy for North America. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll focus on the current state of global cross-asset risk premiums. It's Wednesday, August 31st at 10 a.m. in New York. Markets in 2022 have been incredibly turbulent, and global cross-asset risk premiums have shifted dramatically year to date. Various markets have been buffeted by higher inflation and tighter policy, geopolitical risks and worries about recession. Some impacted much more than others. What this means is that there are segments of markets where risk premiums, that is the excess returns an investor can expect for taking on additional risk, and long-run expected returns look much more attractive than they were at the beginning of the year. And while expected returns and risk premiums have broadly risen, the improvements have been uneven across asset classes and regions. For example, we believe that compared to U.S. stocks, rest-of-world equities have seen equity risk premiums move much higher since December, and currently have an edge over U.S. equities in terms of risk reward, in line with our relative preferences. So let me put some actual numbers around some key regional disparities. Our framework, which incorporates expectations on income, inflation, real earnings growth and valuations, see U.S. equities returning about 7.5% annually over the next decade, compared to just 5.7% at the start of the year. However, a steep climb in U.S. Treasury yields from historical lows mean that from a risk premium perspective, U.S. equities is still below its 20 year historical average by nearly one percentage point. This is in contrast to other regions whose risk premiums have increased significantly more during the sell off. Notably, European equity risk premiums are 8.9%, close to a 20 year high, similarly for emerging markets at 5.3%, and Japanese equity risk premiums at 4.7%, also above average. And remember, higher risk premiums typically signal that it's a good time to invest in riskier assets. For fixed income, with nominal yields rising on the back of more persistent inflationary pressures and quantitative tightening, long-run expected returns are now higher than they were 12 months ago. In fact, we're now back to levels last seen in 2019. Our framework now predicts that ten year U.S. Treasuries can return 3.7% annually over the next decade, up from 2.2% just a year ago. Credit risk premiums, such as for corporate bonds, have also readjusted year to date. As with risk free government bonds, rising yields mean that long run expected returns for these bonds have improved significantly since the start of the year. In terms of numbers, our model forecasts for U.S. high yield risk premium, at 188 basis points compared to near nothing 12 months ago. So what does all this mean? Well, for one thing, as my colleague Andrew Sheets has pointed out in a previous Thoughts on the Market episode, lower prices, wider risk premiums and higher 10 year expected returns have raised our long-run expected returns forecasts for a portfolio of 60% equity and 40% high quality bonds to the highest it's been since 2019, above the 10 year average. So we believe that the case for a 60/40 type of approach remains. For another, it means that the opportunities for investors right now lie in relative value rather than beta, given our strategists macro outlook for the next 12 months is more cautious than our long-run expected forecast. So for example, based on our long-run expected returns, our dollar optimal portfolios favor segments of the markets with more credit risk premium, like high yield and emerging market bonds. And similarly, as I've mentioned before, our current cross-asset allocation has a preference for ex-U.S. equities versus the U.S. because of former's higher equity risk premium. The rest of 2022 will likely continue to be turbulent, but there is good news for investors with a longer term focus. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. 

Amid global shocks across supply, commodities and the U.S. Dollar, central banks continue to fight hard against inflation, leading many to wonder if a global recession is imminent.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's chief global economist, along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives. Today, I'll be revisiting a topic that's front and center: concerns about a global recession. It's Tuesday, August 30th, at 2p.m. in New York.One key market narrative right now is that the clouds of recession have been gathering globally. And the question that I get from clients every day, 'is a global recession upon us?'A recession is our baseline scenario for the Euro area. The flow of natural gas from Russia has been restricted and energy prices, as a result, have surged. We expect a recession by the fourth quarter but, as is so often the case, the data will be noisy. A complete gas cutoff, which is our worst-case scenario. That's still possible. On the other hand, even if somehow we had a full normalization of the gas flows, the relief to the European economy would only be modest. Winter energy prices are already partly baked in, and we've got the ECB with an almost single-minded focus on inflation. There are going to be more interest rate hikes there until the hard data force them to stop.Now, I am slightly more optimistic about the U.S. The negative GDP prints in the first two quarters of this year clearly cast a pall but those readings are misleading because of some of the details. Now, bear with me, but a lot of the headline GDP data reflects inventories in international trade, not the underlying domestic economy. Household spending, which is the key driver of the U.S. economy, averaged about 1.5% at an annual rate in the first half and the July jobs report printed at a massive 520,000 jobs. Since the 1970s, the U.S. has never had a recession within a year of creating so many jobs. But the path forward is clearly for slowing. Consumption spending was slammed by surging food and energy prices and more importantly, the Fed is hiking interest rates specifically to slow down the economy.So what is the Fed's plan? Chair Powell keeps noting that the Fed strategy is to slow the economy enough so that inflation pressures abate, but then to pivot or, as he likes to say, 'to be nimble.' That kind of soft landing is by no means assured. So, we're more optimistic in the U.S., but the Fed is going to need some luck to go along with their plan. The situation in China is just completely different. The economy there contracted in the second quarter amid very stringent COVID controls. The COVID Zero policies in place are slowly starting to get eased and we think more relaxation will follow the party Congress in October. But will freedom of mobility be enough to reverse the challenges that we're seeing on consumer spending because of the housing market? The recent policy action to address the housing crisis will probably help some but I fully expect that a much larger package will be needed. Ultimately, we'll need the consumer to be confident in both the economy and the housing market before we can make a rapid recovery.The world has been simultaneously hit by supply shocks, commodity shocks and dollar shocks. Central banks are pulling back on demand to try to contain inflation. Even if we avoid a global recession, it's really hard to see how economic activity gets all the way back to its pre-COVID trend.It's still the summertime, so I hope it's sunny where you are. You can worry about the storm later.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy this show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

With Fed messaging making it clear they’re not yet done fighting inflation, the market is left to contend with the recent rally and prepare to adjust growth expectations.-----Transcript-----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, August 29th, at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. After the Fed's highly anticipated annual meeting in Jackson Hole has come and gone with a very clear message - the fight against inflation is far from over, and the equity markets did not take it very well. As we discussed in this podcast two weeks ago, the equity markets may have gotten too excited and even pre traded a Fed pivot that isn't coming. For stocks, that means the bear market rally is likely over. Technically speaking, the rally looks rather textbook. In June, we reached oversold conditions with breadth falling to some of the lowest readings on record. However, the rally stalled out exactly at the 200-day moving average for the S&P 500 and many key stocks. On that basis alone, the sharp reversal looks quite ominous to even the most basic tactical analysts. From a fundamental standpoint, having a bullish view on U.S. stocks today is also challenging. First, there is valuation. As we have discussed many times in our research, the Price/Earnings ratio is a function of two inputs; 10 year U.S. Treasury yields and the Equity Risk Premium. Simplistically, the U.S. Treasury yield is a cost of capital component, while the Equity Risk Premium is primarily a function of growth expectations. Typically, the Equity Risk Premium is negatively correlated to growth. In other words, when growth is accelerating, or expected to accelerate, the Equity Risk Premium tends to be lower than normal and vice versa. Our problem with the view that June was the low for the index in this bear market is that the Equity Risk Premium never went above average. Instead, the fall in the Price/Earnings ratio from December to June was entirely a function of the Fed's tightening of financial conditions, and the higher cost of capital. Compounding this challenge, the Equity Risk Premium fell sharply over the past few months and reached near record lows in the post financial crisis period. In fact, the only time the Equity Risk Premium has been lower in the past 14 years was at the end of the bear market rally in March earlier this year, and we know how that ended. Even after Friday's sharp decline in stocks, the S&P 500 Equity Risk Premium remains more than 100 basis points lower than what our model suggests. In short, the S&P 500 price earnings ratio is 17.1x, it's 15% too high in our view. Second, while most investors remain preoccupied with the Fed, we have been more focused on earnings and the risk to forward estimates. In June, many investors began to share our concern, which is why stocks sold off so sharply in our view. Companies began managing the quarter lower, and by the time second quarter earnings season rolled around positioning was quite bearish and valuations were more reasonable at 15.4x. This led to the "bad news is good news" rally or, as many people claim, "better than feared" results. Call us old school, but better than feared is not a good reason to invest in something if the price is high and the earnings are weak. In other words, it's a fine reason for stocks to see some relief from an oversold condition, but we wouldn't commit any real capital to such a strategy. Our analysis of second quarter earnings showed clear deterioration in profitability, a trend we believe is just starting. In short, we believe earnings forecast for next year remains significantly too high. Finally, last week's highly anticipated Fed meeting turned out to be a nonevent for bonds, while it appeared to be a shock for stock investors. Ironically, given the lack of any material move in yields, all of the decline in the Price/Earnings ratio was due to a rising Equity Risk Premium that still remains well below fair market levels. The bottom line, we do think Friday's action could be the beginning of an adjustment period to growth expectations. That's good. In our experience, such adjustments to earnings always take longer than they should. Throw on top of that, the fact that operating leverage is now more extreme than it was prior to COVID, and the negative revision cycle could turn out to be worse than usual. Next week, we will attempt to quantify more specifically how challenging the earnings outcome might be based on an already reported macro data. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show. 

Though returns offered by cash have been historically bad over the last 10 years, the tide has begun to turn on cash yields and investors will want to take note.-----Transcript------Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, August 26, at 2 p.m. in London. For much of the last 12 years, the question of whether to hold cash in a portfolio was really a question of negativity. After all, for most of that time, holding cash yielded nothing or less than nothing for those in Europe. Holding it implied you believed almost every other investment option was worse than this low bar. Unsurprisingly, the low returns offered by cash over this period led to... low returns. For 8 of the 10 years from 2010 through 2020, holding cash underperformed both U.S. stocks and U.S. Treasuries. And while cash is often like stocks and bonds over time, the returns to holding cash since 2010 were historically bad. But that's now changing, because cash no longer yields nothing. As central banks have raced to raise rates in the face of high inflation, the return on holding cash or near cash investments has jumped materially. One year ago, a 6 month U.S. Treasury bill yielded 0.04%. It now yields 3.25%. That is 3.25% for an investment with very low volatility backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. That's a higher yield than a U.S. 10 year Treasury bond. It is more than double the dividend yield of the S&P 500 stock index. And it's just a quarter of a percentage point less than the dividend yield on U.S. real estate investment trusts. It's important to note that not all short term liquid investments are created equal. While six month U.S. T-bills now yield 3.25%, the average yield on 6 month bank CD's is less than 1%, and the average U.S. savings account yields just 0.2%. In other words, it pays to shop around. And for those in the business of managing money market and liquidity funds, we think this is a good time to add value and grow assets. What are the market implications? For equity markets, if investors can now receive higher yields on low risk cash, we think it's reasonable to think that that should lead investors to ask for higher returns elsewhere, which should lower valuations on stocks. My colleague Michael Wilson, Morgan Stanley's Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist, sees poor risk reward for U.S. equities at current levels. More broadly, we think it supports holding more U.S. dollar cash in a portfolio. That's true for U.S. investors, but also globally, as we forecast the U.S. dollar to continue to strengthen. Holding cash isn't necessarily a sign of caution, it may simply be efficient allocation to an asset that has recently seen a major jump in yield. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.

This year has seen a sharp rally in the oil and gas markets, leading to high prices and a delicate balancing act for global supply and demand. Important note regarding economic sanctions. This research references country/ies which are generally the subject of selective sanctions programs administered or enforced by the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), the European Union and/or by other countries and multi-national bodies. Users of this report are solely responsible for ensuring that their investment activities in relation to any sanctioned country/ies are carried out in compliance with applicable sanctions.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Markets. I'm Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley's Global Commodity Strategist and the Head of the European Energy Research Team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be giving you an update on global oil and the European gas market. It's Thursday, the 25th of August, at 4 p.m. in London. As the world emerged from COVID, commodities have rallied strongly. Between mid 2020 and mid 2022, the Bloomberg Commodity Index more than doubled, outperforming equities significantly and fulfilling its traditional role as an inflation hedge.However, this rally largely ran out of steam in June, even for oil. For nearly two years, the oil market was significantly undersupplied. For a while, storage can help meet the deficit, but at some point, supply and demand simply need to come into balance. If that can't happen via the supply side quick enough, it must happen via the demand side, and so the oil markets effectively searched for the demand destruction price.The price level where that happens can be hard to estimate, but in June we clearly got there. For a brief period, gasoline reached $180 per barrel and diesel even reached $190 a barrel. Those prices are difficult for the global economy to absorb, especially if you take into account that the dollar has been strengthening at the same time. With the world's central banks hiking interest rates in an effort to slow down the economy as well, oil demand has started to soften and prices have given up some of their recent strength.Now these trends can take some time to play out, possibly even several quarters. As long as fears of a recession prevail, oil prices are likely to stay rangebound. However, after recession comes recovery. There is still little margin of safety in the system, so when demand starts to improve again, there is every chance the strong cycle from last year repeats itself. This time next year we may need to ask the question, 'What is the demand destruction price?' once again.Now, one commodity that has defied all gravity is European natural gas. Over much of the last decade, Europe was accustomed to a typical natural gas price of somewhere between sort of $6 to $7 per million British thermal units. Recently, it reached the eye-watering level of $85 per MMBtu. On an energy equivalent basis, that would be similar to oil trading at nearly $500 per barrel.Now, the reason for this is, of course, the sharp reduction in supply from Russia. As the war in Ukraine has unfolded, Russia has steadily supplied less and less natural gas to Europe. Now total volumes have already fallen by around about 75%. Furthermore, Gazprom announced that flows through the critical Nord Stream 1 pipeline would temporarily stop completely later this month for maintenance to one of its turbines. In principle, this will only last three days, but the market is clearly starting to fear that this is a harbinger of a much longer lasting shutdown.These exceptional prices are already leading to large declines in demand. During COVID, industrial gas consumption in Europe fell only 2 or 3%. Last month, industrial gas use was already down 19% year-on-year. With these demand declines, Europe can probably manage with the reduced supply, but to keep demand lower for longer gas prices need to be higher for longer. The gas market has clearly noticed. Even gas for delivery by end 2024 is now trading at close to $50 per MMBtu, 10x the equivalent price in the United States.The full implications of all of this for the European economy going forward are yet to become clear, but we'll be sure to keep listeners up to date on the latest developments.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

As Asia and EM equities continue to experience what may end up being the longest bear market in the history of the asset class, looking to past bear markets may give investors some insight into when to come off the sidelines.-----Transcript-----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jonathan Garner, Chief Asia and Emerging Market Equity Strategist at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be discussing whether we're nearing the end of the current bear market in Asia and emerging market equities. It's Wednesday, August the 24th, at 8 a.m. in Singapore. The ongoing bear market in Asia and EM equities is the 11th which I've covered as a strategist. And in this episode I want to talk about some lessons I've learned from those prior experiences, and indeed how close we may be to the end of this current bear market. A first key point to make is that this is already the second longest in duration of the 11 bear markets I've covered. Only that which began with the puncturing of the dot com bubble by a Fed hike cycle in February 2000 was longer. This is already a major bear market by historical standards. My first experience of bear markets was one of the most famous, that which took place from July 1997 to September 1998 and became known as the Asian Financial Crisis. That lasted for 518 days, with a peak to trough decline of 59%. And as with so many others, the trigger was a tightening of U.S. monetary policy at the end of 1996 and a stronger U.S. dollar. That bear market ended only when the U.S. Federal Reserve did three interest rate cuts in quick succession at the end of 1998 in response to the long term capital management and Russia defaults. Indeed, a change in U.S. monetary policy and/or a peak in the U.S. dollar have tended to be crucial in marking the troughs in Asia and EM equity bear markets. And that includes the two bear markets prior to the current one, which ended in March 2020 and October 2018. However, changes in Chinese monetary policy and China's growth cycles, starting with the bear market ending in October 2008, have been of increasing importance in recent cycles. Indeed, easier policy in China in late 2008 preceded a turn in U.S. monetary policy and helped Asia and EM equities lead the recovery in global markets after the global financial crisis. Although China has been easing policy for almost a year thus far, the degree of easing as measured by M2 growth or overall lending growth is smaller than in prior cycles. And at least in part, that's because China is attempting to pull off the difficult feat of restructuring its vast and highly leveraged property sector, whilst also pursuing a strategy of COVID containment involving closed loop production and episodic consumer lockdowns. Those key differences are amongst a number of factors which have led us to recommend staying on the sidelines this year, both in our overall coverage in Asia and emerging markets, but also with respect to China. We have preferred Japan, and parts of ASEAN, the Middle East and Latin America. Finally, as we look ahead I would also note that one feature of being later on in a bear market is a sudden fall in commodity prices. And certainly from mid-June there have been quite material declines in copper, iron ore and more recently, the oil price. Meanwhile, classic defensive sectors are outperforming. And that sort of late cycle behavior within the index itself raises the question of whether by year end Asia and EM equities could once again transition to offering an interesting early cycle cyclical play. That more positive scenario for next year would depend on global and U.S. headline inflation starting to fall back, whether we would see a peak in the U.S. dollar and Fed rate hike pricing.For the time being, though, as the clock ticks down to the current bear market becoming the longest in the history of the asset class, we still think patience will be rewarded a while longer. Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and recommend Thoughts on the Market to a friend or colleague today. 

The Inflation Reduction Act represents the single biggest climate investment in U.S. history, so how will these provisions influence consumers' pocketbooks and the clean energy market? Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research Michael Zezas and Global Head of Sustainability Research Stephen Byrd discuss.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research.Stephen Byrd And I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Sustainability Research.Michael Zezas And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll focus on the Inflation Reduction Act's bold attempt to stem the tide of climate change. It's Tuesday, August 23rd at noon in New York.Michael Zezas Regular listeners may have heard our previous episodes on the potential impact for the U.S. economy and on taxes from the Inflation Reduction Act. Today, we'll focus on another essential aspect of this new legislation, namely its sweeping support for clean energy, which represents the single biggest climate investment in U.S. history. So, Stephen, there's a ton of important issues to address here. Let's start with an immediate pain point that most of us deal with on a daily basis, the cost of energy. How does the Inflation Reduction Act aim to lower energy costs for Americans?Stephen Byrd The simplest way to think about this is that in the past decade, wind and solar costs in the U.S. declined every year by double digits. What's exciting about the IRA is that there are really important investments that will increase the scale of manufacturing. So, the fundamental point in terms of the benefit of the IRA really is support for a variety of clean energy investments that's going to increase efficiency, reduce per unit costs. This is becoming really essentially a very big business. To put this in context, in the last 12 months utility bills in the U.S. and most of the U.S. have increased by sometimes well into the double digits. And yet clean energy costs remain quite low. Given some of the near-term COVID supply chain dynamics, costs aren't dropping as quickly as they normally would, but before long we're going to see those reductions continue. That should result in lower power costs for customers across the U.S. and that's the single biggest benefit from a sort of deflationary point of view that I can think of around the IRA.Michael Zezas And the IRA also has a stated aim to increase American energy security. In what ways does it attempt to do that?Stephen Byrd Yeah, Michael, it's really interesting. The IRA has some very broad areas of support for domestic manufacturing of all kinds, of not just clean energy but related technologies like energy storage. And we do think that's going to likely result in quite a bit of onshoring of manufacturing activity. That is good for American energy security, that brings our sources of energy production right back home, creates jobs, reduces dependency on other governments. So, for example, the subsidy for solar manufacturing is really very large. It can be as high as essentially $0.17 a watt, and to put that into context, the selling price at the wholesale level for many of these products is around $0.30 a watt. So that subsidy for domestic manufacturing should result in real investment decisions in real U.S. factories, and that will help to improve American energy security.Michael Zezas Now, another aspect of this legislation is its attempt to substantially limit carbon emissions in the U.S. What are some of the measures that are aimed at doing this?Stephen Byrd Decarbonization is a major area of focus, just as you said, for the IRA and this shows up in many ways. I'd say the most direct way would be providing a number of incentives to increase the growth of wind and solar. So, we'll see a great deal of growth there as a result. However, there are other elements that are really interesting. One example is support for nuclear. I think the drafters really wanted to ensure that we didn't lose any additional nuclear power plants. Those plants provide obviously zero carbon energy, but they also provide really important grid reliability services so that's helpful. There is also quite a bit of capital for carbon capture, which should reduce the emissions profile of other sectors as well. There's quite a bit of support for electric vehicles that will help with the pace of electrification. And that's kind of a nice double benefit in the sense that if more consumers choose electric vehicles and the grid becomes cleaner then we get a double benefit. So, we're really seeing very broad-based support for decarbonization in the IRA.Michael Zezas Now, one of the methods here to incentivize decarbonization is through tax credits. What are some of these tax credits? How do they work?Stephen Byrd We have a lot of tax credits in this IRA for what I think of as wholesale players, that is the big clean energy developers. There are tax credits for wind and solar that get extended well into the next decade. We have a new tax credit for energy storage. We have tax credits that have been enhanced for carbon capture and utilization, which is very exciting because that's at a level needed to incent quite a bit of investment in carbon capture. We have a new very large tax credit for green hydrogen. That's great, because today hydrogen is made in a process called ‘gray hydrogen’ that does have quite a high carbon profile. So, a variety of tax credits essentially at the wholesale level or at the developer level, but also that could benefit consumers as well, such as on electric vehicles and those are quite sizable as well.Michael Zezas Now these tax credits and the other efforts in the Inflation Reduction Act aimed at carbon reduction, they represent a major pickup in spending on clean technologies. Can you give us some perspective on that? And is the industry ready to supply all the equipment and labor needed to make this a reality?Stephen Byrd I think what we're seeing with many technologies here in clean energy is that the demand is starting to grow very rapidly. Now the industry is really pushing very hard to keep pace, essentially. The limit on growth for some of our companies is really down to people. That is, how many people can they hire and train. So, for some of those companies, that growth rate caps out at about 25% per year. You know, that's quite good and we'll see that continue for many years. I think we're going to see a lot of increased efforts on education. And you'll see also within the IRA a lot of language around prevailing wage and ensuring that employees get paid a fair wage. On top of that, though, there are some areas of shortage. So in energy storage, for example, demand is very high across the U.S., not just for electric vehicles, but also to help with grid reliability. A good example would be in Texas during the winter storm, parts of the Texas grid failed and quite a few people were without power during very cold conditions. That was very challenging. And as a result, a lot of customers, both individuals and corporations, want to have storage. There are limits, there is a shortage essentially globally in terms of energy storage, and that's going to take years to address. That said, the IRA does make important headway in terms of providing incentives and financial support to bring a lot of manufacturing back to the U.S. so we have better control of manufacturing. We'll be able to scale up more quickly and also avoid a lot of the logistics and supply chain issues that have plagued some of our companies that have dealt with very complex and challenging global supply chains.Michael Zezas So, for investors, then, what's the takeaway? Is this perhaps a boon for the clean tech sector, or is it maybe too much, too soon?Stephen Byrd I think this is a boon for not just the clean tech sector. I think ultimately this is going to translate into much more rapid adoption of clean energy, which fundamentally is very much a deflationary force. So what we're going to see is further innovation, further manufacturing in the U.S. That means more jobs in the U.S, that means a faster pace of innovation and a faster rate of cost reduction. So that does look to us to be a virtuous cycle that's going to benefit not just the decarbonization of the U.S. economy but benefit the consumer and provide jobs as well.Michael Zezas Stephen, thanks for taking the time to talk.Stephen Byrd Great speaking with you, Michael.Michael Zezas As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show.

While stocks and bonds have rallied since June, investors should be asking if this bear market rebound is a sign that economic growth is on its way up, or if there are negative earning revisions yet to come.-----Transcript-----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, August 22nd at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. Taking a few weeks off can sometimes provide a fresh perspective on markets needed at times like today. The fact that it happens to be August, the most popular time for vacations of the year, can also play into that perspective. Over the past 6 weeks many financial markets have had a strong rebound. As an example, both stocks and bonds have rallied sharply from their June lows. The question that equity investors must ask themselves is how much of the rally in stocks is due to the fall in interest rates versus a real improvement in the prospects of a soft landing in the economy? For better or worse our view has remained consistent since April that the primary concern for stocks was no longer inflation, or the Fed's reaction to deal with it, but rather the outlook for growth. In May, the consensus moved strongly into our camp, with the cries for a recession reaching a fever pitch in June. Equity markets became very oversold and the stage was set for a powerful rally. Truth be told, this rally exceeded our expectations for a normal counter trend bear market rally. However, in order to set the stage for the next leg lower, the rally needed to be convincing enough to change the very bearish sentiment to outright bullish. Based on what I have seen in the press and from our peers around the street, that sentiment has flipped with many declaring the end of the bear market and the increasing likelihood of new all time highs as soon as later this year. While there are some strong indications that inflation has peaked from a rate of change standpoint, it's too soon for the Fed to declare victory in our view. In other words, the rising hope for the Fed to pivot away from rising rates or curtailing its balance sheet reduction remains optimistic. Nevertheless, this is the primary justification for why equity markets have rallied and why it can continue. However, even if that were true, there are very few data points suggesting we have reached a trough in growth, either economically or from an earnings growth standpoint. In fact, our growth is suggesting the opposite, with earnings revision breadth accelerating to the downside, along with our other leading indicators. To put it more bluntly, rarely have we been more confident that consensus growth expectations for earnings over the next 12 months are too high. More importantly, the equity market almost never rallies if forward earnings estimates are falling, unless the valuation is completely washed out. In June, one could have credibly argued valuations were discounting a sharp decline in growth and the risk of a recession. At the lows the forward price earnings ratio reached 15.4x and was down almost 30% from the end of last year. At 15.4x is almost exactly our year end target price earnings multiple at the beginning of this year based on our view that the Fed would have to tighten aggressively to combat inflation. The problem with assuming 15.4x was a washed out level for valuations is that all of the degradation was a result of higher interest rates, while the equity risk premium remained flat to down over that time frame. In other words, at no time did the price earnings multiple discount a material slowdown in growth. Now, with the price earnings multiple exceeding 18x last week, valuations are inappropriate if one agrees with our view that earnings estimates are too high. On Friday, stocks reversed lower and that seems to be carrying into this week. Many are once again blaming the Fed and perhaps acknowledging its work in fighting inflation remains unfinished. We agree. However, with price earnings multiples still 17.4x as I record this podcast, valuations are not discounting that resolve, nor is it discounting the negative earnings revisions still to come. The bottom line stocks have experienced a classic bear market rebound after having reached a near record oversold condition on many metrics. With the Fed still very much in the picture and earnings estimates likely to fall further, equity markets are almost as unattractive as they were at the beginning of the year. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show.

In the past two years Emerging Market sovereign debt has seen rising risks given increased borrowing, higher interest rates and a greater number of defaults, leading investors to wonder, are we heading towards an EM debt crisis? Important note regarding economic sanctions. This research references country/ies which are generally the subject of comprehensive or selective sanctions programs administered or enforced by the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), the European Union and/or by other countries and multi-national bodies. Any references in this report to entities, debt or equity instruments, projects or persons that may be covered by such sanctions are strictly incidental to general coverage of the relevant Russian economic sector as germane to its overall financial outlook, and should not be read as recommending or advising as to any investment activities in relation to such entities, instruments or projects. Users of this report are solely responsible for ensuring that their investment activities in relation to any sanctioned country/ies are carried out in compliance with applicable sanctions.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the market. I'm Simon Waever, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of EM Sovereign Credit Strategy. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today, I'll address the possibility of an emerging markets debt crisis. It's Friday, August 19th, 12p.m. in New York.The most frequent question I get from investors right now is, 'are we heading towards an EM debt crisis?' It's not unreasonable to ask this. After all, a lot of the ingredients that led to prior EM debt crises are in place today. First, EM countries have taken on a lot of debt, not just since the pandemic, but in the past ten years, meaning most countries are at or near multi-decade highs. Second, global central banks are quickly hiking rates, with the Fed in particular a key driver in tightening global financial conditions. Third, which is related, is that servicing and rolling over that debt has suddenly become much more expensive, driven not just by a stronger dollar, but also much higher bond yields. And then fourth, which is perhaps the most important one, is that today we are as close to an extended sudden stop in flows to EM as we have been in a long time. That means that many countries have lost access to markets, so that even if they were willing to pay up to borrow, there's just no demand.Markets are telling us the risks are rising as well. Outside of the 2008 Global Financial Crisis and the 2020 pandemic, you'd have to go back 20 years to find EM sovereign credit spreads trading as wide. And high yield credit spreads are much wider than investment grade spreads, so markets are differentiating already.Finally, just looking at actual sovereign defaults and restructurings, they're already higher than in recent history. We have had six in the past two years and now already three in 2022, namely Russia, Belarus and Sri Lanka.From here, there are likely to be more defaults, but three key points are worth making. One, the countries at risk now are very different to the prior debt crisis in EM. Two, none would be systemic defaults. And three, they would not all happen at the same time.Large countries like Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, Indonesia and Malaysia don't seem to be at risk of defaulting. They are completely different to what they were 20 to 30 years ago. They're now inflation targeters, have mostly free-floating currencies, meaning imbalances are less likely to build up, have large effects reserves and have the majority of that debt in local currency.Instead, the concern now is mostly with the newer issuers that benefited from the abundant global liquidity in the past ten years. And by this I mean the frontier credits, many of which are in Africa, but also in Asia and Central America. And then it's key to actually look at who has upcoming Eurobond maturities, as not all countries do. But even among these credits, the International Monetary Fund stands ready to help and there are FX reserves that can be used. So, it's not clear to me that you're going to see multiple defaults and even if you were to see two or more defaults among them, they're very unlikely to be systemic.But, all in, while there's no denying that EM countries are facing debt sustainability issues, let's not paint all EM with the same brush. The nuances should make for some exciting years ahead for sovereign debt analysts and should also open up the potential for significant alpha within the asset class.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

The Inflation Reduction Act includes a variety of provisions regarding tax policy, so how will these policy changes affect corporations and what should investors be aware of? Head of Public Policy Research and Municipal Strategy Michael Zezas and Head of Global Valuation, Accounting, and Tax Todd Castagno discuss.-----Transcript-----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Head of Public Policy Research and Municipal Strategy. Todd Castagno: And I'm Todd Castagno, Morgan Stanley's Head of Global Valuation, Accounting and Tax Research. Michael Zezas: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market we'll focus on what you need to know about some significant changes to tax policy from the Inflation Reduction Act. It's Thursday, August 18th, at noon in New York. Michael Zezas: President Biden has now signed the Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, into law. As our listeners may remember, last week we discussed the potential impact of the IRA on the U.S. economic outlook. Today we want to dig deeper into a specific area of this new law, namely taxes. So Todd, there's been some criticism of the IRA with regard to the 15% minimum tax on the largest corporations. What are your thoughts on this provision? Todd Castagno: Thanks, Michael. Let's first discuss how this 15% minimum corporate tax operates. So the law now intends for large corporations that earn on average of $1 billion or more over a three year period to pay at least 15%. Now, what's important is what is that profit base to tax that 15% and its derived from financial statement net income with certain adjustments. That is why this tax is commonly referred to as a book tax, that is primarily based on book or financial statement measures of income. So if you peel back a few layers of what's driving the criticism, there's a recognition that this tax effectively just overrides incentives or timing differences that Congress consciously enacted. Critics will say that Congress should just fix certain areas of the tax codes directly. However, the politics of fixing specific policies directly can be extremely difficult politically. The other point of criticism is that taxing authority has effectively been ceded to independent accounting standards setters. Changes in the accounting rules may now affect changes in minimum tax revenue. There have been some concerns from investors over earnings quality as the tail now wags the dog where accounting can now drive the economics. So those are just a few of the criticisms. It's also important to note, Michael, that we've had a version of a book tax back in the 1980s, so it would be interesting to see longevity of this tax as that tax only lasted effectively 2 to 3 years. Michael Zezas: And another piece of the legislation is a softening and reduction of the Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax on advanced manufacturing activities such as automation, computation, software and networking. What can you tell us about that? Todd Castagno: Good question. When Senator Sinema announced a carve out for advanced manufacturing, we were scratching our heads of what that actually meant. Well, it's quite broader and it really affects most manufacturing. So what the adjustment is, is you start with book income and you'd make an adjustment to basically replace what we book for accounting depreciation with tax depreciation. And so tax depreciation is usually front run it and it's usually accelerated versus book. So what that will mean for manufacturers is that their minimum tax base will be lower given this adjustment. Michael Zezas: And also in the IRA is a 1% stock buyback tax for companies that are repurchasing their own shares. Todd, is that likely to impact corporate profits or change behavior in a meaningful way? Todd Castagno: Overall, we don't believe at a 1% level this will materially affect the level of buybacks or corporate behavior. You could see a modest tilt towards dividends as a more preferential form of capital return. You could also see perhaps some buybacks being pulled forward into 22 as the law takes effect in 2023. You know, we think the bigger risk is that 1% rate skews higher in the future if a future Congress needs more revenue. We should also note that it's net of issuances, so that's important. A lot of firms have large amounts of stock based compensation and they repurchase their shares in order to prevent dilution. And so effect of that issuance will also really reduce the amount of the buyback tax. Michael Zezas: And finally, let's talk about tax credits. Which tax credits stand out to you from this bill and how material might their impact be? Todd Castagno: I think this one is in the eye of the beholder. The reality is that the IRA increased credits significantly across the board for clean energy investment, whether that's electric vehicles, decarbonization. Also, the structure of many of those credits has evolved where they can be monetized more upfront, whether that's the refund ability or transferability to other taxpayers. So I think the magnitude of the investment, the magnitude of the credits, outweighs any specific credit or provision. Michael Zezas: Todd, thanks for taking the time to talk. Todd Castagno: Great speaking with you, Michael. Michael Zezas: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show. 

While shifts in stock and bond correlation have increased the volatility of a 60:40 portfolio, investors may still find some balance in diversification. Chief Cross Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets and Chief Investment Officer for Wealth Management Lisa Shalett discuss.-----Transcript-----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley Research.Lisa Shalett: And I'm Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management.Andrew Sheets: And on part two of this special episode, we'll be continuing our discussion of the foundational 60/40 portfolio.  It's Wednesday, August 17th at 4:00 PM in London.Lisa Shalett: And it's 11:00 AM here in New York.Andrew Sheets: So Lisa, I know the positive correlations won't lift the 60:40 portfolio’s volatility too much, but would you say that investors have been inclined to accept more equity risk in recent decades because the cushioning effect of fixed income and this idea that if anything goes wrong, the Fed will kind of ride to the rescue and support markets?Lisa Shalett: Yes I do. And I think, you know, part of the issue has been that we've been not only in a regime of falling interest rates, which has supported overall equity valuations, but we've lived in a period of suppressed volatility with regard to the direction of policy. We've been in this forward guidance regime, if you will, from the central bank where not only was the central bank holding down the cost of capital but they were telegraphing the speed and order of magnitude and pace of things which took a huge amount of volatility out of the market for both stocks and bonds and permitted risk taking. I mean, my goodness, you know, when was the last time in history that we had such negative “term premiums” in the pricing of bonds? That was a part of this function of this idea that the Fed's going to tell us exactly what they're going to do and there's this Fed put, and any time something unexpected happens, they will, you know, “come to save the day.”And so I think we're at the beginning, we're literally in my humble opinion in the first or second innings of the market fundamentally wrapping their heads around what it means to no longer be in a forward guidance regime. Where the central bank, in their ambitions to normalize policy to crush inflation have to inherently be more data dependent and data dependency is inherently more volatile. And so I do think over time we are going to see these equity risk premiums, which, you know, as we've discussed earlier, had gotten quite compressed, widen back out to something that is more normal for the amount of risk that equities genuinely represent.Andrew Sheets: And Lisa, I think that's such a great point about the predictability of monetary policy cause you're right, you know, that's another interesting similarity with the period prior to 2000. That period was a period of a much more unpredictable Fed between, you know, 1920 and the year 2000 where in more recent years, the Fed has become very predictable. So, that's another good thing that we should, as investors, think about is does that shifting predictability of Fed action, does the rising uncertainty that the Fed is facing, you know, is that also an important driver of this stock bond correlation. So boiling it all down, how are you talking about all of this to clients to help them reposition portfolios to navigate risk and potential return?Lisa Shalett: I think at the end of the day you know, the most important thing that we're sitting with clients and talking about is that these fundamental building blocks of asset allocations, stocks and bonds, while they may correlate to one another differently, while they're each inherent volatilities may move up and therefore the volatility of that 60:40 portfolio may readjust some, the reality is, is that they’re still very important building blocks that play different roles in the portfolio that are both still required. So, you know, your stocks are still going to be that asset class that allows you to capture unexpected growth in the economy and in the overall profit stream, while fixed income and your rates market is still going to be that opportunity to cushion, if you will, disappointments in growth.As we know that they, come over the course of a cycle. In that regard, as we look to this repricing of interest rates and what it may mean, we are encouraging our clients to look much more deliberately, actively, at being diversified across styles, across factors, across market capitalizations because these dynamics are changing. If we look back over the last 13 years, because the narrative around falling interest rates and Fed forward guidance and low volatility, and these correlations, these very stable correlations, and everything's going our way, you didn't need to look very far beyond just owning that passive S&P 500 index. Now, as things begin to normalize and get more inherently volatile and idiosyncratic, we look at where there may be, “value” in the traditional factor sense, to look down the market capitalization scheme to smaller and mid-cap stocks, to look at more cyclical oriented stocks that may be responding to this higher interest rate, higher inflation regimes. And so we're encouraging maximum levels of diversification within these building blocks and very active management of riskAndrew Sheets: Lisa as always, thanks for taking the time to talk.Lisa Shalett: It's my pleasure, Andrew.Andrew Sheets: And as a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show.

In the current era of tighter Fed policy, the status quo of stock and bond correlation has changed, calling the foundational 60:40 portfolio into question. Chief Cross Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets and Chief Investment Officer for Wealth Management Lisa Shalett discuss.-----Transcript-----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley Research.Lisa Shalett: And I'm Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management.Andrew Sheets: And on part one of this special episode, we'll be discussing the foundational 60/40 stock bond portfolio. In an era of tighter policy, is a diversified portfolio of stocks and bonds fundamentally broken? It's Tuesday, August 16th at 4:00 PM in London.Lisa Shalett: And it's 11:00 AM here in New York.Andrew Sheets: Lisa, it's so good to talk to you again. So, you know, one of the most important, fundamental building blocks of asset allocation is the so-called 60/40 portfolio, a portfolio of 60% stocks and 40% bonds, and both of us have been writing about that this year because this strategy of having diversified stocks and bonds worked unusually well for the 40 years up through 2021, but this year has suffered a real historical reversal, seeing some of the worst returns for this diversified balanced strategy we've seen in 40 or 50 years. So when you think about these dynamics, when you think about the historically poor performance, can you give some context of what's been happening here and what our listeners should make of it?Lisa Shalett: Sure, absolutely. I think as we know, we've gone through this 13-year period through the pandemic when the narrative was very much dominated by Federal Reserve intervention repression and keeping down of interest rates and in fact, falling interest rates, that produced financial market returns both for stocks and for bonds. But as we know, entering 2022, that narrative that was so concentrated on the direction of interest rates, you know, faced a major pivot from the Federal Reserve itself who, as we know, was facing an inflation fight which meant that they were going to have to move the federal funds rate up pretty significantly. The implication of that was pretty devastating for both stocks and bonds, that combined 60/40 portfolio delivered aggregate returns of about -12 to -13% on average that's the performance for that diversified portfolio benchmark in over 50 years. But again, we have to remember a lot of that performance was coming from a starting point where both stocks and bonds had been extraordinarily valued with those valuations premised on a continuation of Federal Reserve policy that unfortunately because of inflation has had to changeAndrew Sheets: Lisa I'm so glad you mentioned that starting point of valuations because, you know, it matters, I think in two really important ways. One, it helps us maybe understand better what's been happening this year, but also, you know, usually when prices fall, and this year prices are still down considerably from where they started, that means better valuations and better returns going forward. So, you know, could you just give a little bit more context of you and your team run a lot of estimates for what asset classes can return potentially over longer horizons. You know, maybe what that looked like for a 60/40 portfolio at the start of this year, when, as you mentioned, both stocks and bonds were pretty richly valued, and then how that's been developing as the year has progressed.Lisa Shalett: Yeah. So, fantastic question. And, you know, we came into 2022 quite frankly, on a strategic horizon given where valuations were, not very excited about either asset class. You know for bonds, we were looking for maybe 0-2% or somewhat below coupon, because of the pressures of repricing on bonds. And for stocks we were looking for something in the, you know, 4-5% range, which was significantly below what historical long term capital market assumptions, you know, might expect for many institutional clients who benchmark themselves off of a 7.5 or 8% return ambition. So, when we entered this bear market, this kind of ferocious selloff, as we noted, from January through June, there were many folks who were hoping that perhaps valuations and forward looking expectations of returns were improving. Importantly, however, what we've seen is that hasn't been the case because what you have to do when you're thinking about valuation is you've gotta look at stock valuations relative to the level of interest rates.And we're now in a scenario where, you know, the terminal value for the US economy may be something very different than it was and that means somewhat lower valuations. So, you know, if I had to put a number on it right now, my expectations for equity returns going forward from the current mark to market is really no better, unfortunately, than perhaps where it was in January. For bonds on the other hand, we've made some progress. And so to me, you know, I, I could see our estimates on bonds being a little bit more constructive than where they were with the 10 year yield somewhere in the, in the 2.8 zip code. Lisa Shalett: So Andrew we've talked about the stock bond correlation as keying off the direction of inflation and the path of Fed policy. With both of those changing, do you view a positive correlation as likely over the longer term?Andrew Sheets: Yeah. Thanks. Thanks, Lisa. So I think this issue of stock bond correlation is, is really interesting and, and gets a lot of attention for, for good reasons. And then, I think, can also be a little bit misinterpreted. So the reason the correlation is important is, I think, probably obvious to the listeners, if you have a diversified portfolio of assets, you want them to kind of not all move together. That's the whole point of diversification. You want your assets to go up and down on different days, and that smooths the overall return. Now, you know, interestingly for a lot of the last hundred years, the stock bond correlation was positive. Stock and bond prices tended to move in the same direction, which means stock and bond yields tended to move in the opposite direction. So higher yields meant lower stock prices.That was the history for a lot of time, kind of prior to 2000. The reason I think that happened was because inflation was the dominant fear of markets over a lot of that period and inflation was very volatile. And so higher yields generally meant a worsening inflation backdrop, which was bad for stock prices and lower bond yields tended to mean inflation was getting back under control, and that was better for stocks. Now, what's interesting is in the 90s that dynamic really kinda started to change. And after 2000, after the dot-com bubble burst, the fear really turned to growth. The market became a lot less concerned about inflationary pressure, but a lot more concerned about growth. And that meant that when yields were rising, the market saw that as growth being better. So the thing they were afraid of was getting less bad, which was better for stock prices.So, you had this really interesting flip of correlation where once inflation was tamed really in the 90s, the markets started to see higher yields, meaning better growth rather than higher inflation, which meant that stocks and bonds tend to have a negative correlation. Their prices tend to more often move in opposite directions. And as you alluded to, that really created this golden age of stock bond diversification that created this golden age of 60/40 portfolios, because both of these assets were delivering positive returns, but they were delivering them at different times. And so offsetting and cushioning each other's price movements, which is really, you know, the ideal of anybody trying to invest for the long run and, and diversify a portfolio. So that's changed this year. It's been very apparent this year that both stock and bond prices have gone down and gone down together in a pretty significant way.But I think as we look forward, we also shouldn't overstate this change. You know, I think your point, Lisa, about just how expensive things were at the start of the year is really important. You know, anytime an asset is very expensive, it is much more vulnerable to dropping and given that both stocks and bonds were both expensive at the same time and both very expensive at the same time, you know, their dropping together I think was, was also a function of their valuation as much of anything else. So, I think going forward, it makes sense to assume kind of a middle ground. You know, I don't think we are going to have the same negative correlation we enjoyed over the last, you know, 15 years, but I also don't think we're going back to the very positive correlations we had, you know, kind of prior to the 1990s.And so, you know, I think for investors, we should think about that as less diversification they get to enjoy in a portfolio, but that doesn't mean it's no diversification. And given that bonds are so much less volatile than stocks, you know, bonds might have a third of the volatility of the stock market, if we look at kind of volatility over the last five years. That still is some pretty useful ballast in a portfolio. That still means a large chunk of the portfolio is moving around a lot less and helping to stabilize the overall asset pool. Andrew Sheets: Thanks for listening. Tomorrow I’ll be continuing my conversation with Lisa Shalett, and as a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show.

Based on July reports inflation may finally be cooling down, and the labor market remains strong, so how might this new data influence policy changes in the September FOMC meeting?-----Transcript-----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ellen Zentner, Chief U.S. Economist for Morgan Stanley Research. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be catching you up to speed on U.S. inflation, the labor market and our outlook for Fed policy. It's Monday, August 15th, at 11 a.m. in New York. Let me start with some encouraging news. If we look at the July readings for both the Consumer Price Index data and the Producer Price Index, inflation finally appears to be cooling. And that should take some pressure off the Fed to deliver another 75 basis point hike in September. So that's the good news. However, inflation is still elevated and that suggests the Fed still has a lot of work to do, even if there's a reduced need for a third consecutive 75. We're forecasting a 50 basis point hike at the September and November meetings and 25 basis points in December for a peak interest rate of 3.625%. Okay, let's look a bit more under the hood. July CPI on both headline and core measures surprised to the downside, and the PPI came in softer as well. Together, the reports point to a lower than previously anticipated inflation print that will be released on August 26th. Now, the recent blowout July employment report led markets to price a high probability of a 75 basis point hike. But the inflation data then came in lower than expected and pushed the probability back toward 50 basis points. Based on the outlook for declining energy prices, we think headline inflation should continue to come down and do so quite quickly. However, core inflation pressures remain uncomfortably high and are likely to persist. For the Fed signs of a turn around in headline inflation are helpful and are already showing up in lower household inflation expectations. However, trends in core are more indicative of the trajectory for underlying inflation pressures, and Fed officials came out in droves last week to stress that the steep path for rates remains the base case. Sticky core inflation is a key reason why we expect the Fed to hold at 3.625% Fed funds, before making the first cut toward normalizing policy in December 2023. Now, let me speak to July's surprising employment report. As the data showed, the labor market remains strong, even though some of the data flow has begun to diverge in recent months. Leading up to the recent release, the market had taken the softening in employment in the household survey, so that is the employment measure that just goes out to households and polls them, were you employed, were you not, were you part time, were you full time, and generally because that's been very weak, the market was taking it as a potential harbinger of a turn in the payrolls data, payrolls data are collected from companies that just ask each company how many folks are on your payrolls. Household survey employment was again softer in July, coming in at 179,000 versus 528,000 for the payroll survey. Now, this seems like a sizable disparity, but it's actually not unusual for the household and payroll surveys to diverge over shorter periods of time. And these near term divergences largely reflect methodological differences. But what's interesting here and worth noting is that these differences in data likely reflect a shift in the form of employment. While the economy saw a large increase in self-employment in the early stages of the pandemic, the data now suggest workers may be returning to traditional payroll jobs, potentially because of higher nominal wages and better opportunities. If the economy is increasingly pulling workers out of self-employment and into traditional payroll jobs, similar pull effects are likely reaching workers currently out of the labor force. And this brings me to one of our key expectations for the next year and a half, which is a continued increase in labor force participation, in particular driven by prime age workers age 25 to 54. Higher wages, better job opportunities and rising cost of living will likely bring workers back into the labor force, even as overall job growth slows. Fed researchers, in fact, have recently documented that a delayed recovery in labor force participation is quite normal, and that's something we think is likely to play out again in this cycle. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. 

As inflation persists, economic concerns such as recession rise, and consumer spending patterns begin to shift, is there any evidence to suggest consumers are already trading down to value and discount products? U.S. Softlines Analyst Kimberly Greenberger and Hardlines, Broadlines and Food Retail Analyst Simeon Gutman discuss.-----Transcript-----Kimberly Greenberger: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Kimberly Greenberger, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Softlines Analyst. Simeon Gutman: And I'm Simeon Gutman, Hardlines, Broadlines and Food Retail Analyst. Kimberly Greenberger: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll be discussing shifting consumer spending patterns amid persistent inflation and concerns about the economy. It's Friday, August 12th, at 11 a.m. in New York. Kimberly Greenberger: As our listeners are no doubt aware, many retail segments were big pandemic beneficiaries with record sales growth and margins for 2+ years. But now that spending on goods is normalizing from high levels and consumers are facing record high inflation and worrying about a potential recession, we're starting to see signs of what's called "trade down", which is a consumer migration from more expensive products to value priced products. So Simeon, in your broad coverage, are you seeing any evidence that consumers are trading down already? Simeon Gutman: We're seeing it in two primary ways. First, we're seeing some reversion away from durable, high ticket items away to consumable items. And the pace of consumption of some of these high ticket durable items is waning and pretty rapidly. Some of these are items that were very strong during the pandemic, electronics, some sporting goods items, home furnishings, to name a few. So these items we're seeing material sales deceleration as one form of trade down. As another in the food retail sector, we're definitely seeing signs of consumers spending less or finding ways to spend less inside the grocery store. They can do that by trading down from national brands to private brands, buying less expensive alternative, buying frozen instead of fresh and even in the meat counter, buying less expensive forms of protein. So we're seeing it manifest in those two ways. What is the situation in softlines, Kimberly? Is your coverage vulnerable to trade down risk? Kimberly Greenberger: Absolutely. In softlines retail, which is apparel, footwear, accessories retail, these are discretionary categories. Yes, there's sort of a minimum level of spending that's necessary because clothing is part of the essentials, food, shelter, clothing. But Americans' closets are full and they're full because last year there was a great deal of overspending on the apparel category. So where we have seen trade down impact our sector this year, Simeon, is we have seen consumers budget cutting and moving away from some of those more discretionary categories like apparel especially. We just have not yet seen any benefits to some of the more value oriented retailers that we would expect to see in the future if this behavior persists. Simeon Gutman: So when we're thinking about the context of our collaborative work with other Morgan Stanley sector analysts around trade down risks, what do you hear, Kimberly, about the impact on segments such as household products and restaurants? Kimberly Greenberger: We have found most fascinating, actually, the study of those real high frequency purchases. Because in order to understand how consumer behavior is changing at the margin, we think it's most important to look at what consumers were spending on last week, two weeks ago, three weeks ago as a better indication of what they're likely to spend on for the next three or six months. How that behavior has been changing is that on those of very high frequency purchases like the daily tobacco purchase or the daily food at home purchase, as you mentioned, is that there is trade down from higher priced brands and products into more value oriented brands and products. The same thing is happening in fast food. Another category that we consume on a somewhat more frequent basis than, for example, eating in casual dining restaurants where we're sitting down for a meal. So now we've got a good number of months of evidence that this is, in fact, happening, and that gives us more conviction that it's likely to continue through the second half of the year. So Simeon, in your view, what parts of retail are the likely winners and laggards should this trade down behavior persist and broaden out, particularly if a recession did materialize? Simeon Gutman: So in the event of a recession, I think the typical answers here are a little bit easier to identify. The two big beneficiaries, the channel beneficiaries, would be the dollar slash discount stores and then secondarily, off price. First, the dollar and discount stores, they are already seeing some initial signs of trade down and that is mostly in the consumable area. That is the place where the consumer feels the pinch immediately. The other piece of it is the discretionary spend. The longer these conditions persist, high inflation and potential other pressures on the consumer, then you'll start to see a more pronounced trade down and shift of discretionary purchases. And that's where off price plays a role. Kimberly Greenberger: Simeon, thanks so much for taking the time to talk. Simeon Gutman: Great speaking with you, Kimberly. Kimberly Greenberger: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show. 

As bitcoin has been experiencing a steep decline in the last 6 months, investors are beginning to wonder when Cryptocurrencies will finally bottom out and start the cycle anew.Digital assets, sometimes known as cryptocurrency, are a digital representation of a value that function as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, or a store of value, but generally do not have legal tender status. Digital assets have no intrinsic value and there is no investment underlying digital assets. The value of digital assets is derived by market forces of supply and demand, and is therefore more volatile than traditional currencies’ value. Investing in digital assets is risky, and transacting in digital assets carries various risks, including but not limited to fraud, theft, market volatility, market manipulation, and cybersecurity failures—such as the risk of hacking, theft, programming bugs, and accidental loss. Additionally, there is no guarantee that any entity that currently accepts digital assets as payment will do so in the future. The volatility and unpredictability of the price of digital assets may lead to significant and immediate losses. It may not be possible to liquidate a digital assets position in a timely manner at a reasonable price.Regulation of digital assets continues to develop globally and, as such, federal, state, or foreign governments may restrict the use and exchange of any or all digital assets, further contributing to their volatility. Digital assets stored online are not insured and do not have the same protections or safeguards of bank deposits in the US or other jurisdictions. Digital assets can be exchanged for US dollars or other currencies, but are not generally backed nor supported by any government or central bank.Before purchasing, investors should note that risks applicable to one digital asset may not be the same risks applicable to other forms of digital assets. Markets and exchanges for digital assets are not currently regulated in the same manner and do not provide the customer protections available in equities, fixed income, options, futures, commodities or foreign exchange markets.Morgan Stanley and its affiliates do business that may relate to some of the digital assets or other related products discussed in Morgan Stanley Research. These could include market making, providing liquidity, fund management, commercial banking, extension of credit, investment services and investment banking.-----Transcript-----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Sheena Shah, Lead Cryptocurrency Strategist for Morgan Stanley Research. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I address the question everyone seems to be asking about the crypto cycle: when will crypto prices find a bottom? It's Thursday, August 11th, at 5 p.m. in London. After a 75% peak to trough fall in bitcoin's price between November 2021 and June this year, it seems like almost everyone in the market is asking the same question. When will crypto prices find the bottom? We will discuss three topics related to this question; the pace of new bitcoin creation, past bitcoin cycles and dollar liquidity. What can bitcoin's creation tell us about where we are in the crypto cycle? Bitcoin's relatively short history means there is little available data, and yet the data is quite rich. In its short 12 year history, bitcoin has experienced at least 10 bull and bear cycles. Bitcoin creation follows a 4 year cycle. Within these 4 year cycles, price action has so far followed three distinct phases. First, there is a rapid and almost exponential rise in price. Second, at a peak in price, a bear market follows. And third, prices move sideways, eventually leading into a new bull market. The question for investors today is, is bitcoin's price moving out of the second phase and into the third? Only time will tell. There have only been three of these halving cycles in the past, and so it is difficult to conclude that these cycles will repeat in the future. What about past bear markets? The 75% peak to trough fall in bitcoin's price and this cycle is currently faring better than previous cycles, in which the falls after peaks in 2011, 2013 and 2017 ranged between 85 and 95%. There is, therefore, speculation about whether this cycle has further to drop. Previous cycles have shed similar characteristics. In the bull runs there was speculation about the potential of a particular part of the crypto ecosystem. In 2011, it was the excitement about Bitcoin and the development of ecosystem technologies like exchanges and wallets. In 2020 to 2021, this cycle, there were NFTs, DeFi and the rising dominance of the institutional investor. In previous cycles, the bear runs were triggered by regulatory clampdowns or a dominant exchange being hacked. In 2013, a crackdown in China led to the world's largest exchange at that time, BTC China, stopping customer deposits. In this cycle, the liquidity tap dried up as inflation concerns gripped the market. Central bank liquidity and government stimulus fueled the speculation driven 2020-2022 crypto cycle. For this reason, day to day crypto traders are focusing on what the U.S. Federal Reserve plans to do with its interest rates and availability of dollars. To find a bottom, there are two liquidity related factors to look out for. First, market expectations that central banks will continue to tighten the money supply, turn into expectations that central banks will resume monetary expansion. Second, crypto companies increase appetite to build crypto leverage again. Both of these would increase liquidity and drive a new cycle of speculation. Which brings us back to the question about the bottom of the crypto cycle that almost everyone is asking: are we there yet? To answer that question, look at bitcoin creation, past cycles and above all, liquidity. Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed Thoughts on the Market, share this and other episodes with a friend or colleague today. 

The Senate just passed the Inflation Reduction Act which seeks to fight inflation on a variety of fronts, but the most pressing question is, will the IRA actually impact inflation?-----Transcript-----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Head of U.S. Public Policy Research and Municipal Strategy. Ellen Zentner: And I'm Ellen Zentner, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Michael Zezas: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll discuss the Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, with a focus on its impact on the U.S. economic outlook. It's Wednesday, August 10th, at noon in New York. Michael Zezas: So, Ellen, the Senate just passed the Democrats Inflation Reduction Act on a party line vote. And we know this has been a long awaited centerpiece to President Biden's agenda. But let me start with one of the more pressing questions here; from your perspective, does the Inflation Reduction Act reduce inflation? Or maybe more specifically, does it reduce inflation in a way that impacts how the Fed looks at inflation and how markets look at inflation? Ellen Zentner: So for it to impact the Fed today and how the markets are looking at inflation, it really has to show very near term effects here, where the IRA focuses more on longer term effects on inflation. So today we've got recent inflation report that came out this week showing that inflation moved lower, so softened. Especially showing the effects of those lower energy prices, which everyone notices because you go and gas up at the pump and so, you know right away what inflation is doing. And that's led to some more optimism from households. That at least gives the Fed some comfort, right, that they're doing the right thing here, raising rates and helping to bring inflation down. But there's a good deal more work for the Fed to do, and we think they raise rates by another 50 basis points at their September meeting. The rates market also took note of some of the inflation metrics of late that are looking a little bit better. But still, it's not definitive for markets what the Fed will do. We need a couple of more data points over the next few months. So the IRA is just a completely separate issue right now for the Fed and markets because that's going to be in the longer run impact. Michael Zezas: So the bill is constructed to actually pay down the federal government deficit by about $300 billion over 10 years, and conventional wisdom is that when you're reducing deficits, you're helping to calm inflation. Is that still the case here? Ellen Zentner: So it's still the case in general because it means less government debt that has to be issued. But let's put it in perspective, $300 billion deficit reduction spread over ten years is 30 billion a year in an economy that's greater than 20 trillion. And so it's very difficult to see. Michael Zezas: Okay, so the Inflation Reduction Act seems like it helps over the long term, but probably not a game changer in the short term. Ellen Zentner: That's right. Michael Zezas: Let's talk about some of the more specific elements within the bill and their potential impact on inflation over the longer term. So, for example, the IRA extends Affordable Care Act subsidies. It also allows Medicare to negotiate prices for prescription drugs, or at least some prescription drugs, for the first time. How do you view the impacts of those provisions? Ellen Zentner: So these are really the provisions that get at the meat of impacting inflation over the longer run. And I'll focus in on health care costs here. So specifically, drug prices have been quite high. Being able to lower drug prices helps lower income households, that helps older cohorts, and the cost of medical services gets a very large weight in overall consumer inflation and it gets a large weight because we spend so much on it. The other thing I'd note here, though, is that since it allows Medicare to negotiate prices for some drugs for the first time, well, that word negotiate is key here. It takes time to negotiate price changes, and that's why this bill is more something that affects longer run inflation rather than near term. Michael Zezas: Right. So bottom line, for market participants, this Inflation Reduction Act might ultimately deliver on its name. But if you want to understand what the Fed is going to do in the short term and how it might impact the rates markets, better off paying attention to incoming data over the next few months. It's also fair to say there's other market effects to watch emanating from the IRA, namely corporate tax effects and spending on clean energy. Those are two topics we're going to get into in podcasts over the next couple of weeks. Michael Zezas: Ellen, thanks for taking the time to talk. Ellen Zentner: Great speaking with you, Michael. Michael Zezas: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show.

As lending standards tighten and banks get ready to make some tough choices, how will the housing market fare if loan growth slows? Co-Heads of U.S. Securitized Products Research Jim Egan and Jay Bacow discuss.-----Transcript-----Jay Bacow: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jay Bacow, Co-Head of U.S. Securitized Products Research here at Morgan Stanley. Jim Egan: And I'm Jim Egan, the other Co-Head of U.S. Securitized Products Research. Jay Bacow: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing how tightening lending standards could impact housing activity. It's Tuesday, August 9th, at 11 a.m. in New York. Jim Egan: Now Jay, you published a high level report last week with Vishy Tirupattur, who is the Head of Fixed Income Research here at Morgan Stanley, on the coming capital crunch. Basically, rising capital pressures will mean that banks will have to make tough choices in their lending books. Is that about right? Jay Bacow: Yeah, that's it. Basically, we don't think that markets have really appreciated the impact of the combination of how rising rates caused losses on banks portfolios, the regulatory changes and the results of the stress test capital buffers. All of these things are going to require banks to look at the composition of not just the assets that they own, but their business models in general. Our large cap banking analyst Betsy Graseck thinks that banks are going to look at things differently to come up with different solutions depending on the bank, but in general across the industry, expects lending standards to tighten for this year and in 2023, and for loan growth to slow. So, Jim, if banks are going to tighten lending standards then what does that mean for housing activity? Jim Egan: I think, especially if we look at home sales, that's a negative for sales volumes and home sales are already falling. We've talked about affordability deterioration on this podcast a few times now, not just the fact of where affordability is in the housing market, but how rapidly it's deteriorating. If lending standards are going to tighten on top of those affordability pressures, then that just argues for potentially an even more substantial decrease in sales volumes going forward, and we're already seeing this in the data. Through the first half of the year new home sales are down 14% versus the first half of 2021. Purchase applications, that's our highest frequency data point that we have, they're getting progressively weaker each month. They were down 17% year over year in June, 19% year over year in July. Existing home sales, and that's referencing a much larger volume of sales then new home sales, they're down a comparatively strong 8% year to date. But with all of the dynamics that we're discussing, we believe that they're going to see a much more precipitous drop in the second half of the year. We have it down over 15% year over year versus 2021. Now, that's because of affordability pressures. It's because of the potential for tightening lending standards. It's also because of the lock in effect from a rate perspective. Jay Bacow: On that lock in effect, with just 2% of the market having incentive to refinance, lenders are sitting there and saying, well, what do we do in this environment where we can't just give people a rate refi? Now, you mentioned the purchase activity, that's obviously one area, but Black Knight just reported another quarterly record of untapped equity in the housing market, and consumers would love to be able to tap that. The problem is when you do a cash out refinance, you end up increasing the rate on your entire mortgage. And homeowners don't want to do that. So they'd love to do something like a home equity line of credit or second lien where they're getting charged the higher rate on just the equity they take out. But the problem is it's harder to originate those in an environment where lending standards are tightening, particularly given the capital allocation against those type of loans can be onerous. Jim Egan: Right. And the level of conversations around an increase in kind of the second lien or the hill market have certainly been picking up over the past weeks and months, both on the originator side, on the investor side, as people look to find ways to access that record amount of equity that you mentioned in the housing market. Jay Bacow: Thinking about trying, people are still trying to sell houses and you just commented on the housing activity, but what about the prices they're selling at? Some of the recent data was pretty surprising. Jim Egan: The most recent month of data, I think the point that has raised the most eyebrows was the average or median price of new home sales saw a pretty significant month over month decrease. We continue to see month over month increases in the median and average price of existing home sales at. When we think about average and median prices, there's a mix shift issue there. So month over month, depending on the types of homes that sell things can move. What we actually forecast, the repeat sales index Case-Shiller, we're starting to see a slowdown in growth. The past two months have been consecutive deceleration in the pace of home price growth. I think the thing that we'd highlight most is the growing geographic pervasiveness of the slowdown. Two months ago, 11 of the Case-Shiller 20 city index was showing a deceleration month over month. This past month, it was 16. Now, all 20 cities continue to show home price growth, but again, 16 are showing that pace slowdown. There is some regional specificity to this, the cities that continue to accelerate largely in Florida, Miami and Tampa to name two. Jay Bacow: Okay. So that's what we've seen. What do we expect to see on a go forward basis? Jim Egan: We talked about our expectations for sales a few minutes ago. I think the one thing that we do want to highlight is on the starts front, we think that single unit starts are going to start to decrease over the course of the back half of this year. There's a couple of reasons for that. We talked about affordability pressures, another dynamic that's been playing out in the space is that there's been a backlog not just of housing starts, but before those starts to get the completion units under construction has swollen back to 2004 levels, starts themselves are only at 1997 levels. We do think that that is going to kind of disincentivize starts going forward. We're already starting to see it a little bit in the underlying data, trailing 12 month single unit starts had plateaued for largely a year. They've been down the past two months, we think that they're going to continue to fall in the back half of this year. It's already playing through from a sentiment perspective, homebuilder confidence is down 39% from its peak in November of 2020, and that's being driven by their perception of traffic on their sites as well as their perception of future sales conditions. So we do think that starts are going to fall because a number of these dynamics. And we think that home price growth is going to remain positive and we've highlighted this on this podcast before, but the pace is going to start slowing pretty materially in the back half of this year. The most recent print was 19.7%, down from over 20%, but we think it gets all the way to 9% by December 2022, 3% by December 2023. So continued home price growth, but the pace is going to slow pretty materially. Jim Egan: Jay, thanks for taking the time to talk. Jay Bacow: Jim. Always a pleasure. Jim Egan: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today. 

While inflation remains high and the battle to bring it down is top of mind, there may be some opportunities in technologies that could help bring down inflation in some sectors.-----Transcript-----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Josh Pokrzywinski, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Electrical Equipment and Multi-Industry Analyst. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about deflationary opportunities in this high inflation environment. It's Monday, August 8th, at 4 p.m. in New York. As most listeners no doubt know, the battle to bring down inflation is the topic of 2022. But today I want to talk about inflation from a slightly different perspective, and that's how automation and productivity enhancing technologies could actually help bring down inflation in areas such as labor, supply chain procurement and energy. And while these technologies require capital investment, something that's often difficult when the economy is uncertain, we believe structural changes in demographics, energy policy and security, and an aging capital base make technologies focused on cost reductions and productivity actually more valuable. So for investors focusing on stocks that enable productivity and cost reduction through automation, efficiency, or their own declining cost curves while maintaining strong barriers to entry and attractive equity risk/reward, is something to consider. To dig into this, the U.S. Equity Strategy Team and equity analysts across the spectrum at Morgan Stanley Research created a deflation enabler shopping list. And that list is composed of stocks that produce tangible cost savings for their customers, where costs themselves are rising due to inflation, such as labor and energy, or scarcity, for example semiconductors or materials. In many cases, the cost of the product itself has also come down through technology or economies of scale, benefitting the purchaser and therefore adoption on both lower cost to implement and higher cost avoidance through use. So where should investors look? Although there are a number of deflationary companies across areas such as automation and semiconductors, we identified three major deflationary technologies which permeate across sectors and which are at long term inflection points in their importance for both enterprise and consumer. The first is artificial intelligence or AI. AI is proving relentless and increasingly deflationary. In biotech, AI could shorten development timelines, lower R&D spend and improve probability of success. The second is clean energy. My colleague Stephen Burd, who covers clean energy and utilities, has pointed out that against the backdrop of inflationary fossil fuels and utility bills, companies with deflationary clean energy technologies and high barriers to entry will be able to grow rapidly and generate increasing margins. And finally, mass energy storage and mobility. Although the cost of batteries have been falling for some time, competition in the space has led to heightened investment. In addition, ambitious top down government emissions goals have facilitated an exponential uplift in demand for batteries and their component raw materials. Although supply chains for batteries remain immature, battery storage technology is only beginning to have profound effects on society mobility, inclusivity and ultimately climate. As investment by automakers rises along with generous European subsidies aimed at staying competitive with U.S. and Chinese investment, the supply chain and innovation in new battery technologies such as solid state mean that the price should continue to fall as innovation and demand rise. This is extended beyond the personal vehicle market, with the cost savings and efficiency improvements driving profound changes and improvements in the range and cost of heavy duty and long haul trucking EV, and ultimately autonomous, markets. To sum up, in an inflationary world we believe companies that have developed deflationary products and services will become increasingly valuable, as long as they have significant barriers to entry with respect to those products and services. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

The current market pricing can tell investors a lot about what the market believes is coming next, but the future is uncertain and investors may not always agree with market expectations. Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets explains.--- Transcript ---Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, August 5th, at 2 p.m. in London.Trying to predict where financial markets will go is difficult. The future, as they say, is uncertain, and even the most talented investors and forecasters will frequently struggle to get these predictions right.A different form of this question, however, might be easier. What do markets assume will happen? After all, these assumptions are the result of thousands of different actors, most of which are trying very hard to make accurate predictions about future market prices because a lot of money is on the line. Not only is there a lot of information in those assumptions, but understanding them are table stakes for a lot of investment strategy. After all, if our view only matches what is already expected by the market to happen, it is simply much less meaningful.Let's start with central banks, where current market pricing can tell us quite a bit. Markets expect the Fed to raise rates by another 100 basis points between now and February to about three and a half percent. And then from there, the Fed is expected to reverse course, reducing rates by about half a percent by the end of 2023. Meanwhile, the European Central Bank is expected to raise rates steadily from a current level of 0 to 1.1% over the next 12 months.Morgan Stanley's economists see it differently in both regions. In the U.S., we think the Fed will take rates a little higher than markets expect by year end and then leave them higher for longer than markets currently imply. In the U.S., we think the Fed will take rates higher than markets expect by year end and then leave them higher for longer than is currently implied. In Europe, it's the opposite. We think the ECB will raise rates more slowly than markets imply. The idea that the Fed may do more than expected while the ECB does less is one reason we forecast the US dollar to strengthen further against the euro.A rich set of future expectations also exists in the commodity market. For example, markets expect oil prices to be about 10% lower in 12 months time. Gasoline is priced to be about 15% lower between now and the end of the year. The price of gold, in contrast, is expected to be about 3% more expensive over the next 12 months.I’d stress that these predictions are not some sort of cheat code for the market. The fact that oil is priced to decline 10% doesn't mean that you can make 10% today by selling oil. Rather, it means that foreign investor, a 10% decline in oil, or a 3% rise in gold will simply mean you break even over the next 12 months.Again, all of this pricing informs our views. We forecast oil to decline less and gold to decline more than market prices imply. Meanwhile, Morgan Stanley equity analysts can work backwards looking at what these commodity expectations would mean for the companies that produce them. We won't get into that here, but it's yet another way that we can take advantage of information the market is already giving us.Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.

As investors watch to see if tensions between the U.S. and China will escalate, it’s important to understand the underlying competitive dynamic and how U.S. policy may have macro impacts.--- Transcript ---Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Public pPolicy Research and Municipal Strategy for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between U.S. public policy and financial markets. It's Thursday, August 4th, at 1 p.m. in New York.This week, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's Asia trip had the attention of many investors as they watched to see whether her actions would escalate tensions between the U.S. and China. In our view, though, this event wasn't a potential catalyst for tensions, but rather evidence of tensions that persist between the two global powers. Hence, we think investors are better served focusing on the underlying dynamic rather than any particular event.The U.S.-China rivalry has many complicated causes, many of which we've covered on previous podcasts. But the point we want to reemphasize is this; this rivalry is going to persist. China is interested in asserting its global influence, which in ways can be at odds with how the U.S. and Europe want the international economic system to function. Nowhere is this clearer than in the policies the U.S. has adopted in recent years aimed at boosting its competitiveness with China.The latest is the enactment of the Chips Plus Bill, which allocates over $250 billion to help US industries, in particular the semiconductor industry, to devolve its supply chain reliance on China for the purposes of economic security and to protect sensitive technologies. Policies like this have more of a sectoral effect than the macro one. But the primary market impact here being a defraying of rising costs for the semiconductor industry. But investors should be aware that there's potential policy changes on the horizon that could have macro impacts. For example, Congress considered creating an outbound investment restriction mechanism in that Chips Plus bill. Such a restriction could have significantly interrupted foreign direct investment in China with substantial consequences for China equity markets.That provision didn't make it into this bill, and with little legislative time between now and the midterm elections, it's unlikely to resurface this year. That's cause some to conclude that it's likely to be years before such a provision could become enacted, particularly if Republicans take back control of one or both chambers of Congress creating a risk of gridlock.But we'd caution that's too simple of a conclusion. The concept of outbound investment restrictions enjoys bipartisan support. So we think investors should be on guard for this provision to get serious consideration in 2023. We'll, of course, track it and keep you informed.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share thoughts on the market with a friend or colleague or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show. 

After the July FOMC meeting, markets took a quick dive and then made an immediate recovery, so what happened?-----Transcript-----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about global macro trends and how investors can interpret these trends for rates and currency markets. It's Wednesday, August 3rd, at 1 p.m. in New York. In the weeks since the July meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee, or FOMC, rates and currency markets have made quite the round trip. Treasury yields from 2 out to10 year maturities fell by over 25 basis points in the three days that followed the meeting. And the U.S. dollar index declined by 2% over the same period. However, looking at these markets today, as I sit here recording this podcast, it's almost as if the July FOMC meeting didn't happen. 10 year Treasury yields are about where they were going into the meeting last week, and 2 year yields are a bit higher even. As for the U.S. dollar index, it's back to the range it was in ahead of the meeting. So what happened? Going into the meeting, investors thought that the Fed would deliver a 75 basis point rate hike, but recognized that there was a tail risk of a larger 100 basis point hike. And even if the tail risk didn't materialize, investors had acknowledged that the additional 25 basis points might be delivered in September instead. And that would make for the third 75 basis point hike in this cycle. In short, investors were positioned for a hawkish outcome. The FOMC statement and Chair Powell's prepared remarks didn't disappoint. The message was on par with what FOMC participants had been saying over recent weeks and months. Inflation is still top of mind, and more work is needed to bring it down to acceptable levels. If the meeting ended with Powell's prepared remarks, rates and currencies would have likely taken a different path to where they trade today. However, the meeting didn't end there, and the Q&A session of Powell's press conference struck a more dovish tone. Three messages contributed to this interpretation. First, Powell suggested that rates had achieved a neutral setting, or one that neither puts upward nor downward pressure on economic activity relative to its potential. Second, he said that because a neutral policy setting had been reached, the pace of subsequent rate hikes could soon begin to slow. And finally, he suggested that the committee's view of the peak policy rate in the cycle hadn't changed since the last FOMC meeting, even though inflation data since then continued to surprise on the higher side. The reason for this seemed to be focused on the deterioration in activity data or growth data. In many ways, investors should have expected these statements from Powell, given guidance coming from the June summary of economic projections. In addition, because Fed policy had tightened financial conditions this year, and those financial conditions helped slow economic growth, the case for a less hawkish performance might have been predictable. The data that arrived in the wake of the meeting underscored the recent themes of slower growth and higher inflation. But the Fedspeak that arrived in the wake of the data, well, it continued to focus on inflation, as it had done before the Fed met in July. Where does all of that leave the Fed on policy and us on markets? Well, the Fed's job bringing inflation down hasn't yet been accomplished, the bond market is pricing less policy tightening than the Fed is last guided towards, and downside risks to global growth are rising. As a result, we remain neutral on bond market duration, but remain bullish on the U.S. dollar, particularly against the euro. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people find the show.

As studies begin to show that obesity medications may save lives, will governments and insurances begin to consider them preventative primary care? And how might this create opportunity in pharmaceuticals? Head of European Pharmaceuticals Mark Purcell and Head of U.S. Pharmaceuticals Terence Flynn discuss.-----Transcript-----Mark Purcell: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mark Purcell, Head of Morgan Stanley's European Pharmaceuticals Team. Terence Flynn: And I'm Terence Flynn, Head of the U.S. Pharmaceuticals Team. Mark Purcell: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll be talking about the global obesity challenge and our outlook for the next decade. It's Tuesday, August the 2nd, and it's 1 p.m. in London. Terence Flynn: And 8 a.m. in New York. Terence Flynn: So Mark, more than 650 million people worldwide are living with obesity as we speak. The personal, social and economic costs from obesity are huge. The World Health Organization estimates that obesity is responsible for 5% of all global deaths, which impacts global GDP by around 3%. Obesity is linked to over 200 health complications from osteoarthritis, to kidney disease, to early loss of vision. So tackling the obesity epidemic would impact directly or indirectly multiple sectors of the economy. Lots to talk about today, but let's start with one of the key questions here: why are we talking about all this now? Are we at an inflection point? And is the obesity narrative changing? Mark Purcell: Yeah Terence look, there's a category of medicine called GLP-1's which have been used to treat diabetes for over a decade. GLP-1 is an appetite suppressing hormone. It works on GLP-1 receptors, you could think of these as hunger receptors, and it helps to regulate how much food our bodies feel they need to consume. Therefore, these GLP-1 medicines could become an important weapon in the fight against obesity. The latest GLP-1 medicines can help individuals who are obese lose 15 to 20% of their body weight. That is equivalent to 45 to 60% of the excess weight these individuals carry in the form of fat which accumulates around the waist and important organs in our bodies such as the liver. There is a landmark obesity study called SELECT, which has been designed to answer the following key question: does weight management save lives? An interim analysis of this SELECT study is anticipated in the next two months, and our work suggests that GLP-1 medicines could deliver a 27% reduction in the risk of heart attacks, strokes and cardiovascular deaths. We believe that governments and insurance companies will broaden the reimbursement of GLP-1 medicines in obesity if they are proven to save lives. This comes at a time when new GLP-1 medicines are becoming available with increasing levels of effectiveness. It's an exciting time in the war against obesity, and we wanted to understand the implications of the SELECT study before it reads out. Terence Flynn: So, our collaborative work suggests that obesity may be the new hypertension. What exactly do we mean by that, Mark? How do we size the global opportunity and what's the timeline here? Mark Purcell: Back in the 1960s and 1970s, hypertension was seen as a lifestyle disease caused by stress and old age. Over time, it was shown that high blood pressure could be treated, and in doing so, doctors could prevent heart attacks and save lives. A new wave of medicines were introduced to the market in the mid 1980s to treat individuals with high blood pressure and doctors found the most effective way to treat high blood pressure was to use combinations of these medicines. By the end of the 1990's, the hypertension market reached $30 billion in sales, that's equivalent to over $15 billion today adjusting for inflation. Obesity is seen by many as a lifestyle disease caused by a lack of self-control when it comes to eating too much. However, obesity is now classified as a preventable chronic disease by medical associations, just like hypertension. Specialists in the obesity field now recognize that our bodies have evolved over hundreds of thousands of years to put on weight, to survive times where there is a lack of food available and a key way to fight obesity is to reset the balance of how much food our bodies think they need. With the availability of new, effective obesity medicines, we believe that obesity is on the cusp of moving into mainstream primary care management. And the obesity market is where the treatment of high blood pressure was in the mid to late 1980s. We built a detailed obesity model focusing on the key bottlenecks, patient activation, physicians engagement and payer recognition. And we believe that the obesity global sales could exceed $50 billion by the end of this decade. Terence Flynn: So Mark, what are the catalysts aligning to unlock the potential of this $50 billion obesity opportunity? Mark Purcell: We believe there are full catalysts which should begin to unlock this opportunity over the next six months. Firstly, the SELECT study, which we talked about. It could be stopped early in the next two months if GOP P1 medicines are shown overwhelmingly to save lives by reducing excess weight. Secondly, the demand for GLP-1 medicines to treat obesity was underappreciated by the pharmaceutical industry. But through the second half of this year, GLP-1 medicines, supply constraints will be addressed and we'll be able to appreciate the underlying patient demand for these important medicines. Thirdly, analysis shows that social media is already creating a recursive cycle of education, word of mouth and heightened demand for these weight loss medicines. Lastly, diabetes treatment guidelines are actively evolving to recognize important comorbidities, and we expect a greater emphasis on weight treatment goals by the end of this year. Terence Flynn: Mark, you mentioned some bottlenecks with respect to the obesity challenge. One of those was patient activation. What's the story there and how does social media play into it? Mark Purcell: Yes, great question Terence, look it's estimated that less than 10% of individuals suffering from obesity are diagnosed and actively managed by doctors. And that compares to 80 to 90% of individuals who suffer from high blood pressure, or diabetes, or high levels of cholesterol. Once patients come forward to see their doctors, 40% of them are treated with an anti-obesity medicine. And as more effective medicines become available, we just think this percentage is going to rise. Lastly, studies designed to answer the question, what benefit does 15 to 20% weight loss deliver in terms of reducing the risk of high blood pressure, diabetes, kidney disease and cardiovascular disease? Will help activate governments and insurance companies to reimburse obesity medicines. But it all starts with individuals suffering from obesity coming forward and seeking help, and this is where we expect social media to play a really important key role. Terence Flynn: To a layperson, there's significant overlap between diabetes and obesity. How do we conceptualize the obesity challenge vis a vis diabetes, Mark? Mark Purcell: Terence, you're absolutely right. There is significant overlap between diabetes and obesity and it makes it difficult and complicated to model. It's estimated that between 80 to 85% of diabetics are overweight. It's estimated that 35% of diabetics are obese and around 10% of diabetics are severely obese. GLP-1 medicines have been used to treat diabetes for over a decade, not only being extremely effective in lowering blood sugar, but also in reducing the risk of cardiovascular events like heart attacks and removing excess body weight, which is being recognized as increasingly important. This triple whammy of benefit means that the use of GLP-1 medicines is increasing rapidly, and sales in diabetes are expected to reach over $20 billion this year, compared to just over $2 billion in obesity. By the end of the decade our work suggests that the use of GLP-1 based medicines in obesity could exceed the use in diabetes by up to 50%. Terence Flynn: Mark, thanks for taking the time to talk. Mark Purcell: Great speaking with you again, Terrence. Terence Flynn: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

As the Fed continues to surprise with large and fast interest rate increases, the market must decide, has the Fed done enough? Or is the recession already here?-----Transcript-----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, August 1st at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. Over the past year, the Fed has come under scrutiny for their outlook on inflation, and they've even admitted themselves that they misjudged the call when they claimed inflation would be transient. In an effort to regain its credibility, the Fed has swiftly pivoted to its most hawkish policy action since the 1980s. In fact, while we may have been the most hawkish equity strategists on the street at the beginning of the year, we never expected to see this many rate hikes in 2022. Suffice it to say, it hasn't gone unnoticed by markets with both stocks and bonds off to their worst start in many decades. However, since peaking in June, 10 year Treasuries have had one of their largest rallies in history, with the yield curve inverting by as much as 33 basis points. Perhaps more importantly, market based five year inflation expectations have plunged and now sit very close to the Fed's long term target of 2%. Objectively speaking, it appears as though the bond market has quickly turned into a believer that the Fed will get inflation under control. This kind of action from the Fed is bullish for bonds, and one of the main reasons we turned bullish on bonds relative to stocks back in April. Since then, bonds have done better than stocks, even though it's been a flat ride in absolute terms. It also explains why defensively oriented stocks have dominated the leadership board and why we are sticking with it. Meanwhile, stocks have rallied with bonds and are up almost 14% from the June lows. The interpretation here is that the Fed has inflation tamed, and could soon pause its rate hikes, which is usually a good sign for stocks. However, in this particular cycle, we think the time between the last rate hike and the recession will be shorter, and perhaps after the recession starts. In technical terms, a recession has already begun with last week's second quarter GDP release. However, we don't think a true recession can be declared unless the unemployment rate rises by at least a few percentage points. Given the deterioration in profit margins and forward earnings estimates, we think that risk has risen considerably as we are seeing many hiring freezes and even layoffs in certain parts of the economy. This has been most acute in industries affected by higher costs and interest rates and where there's payback in demand from the binge in consumption during the lockdowns. In our conversations with clients over the past few weeks, we've been surprised at how many think a recession was fully priced in June. While talk of recession was rampant during that sell off, and valuations reached our target price earnings ratio of 15.4x, we do not think it properly discounted the earnings damage that will entail if we are actually in a recession right now. As we have noted in that outcome, the earnings revisions which have begun this quarter are likely far from finished in both time or level. Our estimate for S&P 500 earnings going forward in a recession scenario is $195, which is likely to be reached by the first quarter of 2023. Of course, we could still avoid a recession defined as a negative labor cycle, or it might come later next year, which means the Fed pause can happen prior to the arrival of a recession allowing for that bullish window to expand. We remain open minded to any outcome, but our analysis suggests betting on the latter two outcomes is a risky one, especially after the recent rally. The bottom line, last month's rally in stocks was powerful and has investors excited that the bear market is over and looking forward to better times. However, we think it's premature to sound the all-clear with recession and therefore earnings risk is still elevated. For these reasons, we stayed defensively oriented in our equity positioning for now and remain patient with any incremental allocations to stocks. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show.

One of the most common standards for investment diversification, the 60:40 portfolio, has faced challenges this year with significant losses and shifting correlations between stocks and bonds. Is this the end of 60:40 allocation?---- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, July 29th, at 2 p.m. in London.The so-called 60:40 portfolio is one of the most common forms of diversified investing, based on the idea of holding a portfolio of 60% equities and 40% high-quality bonds. In theory, the equities provide higher returns over time, while the high-quality bonds provide ballast and diversification, delivering a balanced overall portfolio. But recently, we and many others have been talking about how our estimates suggested historically low returns for this 60:40 type of approach. And frequently these estimates just didn't seem to matter. Global stocks and bonds continued to hum away nicely, delivering unusually strong returns and diversification.And then, all at once, those dour, long term return estimates appeared to come true. From January 1st through June 30th of this year, a 60:40 portfolio of U.S. equities and the aggregate bond index lost about 16% of its value, wiping out all of the portfolio's gains since September of 2020. Portfolios in Europe were a similar story. These moves raise a question: do these large losses, and the fact that they involved stock and bond prices moving in the same direction, mean that diversified portfolios of stocks and bonds are fundamentally broken in an era of tighter policy?Now, one way that 60:40 portfolios could be broken, so to speak, is that they simply can't generate reasonable returns going forward. But on our estimates, this isn't the case. Lower prices for stocks and higher yields on bonds have raised our estimate for what this type of diversified portfolio can return. Leaving those estimates now near the 20-year average.A bigger concern for investors, however, is diversification. The drawdown of 60:40 portfolios this year wasn't necessarily extreme for its magnitude—2002 and 2008 saw larger losses—but rather its uniformity, as both stocks and bonds saw unusually large declines.These fears of less diversification have been given a face, the bond equity correlation. And the story investors are afraid of goes something like this. For most of the last 20 years, bond and equity returns were negatively correlated, moving in opposite directions and diversifying each other. But since 2020, the large interventions of monetary policy into the market have caused this correlation to be positive. Stock and bond prices are now moving in the same direction. The case for diversification is over.This is a tempting story, and it is true that large central bank actions since 2020 have caused stocks and bonds to move together more frequently. But I think there's also a risk of confusing direction and magnitude. Bonds can still be good portfolio diversifiers, even if they aren't quite as good as they've been before.Even if stocks and bonds are now positively correlated, that correlation is still well below 1 to 1. That means there are still plenty of days where they don't move together, and this can matter significantly for how a portfolio behaves, and how diversification is delivered, over time.Another important case for 60:40 style diversification is volatility. Even after one of the worst declines for bond prices in the last 40 years, the trailing one-year volatility of the US aggregate bond index is about 6%. That is one third the volatility of U.S. stocks over the same period. Having 40% of a portfolio in something with one third of the volatility should dampen overall fluctuations. For all these reasons, we think the case for a 60:40 style approach to diversified investing remains.Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.

Yesterday, the U.S. Federal Reserve raised interest rates by another 75 basis points. What is driving these above average rate hikes and what might the effect on markets be?-----Transcript-----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Thursday, July 28th at 4 p.m. in London. Yesterday, the Federal Reserve raised rates by 75 basis points, and the Nasdaq market index had its best day since April of 2020, rising over 4%. It was a day of big moves, but also some large unanswered questions. A 75 basis point rise in Fed funds is large and unusual. In the last 30 years, the Fed has only raised rates by such a large increment three times. Two of those instances were at the last two Federal Reserve meetings, including the one we had yesterday. These large moves are happening because the Fed is racing to catch up with, and get ahead of, inflation, which is currently running at about 9% in the U.S. In theory, higher fed rate should slow the economy and cool inflationary pressure. But that theory also assumes that higher rates work with a lag, perhaps as long as 12 months. There are a couple of reasons for this, but one is that in theory, higher rates work by making it more attractive to save money rather than spend it today. Well, I checked my savings account today and let's just say the rate increases we've had recently haven't exactly shown up. So the incentives to save are still working their way through the system. This is part of the Fed's predicament. In hockey terms, they're trying to skate the proverbial puck, aiming policy to where inflation and the economy might be in 12 months time. But both inflation and their policy changes are moving very fast. This is not an easy thing to calibrate. Given that difficulty, why did the markets celebrate yesterday with both stock and bond prices rising? Well, the Fed was vague about future rate increases, raising market hopes that the central bank is closer to finishing these rate rises and may soon slow down, or pause, its policy tightening as growth and inflation slow. After all, long term inflation expectations have fallen sharply since the start of May, perhaps suggesting that the Fed has done enough. And as my colleague Michael Wilson, Morgan Stanley's chief investment officer and chief U.S. equity strategist, noted on Monday's podcast, markets have often seen some respite when the Fed pauses as part of a hiking cycle. But it's also important to stress that the idea that the Fed is now nearly done with its actions seems optimistic. The last two inflation readings were the highest U.S. inflation readings in 40 years, and Morgan Stanley's economists expect core inflation, which is an important measure excluding things like food and energy, to rise yet again in August. In short, the Fed's vagueness of future increases could suggest an all important shift. But it could also suggest genuine uncertainty on growth, inflation and how quickly the Fed's actions will feed through into the economy. The Fed has produced some welcome summer respite, but incoming data is still going to matter, significantly, for what policy looks like at their next meeting in September. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you. 

While midterm polls have shown a preference for republican candidates, this lead is narrowing as the election grows closer, and the full ramifications of this ever evolving race remain to be seen.-----Transcript-----Welcome the Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Public Policy Research and Municipal Strategy for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between U.S. public policy and financial markets. It's Wednesday, July 27th, at 1 p.m. in New York. We're still months away from the midterm elections, and polls still show strong prospects for Republicans to win back control of Congress. As we previously discussed, such an outcome could result in stalling key policy variables for markets such, as tax changes and regulations for tech and cryptocurrency. But remember not to assume that such an outcome is a sure thing. Take, for example, recent polls showing voters' preference for Republican congressional candidates over Democrats actually narrowing. A month ago, the average polling lead for Republicans was nearly 3%, it's now closer to 0.5%. Some independent forecasting models even now show the Democrats as a slight favorite to hold the Senate, even as they assess Democrats are unlikely to keep control of the House. The reasons for Democrats' improvement in the polls are up for debate, but that's not the point for investors. In our view, the point is that the race is still evolving and that can have market ramifications. Even if Democrats don't ultimately keep control of Congress, making it a closer race means markets may have to account for a higher probability that certain policies get enacted. Take corporate tax hikes, for example. Recent news suggests they're off the table, but if Democrats hold Congress, it's likely they'd be revisited as a means of funding several of their preferred initiatives. That could pressure a U.S. equity market already wary of margin pressures from inflation and slowing growth. A more constructive example is the clean tech sector. Again, reports are that the plan to allocate money to clean energy is off the table, but this could be revisited if Democrats keep control. Hence, improved Democratic prospects could benefit the sector ahead of the election. The bottom line is that the midterm elections are still a market factor over the next few months. We'll keep you in the loop right here about how it all plays out. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show. 

As young, digitized consumers have popularized the “Buy Now, Pay Later” payment system across global markets, there may yet be related market opportunities in Latin America.-----Transcript-----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jorge Kuri, Morgan Stanley's Latin America Financials Analyst. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the rise of Buy Now, Pay Later, or BNPL, in Latin America. It's Tuesday, July 26th, at 2 p.m. in New York. As many of you no doubt remember, the COVID lockdowns of 2020 and 2021 were boom times for e-commerce, as quarantines made us all habitual online shoppers. This period also helped fuel the Buy Now, Pay Later payment method, which allows online shoppers the ability to make a purchase and defer payments over several installments with no fees or interest when paid on time. Buy Now, Pay Later first gained traction in New Zealand and Australia, then in Europe and most recently in the U.S. and now BNPL could offer a vast market opportunity in Latin America. In fact, we see volumes reaching $23 billion in Mexico and $21 billion in Brazil by 2026. So let's take a closer look at why. BNPL in Latin America is driven by a number of secular tailwinds, starting with favorable demographics: BNPL appeals to young, digitalized consumers who fuel the electronification of payments and e-commerce. Combine that with low credit penetration, growing consumer awareness and merchant acceptance, and you have a recipe for strong and sustainable multi-year growth. Mexico and Brazil offer the most attractive market opportunities within Latin America. In Mexico, the population is very young and digitalized - 65% is 39 years old or younger, and smartphone penetration among individuals 18 to 34 years is 83%. Yet the population of unbanked adults is quite large, 51% do not have a bank account and 80% do not have a credit card. Digitalization of payments is a big tailwind, as cash remains by far the most frequently used payment method, while e-commerce penetration is expected to double and reach 20% by 2026.In Brazil, the situation is a bit different. Similar to Mexico, the population is young and digitalized. But in contrast, credit penetration is higher in Brazil, with 75% of households utilizing at least one form of credit and one or more credit cards. The ubiquity and effectiveness of PIX, the instant payments ecosystem in Brazil, combined with the large and fast growing e-commerce industry and the boom in fintech companies, could facilitate the distribution and acceptance of BNPL in the country.It's worth noting that the BNPL opportunity does not come without risks. Delinquency risk is obvious given the unsecured nature of the product, adverse selection risks and a challenging macroeconomic environment. Most BNPL providers have some funding disadvantages and competition among both BNPL players and incumbent banks will likely ensue. Despite these various risks, BNPL remains one of the most significant multi-year trends to watch in Latin America financials. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy this show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show. 

As markets grapple with pricing in inflation, central bank rate hikes, and slowing growth, can the recent S&P 500 rally help investors gauge what may happen next for equities?-----Transcript-----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, July 25th, at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. Since the June lows at 3650, the S&P 500 has been range trading between those lows and 3950. However, this past week, the S&P 500 peaked its head above the 50 day moving average, even touching 4000 for a few hours. While we aren't convinced this is anything but a bear market rally, it does beg the question is something going on here that could make this a more sustainable low and even the end to the bear market? First, from a fundamental standpoint, we are more convicted in our view that S&P 500 earnings estimates are too high, and they have at least 10% downside from the recent peak of $240/share. So far, that forecast has only dropped by 0.5%, making it difficult for us to agree with that view that the market has already priced it. Of course, we could also be wrong about the earnings risk and perhaps the current $238 is an accurate reflection of reality. However, with most of our leading indicators on growth rolling over, we continue to think this is not the case, and disappointing growth remains the more important variable to watch for stocks at this point, rather than inflation or the Fed's reaction to it. Having said that, we do agree with the narrative that inflation has likely peaked from a rate of change standpoint, with commodities as the best real time evidence of that claim. We think the equity market is smart enough to understand this too, and more importantly, that growth is quickly becoming a problem. Therefore, part of the recent rally may be the equity market looking forward to the Fed's eventual attempt to save the cycle from recession. With time running short on that front. And looking at past cycles, there's always a period between the Fed's last hike and the eventual recession. More importantly, this period has been a good time to be long equities. In short, the equity market always rallies when the Fed pauses tightening campaign prior to the oncoming recession. The point here is that if the market is starting to think the Fed's about to pause rate hikes after this week’s, this would provide the best fundamental rationale for why equity markets have rallied over the past few weeks despite the disappointing fundamental news and why it may signal a more durable low. The problem with this thinking, in our view, is  it's unlikely the Fed is going to pause early enough to save the cycle. While we appreciate that investors may be trying to leap ahead here to get in front of what could be a bullish signal for equity prices remain skeptical that the Fed can reverse the negative trends for demand that are already now well-established, some of which have nothing to do with monetary policy. Furthermore, the demand destructive nature of high inflation is presenting itself today will not easily disappear even if inflation declined sharply. This is because prices are already out of reach in areas of the economy that are critical for this cycle to extend in areas like housing and autos, food, gasoline and other necessities. Secondarily, high inflation provides a real constraint for the Fed to pause or pivot, even if they decided a risk of recession was imminent. That's the main difference versus more recent cycles and why we think it remains a good idea to stay defensively oriented in one's equity positioning until further earnings disappointments are factored into consensus estimates or equity prices. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show.

This week the European Central Bank surprised economists and investors alike with a higher than anticipated rate hike, so why this hike and what comes next? Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets and Chief European Economist Jens Eisenschmidt discuss.-----Transcript-----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Jens Eisenschmidt: And I'm Jens Eisenschmidt, Morgan Stanley's Chief Europe Economist. Andrew Sheets: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the market will be discussing the recent ECB rate hike and the path ahead. It's Friday, July 22nd at 4 p.m. in London. Andrew Sheets: So, Jens, I want to talk to you about the ECB's big rate decision yesterday. But before we do that, I think we should start by laying the scene of the European economy. In a nutshell, how is Europe's economy doing and what do you think are the most salient points for investors to be aware of? Jens Eisenschmidt: Great question, Andrew. We have revised downwards our growth outlook for the euro area economy on the back of the reduced gas flow coming out from Russia into Germany starting at some point in mid-June. And we are now seeing a mild recession for the euro area economy setting in towards the end of this year and the beginning of next. This is in stark contrast to what the ECB, as early as June, has been saying the euro area economy would look like. I think incoming data, since our call for a bit more muted economic outlook, has been on the negative side. So for instance, we just today had the PMIs in contractionary territory. So the PMIs are the Purchasing Managers Indexes, which are soft indicators of economic activity. Soft because are survey evidence they're essentially questions ask industry participants about what they see on their side, and out of these questions an index is derived for economic activity. So all in all, the outlook is relatively muted, as I said, and I think a recession is clearly in the cards. Andrew Sheets: But Jens, why is growth in Europe so weak? When you think about things like that big decline in PMI that we just saw this week, what's driving that? What do you think is the key thing that maybe other forecasters might be missing in terms of driving this weakness? Jens Eisenschmidt: I mean, Europe is very, very close to one of the largest, geopolitical conflicts of our time. We have, as a consequence of that, to deal with very high energy prices. The dependance on Russian gas, for instance, is very high in several parts of Western Europe. But you're right, we have still accommodative monetary policy, so, all in all, we still have positive and negative factors, but we think that the negative factors are starting now to have the bigger weight in all this. And we have seen for the first time, as you just mentioned to PMI's in contractionary territory, while we are of course having a bit in the service sector, a different picture which is still driven from reopening dynamics coming out from COVID. So everybody wants to have a holiday after they didn't have one last year and the year before. Andrew Sheets: So I guess speaking of holidays, it involves a lot of driving, a lot of flying. I think that's a good segway into the energy story in Europe. This has been a really challenging dynamic because you've had obviously the risk of energy being cut off into Europe. When you think about modeling scenarios of less energy being available via Russia, how do you go about modeling that and what could the impact be? Jens Eisenschmidt: No, that's really the hard part here. Because, ultimately, if the energy is flowing and continues to flow, you can rely on data that goes back and that gives you some relationship between the price and then what the impact on economic activity on that price schedule will be. But if energy is falling to levels where governments have to decide duration, then the modeling becomes so much harder because you have to decide then in your model who gets gas or oil and at what price. That makes it very hard and it also explains why there's a huge range of model outcomes out there showing GDP impact for some economies as deep, in terms of contraction, of 10 to 15%. We are not in that camp. We think that even in a situation of a total cut off of, say, Russian gas, the euro area economy would contract, but not as deeply. Part of that is that we think that some time has elapsed since the threat has first become a possibility and the system has adjusted to some extent. And then what you get is a system that's a little bit more resilient now to a cut than it may have been in March. Andrew Sheets: Jens. I think that's also a good connection to the inflation story. So on one hand, inflation dynamics in Europe look quite similar to the U.S. On the other hand those inflation dynamics seem somewhat different from the U.S., core inflation is not as high, wage inflation is not as high. Could you kind of walk us through a bit of how you see that inflation story in Europe and how it's similar or different to what we see going on in the U.S.? Jens Eisenschmidt: There is clearly a difference here, and I think the ECB has never been tiring in stressing that difference that most of the inflation here in Europe is driven by external factors. And here, of course, energy is the big elephant in the room. It's not helped by the fact that we had a depreciation of the Euro against the U.S. dollar and most of the energy is, as we know, a built in U.S. dollar. We also have a significant food inflation, and of course, it's also linked very, very tightly to the conflict in Ukraine, where we have Ukraine as a big food exporter. Just think of oil, think of wheat, all these things that are in the headlines. So that's structurally different from a situation in the U.S. where you do have a significant part of the inflation being internal demand driven. And of course that leads to interconnection with a very tight labor market to a higher core inflation. Now core inflation in the euro area has also been picking up and it's certainly not at levels where the European Central Bank can be happy with. But, you know, all in all, both our set of assumptions and forecasts as well as the ECB's in the end boil down to a slight overshoot in the medium term of their inflation target. Andrew Sheets: So Jens, all of this brings us back to the main event, so to speak. The European Central Bank raised interest rates yesterday for the first time since 2011, and it was a pretty large increase. It was a half a percentage point increase. So what's driving the ECB thinking here and how is it trying to weigh all these different factors, in a world where rates are rising? Jens Eisenschmidt: So indeed, the ECB yesterday ended its negative rates policy, which was designed for a completely different environment, an environment of a persistent undershoot of its inflation target. By all available measures, they are now at target or above. So that in itself justifies ending this policy, and this is what they did yesterday. Now, of course, there is a concern that the high inflation that we see today is feeding into wage negotiations, is feeding into a process of more structurally higher inflation, and that risks the anchoring inflation expectations. So there is a need, even if you see the economy going weaker, there is a need to tighten its monetary policy. At the same time, they have this geopolitical conflict just very near to them. They have the risk to growth that we were talking about before. So that also means you cannot just now go out and line out a significant path of rate increases. So that leads to the second component of their decision yesterday. So they were say we will go meeting by meeting and we will be data dependent in our move. Andrew Sheets: So Jens, let's bring this back to markets. When you look at what markets are currently expecting from the ECB in terms of rate hikes out over the next, say, 18 months, do you think the ECB is likely to deliver more tightening than those rates imply or deliver rates that are lower than those current market expectations? Jens Eisenschmidt: So if you just talk about where markets see the ECB peaking, that's at 1.5%. We agree, just that we don't agree on the timing. So we, for instance, see the ECB going 50 basis points in September, but then slowing down to 25 in October and another 25 in December. And then we really see the ECB pausing until September next year. And the pause is introduced because the economy is weakening and significantly so, and we see this centered around the end of the year. Now in the markets, there is a bit of an assumption that the ECB will be more aggressive in terms of getting to the 1.5% earlier. Not necessarily still this year, but at some point early next year. Andrew Sheets: And just from the perspective of markets, you know, this is a reason why Morgan Stanley's foreign exchange team thinks that the euro will continue to weaken against the dollar. It's both a function of Jens your weak growth forecasts, but also potentially this idea that rates won't rise in Europe quite as fast as the market is expecting. Which would mean somewhat less support for the currency. Andrew Sheets: Jens, thanks for taking the time to talk. Jens Eisenschmidt: Thanks a lot, Andrew. It was a pleasure being with you. Andrew Sheets: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show. 

Original Release on July 1st, 2022: As inflation continues to be a major concern for the U.S., investors will want to pay attention to how spending, travel and sentiment are changing for consumers.-----Transcript-----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, a U.S. equity strategist for Morgan Stanley Research. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be sharing the pulse of the U.S. consumer right now amid elevated inflation and concerns about recession. It's Thursday, July 7th, at 2 p.m. in New York. Consumer spending represents roughly 65% of total U.S. GDP. So if we're looking for a window into how U.S. companies could perform over the next 12 months, asking consumers how confident they're feeling is a great start. Are consumers planning on spending more next month or less? Are people making plans for outdoor activities and eating out or are they staying at home? Are they changing travel plans because of spending worries? These are a few of the questions that the equity strategy team asks in a survey we conduct with the AlphaWise Group, the proprietary survey and data arm of Morgan Stanley Research. We recently decided to change the frequency of our survey to biweekly to get a closer look at the consumer trends that will affect our outlook. So today, I'm going to share a few notable takeaways from our last survey, which was right before the July 4th holiday. First, let's take a look at sentiment. The survey found that inflation continues to be the top concern for two thirds of consumers, in line with two weeks before that, but significantly higher compared to the beginning of the year. Concern over the spread of COVID-19 continues to trend lower, with 25% of consumers listing it as their number one concern versus 32% last month. And 41% of consumers are worried about the political environment in the U.S. versus 38% two weeks ago, a slight tick up. Apart from inflation, low-income consumers are generally more worried about the inability to pay rent and other debts, while upper income consumers over index on concerns over investments, the political environment in the U.S., and geopolitical conflicts. A second takeaway to note is that consumer confidence in the economy continues to weaken, with only 23% of consumers expecting the economy to get better. That's the lowest percentage since the inception of our survey and down another 3% from two weeks ago. In addition, 59% of consumers now expect the economy to get worse. This lines up with the all-time lows observed in a recent consumer sentiment survey from the University of Michigan. A third takeaway is that consumers are planning to slow spending directly as a result of rising prices. 66% of consumers said they are planning to spend less over the next six months as a result of inflation. These numbers are influenced by income level, with lower income consumers planning to reduce spending more. We also asked consumers where they were planning to reduce spending in response to inflation. Dining out and take out, clothing and footwear, and leisure travel were among the most popular places to cut back, and all represent highly discretionary spending. And finally, the survey noted that travel intentions are considerably lower to the same time last year, with 55% of consumers planning to travel over the next six months, versus roughly 64% in the summer of last year. We also asked consumers if they were planning to cancel or delay post-Labor Day travel because of inflation. Generally, planned travel post-Labor Day is in line with broader travel intentions. Cruises and international travel were the most likely to be delayed or postponed. So what's the takeaway for investors? It is important to allocate selectively as consumer behavior shifts in order to cope with inflation and company earnings and margins come under pressure. Our team recommends defensive positioning, companies with high operational efficiency, and looking for idiosyncratic stories where companies have unique advantages. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.  

Interest in ESG investing has risen exponentially in recent years, leading to increased scrutiny around, and appreciation for, the hard data. Head of U.S. Public Policy Research and Municipal Strategy Michael Zezas and Head of the ESG Fixed Income Research Team Carolyn Campbell discuss.-----Transcript-----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, head of U.S. Public Policy Research and Municipal Strategy. Carolyn Campbell: And I'm Carolyn Campbell, head of the ESG fixed income research team at Morgan Stanley. Michael Zezas: And on this special edition of the podcast, we'll be assessing the next phase of the environmental, social, governance, ESG, market. It's Wednesday, July 20th, at 10 a.m. in New York. Michael Zezas: As some listeners may have read, in late May of this year, the Securities and Exchange Commission proposed new rules that would require ESG funds to disclose their goals, criteria and strategies, along with data measuring ESG progress. And this tells us that although the market for ESG investing has grown, so has investor desire to see real data and empirical analysis on impact. And this could be seen as really the next phase of the ESG market, that companies and funds won't just claim to be focused on ESG but will provide real proof. So, Carolyn, just to set the stage, I notice that people sometimes use the term sustainable investing and ESG interchangeably. So, I think it might be good to start with what exactly ESG is. Carolyn Campbell: At its core ESG is about adding a new lens to risk management in our investment practices by looking at environmental, social and governance factors in addition to our traditional financial metrics and whatnot. ESG has been around in some way, shape or form for decades, beginning with what we call negative exclusions. Initially, that looked like excluding companies that conflicted with religious views such as gambling, alcohol or pornography. But it's probably best known more recently for what we would think of as the fossil fuel divestment movement; selling out of coal and oil and gas companies, for example. On the other end of the spectrum, we've got impact investing where money is put towards projects that are both worthy financial investments but are also meant to generate some type of positive impact, whether it be environmental or social. In between, ESG can look like a lot of things, whether that's selecting companies that are best in class or building a portfolio geared towards a certain theme like biodiversity, net zero or gender diversity. Michael Zezas: Now, you're a fixed income strategist and ESG investing through the bond market is a bit newer and still evolving. What are some of the challenges of investing in ESG through bonds as opposed to stocks? Carolyn Campbell: Well, so one big difference in fixed income is that there are products that are actually dedicated sustainability assets. Companies, governments and super nationals can issue bonds that are specifically ESG instruments, which isn't something that you can quite do in the stock market. The most common is the green bond. The net proceeds of the issuance go towards green projects, which can be things like retrofitting your buildings to be more energy efficient, building out a solar paneled roof, reducing water waste and so on. There are also social bonds with projects related to decreasing inequality or access to health care and sustainability bonds, which fund both types of projects. We spend a lot of time trying to understand how these instruments trade compared to normal vanilla bonds from the same issuer. A big driver of the difference in price and performance is that there are just a lot fewer of these label bonds and quite a large appetite to invest in them. So those supply and demand dynamics have historically helped these labor bonds trade well, particularly in the primary market. We recently completed some analysis, though, that found that when you strip away a lot of the structural differences, the premium afforded to these green bonds is pretty small over time, just around half a basis point. The big difference comes from green bonds that go the extra mile. These bonds have voluntary external verification, science-based targets, so on and so forth. Investors can see the green criteria of the bond and feel confident that the governance structures are in place to ensure the materiality of the green bond going forward. And these bonds on average trade with higher premiums to their vanilla counterparts than just your regular green bond. Michael Zezas: So I want to get into some of the challenges I mentioned at the start around the debate over ESG's impact and validity. What's been the catalyst for the increased scrutiny over what's often called 'greenwashing?' Carolyn Campbell: Yeah, great question. So if we take it back a step, ESG really took off during 2020 with the onset of the pandemic. And there was a surge of focus on, and enthusiasm around, ESG and climate change more broadly. The market's grown exponentially since then, and it was natural that some of these new products and developments would be met with a raised eyebrow. Protests and social unrest in 2020, for instance, marked a turning point for companies with society asking companies to state their values upfront and to start walking the walk. Much of the scrutiny around ESG is ensuring that companies are not taking advantage of ESG as a marketing exercise to generate goodwill and are, in a sense, putting their money where their mouth is. That's really accelerated this year with the war in Ukraine, which is highlighted that within ESG there are some potentially competing priorities, namely the social cost of high energy prices versus the far reaching implications of climate change, or the rising food insecurity versus a more sustainable value chain. Investors have begun to adopt more nuanced views of what ESG is and how it might evolve in a world with higher volatility and decades-high inflation prints. And not everybody has the same definition of what ESG means to them. At the end of the day, the debate centers around, is it affecting change, and if so, by how much? Michael Zezas: So I certainly understand the clamor for demonstrable proof of impact. But would you say that, even with incidents of greenwashing, has ESG moved the needle on achieving its goals? Carolyn Campbell: Another great question, and unfortunately, it's probably still too early to tell. ESG is really about playing the long game and moving the market's focus away from its bias towards short-termism. So the effects of these new cleaner investments might not necessarily be realized overnight. I think what is clear, though, is that the global greenhouse gas emissions haven't declined in recent years, despite this push towards more sustainable investing. In fact, 2021 marked the highest amount of global CO2 emissions ever recorded. That being said, while policy development at the federal level on climate might be facing some serious headwinds here in the US, there has been a positive push from the private sector to decarbonize, regardless of a legislative incentive. Just because we haven't seen a decline in emissions yet, doesn't mean it won't happen. It just means that there's a lot more work to do and a lot more money that needs to flow towards these sustainable solutions. Michael Zezas: So one of your key skills as a strategist is how you apply data and empirical analysis to ESG investments. Can you walk us through your work and your process? Carolyn Campbell: We start every report with a research question—how do you see factors, impacts, spread performance, for instance, or how much of a premium do these green bonds trade with? Sometimes these questions are commonly discussed and dissected in the news, in academic research and so on. But we try to begin each project with no presupposition of what we might find so that we don't bias our results. We want to let the data and results speak for itself. And we're not trying to push an agenda. We're trying to get to the bottom of complex problems that investors demonstrably care about. ESG data is incredibly tricky because it tends to have a shorter history than most financial metrics and is released slowly and often with lags. That doesn't give us a ton of wiggle room, but once we know the question we're trying to answer, we always start by collecting data, and we'll look for data from myriad sources: public and private, startups, the US government—you name it, we've looked into it. And then sadly, a lot of the work is data cleaning, as any data scientist listening knows all too well. Once we build the dataset, we start tackling that research question. Sometimes we're doing something a bit more simplistic, like standardizing metrics in order to facilitate a comparison of different instruments or companies. This is a big hurdle for ESG in particular, because we don't have anything like GAAP accounting metrics that every company has to report on. Just getting to a point where you can do an apples to apples comparison is not always straightforward. Often though, we look to use different types of regression models or other types of machine learning techniques to understand relationships in the market and to build the confidence in our results. Once we have those results, it's all about visualizing it in a compelling and clear way. Michael Zezas: If an investor is interested in the ESG space, what should they keep front of mind as they consider their investments? Carolyn Campbell: ESG is full of tradeoffs and it's rarely straightforward. We mentioned some of these dilemmas before, such as the social cost of the high gas prices and the implications of climate change by continuing to rely on fossil fuels. It's never clear cut. ESG isn't a one size fits all solution, and different investors are going to have different priorities. Understanding your priorities at the outset and keeping those as a guiding light will help keep the investment process on track and drown out some of the noise. That being said, it's also important in this fast evolving space to be flexible to new information and to be adaptable. The world looks very different now than it did a year ago or five years ago, and ESG in particular is rapidly changing with new regulations, new issues and new conflicts every day. Relying on the data and facts and understanding how trends change within the industry will be of utmost importance. Michael Zezas: Carolyn, thanks so much for talking. Carolyn Campbell: Great talking with you, Michael. Michael Zezas: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

As U.S. Equities continue to face challenges this year, investors may want to look to a more positive story across the world—the reopening of China.-----Transcript-----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, U.S. equity strategist for Morgan Stanley Research. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about China's reopening as COVID Zero policies evolve. It's Tuesday, July 19th, at 3 p.m. in New York. Recently, our China economics team has become more positive on the region due to the relaxation in domestic and international travel policies and signs of gradual reopening. The team believes that in order for China to shift away from COVID Zero, the three necessary conditions will be sufficiently high vaccination coverage, a broadening toolbox to preserve health care capacity and a change in public perception of COVID. Progress has been made on all of these conditions, and the team expects the economy to reopen more broadly in the back half of the year and that a COVID Zero exit could happen towards year-end. This is notable for global investors since the broad U.S. equity turmoil of the last few months makes it important to look for stocks whose stories are not levered to the market at large and are more thematic ideas. The potential reopening of a country with 1.4 billion residents hits both of these criteria. To dig into this, the US equity strategy team, headed by Chief Investment Officer Mike Wilson, and our European Equity Strategy Team, led by Graham Secker, sourced industries and names that could have high revenue exposure to China. We then asked sector analysts which stocks they thought stand to benefit the most from the reopening. In the US, the biggest beneficiaries were in the consumer discretionary, materials, industrials and information technology sectors. The names who stand to benefit here are American brands that have consumer appeal, benefit from out of home experiences or feature China as a key driver of revenue, where pent up demand could provide tailwinds. In Europe, the potential beneficiaries are companies that have the highest revenue exposure to China. But it's important to be selective here, as a relatively large number of industrial and commodity focused stocks could be exposed to wider concerns around a global economic slowdown. For that reason, companies who also have exposure to the Chinese consumer may be best positioned. Narrowing even further from a top-down perspective, we think the most direct beneficiary of a potential reopening narrative in China is the luxury goods sector, also known as consumer durables in MSCI terminology, which has the third highest China exposure of any European sector after semiconductors and materials. Relevant to the reopening angle specifically, the team believes the luxury sector has the highest exposure to the China consumer and is a beneficiary of reduced restrictions around travel. Given this exposure and the recent pullback in government bond yields, they have upgraded the sector to overweight from a top-down strategy perspective. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Some investors think a potential recession is already priced in but given defensive leadership, labor statistics and incoming Fed rate hikes, it may be too early to tell.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, July 18th, at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it.Last week, we highlighted how extreme the 12-month price momentum weightings are for defensive sectors. In fact, it's unprecedented for this type of price momentum to occur outside of an economic recession. One reaction to this development we've heard from many clients is that a recession must already be priced based on this relationship. If true, then defensive leadership is likely to reverse with something else taking the lead, like growth stocks or even cyclicals. We disagree and believe defensive leadership will likely persist until either a recession is officially announced, or the risk of a recession is definitively extinguished.In our view, the first outcome can only be achieved with a series of negative payroll data releases, something that still seems far away given last month's 372,000 new job additions. The second outcome—a soft landing—will also be hard to prove to the market until earnings revisions bottom out and companies stop doing hiring freezes.With respect to the recession outcome, the odds have been steadily increasing now for months. Morgan Stanley's proprietary economic model is currently suggesting a 36% probability of a recession in the next 12 months. Historically speaking, once it reaches 40%, it's usually a definitive reading that recession is oncoming. Furthermore, jobless claims have been rising the past few weeks. Secondarily, the household survey for total employment peaked in March and has fallen by approximately 400,000 jobs so far. While not the gold standard for measuring labor market health, it's worth watching closely as things can change rapidly for hiring and firing, particularly when profits come under significant pressure, as we expect. Finally, the job openings data has started to roll over, albeit from record high levels, while consumer and business confidence readings remain at record lows.In the very near term, equity markets seem to be digesting another hot Consumer Price Index release very well, even as concerns rose that the Fed might raise rates as much as 100 basis points next week. Our view is that 75 basis points is still the base case, and that should be plenty to keep the Fed on track to getting ahead of the curve. Importantly, the bond market seems to agree with the yield curve inverting the most since the 2000 cycle, quickly catching up to the defensive leadership of the stock market. The bullish take which this market seems to want to try and run with one more time, is that the Fed can pivot before a recession arrives.The other positive that has investors excited again is the fact that bank stocks had a strong rally on Friday, even as the earnings results were quite mixed. While this kind of price action is a necessary condition for the bear market to be over, we would caution that second quarter results are likely to be the first of several cuts, not just for banks, but for the market overall.The bottom line is that this earnings season is likely to be the first of several disappointing ones, especially if a recession is the endgame. Therefore, staying defensively oriented in one's equity positioning should remain the best course of action for the next several months.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show.

This week brought yet another reading of inflation that exceeded expectations, but if markets and central banks are able to think long-term, there may be some hope on the horizon.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, chief cross-asset strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape, and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, July 15th at 4:00pm in London.One of the big stories this week was, once again, a high reading of US inflation that came in above economists’ expectations. If that sounds familiar, it’s because it is. US consumer price inflation was also higher than expected in June, May and April.These upside surprises to inflation create a trio of problems. First, investors will feel more confident if inflation starts coming down, and this is yet another month where that isn’t the case. Second, the Fed has been adamant that it will keep raising interest rates until inflation moderates, which means that more rate hikes are likely coming. And third, this sets up a real predicament; the Fed wants to bring inflation down, and sees this as key to its credibility, but raising rates today won’t do much for inflation over the short-term. That creates additional uncertainty.Markets are responding to that uncertainty by raising expectations of how much the Fed will increase rates in the near-term, while simultaneously becoming more worried about medium-term growth, and lowering expectation of rates over the long term. That has inverted the yield curve, something that, while rare, has historically signalled high odds of a recession.What’s notable, however, is that while there is intense focus on the concerns and negative surprises from the current rate of inflation, the longer-term picture is arguably getting better. One can observe expected rates of inflation over the next 5, 10 or 30 years, also called inflation break-evens. Those expectations have been falling rapidly over the last 2 months.In the US, markets currently see US Consumer Price Inflation to average about 2.35% over the next decade. That is more than half-a-percent lower than where that same estimate was just two months ago, and it’s similar to where these expectations were in March of 2021. 2.35% is also pretty close to the Fed’s inflation target; markets do not see inflation accelerating in an uncontrolled manner over the long term.For investors, think of this dynamic as one of short-term pain but longer-term gains. Near-term high inflation, and uncertainty of when it will decline, could keep the Fed cautious and argues against buying the dip.But looking further out, the market is giving encouraging signs that inflation is a manageable problem, and that central bank actions are working at addressing it. In the autumn, we could see a situation where the inflation data is moderating, while long-term inflation expectations confirm that that moderation continues. For markets, and for central banks, that would be much more helpful.Thanks for listening! Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review! We’d love to hear from you.

Original Release on July 1st, 2022: For the last decade investors have been focused on highflying growth stocks, but this investing environment may be the exception rather than the rule. Chief European Equity Strategist Graham Secker and Global Head of Quantitative Investment Strategies Research Stephan Kessler discuss.-----Transcript-----Graham Secker: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Graham Secker, Morgan Stanley's Chief European Equity Strategist. Stephan Kessler: I am Stephan Kessler, Global Head of Quantitative Investment Strategies Research. Graham Secker: And on this special episode of the podcast, we'll be talking about the potential return of value investing post its decade long decline since the global financial crisis. It's Friday, July the 1st, at 10 a.m. in London. Graham Secker: As most listeners of this particular podcast are probably aware, for much of the past decade, investors have had something of a love affair with the highflying growth stocks in the market. Meanwhile, their value priced counterparts, the shares of which tend to trade at relatively low price to earnings multiples and or offering higher dividend yields, have had a considerably rougher time of it. But I believe that the last decade is more the exception to the rule rather than the norm. And I think your analysis, Stephan, shows that this is true, yes? Stephan Kessler: Yes, I agree. We have looked at the performance of value as an investment style back to the 1920s, and we find that the period between the end of the global financial crisis and the COVID pandemic was only the decade where value did underperform. For me, the why here is really an interesting question to pick apart, which you and I look at through two different lenses. You're the fundamental strategist and I'm the quantitative analyst. So I think my first question to you is, from your fundamental point of view, what were the main drivers of value’s underperformance during this lost decade? Graham Secker: Yes. So from our perspective, we think there were two main drivers of values underperformance post the GFC. Firstly, a backdrop of low growth, low inflation and low and falling and negative interest rates, created a particularly problematic macro backdrop for value stocks. The former two factors were weighing on the relative profitability of value stocks, while the very low interest rates were actually boosting the PE ratio of longer duration growth stocks. This unpalatable macro backdrop then coincided with a challenging micro backdrop as the broad theme of disruption took hold across markets. This prompted greater hope among investors for the long term growth potential of the disruptors, while undermining the case for mean reversion across other areas of the market whereby cyclical slowdowns were often effectively viewed as structural declines. So, Stephan, you've said that the discount on value stocks cannot be explained fully by fundamentals or justified by the earnings overview. What do you believe are the deeper drivers for this discount?  Stephan Kessler: When you look at the value, it faced over the past few years, a range of challenges really. On the behavioral side, investors have focused on growth stocks and growth opportunities. This led to a substantial and persistent deviation of equities from their fair values and an underperformance of value investors. Next to this more behavioral argument, we find that the environmental, social and governance related aspects or in short, ESG and monetary policy were themes which drove price action. Equity value has a negative exposure to those themes. And finally, when you look at the 2020 period, there was a classical value trap situation. Companies which were most affected by the COVID pandemic sold off and appear cheap based on quite a range of value metrics, while the COVID catalyst continued to disrupt markets and led to companies which were cheaply valued not being able to recover as they had exposure to these disruptors. This only start to resolve in 2021, which is also when we start to see value regain performance. To get back to a more generalist view of the main drivers of values underperformance, I'd like to get back to you, Graham. You've observed a link between the macro and the micro, which created something of a vicious circle for value in the last cycle. Can you talk about how this situation looks going forward? Graham Secker: Yes, going forward, we think this vicious cycle for value could actually turn to be something more of a virtuous cycle over the next few years. We argue that we've entered a new environment of higher inflation and associated with that higher nominal growth, and that drives a recovery in the profitability of these older economy type companies. And at the same time, a rising cost of capital undermines the case for the disruptors. And that can happen both in terms of lower valuations off the back of higher interest rates, but also as liquidity starts to subside, a lack of capital to fund their future business growth. Stephan, you mentioned two of these key disruptive forces, quantitative easing by the central banks and then the rise of ESG. Can you talk about the impact of these two elements on the equity investment landscape? Stephan Kessler: ESG is a major theme in financial markets today, and in particular in this 2018-20 period we saw ESG positive names build up a premium, which made them appear expensive in the context of value metrics. These ESG valuation premia then turned out to be persistent and at times even grew. This then goes, of course, against value investors who try to benefit from this missed valuations mean reverting. And to the extent these valuations even turn stronger, that drove their losses. Quantitative easing is another aspect that drove price action. We find that value tends to underperform in time periods of low interest rates and does well in a rising rates environment. The economic driver behind this empirical observation is that the very low rates you saw in the past make proper valuations of firms difficult as discounted cash flow approaches are challenged. And so on the back of that, lower rates simply lead to valuation and value as signals being challenged and not properly priced. So given the historical narrative and all the forces at play during the past decade, what is your preference between value versus growth for the second half of 2022 and beyond that, Graham? Graham Secker: Yes. So in the short term, a backdrop of continued high inflation and rising interest rates should we think continue to favor value over growth. However, perhaps right towards the end of this year, we do envisage a situation where that could reverse a little bit, albeit temporarily, once inflation has peaked and the economic downturn has materialized, investor attention may start to focus on rates no longer rising, and that will put a little bit of a bid back under the growth stocks again. But I think if we look longer term, actually, I'm beginning to think that what we'll see is the whole value versus growth debate actually becomes a bit more balanced and hence I can see more range bound relative performance thereafter. And Stephan, from your perspective, in a world of rising bond yields and lower or normalized QE, what is your outlook for value going forward, too? Stephan Kessler: Well, when we look at the two catalysts for value underperformance, ESG and quantitative easing I mentioned earlier, we see that their grip on the market is loosening. For one, markets have moved into rates tightening cycle which means investors focus more on near-term cash flows rather than terminal value. This is a positive for value companies, which tend to well under such considerations. Furthermore, the dynamism of ESG themes has abated compared to the 18-20 period, leading to a lower effect on value. Another angle on this is also a look at the valuation of value as a style. It's quite cheap, so it's a good entry point. This leads to a positive outlook for value, but also for other styles. We like, particularly the combination of value and quality as it benefits from the attractive entry levels for value, as well as the defensiveness of an investment in quality shares. Graham Secker: So to summarize from a fundamental and quantitative approach, both Stephan and I think that the extreme underperformance of value that we've seen over the prior decade has ended, value looks well-placed to return to its traditional outperformance trends going forward. Stephan, thanks for taking the time to talk today. Stephan Kessler: Great speaking with you, Graham. Graham Secker: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today. 

After the recent Supreme Court ruling against the Environmental Protection Agency, Democrats appear poised to respond with a budget reconciliation plan that could impact health care, clean energy, and corporate taxes.-----Transcript-----Welcome to the Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Public Policy Research and Municipal Strategy for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between U.S. public policy and financial markets. It's Wednesday, July 13th, at 10 a.m. in New York. The Supreme Court just finished a busy session, and one of the judgments that investors should pay attention to was for the case, West Virginia vs the Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA. That judgment said the EPA had overreached on some regulations, embracing something called the Major Questions Doctrine, whereby the court suggested regulators should not be using prior legal authority to decide issues of major economic and political significance. Said more simply, the ruling suggests regulators need explicit authorization from Congress rather than just stretching current legal authorization. So the ruling basically punts many of the EPA's climate policies back to Congress for deliberation. And that matters for investors because it might be a motivating factor in the Democrats getting their budget reconciliation plan over the finish line. Without being able to rely on the EPA to enact climate policies, Democrats may be willing to compromise more within their own party to get done a package of tax increase funded initiatives on climate and health care. And recent news flow suggests Democrats continue to make progress in this direction. So let's break down what's reportedly in this package that investors should be aware of. There's a plan to let Medicare negotiate the prices it pays for certain prescription drugs. That's a fundamental challenge for the pharma sector. But as our pharma team has noted, it's not an existential one. And so the sector could still be an outperformer in a market that needs to further price in the potential for a recession, an environment where defensive sectors like pharma typically do well. Also reportedly in the plan is fresh spending on, and tax breaks for, clean energy technologies, a potential demand boost for the clean tech sector which our analysts remain quite constructive on.But funding that plan is several tax adjustments, including a potential implementation of a corporate book tax, which you can think of as a corporate minimum tax. This could exacerbate corporate margin pressures from inflation in the economic growth slowdown. So while the sectors we just discussed could be outperformers, they would likely do so against the backdrop of a bear market for equities overall. With Congress in session ahead of its August recess, we expect to learn more in the next couple of weeks, and we'll, of course, keep you in the loop. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

As Europe continues to curtail Russian gas imports, equity markets are preparing for further downturn in European economic growth, but there may be more risks yet to be priced in.Important note regarding economic sanctions. This research references country/ies which are generally the subject of comprehensive or selective sanctions programs administered or enforced by the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), the European Union and/or by other countries and multi-national bodies. Any references in this report to entities, debt or equity instruments, projects or persons that may be covered by such sanctions are strictly incidental to general coverage of the relevant Russian economic sector as germane to its overall financial outlook, and should not be read as recommending or advising as to any investment activities in relation to such entities, instruments or projects. Users of this report are solely responsible for ensuring that their investment activities in relation to any sanctioned country/ies are carried out in compliance with applicable sanctions.-----Transcript-----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Graham Secker, Head of Morgan Stanley's European Equity Strategy Team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the two key issues that are dominating our current discussions with European equity clients, namely Russia gas supplies and the belated start to a new earnings downgrade cycle. It's Tuesday, July the 12th, at 2 p.m. in London. Over the last few months, we have been arguing that a curtailment of Russia gas imports represented the biggest risk to European equities and the main catalyst to push us down to our bear case scenario. While we are not yet ready to formally change our bull, base, or bear case index targets, recent news flow does suggest that risks remain skewed to the downside, and we note a further 17% downside from here to our bear case price target for MSCI Europe. Recent headlines about a reduction in Russia gas flows and the German government's move to level two of their emergency gas plan, has prompted our European economists to further lower their own GDP forecasts, and they now see a mild recession developing over the winter. However, with higher energy costs keeping inflation higher for longer, they make no changes to their European Central Bank forecasts and still expect European interest rates to move out of negative territory over the next few months. We have been expecting an EPS downgrade cycle to start in the third quarter, even before the recent rise in concerns around Russian gas supplies. While the realization of this risk event would likely drive a materially larger hit to profits, we note that European earnings revisions have already turned negative over the last couple of weeks, i.e. we are now seeing more analysts lowering EPS estimates than raising them. The sharp fall in equities over the last few months suggests that investors are already anticipating a sizable pullback in European profits. However, we do not think this means all of the bad news is already in the price. Rather, we note that a study of prior downturns suggests the stock markets tend to trough 2 to 3 weeks before earnings revisions bottom and that the minimum time duration between the start of a new downgrade cycle and this trough in earnings revisions is at least 3 months, but more often runs for over 6 months. In short, we are likely starting a 3 to 6 month earnings downgrade cycle and equities are unlikely to trough until we move towards the fourth quarter. Within the market, we expect the more defensive sectors to continue to outperform over the next couple of months, given their traditionally lower level of earnings volatility into a recession. The recent move lower in bond yields should also encourage some reinvestment into quality and growth stocks, and we have just raised luxury goods to overweight on this theme. In addition, the luxury sector should be a key beneficiary of the recent upturn in investor sentiment towards China. Luxury has a greater exposure to the China consumer than any other European sector. In contrast, we continue to recommend a more cautious stance on cyclicals, who don't traditionally start to outperform until the market itself troughs. Year to date, cyclical underperformance has been primarily driven by weakness in consumer facing stocks, reflecting the pressure on disposable income from high inflation. However, going forward, we expect to see greater underperformance from industrial cyclicals as weakness in end demand starts to move up the chain. These same companies are also likely to be the most adversely impacted by the disruption to Russia gas supplies, whether this be in terms of top line volumes, profit margins or both. For this reason, we are most cautious on stocks within the industrial, materials and autos sectors that also have a high degree of exposure to European end markets. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. 

While stocks have recently rallied, the strength of the U.S. dollar has risen sharply over the past year, presenting a major potential headwind for equities in the coming earnings season.-----Transcript-----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, July 11th, at 11 a.m. in New York. One of the more popular views over the past decade has been the eventual decline of the U.S. dollar. After all, with the Fed printing so many dollars since the global financial crisis and then doubling down during the COVID pandemic, this idea has merit. However, after the great financial crisis, these printed dollars never made it into the real economy, as they were simply used to patch up broken balance sheets from the housing bust. Therefore, money supply never got out of hand. In fact, during the entire period after the Fed first embarked on quantitative easing in November 2008 through the end of the cycle in March of 2020, money supply growth averaged only 6%, right in line with the long term trend of money supply and nominal GDP growth. As a result, the U.S. dollar maintained its reserve currency status and actually rose 40% during that decade. However, as we pointed out back in April of 2020, the stimulus provided during COVID was very different. At the time, we suggested that the coordinated fiscal and monetary policy was unprecedented. The result is that money supply growth exploded and since February 2020 has averaged 17%, or three times a long term trend, a truly unprecedented outcome that left us with much more inflation than what was desired. Now, with the Fed reversing course so quickly and the checks having stopped long ago, money supply growth has fallen all the way back to its long term trend of just 6%. Given the projected path for rate hikes and quantitative tightening, money supply growth is likely to fall even further, and the dollar is unlikely to show any signs of decline until the Fed pivots. Such a pivot seems unlikely any time soon, especially after last week's strong jobs report. So why does this matter so much for stocks? Based on the extreme rally so far this year, the U.S. dollar is now up 16% year over year. This is about as extreme as it gets historically speaking and unfortunately it typically coincides with financial stress on markets, a recession or both. For stocks the stronger dollar is also going to be a major headwind to earnings for many large multinationals. This could not be coming at a worse time as companies are already struggling with margin pressure from cost inflation, higher or unwanted inventories and slower demand. The simple math on S&P 500 earnings from currency is that for every percentage point increase in the dollar on a year over year basis, it's approximately a 0.5 hit to earnings per share growth. Of course, things can change quickly, but it doesn't seem likely until the path of inflation slows enough to warrant a Fed pivot. The main point for equity investors is that this dollar strength is just another reason to think earnings revisions are coming down over the next few earnings seasons. Therefore, the recent rally is likely to fizzle out before too long. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show.  

As investors in the internet industry have begun to wonder if online dating platforms will sink or swim in the case of a recession, looking back on the last recession may shed some light on a potential shelter from the storm.-----Transcript-----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Lauren Schenk, Equity Analyst covering the small and mid-cap Internet Industry. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be giving some insight into consumer spending trends through the lens of online dating. It's Friday, July 8th, at noon in New York. How does online dating perform in a recession? Believe it or not, it's the number one question I've heard from investors over the last several weeks. And I think another way of getting at this question broadly, and you can really extrapolate this across many industries, is do consumers view a product as a necessary staple or as non-essential spending? On one hand amid elevated inflation on indispensable items like gas and groceries, you may think consumers would view online dating as a nonessential item. On the other hand, finding love or a significant other ranks usually pretty high in most people's life goals, so maybe it's a staple. So that's the question we sought to answer recently when we looked into how online dating platforms perform during a recession. To dig into this, we looked into some historical data from 2007-2010. What we found was that, for one online dating platform, subscriber growth was largely unaffected and actually accelerated slightly in 2008 and 2009. The net impact for this platform was a slight slowdown in organic revenue growth from low double digit growth in 2007, to mid-single digits in 2008 and 2009, and then accelerating to high teens by the end of 2010. So overall, we found that the continued need for human connection, and the low price of online dating, resulted in minimal business impact during the global financial crisis, despite a significant pullback in consumer spending. Looking at today, online dating has now become a more widely accepted service to a wider range of people. But how are things different from the last recession? Well, I'll share a few key differences from our research. First, online is now a primary way for couples to meet, with the percentage of U.S. relationships starting online increasing from 22% in 2009 to 39% in 2017, which makes it more of a staple than discretionary. Second, we believe there is greater pent up demand for the product today than in 2008 and 2009, given COVID. Which could better insulate online dating, since consumers may be less inclined to cut spending on services that were under consumed during the height of COVID. Third, the top brands have changed and are now predominantly mobile based versus desktop, and attract a younger user who typically have a lower income than 40 plus year olds. And finally, given the brand and geography shifts, a la carte revenue from things like profile boosting is a larger percentage of revenue today than during the global financial crisis, which may prove more discretionary than subscriptions. How does this impact our view of how online dating could perform in a potential recession? Given the 2008-2009 results and the differing macro factors of a potential 2023 recession we have increased confidence in our view that online dating is one of the best consumer internet sub industries to weather a potential recession storm. After all, people still need love and relationships in recession and you can argue they need it more. And the low average monthly cost means it's likely not an item that single consumers would cut first. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

As inflation continues to be a major concern for the U.S., investors will want to pay attention to how spending, travel and sentiment are changing for consumers.-----Transcript-----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, a U.S. equity strategist for Morgan Stanley Research. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be sharing the pulse of the U.S. consumer right now amid elevated inflation and concerns about recession. It's Thursday, July 7th, at 2 p.m. in New York. Consumer spending represents roughly 65% of total U.S. GDP. So if we're looking for a window into how U.S. companies could perform over the next 12 months, asking consumers how confident they're feeling is a great start. Are consumers planning on spending more next month or less? Are people making plans for outdoor activities and eating out or are they staying at home? Are they changing travel plans because of spending worries? These are a few of the questions that the equity strategy team asks in a survey we conduct with the AlphaWise Group, the proprietary survey and data arm of Morgan Stanley Research. We recently decided to change the frequency of our survey to biweekly to get a closer look at the consumer trends that will affect our outlook. So today, I'm going to share a few notable takeaways from our last survey, which was right before the July 4th holiday. First, let's take a look at sentiment. The survey found that inflation continues to be the top concern for two thirds of consumers, in line with two weeks before that, but significantly higher compared to the beginning of the year. Concern over the spread of COVID-19 continues to trend lower, with 25% of consumers listing it as their number one concern versus 32% last month. And 41% of consumers are worried about the political environment in the U.S. versus 38% two weeks ago, a slight tick up. Apart from inflation, low-income consumers are generally more worried about the inability to pay rent and other debts, while upper income consumers over index on concerns over investments, the political environment in the U.S., and geopolitical conflicts. A second takeaway to note is that consumer confidence in the economy continues to weaken, with only 23% of consumers expecting the economy to get better. That's the lowest percentage since the inception of our survey and down another 3% from two weeks ago. In addition, 59% of consumers now expect the economy to get worse. This lines up with the all-time lows observed in a recent consumer sentiment survey from the University of Michigan. A third takeaway is that consumers are planning to slow spending directly as a result of rising prices. 66% of consumers said they are planning to spend less over the next six months as a result of inflation. These numbers are influenced by income level, with lower income consumers planning to reduce spending more. We also asked consumers where they were planning to reduce spending in response to inflation. Dining out and take out, clothing and footwear, and leisure travel were among the most popular places to cut back, and all represent highly discretionary spending. And finally, the survey noted that travel intentions are considerably lower to the same time last year, with 55% of consumers planning to travel over the next six months, versus roughly 64% in the summer of last year. We also asked consumers if they were planning to cancel or delay post-Labor Day travel because of inflation. Generally, planned travel post-Labor Day is in line with broader travel intentions. Cruises and international travel were the most likely to be delayed or postponed. So what's the takeaway for investors? It is important to allocate selectively as consumer behavior shifts in order to cope with inflation and company earnings and margins come under pressure. Our team recommends defensive positioning, companies with high operational efficiency, and looking for idiosyncratic stories where companies have unique advantages. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.  

As media reports indicate a possible tariff reduction on imports from China, some investors are wondering if this is signaling a return of modest trade barriers and unfettered investment between the U.S. and China.-----Transcript-----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Public Policy Research and Municipal Strategy for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between U.S. public policy and financial markets. It's Wednesday, July 6th, at 1 p.m. in New York. If media reports citing White House sources are to be believed, the U.S. is getting closer to reducing some tariffs on imports from China, motivated at least in part by trying to ease inflation pressures. This has prompted some investors to ask us if we think this is a signal that the U.S./China economic relationship is starting to head back toward what it was before 2018, where trade barriers between the two countries were modest, and U.S. corporate investment in China was largely unfettered. In short, we do not think this is the case and rather expect that the U.S. and China will continue on its current path of drawing up more barriers to commerce between them, particularly in the areas of new and emerging technologies. Let's break it down. Consider that the scope of the tariff reductions being reported is quite small. One report, citing a Biden administration official, suggested tariffs could be reduced on about $10 billion worth of goods, a sliver of the $370 billion of goods currently under tariff. Given that taking away all the tariffs would only result in shaving a few tenths of a percent off consumer price index growth, this modest change, though reportedly intended to curb inflation, is unlikely to be a meaningful inflation fighter. That suggests the U.S. continues to prioritize its long term competition goals with China over inflation concerns, which is not surprising given continued skepticism among U.S. voters of both parties over the role of China in the global economy. This leads to another important point, that tariff relief could counterintuitively accelerate U.S. policies that create commerce barriers with China. In line with our expectations, media reports suggest a tariff relief announcement could be paired with news of a fresh Section 301 investigation, which is the process to kick off a new round of tariffs that could be imposed on China. Again, this makes sense when accounting for the long term policy goals of the U.S., as well as the political considerations in a midterm election year. So bottom line, don't read too much into tariff relief if it's announced. The U.S. and China are likely to continue drawing up barriers, and accordingly rewiring the global economy as companies shift supply chains and end market strategies. This is 'slowbalization' in motion, and it will continue to drive challenges, such as margin pressure for U.S. multinationals, and opportunities, such as for key sectors like semiconductor capital equipment companies benefiting from a new wave of geopolitical CapEx. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show. 

Original Release on June 16th, 2022: While many investors may be curious to know what other investors are thinking and feeling about markets, there’s a lot more to the calculation of investor sentiment than one might think.-----Transcript-----Jay Bacow: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jay Bacow, Co-Head of U.S. Securitized Products Research here at Morgan Stanley. Jim Egan: And I'm Jim Egan, the other Co-Head of U.S. Securitized Products Research. Jay Bacow: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing the path for both housing prices, housing activity and agency mortgages through the end of the year. It's Thursday, June 16th, at noon in New York. Jay Bacow: Jim, it seems like every time we come on this podcast, there's another record in the housing market. And this time it's no different. Jim Egan: Absolutely not. Home prices just set a new record, 20.6% year over year growth. They set a new month over month growth record. Affordability, when you combine that growth in home prices with the increase we've seen in mortgage rates, we've deteriorated more in the past 12 months than any year that we have on record. And a lot of that growth can be attributed to the fact that inventory levels are at their lowest level on record. Consumer attitudes toward buying homes are worse than they've been since 1982. That's not a record, but you get my point. Jay Bacow: All right. So we're setting records for home prices. We're setting records for change in affordability. With all these broken records, investors are understandably a little worried that we might have another housing bubble. What do you think? Jim Egan: Look, given the run up in housing in the 2000s and the fact that we,ve reset the record for the pace of home price growth, investors can be permitted a little anxiety. We do not think there is a bubble forming in the U.S. housing market. There are a number of reasons for that, two things I would highlight. First, the pre GFC run up in home prices, that was fueled by lax lending standards that really elevated demand to what we think were unsustainable levels. And that ultimately led to an incredible increase in defaults, where borrowers with risky mortgages were not able to refinance and their only real option at that point was foreclosures. This time around, lending standards have remained at the tight end of historical ranges, while supply has languished at all time lows. And that demand supply mismatch is what's driving this increase in prices this time around. The second reason, we talked about affordability deteriorating more over the past 12 months than any year on record. That hit from affordability is just not as widely spread as it has been in prior mortgage markets, largely because most mortgages today are fixed rate. We're not talking about adjustable rate mortgages where current homeowners can see their payments reset higher. This time around a majority of borrowers have fixed rate mortgages with very affordable payments. And so they don't see that affordability pressure. What they're more likely to experience is being locked in at current rates, much less likely to list their home for sale and exacerbating that historically tight inventory environment that we just talked about. Jay Bacow: All right. So, you don't think we're going to have another housing bubble. Things aren't going to pop. So does that mean we're going to continue to set records? Jim Egan: I wouldn't say that we're going to continue to set records from here. I think that home prices and housing activity are going to go their separate ways. Home prices will still grow, they're just going to grow at a slower pace. Home sales is where we are really going to see decreases. Those affordability pressures that we've talked about have already made themselves manifest in existing home sales, in purchase applications, in new home sales, which have seen the biggest drops. Those kinds of decreases, we think those are going to continue. That lack of inventory, the lack of foreclosures from what we believe have been very robust underwriting standards, that keeps home prices growing, even if at a slower pace. That record level we just talked about? That was 20.6% year over year. We think that slows to 10% by December of this year, 3% by December of 2023. But we're not talking about home prices falling and we're not talking about a bubble popping. Jim Egan: But with that backdrop, Jay, you cover the agency mortgage backed securities markets, a large liquid way to invest in mortgages, how would you invest in this? Jay Bacow: So, buying a home is generally the single largest investment for individuals, but you can scale that up in the agency mortgage market. It's an $8.5 trillion market where the government has underwritten the credit risk and that agency paper provides a pretty attractive way to get exposure to the housing outlook that you've described. If housing activity is going to slow, there's less supply to the market. That's just good for investors. And the recent concern around the Fed running off their balance sheet, combined with high inflation, has meant that the spread that you get for owning these bonds looks really attractive. It's well over 100 basis points on the mortgages that are getting produced today versus treasuries. It hasn't been over 100 basis points for as long as it has since the financial crisis. Jim, just in the same way that you don't think we're having another housing bubble, we don't think mortgages are supposed to be priced for financial crisis levels. Jim Egan: Jay, thanks for taking the time to talk. Jay Bacow: Great speaking with you, Jim. Jim Egan: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

For the last decade investors have been focused on highflying growth stocks, but this investing environment may be the exception rather than the rule. Chief European Equity Strategist Graham Secker and Global Head of Quantitative Investment Strategies Research Stephan Kessler discuss.-----Transcript-----Graham Secker: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Graham Secker, Morgan Stanley's Chief European Equity Strategist. Stephan Kessler: I am Stephan Kessler, Global Head of Quantitative Investment Strategies Research. Graham Secker: And on this special episode of the podcast, we'll be talking about the potential return of value investing post its decade long decline since the global financial crisis. It's Friday, July the 1st, at 10 a.m. in London. Graham Secker: As most listeners of this particular podcast are probably aware, for much of the past decade, investors have had something of a love affair with the highflying growth stocks in the market. Meanwhile, their value priced counterparts, the shares of which tend to trade at relatively low price to earnings multiples and or offering higher dividend yields, have had a considerably rougher time of it. But I believe that the last decade is more the exception to the rule rather than the norm. And I think your analysis, Stephan, shows that this is true, yes? Stephan Kessler: Yes, I agree. We have looked at the performance of value as an investment style back to the 1920s, and we find that the period between the end of the global financial crisis and the COVID pandemic was only the decade where value did underperform. For me, the why here is really an interesting question to pick apart, which you and I look at through two different lenses. You're the fundamental strategist and I'm the quantitative analyst. So I think my first question to you is, from your fundamental point of view, what were the main drivers of value’s underperformance during this lost decade? Graham Secker: Yes. So from our perspective, we think there were two main drivers of values underperformance post the GFC. Firstly, a backdrop of low growth, low inflation and low and falling and negative interest rates, created a particularly problematic macro backdrop for value stocks. The former two factors were weighing on the relative profitability of value stocks, while the very low interest rates were actually boosting the PE ratio of longer duration growth stocks. This unpalatable macro backdrop then coincided with a challenging micro backdrop as the broad theme of disruption took hold across markets. This prompted greater hope among investors for the long term growth potential of the disruptors, while undermining the case for mean reversion across other areas of the market whereby cyclical slowdowns were often effectively viewed as structural declines. So, Stephan, you've said that the discount on value stocks cannot be explained fully by fundamentals or justified by the earnings overview. What do you believe are the deeper drivers for this discount?  Stephan Kessler: When you look at the value, it faced over the past few years, a range of challenges really. On the behavioral side, investors have focused on growth stocks and growth opportunities. This led to a substantial and persistent deviation of equities from their fair values and an underperformance of value investors. Next to this more behavioral argument, we find that the environmental, social and governance related aspects or in short, ESG and monetary policy were themes which drove price action. Equity value has a negative exposure to those themes. And finally, when you look at the 2020 period, there was a classical value trap situation. Companies which were most affected by the COVID pandemic sold off and appear cheap based on quite a range of value metrics, while the COVID catalyst continued to disrupt markets and led to companies which were cheaply valued not being able to recover as they had exposure to these disruptors. This only start to resolve in 2021, which is also when we start to see value regain performance. To get back to a more generalist view of the main drivers of values underperformance, I'd like to get back to you, Graham. You've observed a link between the macro and the micro, which created something of a vicious circle for value in the last cycle. Can you talk about how this situation looks going forward? Graham Secker: Yes, going forward, we think this vicious cycle for value could actually turn to be something more of a virtuous cycle over the next few years. We argue that we've entered a new environment of higher inflation and associated with that higher nominal growth, and that drives a recovery in the profitability of these older economy type companies. And at the same time, a rising cost of capital undermines the case for the disruptors. And that can happen both in terms of lower valuations off the back of higher interest rates, but also as liquidity starts to subside, a lack of capital to fund their future business growth. Stephan, you mentioned two of these key disruptive forces, quantitative easing by the central banks and then the rise of ESG. Can you talk about the impact of these two elements on the equity investment landscape? Stephan Kessler: ESG is a major theme in financial markets today, and in particular in this 2018-20 period we saw ESG positive names build up a premium, which made them appear expensive in the context of value metrics. These ESG valuation premia then turned out to be persistent and at times even grew. This then goes, of course, against value investors who try to benefit from this missed valuations mean reverting. And to the extent these valuations even turn stronger, that drove their losses. Quantitative easing is another aspect that drove price action. We find that value tends to underperform in time periods of low interest rates and does well in a rising rates environment. The economic driver behind this empirical observation is that the very low rates you saw in the past make proper valuations of firms difficult as discounted cash flow approaches are challenged. And so on the back of that, lower rates simply lead to valuation and value as signals being challenged and not properly priced. So given the historical narrative and all the forces at play during the past decade, what is your preference between value versus growth for the second half of 2022 and beyond that, Graham? Graham Secker: Yes. So in the short term, a backdrop of continued high inflation and rising interest rates should we think continue to favor value over growth. However, perhaps right towards the end of this year, we do envisage a situation where that could reverse a little bit, albeit temporarily, once inflation has peaked and the economic downturn has materialized, investor attention may start to focus on rates no longer rising, and that will put a little bit of a bid back under the growth stocks again. But I think if we look longer term, actually, I'm beginning to think that what we'll see is the whole value versus growth debate actually becomes a bit more balanced and hence I can see more range bound relative performance thereafter. And Stephan, from your perspective, in a world of rising bond yields and lower or normalized QE, what is your outlook for value going forward, too? Stephan Kessler: Well, when we look at the two catalysts for value underperformance, ESG and quantitative easing I mentioned earlier, we see that their grip on the market is loosening. For one, markets have moved into rates tightening cycle which means investors focus more on near-term cash flows rather than terminal value. This is a positive for value companies, which tend to well under such considerations. Furthermore, the dynamism of ESG themes has abated compared to the 18-20 period, leading to a lower effect on value. Another angle on this is also a look at the valuation of value as a style. It's quite cheap, so it's a good entry point. This leads to a positive outlook for value, but also for other styles. We like, particularly the combination of value and quality as it benefits from the attractive entry levels for value, as well as the defensiveness of an investment in quality shares. Graham Secker: So to summarize from a fundamental and quantitative approach, both Stephan and I think that the extreme underperformance of value that we've seen over the prior decade has ended, value looks well-placed to return to its traditional outperformance  trends going forward. Stephan, thanks for taking the time to talk today. Stephan Kessler: Great speaking with you, Graham. Graham Secker: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today. 

As the risks to international economic growth increase, global investors may find some good news in the Japanese equities market. -----Transcript-----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jonathan Garner, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia and Emerging Markets Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be reflecting on a recent visit to Japan. It's Thursday, June the 30th, at 1 p.m. in London. I spent two weeks in Tokyo meeting with a wide range of market participants and others. This trip came together as Japan opened up to business visitors and small groups of tourists, after a lengthy period of COVID related travel restrictions. Japan equities - currency hedged for the U.S. dollar based investor - are our top pick in global equities and have been doing well this year relative to other markets. My first impression was how cheap prices in Japan now are at the current exchange rate of ¥135 to the U.S. dollar. For example, a simple metro journey in the inner core of Tokyo is priced at ¥140, so almost exactly $1 USD currently. It's possible to get a delicious lunchtime meal of teriyaki salmon, rice, pickles, miso soup and a soft drink in one of the numerous small cafes under the giant urban skyscrapers of the Central District of Marinucci for ¥1,000 or even lower. So that's about $6 to $7 USD currently. We feel this competitive exchange rate bodes well for the major Japanese industrial, technology and pharmaceutical firms, which dominate the Japan equity market as they compete globally. Indeed, the currency at these levels is one of the reasons that earnings revisions estimates, by bottom up analysts covering these companies, continue to move higher. Unlike the overall situation in global equities currently. In meetings, I was often asked whether we shared some of the concerns which have been voiced by some commentators on the Bank of Japan's monetary policy stance. The Monetary Policy Committee meeting for June was held during my trip, and the Bank of Japan kept its short term policy rate at -0.1% and also reiterated its pledge to guide the ten year government bond yield at +/- 25 basis points around a target of zero. Clearly, this monetary policy is divergent with trends elsewhere in the world currently and in particularly with the U.S. And this divergence is a key reason why the yen has been weakening this year. We at Morgan Stanley feel strongly that this approach is the right one for Japan, for one key reason. Unlike the U.S., UK or other advanced economies, Japan's inflation rate remains in line with policy goals. Headline CPI inflation is running at just 2.5% year on year, while CPI ex food and energy is 0.8%. Japan does not have a breakout to the upside in wage inflation either. We also think BOJ Governor Kuroda-san was correct in identifying downside risks to international economic growth as a risk factor for Japan's own GDP growth going forward, which at the moment we think is likely to track at around 2% this year. During our trip, we also spent time with investors discussing Japan Prime Minister Kishida-san's modifications to the policies of his two predecessors, in particular around a more redistributive approach to fiscal policy and digitalization of the public sector. The trend to greater corporate engagement with minority investors and activist investors was also debated. Japan is now the second largest market globally after the US for activist investor campaigns to promote corporate restructuring, thereby unlocking shareholder value. For us. Ultimately, the proof of the pudding, and how the Japan story all comes together, is the trend in corporate return on equity for listed equities. This has risen from less than 5% on average in the 20 years prior to Abe-san's premiership to above 10% currently. And it's now converged with two key North Asian peers; China and Korea. With Japan equities trading at the low end of the valuation range for the last 10 years, below 12 x forward price to earnings multiple, we think it's a market which deserves more attention from global investors. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

As legislators try to manage the U.S. and China’s economic relationship, outbound investors will want to keep tabs on potential policy coming down the pipeline.-----Transcript-----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Public Policy Research and Municipal Strategy for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between U.S. public policy and financial markets. It's Wednesday, June 29th, at 10 a.m. in New York. Washington, D.C., continues to focus on two areas of bipartisan concern: fighting inflation and managing the economic relationship with China. To that end, deliberations continue on legislation intended to reduce reliance on China supply chains for semiconductors and rare earth materials, as well as invest in research and development for emerging technologies. The Senate and House have both passed versions of this legislation, respectively called the USICA and the COMPETES Act. Now there's a conference committee deciding what's in the final bill. And here's where investors need to pay attention, because there continues to be news that this committee could end up including a provision that would limit U.S. companies ability to make business investments in, quote, unquote, countries of concern. If they do, it could create downside pressure for markets in China in the near term, and would underscore the secular trend we continue to focus on: "slowbalization", which creates both equity sector challenges and opportunities. Consider that these outbound investment restrictions would mirror ones already in place for inbound investments through CFIUS. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. In short, it could make it difficult for companies to, say, build a factory in China if the product or production process includes technology that the U.S. deems critical to its economic or national security. Some independent estimates suggest this could reduce foreign direct investment in China by as much as 40%. This is classic slowbalization in motion, where policy choices are cutting against the cost benefits of globalization, driven by security concerns as we move toward a multipolar world; one with more than one political economy power base. And the level of disruption from this particular provision could create downward pressure on equity markets in China. It could also underscore current headwinds to U.S. markets, suggesting that many U.S. companies' margins will be pressured as they spend more in the future to diversify supply chains away from China. Of course, in line with our thesis of slowbalization, there's opportunity too. The CapEx needed to build these new supply chains has to go somewhere, and for example, semiconductor capital equipment companies could see a major up shift in demand. So investors need to stay tuned to the deliberations on outbound investment restrictions. It's far from a done deal, to be clear, but a major policy development if it happens. While there's no timeline for when we will know if this provision is included, we recommend paying attention to the Biden administration's deliberations on China tariffs. If the administration decides to provide even just targeted and temporary tariff reductions, in an attempt to ease inflation pressures over the next couple of months, it might also feel compelled to, at the same time, announce new measures to demonstrate its continued seriousness about competing with China. An announcement of a legislative agreement on outbound investment restrictions could be one way to do this. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

As the Fed continues with aggressive policy tightening, fixed income investors may be wondering if the bond market is accurately priced and when we might see it rally. Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets and Director of Fixed Income Research Vishy Tirupattur discuss.-----Transcript-----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley Research. Vishy Tirupattur: And I'm Vishy Tirupattur, Director of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Andrew Sheets: And today on the podcast, we'll be discussing the outlook for the U.S. bond markets. It's Tuesday, June 28th, at 9 a.m. in San Francisco. Andrew Sheets: A note to our listeners, Vishy and I are recording this while we're on the road talking to clients, so if the audio quality sounds a little bit different, we hope you'll bear with us. Andrew Sheets: So Vishy, this has been a historically volatile start to the year for U.S. fixed income. We've seen some of the largest bond market losses in 40 years. Before we get into our views going forward, maybe just give a little bit of perspective about how you see this year so far, and what's been driving the market. Vishy Tirupattur: Andrew, what's been driving the market is the significant and substantial change in the monetary policy expectations, not only in the U.S. but also across most developed market economies. That means we started the year with the target Fed funds rate around close to 0%, and we have now ratcheted up quite significantly. And markets are already pricing in a further substantial increase in the Fed funds rate going forward. All this has meant that the duration sensitive parts of the bond market have taken it on the chin. Andrew Sheets: So Vishy that's interesting because we might be seeing kind of a transition in the market narrative as we head in the second half. What do you think the bond market, especially the Treasury market, is currently pricing in terms of Fed expectations? And do you think the bond market is priced for a recession? Vishy Tirupattur: I think bond market is sending some signals here. So the bond market is pricing that the Fed will continue to combat high inflation by being aggressively frontloaded in interest rate hikes. So this frontloading of the interest rate hikes means the front end of the Treasury curve perhaps has some more to go. And we expect that the end of the year, the two year Treasury will be at 4%. But on the other hand, the ten year Treasury, we expect the year at 350. That means the market is already beginning to become concerned about how growth and growth prospects for the U.S. economy will work out in the next 6 to 12 months. So by all measures we can look at the probability of a recession have significantly increased. That is what is being priced in the market at this point. Andrew Sheets: You know, I think it's safe to say that the dominant story, right, to start the year has been these upside surprises to inflation and then central banks, including the Fed, racing to catch up to those upside inflation surprises. And yet it's really interesting the way that Chair Powell and the Fed are now describing the way they're going to react to inflation is to say that we will effectively keep tightening policy as long as inflation surprises to the upside. But isn't the Fed using a tool that works with a lag?Vishy Tirupattur: That is absolutely correct Andrew. What the withdrawal of policy accommodation that the Fed is accomplishing through these frontloaded hikes is tightening of financial conditions. We have begun to see some effect of this tightening of financial conditions on the economic growth already. But in reality, the long experience suggest that these effects will be lagged anywhere between 6 to 18 months. So this is what our economists are thinking, given this frontloaded hiking path. We think the Fed will stop hiking towards the end of this year in December, and we will watch for how these tighter financial conditions will restrain aggregate demand and slow the growth or slow the U.S. economy over the course of the next 6, 12, 18 months. Andrew Sheets: So Vishy, I'd like to move next into what all this means for our fixed income recommendations and to run through the major sectors of that market. So let's start with Treasuries. What do you see as our key views in the Treasury market? And where do you think we might differ the most from what's currently in market pricing? Vishy Tirupattur: I think we are still neutral in taking duration risk at this point. I expect that in the not so distant future we would become constructive on taking interest rate risk to the Treasury market. So our expectation is that a year from now, so second quarter of next year, ten year Treasury will be at three or five. Andrew Sheets: And Vishy, you know, we're in this environment where inflation is high and usually high inflation is bad for bonds. But growth is slowing, which is good for bonds. So, you know, given that push and pull, how do we think treasuries come out of that? Vishy Tirupattur: I think Treasuries will come out pretty well out of this. Why I say that is that the bulk of the pain from aggressive monetary policy has already been felt and taken in the market. So going forward, our expectation is not for incrementally more aggressive policy pops to be priced, but actually something that is more or less in line with already what is priced in the market. Andrew Sheets: Vishy, the next market I want to ask you about is the mortgage market. This is another huge part of the aggregate bond index. How do we think mortgages perform? Do we think they perform better or worse than the Treasury segment? Vishy Tirupattur: So the mortgage market is interesting. We started the year with the the generic mortgage rate around 3%. It had gone up almost to 6%, more or less doubled over the course of the last six months or so. So embedded in the mortgage market is a mortgage spread, but around 130 basis points of nominal mortgage spread is nearly at an all time high. And we think that that means a lot of this expectation coming out of higher rates, a slowing of the housing market, is already well priced into the mortgage market. So my expectation is that going forward, the mortgage market, will outperform the treasury market over the course of the next 6 to 12 months. Andrew Sheets: And Vishy, you know we talked about treasuries and we talked about mortgages and I probably can't ask you about those markets without also asking about quantitative tightening. The fact that the Fed has been big buyers, both Treasuries and mortgage bonds, and the Fed is going to stop doing that and is going to let its holdings of those securities roll off. So how important is that to the outlook for these markets? And is that quantitative tightening already in the price? Vishy Tirupattur: So two things on this. There is something called a stock effect and the flow effect. We think the stock effect component of the quantitative tightening, both in the context of treasuries and in the context of NBS, is mostly priced in. The flow effect will begin to manifest itself as the quantitative tightening actually begins to happen and we see this portfolio rebalancing channel to actually materialize. All that means is that the portfolio managers that had been underweight mortgages and overweight credit. We think that will change in favor of mortgages going from underweight towards neutral and credit going from overweight towards neutral. Andrew Sheets: So the last market I want to ask you about was the credit market, which is, I think, especially relevant given we've seen more market discussion of the risk to growth, the probability of a recession, the potential that defaults usually pick up during periods of weak economic growth. How do you see the outlook for corporate bonds fitting into this picture? Vishy Tirupattur: So if you look at the corporate bond market, the good thing here is that compared to other points at the beginning of a rate hiking cycle, the fundamentals of corporate bond market are in really good shape. You can see that in terms of leverage, interest coverage, as well as cash and balance sheet metrics. So that's a good thing. The second thing is that the financing needs of many of these companies is not as imposing as would otherwise being the case. Take the high yield market, high yield market and the leveraged loan market together about 3 trillion outstanding market. Only 10% of this is due for refinancing over the course of this year, 2022, 2023 and 2024. That means the world of maturities being an imposing challenge for the credit markets is that much, well, manageable. But that said, there's one segment of the market that is more vulnerable to hiking to higher interest rates, and that is the leveraged loan market, which is a floating rate funding market. So we expect that this market will see its cost of financing increase as interest rates start to get ratcheted up. But the one point I want to make here is that in terms of expectations of default rates, we won't see a dramatic spike in default rates the way we have seen in the past recessions. So compared to 2008-2009 recession, the post-COVID recession, early 2000's recession, in all of those instances when we had an economic slowdown and a recession, we saw a spike in corporate default rates. Because of the starting point of fundamentally is so much better this time, our expectation is that we will not see dramatic spikes in default rates in the credit market.Andrew Sheets: Vishy, thanks for taking the time to talk. Vishy Tirupattur: Always a pleasure to talk to you, Andrew. Andrew Sheets: Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people find the show. 

Talk of recession continues among investors and consumers alike, but last week saw a sharp rally in U.S. Equities. Is this just a blip or could U.S. equity markets rally further?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, June 27th, at 2 p.m. in New York. So let's get after it.With talk of recession increasing sharply over the past few weeks, equity markets decided enough bad news had been priced and rallied sharply. Furthermore, the decline in both oil and interest rates helped ease some of the concerns on inflation. In our view, both the fall in oil and rates are being driven more by fears of an economic slowdown rather than a real peak in inflation and will lead to a more dovish Fed. However, with markets so oversold and bearishness pervasive, equity investors have taken the bullish view and rerated stocks higher.Based on Friday's close, the S&P 500 is trading back at 16.3 times, or one turn higher than where it was at the prior week's lows. This seems unusual given the growing concern about earnings, however. In fact, even taking into account the fall in 10-year yields, the equity risk premium is back below 300 basis points. In our view, that makes little sense in the context of the likely negative earnings revisions coming in the second quarter reporting season and the rising risk of recession over the next 6 to 12 months.Perhaps the best way to explain last week's rally has to do with the short-term rolling correlation between equities and real yields, which is now deeply negative again. This means the recent decline in bond yields has been perceived as positive for equities, something we think will prove to be incorrect if the falling yields are signaling slower growth or recession. For falling yields to be positive for equities at this stage, we would need to see cresting inflation pressures, a less hawkish Fed policy path, more durable economic growth than we expect, and a reacceleration in earnings revisions.In addition to this combination of factors, which suggests a soft landing for the economy, we would also need to see limited negative revisions to earnings. Thus, we see the recent rebound in equities as another bear market rally on the path to fair value price levels of 3400-3500 in the case a soft landing is achieved with modest earnings revisions. However, as noted last week, a recession would bring tactical price lows closer to 3000 as earnings decline by at least 20% before working back to our June 2023 bear case target of 3350. In short, the bear market is likely not over, although it may feel like it over the next few weeks. Markets are likely to take the lower rates as a sign the Fed can orchestrate a soft landing and prevent a meaningful revision to earnings forecasts.In that context, we think U.S. equity markets can rally further. In addition to lower rates and oil prices helping support the belief in a soft landing there is some equity demand from pension funds that need to rebalance at the end of the month and quarter this week. If retail investors join in like last week, that could carry equity prices higher before second quarter earnings season begins and the revisions arrive. Finally, a retracement of 38-50% of the entire decline would not be unnatural or out of line with prior bear market rallies, even ones associated with a recession at the end. In S&P 500 terms, that would translate into 4100-4200 or approximately 5-7% upside from Friday's close. Furthermore, if such a rally were to continue, it would likely be led by the longer duration or interest rate sensitive stocks like technology, or the Nasdaq.However, we want to be clear that in no way are we suggesting the bear market is over or that earnings estimates won't have to come down. Instead, we are simply being realistic about the nature of bear markets and their ability to confound all market participants at times, even the bears. We suggest using equity market strength over the next few weeks to lighten up further on portfolios.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show.

Original Release on June 9th, 2022: While many investors may be curious to know what other investors are thinking and feeling about markets, there’s a lot more to the calculation of investor sentiment than one might think.-----Transcript-----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Thursday, June 9th, at 6 p.m. in London. I've found that investors are almost always interested in what other types of investors are doing. Some of this is curiosity, but a lot of it is interest in sentiment and a desire to try to quantify market emotion to give a better indicator of when to buy or sell. One can find a variety of metrics that portend to reflect this investor mood. Many of them move in nice, big, oscillating waves between fear and greed. But as anyone trying to use them as encountered, investing based on sentiment is harder in theory than practice. The first challenge, of course, is that there is little agreement in professional circles on exactly the best way to capture market emotion. Is it different responses to a regular investor survey? Is it the level of implied volatility in the market? Is it the flow of money in and out of different funds? The potential list goes on. Next, once you have an indicator, what's the right threshold to establish if it's telling you something is extreme? If you poll a thousand investors every week, maybe 70% of those investors being negative tells you the mood is sufficiently sour. But maybe the magic number is 80%, or maybe it's 60%. Defining positive or negative sentiment isn't always straightforward. Finally, there's the simple but important point that sometimes the crowd is right. Think of a long bull market like the 1990s. People were often optimistic about the stock market and correct to think so as prices kept rising. Meanwhile, people are often bearish in a bear market. We remember the dour mood that persisted throughout 2008. It certainly didn't stop stocks from going down. With all of this in mind, our research is focused on finding some ways to use sentiment measures more effectively. We think it makes sense to use a composite of different indicators, as true extremes are likely to show up across multiple approaches to measurement. Valuing both the level and direction of sentiment can be helpful. Rather than trying to catch an absolute extreme or market bottom, the best risk reward is often when sentiment is negative but improving. And sentiment is more useful to identify market lows than market peaks, as negativity and despair tend to be stronger, sharper emotions. Identifying peak optimism, at least in our work, is much harder. So don't beat yourself up if you can't find a signal that consistently flags market tops. Those ideas underlie the tools that we've built to try to turn market sentiment into signals as the age old debate around the true state of fear and greed continues throughout this year. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you. 

Inflation has continued to surprise to the upside, causing global central banks to face a difficult choice; continue to raise rates at the risk of recession, or settle in for a long spell of elevated inflation.-----Transcript-----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Chief Global Economist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives. Today, I'll be talking about the key challenges for central banks and particularly the European Central Bank. It's Thursday, June 23rd, at 3:30 p.m. in New York. Just about all conversations these days involve high inflation and monetary policy tightening. It is tough all over. Central banks all have to make harder and harder choices as inflation keeps surprising to the upside. Take the Fed. They hiked 75 basis points at their last meeting. That was 25 basis points more than was priced in just a week before the meeting. At the June European Central Bank meeting, President Lagarde also weighed in. She was clear about a 25 basis point hike in July and that the rate hike in September would be larger, presumably 50 basis points if the outlook for medium term inflation is still above target. Putting that simply, if the ECB does not lower its forecast for inflation in 2024, we should expect a 50 basis point hike in September. A lower inflation forecast faces long odds. Headline inflation in Europe will be pushed around by commodity prices. Consider that European inflation is much more non-core, that is food and energy, than it is core inflation. And for core inflation, the ECB typically looks to economic growth as the key driver, but with about a one year lag. So their forecast for 2024 inflation is going to depend on their forecast for 2023 growth. And it's just very hard to see what data we are going to get by September that's going to meaningfully lower their forecast for 2023 growth. So now the ECB has joined the ranks of central banks that are hiking more and more with the goal of slowing inflation. But they have to face the dilemma that I wrote a few pieces about back in January. At that point, I was discussing the Fed, but the same choice is there and it is stark— either cause a recession and bring inflation down in the near term or engineer a substantial slowdown, but one that is shy of a recession, and accept elevated inflation for years to come. You see, despite the typical lags of policy, if the ECB chose to engineer a recession right now, those effects would almost surely show through to growth by 2023, pulling down inflation in 2024. So why are they making this choice? On the most simple level, no central banker really wants to cause a recession if they can avoid it. And remember that euro area inflation is now heavily driven by food and energy prices. Those noncore prices are only barely related to Euro area activity. It would take a severe recession in Europe to meaningfully drive down noncore prices. And finally, reports are swirling of a new tool to ward off fragmentation in European markets. If we get a hard crash of the economy, that by itself could precipitate the market fragmentation that they're trying to avoid. So what happens next? The Governing Council is on a hiking cycle, but they want a soft landing. The problem is that we are more pessimistic than they are about Euro Area growth starting as soon as the second half of this year. With inflation currently high and their commitment to tightening to fight that inflation, we might not get the clear signals of a slowdown in the economy before it's too late. The ECB might think it is choosing the more benign path but if our forecasts are right, the risks of them hiking into a recession, even inadvertently, are clearly rising. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy this show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. 

As inflation remains top of mind from Wall Street to the White House, policy makers continue to propose possible actions to fight inflation, but will these proposals ever be enacted?-----Transcript-----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Public Policy Research and Municipal Strategy for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between U.S. public policy and financial markets. It's Wednesday, June 22nd, at 10 a.m. in New York. Main Street and Wall Street agree that inflation is a problem. And of course, Washington, DC continues to take notice. The White House and Democratic leadership continues to press publicly that they're taking inflation seriously and pursuing a variety of options to slow rising prices in the economy. This includes today's news that the White House is endorsing a plan for a gas tax holiday, which would need congressional approval. Not surprisingly, then, investors have been asking us a lot lately about policy options that have been floated in news headlines as possible inflation fighters. In short, we think many proposals will remain simply that, proposals, keeping pressure on the Fed to be the inflation fighter. Why won't most proposals be enacted? Simply put, most options on the table can't get enough votes in Congress to be enacted due to political concerns, effectiveness concerns, and sometimes both. Take the gas tax holiday proposal. Key Republican senators have already voiced opposition to the move, as have moderates in the Democratic caucus, on concerns that the holiday would have only a limited impact on prices at the pump, while steering money away from infrastructure maintenance. Accordingly, you might see the administration take some actions on its own. For example, there have been many headlines about the White House considering easing tariffs on imports from China. But in our view, any tariff reduction is likely to be temporary and small in scope, focusing on a subset of consumer goods rather than blanket tariff reductions, as administration is likely reticent to do too much on tariff reduction without a reciprocal concession from China. Given that independent economists estimate that a blanket tariff removal would only reduce inflation by a few tenths of a percent, this smaller scale action would not meaningfully impact key inflation measures like CPI. So that means the Fed remains the main inflation fighter in DC. And fight they will, in the view of our economists, who expect they will hike rates another 2% over the balance of this year in order to curb economic activity. For investors, that means a higher chance of recession, and in the view of our U.S. equity strategy team, some remaining downside for stock prices in the near term. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

As price to earnings multiples fall and inflation continues to weigh on the economy, long term earnings estimates may still be too high as the risk of a recession rises. -----Transcript-----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Tuesday, June 21st at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. Coming into the year, we had a very out of consensus view that valuations would fall at least 20% due to rising interest rates and tighter monetary policy from the Fed. We also believed earnings were at risk, given payback and demand, rising costs and inventory. With price to earnings multiples falling by 28% year to date, the de-rating process is no longer much of a call, nor is it out of consensus. Having said that, many others are still assuming much higher price to earnings multiples for year end S&P 500 price targets. In contrast, we have lowered our price to earnings targets even further as 10 year U.S. Treasury yields have exceeded our expectations to the upside. In short, the price to earnings multiple should still fall towards 14x, assuming Treasury yields and earnings estimates remain stable. Of course, these are big assumptions. At this point, a recession is no longer just a tail risk given the Fed's predicament with inflation. Indeed, this is the essence of our fire and ice narrative - the Fed having to tighten into a slowdown or worse. Our bear case for this year always assumed a recessionary outcome, but the odds were just 20%. Now they're closer to 35%, according to our economists. We would probably err a bit higher given our more negative view on the consumer and corporate profitability. From a market standpoint, this is just another reason why we think the equity risk premium could far exceed our fair value estimate of 370 basis points. Of course, the 10 year Treasury yield will not be static in a recession either, and would likely fall considerably if growth expectations plunge. For example, the equity risk premium exceeded 600 basis points during the last two recessions. We appreciate that the next recession is unlikely to be accompanied by a crisis like the housing bust in 2008, or a pandemic in 2020. Therefore, we're willing to accept a lower upside target of 500 basis points should a recession come to pass. Should the risk of recession increase to the point where it becomes the market's base case, it would also come alongside a much lower earnings per share forecast. In other words, a recession would imply a much lower trough for the S&P 500 of approximately 3000 rather than our base case of 3400 we've been using lately. As of Friday's close, our negative view is not nearly as fat of a pitch, with so much of the street now in our camp on both financial conditions and growth. Having said that, the upside is quite limited as well, making the near-term a bit of a gamble. Equity markets are very oversold, but they can stay oversold until market participants feel like the risk of recession has been extinguished or at least reduced considerably. We do not see that outcome in the near term. However, we can't rule it out either and appreciate that markets can be quite fickle in the short term on both the downside and the upside. What we can say with more certainty today versus a few months ago is that earnings estimates are too high, even in the event a recession is avoided. Our base case 3400 near-term downside target accounts for the kind of earnings risk we envision in the event a soft landing is accomplished. For us, the end game remains the same. We see a poor risk reward over the next 3 to 6 months, with recession risk rising in the face of very stubborn inflation readings. Valuations are closer to fair at this point, but hardly a bargain if earnings are likely to come down or a recession is coming. While investors have suffered quite a setback this year, we can't yet get bullish for more than just a bear market rally until recession arrives or the risk of one falls materially. At the stock level, we continue to favor late cycle defensives and companies with high operational efficiency. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show.

With so much going on in markets, some moves that may have been hot topics against a less chaotic backdrop, such as policy shifts towards shrinking central bank balance sheets, are hitting the back burner.-----Transcript-----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, June 17th, at 2 p.m. in London. There is so much going on in markets that events that would usually dominate discussions find themselves relegated. You'll emerge from an investor meeting having discussed everything from Fed policy to China's COVID response, and realize there was no time for a discussion of, say, the situation in Japan where the yen has just seen one of its sharpest declines in the last 30 years. I think that applies, in a notable way, to the conversation around central bank balance sheets. For much of the last decade, the bond buying of central banks, also known as quantitative easing, was the dominant market story. That buying is now reversing with the balance sheet of central banks in the U.S., Euro area, the UK and Japan, set to shrink by about $4 trillion between now and the end of 2023. And yet, with so much else going on, this quantitative tightening really feels like it's taking a backseat. One reason is that while the size of this balance sheet reduction is large, it is, for the moment, looking like it will be quite predictable, with central banks stating that these reductions will happen in a regular manner, almost regardless of market conditions. That's in sharp contrast to the situation in interest rates, where central bank policy has been rapidly changing, much less predictable and very dependent on incoming data. We were reminded of this again on Wednesday, when the Federal Reserve decided to raise interest rates by 75 basis points, on top of the 50 basis point rise they executed last month. In the press conference that followed Chair Powell emphasized how important incoming data would be in shaping further interest rate decisions. With every data point potentially shifting the near-term interest rate outlook, the steady decline of the balance sheet all of a sudden becomes less pressing. There is also a legitimate question of how much central bank bond purchases mattered in the first place. There's a whole branch of statistics designed to test how much of the variance of one thing, like stock prices, can be explained by changes in another thing, like central bank balance sheets. When we put the data through these rigorous tests, most of the stock market moves over the last 12 years are explained by factors other than the central bank balance sheet. And one final piece of trivia; bond prices have tended to do worse when Fed bond holdings were rising, and better when bond holdings were shrinking. That might sound counterintuitive, but consider the following. Quantitative easing usually began when the economy was weak and bond prices were already high, while quantitative tightening has occurred when the economy was strong and bond prices were already lower. It's just one more example that the balance sheet is one of many factors driving cross-asset performance. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.

With home prices hitting new highs and inventory hitting new lows, the differences between now and the last housing bubble may help ease investors' worries that the market is about to burst. Co-Heads of U.S. Securitized Products Research Jim Egan and Jay Bacow discuss.-----Transcript-----Jay Bacow: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jay Bacow, Co-Head of U.S. Securitized Products Research here at Morgan Stanley. Jim Egan: And I'm Jim Egan, the other Co-Head of U.S. Securitized Products Research. Jay Bacow: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing the path for both housing prices, housing activity and agency mortgages through the end of the year. It's Thursday, June 16th, at noon in New York. Jay Bacow: Jim, it seems like every time we come on this podcast, there's another record in the housing market. And this time it's no different. Jim Egan: Absolutely not. Home prices just set a new record, 20.6% year over year growth. They set a new month over month growth record. Affordability, when you combine that growth in home prices with the increase we've seen in mortgage rates, we've deteriorated more in the past 12 months than any year that we have on record. And a lot of that growth can be attributed to the fact that inventory levels are at their lowest level on record. Consumer attitudes toward buying homes are worse than they've been since 1982. That's not a record, but you get my point. Jay Bacow: All right. So we're setting records for home prices. We're setting records for change in affordability. With all these broken records, investors are understandably a little worried that we might have another housing bubble. What do you think? Jim Egan: Look, given the run up in housing in the 2000s and the fact that we,ve reset the record for the pace of home price growth, investors can be permitted a little anxiety. We do not think there is a bubble forming in the U.S. housing market. There are a number of reasons for that, two things I would highlight. First, the pre GFC run up in home prices, that was fueled by lax lending standards that really elevated demand to what we think were unsustainable levels. And that ultimately led to an incredible increase in defaults, where borrowers with risky mortgages were not able to refinance and their only real option at that point was foreclosures. This time around, lending standards have remained at the tight end of historical ranges, while supply has languished at all time lows. And that demand supply mismatch is what's driving this increase in prices this time around. The second reason, we talked about affordability deteriorating more over the past 12 months than any year on record. That hit from affordability is just not as widely spread as it has been in prior mortgage markets, largely because most mortgages today are fixed rate. We're not talking about adjustable rate mortgages where current homeowners can see their payments reset higher. This time around a majority of borrowers have fixed rate mortgages with very affordable payments. And so they don't see that affordability pressure. What they're more likely to experience is being locked in at current rates, much less likely to list their home for sale and exacerbating that historically tight inventory environment that we just talked about. Jay Bacow: All right. So, you don't think we're going to have another housing bubble. Things aren't going to pop. So does that mean we're going to continue to set records? Jim Egan: I wouldn't say that we're going to continue to set records from here. I think that home prices and housing activity are going to go their separate ways. Home prices will still grow, they're just going to grow at a slower pace. Home sales is where we are really going to see decreases. Those affordability pressures that we've talked about have already made themselves manifest in existing home sales, in purchase applications, in new home sales, which have seen the biggest drops. Those kinds of decreases, we think those are going to continue. That lack of inventory, the lack of foreclosures from what we believe have been very robust underwriting standards, that keeps home prices growing, even if at a slower pace. That record level we just talked about? That was 20.6% year over year. We think that slows to 10% by December of this year, 3% by December of 2023. But we're not talking about home prices falling and we're not talking about a bubble popping. Jim Egan: But with that backdrop, Jay, you cover the agency mortgage backed securities markets, a large liquid way to invest in mortgages, how would you invest in this? Jay Bacow: So, buying a home is generally the single largest investment for individuals, but you can scale that up in the agency mortgage market. It's an $8.5 trillion market where the government has underwritten the credit risk and that agency paper provides a pretty attractive way to get exposure to the housing outlook that you've described. If housing activity is going to slow, there's less supply to the market. That's just good for investors. And the recent concern around the Fed running off their balance sheet, combined with high inflation, has meant that the spread that you get for owning these bonds looks really attractive. It's well over 100 basis points on the mortgages that are getting produced today versus treasuries. It hasn't been over 100 basis points for as long as it has since the financial crisis. Jim, just in the same way that you don't think we're having another housing bubble, we don't think mortgages are supposed to be priced for financial crisis levels. Jim Egan: Jay, thanks for taking the time to talk. Jay Bacow: Great speaking with you, Jim. Jim Egan: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

With concern high over inflation and tightening Fed policy, investors looking for practical solutions may want to take another look at the municipal bond market.-----Transcript-----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Public Policy Research and Municipal Strategy for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between U.S. public policy and financial markets. It's Wednesday, June 15th, at 10 a.m. in New York. It's been a tough few days for markets. With last week's inflation data showing yet another surprisingly high reading, both stock and bond markets have been selling off. The concern is that the Fed may have to get more aggressive in hiking rates in order to bring inflation under control. That would mean slower economic growth, which is a challenge for companies and stocks, and higher interest rates, which needs to be reflected in lower bond prices and higher bond yields. Understandably, investors are looking for practical solutions. One place we continue to favor is the muni bond market. It's been a volatile performer this year, and it's true that recently bonds haven't been a haven from broader market volatility. And that bumpy performance could go on a bit longer for munis as bond yields rise to price in a more aggressive Fed path. But that should change once the Fed's intentions are better understood. Plus, the coupons of most munis are tax exempt, something that provides extra value for investors who are keeping an eye on developments in Washington, D.C., where negotiations are gaining momentum on a package to raise taxes, to pay for investments in clean energy, health care and paying down the national debt. This means an already solid taxable equivalent yield of over 5% for investors in the top tax bracket, could improve further if D.C. acts to hike taxes. Of course, the rising recession risk from the Fed raising rates may have you concerned about muni credit quality, but in our view muni credit should be quite durable even if there is a recession. By our calculation, muni sectors got more federal aid than they needed to deal with the impacts of COVID, and the sharp economic recovery since then had mostly returned muni business activity and revenue growth to pre-COVID or better levels. And even if inflation persists, history suggests this shouldn't be a system wide credit challenge. Sure, municipalities' costs will go higher, but so would their revenues. So putting it together, bonds are probably a decent spot for investors to shelter during this volatility, and we think munis stand out among your bond options. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

As central bank policy across the globe shifts from tight fiscal policy to tight monetary policy, the rising cost of capital will have long-term consequences for investors.-----Transcript-----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Graham Secker, Head of Morgan Stanley's European Equity Strategy Team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives. I'll be talking about the rising cost of capital and its implications for European equities. It's Tuesday, June the 14th, at 2 p.m. in London. As we have discussed previously, we believe that we have witnessed a paradigm shift in the macro and market backdrops over the past couple of years, swapping the secular stagnation of the last decade with a new cycle where nominal growth is both higher and more volatile. An alternative way to think about this is that the policy dynamic has shifted from an environment of loose monetary and tight fiscal policy over the last two decades, to one of looser fiscal policy, but tighter monetary policy today. If this characterization proves to be true over the coming years, the longer term consequences for investors will be profound. While this may sound somewhat grandiose, it is worth noting that global interest rates fell to a record low in this last cycle. From such an unprecedented low, even a moderate increase in borrowing costs may feel significant, and we note that we have just witnessed the largest 2 year increase in 10 year U.S. Treasury yields since the early 1980s. The fact that we are starting a new and relatively fast rate hiking cycle, at the same time as central banks are shifting from quantitative easing to quantitative tightening, further magnifies the risk for spread products such as credit or peripheral debt, both of which have underperformed materially over the last couple of months. At this stage, we think it is this dynamic that is arguably weighing most on equity markets rather than the economic impact of higher borrowing costs. When thinking through the investment implications for European equity markets of this rise in the cost of capital, we make three points in ascending order of impact. First, the consequences of higher borrowing costs are likely to produce a relatively small hit to corporate profits. While we are concerned about a significant decline in corporate margins over the coming quarters, this is predominantly due to higher raw material prices and rising labor costs. In contrast, even a doubling of the effective interest rate on corporate debt should only take around 2.5% off of total European earnings. Second, we see a more significant impact from higher capital costs on equity valuations, as price to earnings ratios have exhibited a close negative correlation to both central bank policy rates and credit spreads over time. Hence, while European equity valuations are now beginning to look reasonably attractive after their decline this year, we think risks remain skewed to the downside over the summer, given a tricky backdrop of slowing growth, high and sticky inflation and hawkish central banks. Finally, the most significant impact from higher borrowing costs will, as ever, be felt by those entities that are most levered or require access to fresh funding. At this stage, we do not expect the ongoing increase in funding costs to generate a broader systemic shock across markets. However, we do see ample scope for idiosyncratic issues to emerge in the months ahead. Logically, identifying these issues in advance primarily requires due diligence at the stock level. However, from a top down perspective, the European sectors that are most correlated to credit spreads, and or have the weakest balance sheets, include autos, banks, consumer services, food retailing, insurance, telecoms and utilities. Ultimately, the volatility within asset markets that will accompany the largest upward shift in the cost of capital in over 30 years will create lots of opportunities for investors. However, for now, we recommend patience and await a better entry point later in the year. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. 

With consumer sentiment hitting an all time low due to inflation concerns, the question investors should be asking is, are these risks to the economy properly priced into the market?-----Transcript-----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, June 13th, at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. Over time, the lion's share of stock returns is determined by earnings growth if one assumes that valuations are relatively stable. However, valuations are not stable and often hard to predict. In our experience, most investors don't spend nearly as much time trying to predict multiples as they do earnings. This is probably because it's hard to do consistently, and there are so many methodologies it's often difficult to know if you are using the right one. For equity strategists, predicting valuations is core to the job, so we spend a lot of time on it. Our methodology is fairly simple. There are just two components to our method; 10 year Treasury yields and the equity risk premium. At the end of last year, we argued the P/E at 21x was too high. From our vantage point, both ten year Treasury yields and the equity risk premium appeared to be mispriced. Treasury yields are more levered to inflation expectations and Fed policy. At year end 10 year Treasuries did not properly reflect the risk of higher inflation or the Fed's reaction to it. Today, we would argue it's not the case. In fact, 10 year Treasury yields may be pricing too much Fed tightening if growth continues to erode and recession risks increase further. In contrast to Treasury yields, the equity risk premium is largely a reflection of growth expectations. When growth is accelerating, the equity risk premium tends to be lower and vice versa. At year end, the equity risk premium is 315 basis points, well below the average of 375 basis points over the past 15 years. In short, the equity risk remaining was not reflecting the rising risks to growth that we expected coming into this year. Fast forward to today and the equity risk premium is even lower at just 300 basis points. Given the rising risk of slowing growth in earnings, this part of the price earnings ratio seems more mispriced today than 6 months ago. At the end of the day, we think 3400 represents a much better level of support for the S&P 500 and an area we would consider getting bullish. Last Friday, consumer sentiment in the U.S. hit an all time low due largely to concerns inflation is here to stay. This has been one of our greatest concerns this year with respect to demand and one of the areas we received the most pushback. We continually hear from many clients that the consumer is in such great shape due to the excess savings still available in checking accounts. However, this view does not take into account savings in stocks, bonds, cryptocurrencies and other assets, which are down significantly this year. Furthermore, while most consumers have more cash on hand than pre-COVID, that cash just isn't going as far as it used to, and that is likely to restrain discretionary spending. Finally, we think it's important to point out that the latest reading is the lowest on record, and 45% lower than during the last time the Fed embarked on such an aggressive tightening campaign, and was able to orchestrate a soft landing. In other words, the consumer was in much better shape back then, and that probably helped the economy to stabilize and avoid a recession. Let's also keep in mind that inflation was dormant in 1994 relative to today and allowed the Fed to pause, a luxury they clearly do not have now given Friday's red hot Consumer Price Index report. Bottom line, the drop in sentiment not only poses a risk to the economy and market from a demand standpoint, but coupled with Friday's CPI print keeps the Fed on a hawkish path to fight inflation. In such an environment, we continue to recommend equity investors keep a defensive bias with overweighting utilities, health care and REITs until the price or earnings expectations come down further. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show. 

As inflation continues to rise beyond expectations, the Fed is set to meet next week, leaving markets to wonder if an acceleration in rate hikes might be in store this summer.-----Transcript-----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Robert Rosner, Senior U.S. Economist for Morgan Stanley Research. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about this morning's inflation data and how that may impact Fed discussions at next week's FOMC meeting. It's Friday, June 10th, at 2 p.m. in New York. This morning, we received the Consumer Price Index data for May that showed a faster than anticipated increase in both headline and core inflation. Inflation continues to be lifted by high food and energy prices, and the combination of the two have pushed inflation up to a new high on a year over year basis, to. 8.6%. That rise in inflation reflects not just gains in food and energy prices, but extremely broad based increases under the surface, with core goods prices continuing to reaccelerate and core services prices also remaining strong, reflecting continued upside in travel related airfares and hotels. While other factors like rents and owners' equivalent rents both jumped. Rents in particular posted their fastest sequential month on month pace of increase since 1987.  That's really impo the Fed next week because this sets a tone of inflation that remains very elevated as the Fed sits down to discuss its policy. Moreover, many, including ourselves, had been expecting that the peak for inflation on a year over year basis would have been registered back in March. But today's data showed that CPI has reached a new high on a year over year basis. That raises uncertainty about the outlook for inflation. And Fed policymakers have expressed some concern about the possibility for some underlying reacceleration in inflation. We also saw at the same time that data from the University of Michigan Survey of Consumer Sentiment showed that both short and longer term household expectations for inflation have been on the rise. So the risks around inflation remain high, and as the Fed sits down next week policymakers are likely to see inflation as remaining a top of mind topic. We have been expecting the Fed to pursue a series of 50 basis point rate hikes as the FOMC seeks to tighten financial conditions in order to slow demand and eventually slow inflation. And markets after the inflation data moved very quickly to price in an even more hawkish path for Fed policy, with some risk that a 50 basis point rate hike might not be enough and that there might be some chance that the Fed could deliver a 75 basis point rate hike at some point over the summer. We'll hear from policymakers next week as to whether or not an acceleration in the pace of rate hikes is something that they see as an attractive option. But the bottom line here is the Fed's work is far from done. Inflation remains high, incoming data suggests that growth has moderated, but has not slowed enough to feel confident that inflation is likely to follow. It's going to be a tricky summer for Fed policymakers, and a tricky summer for data watchers as well, because each incremental inflation data point is likely to inform how Fed policymakers are likely to react and what that path for rate hikes is likely to look like over the summer and into the fall. Thank you for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. 

While many investors may be curious to know what other investors are thinking about current and future market trends, there’s a lot more to the calculation of investor sentiment than one might think.-----Transcript-----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Thursday, June 9th, at 6 p.m. in London. I've found that investors are almost always interested in what other types of investors are doing. Some of this is curiosity, but a lot of it is interest in sentiment and a desire to try to quantify market emotion to give a better indicator of when to buy or sell. One can find a variety of metrics that portend to reflect this investor mood. Many of them move in nice, big, oscillating waves between fear and greed. But as anyone trying to use them as encountered, investing based on sentiment is harder in theory than practice. The first challenge, of course, is that there is little agreement in professional circles on exactly the best way to capture market emotion. Is it different responses to a regular investor survey? Is it the level of implied volatility in the market? Is it the flow of money in and out of different funds? The potential list goes on. Next, once you have an indicator, what's the right threshold to establish if it's telling you something is extreme? If you poll a thousand investors every week, maybe 70% of those investors being negative tells you the mood is sufficiently sour. But maybe the magic number is 80%, or maybe it's 60%. Defining positive or negative sentiment isn't always straightforward. Finally, there's the simple but important point that sometimes the crowd is right. Think of a long bull market like the 1990s. People were often optimistic about the stock market and correct to think so as prices kept rising. Meanwhile, people are often bearish in a bear market. We remember the dour mood that persisted throughout 2008. It certainly didn't stop stocks from going down. With all of this in mind, our research is focused on finding some ways to use sentiment measures more effectively. We think it makes sense to use a composite of different indicators, as true extremes are likely to show up across multiple approaches to measurement. Valuing both the level and direction of sentiment can be helpful. Rather than trying to catch an absolute extreme or market bottom, the best risk reward is often when sentiment is negative but improving. And sentiment is more useful to identify market lows than market peaks, as negativity and despair tend to be stronger, sharper emotions. Identifying peak optimism, at least in our work, is much harder. So don't beat yourself up if you can't find a signal that consistently flags market tops. Those ideas underlie the tools that we've built to try to turn market sentiment into signals as the age old debate around the true state of fear and greed continues throughout this year. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you. 

Under the combined stresses of dry weather, COVID, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, agricultural prices are spiking, and many countries are scrambling to combat the consequences to the global economy. Morgan Stanley Chief Global Economist Seth Carpenter explains.-----Transcript-----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Chief Global Economist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the surge in agricultural prices and some of the implications for the global economy. It's Wednesday, June 8th, at 1:30 p.m. in New York. Agricultural prices have jumped this year, and that surge has become one of the key topics of the moment, both on a domestic level and a global scale. The Russian invasion of Ukraine clearly contributed significantly to the runup in prices, but even before the war, dry weather and COVID-19 had already started to threaten the global food supply. Rising food prices pose many risks, particularly for lower income people and lower income countries. Even though I'm going to be talking mostly about cold economics today, the human toll of all of this is absolutely critical to keep in mind. In fact, we see the surge in food prices as a risk to the global economic recovery. When prices for necessities like food go up, lower income households just have to spend more on food. And that increased spending on food means they've got less money to spend on discretionary items. To put some numbers on how we got here, global food prices have surged about 66% since the start of COVID-19, and about 12% since the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Dry weather had already affected crops, especially in Latin America and India. And remember, fertilizer is tightly linked to the petrochemical industry, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine has complicated that situation, leaving fertilizer prices at all time highs. So what's been the response? Governments across developed markets and emerging markets have started enacting measures to try to contain their domestic prices. In the developed market world, these measures include attempts to boost domestic production so as to relieve some of the pressures. While in EM, some governments have opted to cut food taxes or put in place price controls. In addition, some governments have also imposed bans on exports of certain agricultural products. The side effect, though, is getting more trade disruptions in already tight commodity markets. Against this backdrop, there are two key consequences. First, consumption spending is likely to be lower than it would have been. And second, inflation is likely to rise because of the rise in food prices. And if we look at it across the globe, emerging markets really look more vulnerable to these shocks than developed markets. First, in terms of consumption spending, our estimates suggest that the recent rise in food prices might decrease real consumption spending throughout this year by about 1% in the U.S. and about 3% in Mexico, all else equal. Now, that said, not every component of spending gets affected uniformly. Historical data analysis suggests that the drop is heavily focused in durable goods spending, like for motor vehicles. And EMs are more exposed because they've got a higher share of food consumption in their overall consumption basket. Now, when it comes to inflation, we think that the recent spike in food prices, if it lasts for the rest of this year, it's probably going to add about 1.2 percentage points to headline Consumer Price Index inflation in emerging markets, and about 6/10 of a percentage point increase to inflation in DM. These are really big increases. Now why should the inflationary push be higher in emerging markets? First, just arithmetically, food represents a larger share of CPI in emerging markets than it does in DM, something like 24% versus 17%. And second, in emerging markets, inflation expectations tend to be less well anchored, and so a rise in prices in a critical component like food tends to spread out to lots of other components in inflation as well. So what's the bottom line here? Growth is slowing globally. Inflation is high. The surge in food prices is going to increase the risks for both of those. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy this show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.

As some provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act start to kick in and others are set to expire, the future of U.S. tax rates may hinge on the results of the upcoming midterm elections. Head of U.S. Public Policy Research and Municipal Strategy Michael Zezas and Head of Global Valuation, Accounting and Tax Todd Castagno discuss.-----Transcript-----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of U.S. Public Policy Research and Municipal Strategy for Morgan Stanley. Todd Castagno: And I'm Todd Castagno, Head of Global Valuation, Accounting and Tax for Morgan Stanley Research. Michael Zezas: And on this special edition of the podcast, we'll be talking about the 2022 U.S. midterm elections and the potential impact on individual and corporate taxes. It's Tuesday, June 7th, at 10:00 AM in New York. Michael Zezas: If you're a regular listener, you may have heard my conversation with our chief U.S. Economist, Ellen Zentner, last week about the economic implications of this year's midterm elections. This week, Todd Castagno and I are going to continue the midterm election topic because individual and corporate taxes could be set to increase starting this year. But the question is how high, when and what the impact from the election could be. So, Todd, you and I have talked about this and we agree that taxes are likely headed higher for both individuals and corporations. Maybe you can tell us why that is. Todd Castagno: Thanks, Michael. And it's really a driving function of how the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was passed. And that's because Congress used the budget reconciliation legislation, which is primarily temporary. So, for instance, the individual provisions generally all expire at the end of 2025. And business tax increases have already started to phase in this year. So extension of the status quo for both businesses and individuals really is a function of the political landscape heading into midterms and then the next presidential election. Michael Zezas: Okay. So let's start with the individual taxes. Maybe you can name some provisions set to expire and what the changes would be. Todd Castagno: So Michael, let's first provide an overview of what the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act did for individuals. First, it reduced individual tax rates. Second, it almost doubled the standard deduction, meaning fewer taxpayers require itemized deductions. It provided a generous 20% deduction for small businesses, and pass-through businesses. It provided a much more generous child tax care credit, that's also refundable. And then the alternative minimum tax was reduced, so fewer taxpayers were caught in that tax. All these provisions are set to expire at the end of 2025 if Congress does not act. Michael Zezas: Let's shift over to corporate taxes. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act lowered the corporate tax rate to 21% in 2017. Is there a chance we could see that climb? And to what level? Todd Castagno: That's true. One of the only permanent items of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was to reduce the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%. However, starting this year, there are other tax increases within the corporate tax system. For instance, the requirement to amortize R&D costs over 5 years starts this year. That will primarily affect technology companies. And then there's elimination of favorable media expensing for capital expenditures, that starts to phase out next year, and that primarily would impact manufacturing and industrial companies. And then there's more restrictive deductibility of interest expense. So these in conjunction, will raise tax obligations. And it really depends on the political climate of how these get extended, and if that 21% corporate rate may nudge higher. Michael Zezas: Todd. Last October, you and I talked in the podcast about a two pillar tax overhaul which would come out of global tax reform. Nine months later, how do you see that playing out? Todd Castagno: So there's an ongoing effort to A, change the mix of which countries get to tax corporate income and B, the establishment of a global minimum corporate tax rate of 15%. The wheels are still in motion, but let's say the bus has slowed down. For instance, in the U.S., the required reforms are part of the build back better legislation, which has recently stalled. And then in Europe, nearly unanimous agreement, but they're still one or two states that are not fully on board. Todd Castagno: Michael, I want to turn it back to you. Investors and policymakers clearly have some worries about inflation risks. How will that factor into what kinds of effective tax increases would be palatable for lawmakers? Michael Zezas: Sure. Policymakers in Washington, D.C. have become really sensitive to inflation. And so tax increases now serve a purpose as a tool for Democrats to achieve some of their spending goals, like investing in clean energy, but doing so without contributing to inflation by increasing government deficits. So given that if Democrats manage to get a new spending bill focused on energy across the finish line, the tax increases will likely need to match that spending. So that keeps corporate tax increases and tax increases focused on high income earners on the table. Todd Castagno: Finally, before we close, I'm curious if you've heard anything from our economist or equity strategist on what the impact will be on growth, or corporate bottom lines, if some or all of these expirations occur? Michael Zezas: Well, tax increases mean higher costs for companies and households. So this becomes one of several factors that our equity strategists say will contribute to the crimping of the bottom line of U.S. companies. And they don't think that's in the price of the stock market quite yet. And so what that ultimately means is that the volatility we've been experiencing in markets is something they think is going to continue. Michael Zezas: Todd, thank you so much for talking. Todd Castagno: Great talking with you, Michael. Michael Zezas: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show. 

While markets look forward to an acceleration in earnings growth and a subsequent rise in valuations over the next year, there are risks to this outlook that investors may want to consider before abandoning a defensive position.-----Transcript-----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, June 6th, at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. Over the past several months, we've been highlighting the declining trend in earnings revision breath. However, it's been a slow moving train and we're barely below zero at this point. This is why forward 12 month earnings estimates are still grinding higher for the S&P 500, and one reason why stocks have rallied over the past few weeks. But now valuations have risen back to 17.5x earnings, despite a rising 10 year Treasury yield. In order for this to make sense, however, one must take the view that earnings growth will reaccelerate later this year. Time will tell, but we think S&P 500 earnings growth will slow further rather than reaccelerate. Some have argued these revisions were fully priced, with the major averages down more than 20% year to date. In short, the earnings risk is now understood and the market is looking forward to better growth next year. In the absence of further revisions in the near term, that view can hold up for now. However, if earnings revisions don't reaccelerate, we think the price is too high. This is why we think it could be difficult for the equity market to make much upward progress this summer or fall from current levels. Either the price needs to come down to reflect the further earnings risk we foresee or the earnings need to fall. We think both will happen over the course of the second and third quarter earnings season as companies come to the confessional one by one. In the absence of a recession or a shock like the COVID lockdowns, negative earnings revisions typically take longer than they should, and this time is likely to be no different. Therefore, we remain open minded to the idea of stocks hanging around current levels and even rallying further in the near term, especially if there is some kind of pause or cease fire in the Russia Ukraine war. However, even if that were to happen, we don't think this reverses the fire and ice that is now well-established but incomplete. Bottom line, the bear market rally that began a few weeks ago can continue for a few more weeks until the Fed makes it crystal clear they remain hawkish and earnings revisions fall well into negative territory. That combination should ultimately take the S&P 500 down towards our 3400 target by mid to late August. As we've been highlighting all year, equity investors should be more focused on single stocks and relative opportunities across sectors. In that regard, real estate has seen the strongest earnings revisions over the past 4 weeks. Food, beverage and tobacco, commercial and professional services and materials have also seen a positive change in revisions. Finally, capital goods and the overall industrial sector have fared relatively well over the past 4 weeks, as their absolute revisions have remained flat. The weakest revisions have come from consumer and tech industry groups, two areas we remain underweight. Food and staples retailing revisions have collapsed over the past 4 weeks, as concerns over cost pressures on top of already thin margins hit the space. Consumer discretionary has also continued to see weakness in revisions over the past 4 weeks, despite some modest relief more recently over the past 2 weeks. Bottom line, U.S. stocks appear in the midst of a bear market rally that could run a few weeks longer. The Nasdaq and small cap indices will outperform under that view in the short term. However, we remain defensively positioned into the fall when a more durable low in equity markets is likely to coincide with a bottom in earnings growth. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show.

Original Release on May 17th, 2022: As we forecast the remainder of an already uncertain 2022, new questions have emerged around economic data, inflation and the potential for a recession. Chief Cross Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets and Chief Global Economist Seth Carpenter discuss.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets. Morgan Stanley's Chief Cross-Asset Strategist. Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Chief Global Economist. Andrew Sheets: And today on the podcast, we'll be talking about our outlook for strategy and markets and the challenges they may face over the coming months. It's Tuesday, May 17th, at 4 p.m. in London. Seth Carpenter: And it's 11 a.m. in New York. Andrew Sheets: So Seth, the global Morgan Stanley Economic and Strategy Team have just completed our mid-year outlook process. And, you know, this is a big collaborative effort where the economists think about what the global economy will look like over the next 12 months, and the strategists think about what that could mean for markets. So as we talk about that outlook, I think the economy is the right place to start. As you're looking across the global economy and thinking about the insights from across your team, how do you think the global economy will look over the next 12 months and how is that going to be different from what we've been seeing? Seth Carpenter: So I will say, Andrew, that we titled our piece, the economics piece, slowing or stopping with a question mark, because I think there is a great deal of uncertainty out there about where the economy is going to go over the next six months, over the next 12 months. So what are we looking at as a baseline? Sharp deceleration, but no recession. And I say that with a little bit of trepidation because we also try to put out alternative scenarios, the way things could be better, the way things could be worse. And I have to say, from where I'm sitting right now, I see more ways for the global economy to be worse than the global economy to be better than our baseline scenario. Andrew Sheets: So Seth, I want to dig into that a little bit more because we're seeing, you know, more and more people in the market talk about the risk of a slowdown and talk about the risk of a recession. And yet, you know, it's also hard to ignore the fact that a lot of the economic data looks very good. You know, we have one of the lowest unemployment rates that we've seen in the U.S. in some time. Wage growth is high, spending activity all looks quite high and robust. So, what would drive growth to slow enough where people could really start to think that a recession is getting more likely?Seth Carpenter: So here's how I think about it. We've been coming into this year with a fair amount of momentum, but not a perfectly pristine outlook on the economy. If you take the United States, Q1, GDP was actually negative quarter on quarter. Now, there are a lot of special exceptions there, inventories were a big drag, net exports were a big drag. Underlying domestic spending in the U.S. held up reasonably solidly. But the fact that we had a big drag in the U.S. from net exports tells you a little bit about what's going on around the rest of the world. If you think about what's going on in Europe, we feel that the economy in the eurozone is actually quite precarious. The Russian invasion of Ukraine presents a clear and critical risk to the European economy. I mean, already we've seen a huge jump in energy prices, we've seen a huge jump in food prices and all of that has got to weigh on consumer spending, especially for consumers at the bottom end of the income distribution. And what we see in China is these wave after wave of COVID against the policy of COVID zero means that we're going to have both a hit to demand from China and some disruption to supply. Now, for the moment, we think the disruption to supply is smaller than the hit to demand because there is this closed loop approach to manufacturing. But nevertheless, that shock to China is going to hurt the global economy. Andrew Sheets: So Seth, the other major economic question that's out there is inflation, and you know where it's headed and what's driving it. So I was hoping you could talk a little bit about what our forecasts for inflation look like going forward. Seth Carpenter: Our view right now is that inflation is peaking or will be peaking soon. I say that again with a fair amount of caution because that's been our view for quite some time, and then we get these additional surprises. It's clear that in many, many economies, a huge amount of the inflation that we are seeing is coming from energy and from food. Now energy prices and food prices are not likely to fall noticeably any time soon. But after prices peak, if they go sideways from there, the inflationary impulse ends up starting to fade away and so we think that's important. We also think, the COVID zero policy in China notwithstanding, that there will be some grudging easing of supply chain frictions globally, and that's going to help bring down goods inflation as well over time. So we think inflation is high, we think inflation will stay high, but we think that it's roughly peaked and over the balance of this year and into next year it should be coming down.Andrew Sheets: As you think about central bank policy going forward, what do you think it will look like and do you think it can get back to, quote, normal? Seth Carpenter: I will say, when it comes to monetary policy, that's a question we want to ask globally. Right now, central banks globally are generically either tight or tightening policy. What do I mean by that? Well, we had a lot of EM central banks in Latin America and Eastern Europe that had already started to hike policy a lot last year, got to restrictive territory. And for those central banks, we actually see them starting to ease policy perhaps sometimes next year. For the rest of EM Asia, they're on the steady grind higher because even though inflation had started out being lower in the rest of EM Asia than in the developed market world, we are starting to see those inflationary pressures now and they're starting to normalize policy. And then we get to the developed market economies. There's hiking going on, there's tightening of policy led by the Fed who's out front. What does that mean about getting back to an economy like we had before COVID? One of the charts that we put in the Outlook document has the path for the level of GDP globally. And you can clearly see the huge drop off in the COVID recession, the rapid rebound that got us most of the way, but not all the way back to where we were before COVID hit. And then the question is, how does that growth look as we get past the worst of the COVID cycle? Six months ago, when we did the same exercise, we thought growth would be able to be strong enough that we would get our way back to that pre-COVID trend. But now, because supply has clearly been constrained because of commodity prices, because of labor market frictions, monetary policy is trying to slow aggregate demand down to align itself with this restricted supply. And so what that means is, in our forecast at least, we just never get back to that pre-COVID trend line. Seth Carpenter: All right, Andrew, but I've got a question to throw back at you. So the interplay between economics and markets is really uncertain right now. Where do you think we could be wrong? Could it be that the 3%, ten-year rate that we forecast is too low, is too high? Where do you think the risks are to our asset price forecasts? Andrew Sheets: Yeah, let me try to answer your question directly and talk about the interest rate outlook, because we are counting on interest rates consolidating in the U.S. around current levels. And our thinking is partly based on that economic outlook. You know, I think where we could be wrong is there's a lot of uncertainty around, you know, what level of interest rate will slow the economy enough to balance demand and supply, as you just mentioned. And I think a path where U.S. interest rates for, say, ten year treasuries are 4% rather than 3% like they are today, I think that's an environment where actually the economy is a little bit stronger than we expect and the consumer is less impacted by that higher rate. And it's going to take a higher rate for people to keep more money in savings rather than spending it in the economy and potentially driving that inflation. So I think the path to higher rates and in our view does flow through a more resilient consumer. And those higher rates could mean the economy holds up for longer but markets still struggle somewhat, because those higher discount rates that you can get from safe government bonds mean people will expect, mean people will expect a higher interest rate on a lot of other asset classes. In short, we think the risk reward here for bonds is more balanced. But I think the yield move so far this year has been surprising, it's been historically extreme, and we have to watch out for scenarios where it continues. Seth Carpenter: Okay. That's super helpful. But another channel of transmission of monetary policy comes through exchange rates. So the Fed has clearly been hiking, they've already done 75 basis points, they've lined themselves up to do 50 basis points at at least the next two meetings. Whereas the ECB hasn't even finished their QE program, they haven't started to raise interest rates yet. The Bank of Japan, for example, still at a really accommodative level, and we've seen both of those currencies against the dollar move pretty dramatically. Are we in one of those normal cycles where the dollar starts to rally as the Fed begins to hike, but eventually peaks and starts to come off? Or could we be seeing a broader divergence here? Andrew Sheets: Yeah. So I think this is to your point about a really interesting interplay between markets and Federal Reserve policy, because what the Fed is trying to do is it's trying to slow demand to bring it back in line with what the supply of things in the economy can provide at at current prices rather than it at higher prices, which would mean more inflation. And there's certainly an important interest rate part to that slowing of demand story. There's a stock market part of the story where if somebody's stock portfolio is lower, maybe they're, again, a little bit less inclined to spend money and that could slow the economy. But the currency is also a really important element of it, because that's another way that financial markets can feed back into the real economy and slow growth. And if you know you're an American company that is an exporter and the dollar is stronger, you likely face tougher competition against overseas sellers. And that acts as another headwind to the economy. So we think the dollar strengthens a little bit, you know, over the next month or two, but ultimately does weaken as the market starts to think enough is priced into the Fed. We're not going to get more Federal Reserve interest rates than are already implied by the market, and that helps tamp down some of the dollar strength that we've been seeing. Andrew Sheets: And Seth thanks for taking the time to talk. Seth Carpenter: Andrew, it's been great talking to you. Andrew Sheets: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today. 

In the years since the Global Financial Crisis, central bank policy has been supportive and predictable. But as the economic backdrop changes, shifts in policy will come with risks and rewards.-----Transcript-----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Thursday, June 2nd, at 2 p.m. in London. The period that followed the global financial crisis was filled with paradoxes. It was a period of serially disappointing economic growth, but exceptional asset class returns. Wealth exploded in relation to the economy, while capital investment withered. It was a period of such fragility that it demanded enormous policy support, yet produced remarkably consistent patterns of performance. For example, in 9 of the last 12 years, growth outperformed value, bonds outperformed cash and stocks outperformed commodities. That consistency in performance was mirrored by consistency in the economy. Generally speaking, 2010 through 2021 saw low inflation, weak growth and central bank policy that was both supportive and predictable. All of these trends are changing. Year to date, commodities have outperformed stocks, cash has outperformed bonds, and value has outperformed growth. The economic backdrop is also different; growth and inflation are high, capital investment is strong and global central bank policy has been more restrictive and less predictable. These shifts have risks, but consider the alternative. Over the last decade, it was common to hear investors worry about the bogged down state of the global economy, with weak growth that required large monetary policy support as far as the eye could see. Low growth and low rates clearly were not optimal. However, central banks are now adjusting their strategy. It's easy to argue that policy stayed too accommodative for too long. But hindsight is cheap and easy. What matters now is that policy is normalizing in a significant way. More importantly, these shifts are accomplishing central bank goals. Markets assume that central banks in the US, the eurozone and Australia can raise interest rates further without material economic declines. Inflation expectations are now falling, the housing market is cooling and credit risk premiums are back near the long run average, all the while labor markets in the US and Europe remain strong. In short, there is a lot of talk about whether central banks are making a mistake, especially given the recent market volatility. But looking at the results overall, we suspect central banks are reasonably happy with how things are going so far. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.

Looking back on the 2016 and 2020 elections, it is clear that elections can have a significant impact on the U.S. economic outlook. The question is whether the coming midterm elections have any meaningful implications. Head of U.S. Public Policy Research and Municipal Strategy Michael Zezas and Chief U.S. Economist Ellen Zentner discuss.-----Transcript-----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of U.S. Public Policy Research and Municipal Strategy for Morgan Stanley. Ellen Zentner: And I'm Ellen Zentner, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Michael Zezas: And on this special edition of the podcast, we'll be talking about the 2022 U.S. midterm elections and the potential impact on markets and the economy. It's Wednesday, June 1st, at 10 a.m. in New York. Ellen Zentner: Michael, I'm going to start us off here because 13 states have now completed their primaries ahead of the midterm elections. And as our key Beltway observer, I'd love to get your initial impressions. There's a fair amount of belief that Democrats will have a difficult time maintaining majorities in both houses of Congress and maybe some investor complacency around this sort of outcome. So what are you hearing from investors and how should they be thinking about the midterms? Michael Zezas: Yeah. I think the word complacency is the correct word to use here. I think in some ways this election hasn't gotten as much attention as it should because in prior elections there was a big macro issue at play, whether it be tax cuts and trade policy in 2016, or in 2020 whether or not another tranche of COVID stimulus aid could get approved based on the election outcome. This election, we think the outcomes will really drive more sectoral impacts. So whether or not tech regulation becomes possible or regulation around cryptocurrency, or could there be a path toward spending more money on renewables and traditional energy exploration. And then, of course, corporate taxes. And then when you couple that with polls and other items suggesting that Republicans are very likely to take control of one or more chambers of Congress, it's easy to put this issue aside and become complacent about it. But Ellen, this focus on the micro doesn't necessarily mean that the outcome doesn't matter for the macro, i.e., the U.S. economic outlook. Can we look back a bit to some prior elections and how they changed the trajectory of your economic outlook? Ellen Zentner: So, you know, I would start with 2016 where we had a Republican sweep and that led to the Tax Cut and Jobs Act being passed. It was a significant increase in the fiscal deficit and a good deal of stimulus to the economy. And so we really saw that bear out in 2017 where you already had a late cycle dynamic. At the time we called it ill timed policy, where you're throwing stimulus at the economy, when the economy doesn't really need it, you really want to do the majority of your fiscal stimulus when you're actually in a downturn. Trade policy then followed. And of course, late in 2018 started to really bite the global economy. And that's when we saw the Fed also move,v to the sidelines and start cutting rates because they saw a big slowdown in the global economy that was also hitting the U.S. economy. So fiscal policy there had both an uplifting effect and a depressing effect in the outlook. And then I would point to 2020 where the election outcome really opened the door for further fiscal stimulus related to COVID. So we had already done rounds of significant fiscal stimulus, but then in a Democratic sweep, you had two further rounds of fiscal stimulus related to COVID. And so that also had a very big effect on shaping the economy in terms of the excess savings that households were building up and the amount of excess money in the economy. And so I think those are the two best examples, of course, the two most recent examples. Michael Zezas: So a common thread between 2016 and 2020 was that the outcome had one party in control of both chambers of Congress as well as the White House. And it's long been part of our framework that one party control is a prerequisite for Congress providing proactive fiscal aid to the economy. So let's say the conventional thinking about this election is correct and the Republicans pick up control of one or both chambers of Congress. Then we'd expect that Congress would be more reactive to economic conditions than proactive, basically, that the economy would have to demonstrably worsen before you'd see Congress deliver aid. Would that shift in dynamic mean anything to your US economic outlook? Ellen Zentner: I mean, our baseline outlook fiscal policy is really not a big factor. The biggest factor coming from fiscal policy has already passed. So late last year we passed a significant infrastructure spending bill and while at the time that had a market impact, it doesn't really have an economic impact until about four quarters later when the bulk of those funds hit the economy. And so that's something that starts to lift growth in the fourth quarter of this year, we estimated by about 3/10 lift to GDP from those funds going out. Otherwise, in our baseline outlook, fiscal policy is just not a big factor. I think when we think about our bear case where we actually have a recession, that would be the first chance for fiscal policy to really kick in meaningfully. But even there, because we don't expect the downturn to be very deep, we expect nothing more than, say, the automatic stabilizers that typically go in to support the economy when jobless claims are rising, and the unemployment rate is rising and other economic factors are weakening. Finally, Michael, I want to ask you about election night and the days that follow. And I'm going to ask this because uncertainty around election outcomes also can impact the economy near term. So how likely is it we'll see the same sort of delays in vote tallies that we saw in 2020?. Michael Zezas: Yeah. I think investors should be on guard for a very similar time frame. The problem that drove this delayed tally in 2020 was the growth in use of vote by mail, and that really hasn't changed or is unlikely to change in our view. And of course, the problem is voting by mail, those ballots get tallied separately and sometimes later, as opposed to the machine votes which get tallied much quicker on election night. And like last time, it seems that Democrats tend to use vote by mail more than Republicans. So it creates this dynamic where on election night, initial leads could be misleading and you have to wait until the final votes are tallied in order to understand what the true margin is. So investors should prepare to wait a few days to fully understand, particularly if this is a close election, who is going to control the House of Representatives and who is going to control the Senate. That could create some volatile moments in the parts of the market that are most sensitive to these outcomes. Again, that's going to be sectors that are sensitive to corporate tax changes, tech regulation, crypto regulation and energy spending. Michael Zezas: Ellen, thanks so much for taking the time to talk with me. Ellen Zentner: As always, great talking with you, Michael. Michael Zezas: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show. 

While there continues to be turbulence in many sectors, such as energy and food, some Asia and Emerging Markets may fare better than others through the second half of an already hectic 2022.-----Transcript-----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jonathan Garner, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia and Emerging Markets Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about our mid-year outlook for Asia and Emerging Markets. It's Tuesday, May the 31st at 8 p.m. in Hong Kong. In our mid-year outlook, our advice was to stick with the markets and sectors which have performed well already this year. These are in the main plays on high energy, materials and food prices. In our coverage, this means commodity exporters including Australia, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia, which we have been overweight for some time. We also added another commodity exporter, Brazil, to this overweight group and reiterated our overweight on energy and materials. Despite outperformance, we continue to encounter skepticism that these markets and sectors can continue to perform. And this is mainly due to concerns over global growth, and in particular growth in China. Certainly, it's true that energy and materials tend to perform well late on in the cycle, whereas I.T hardware, semiconductors and consumer discretionary tend to do well coming out of recession. And it's also true that the Chinese economy is weak right now, with data showing a considerable slowdown in April and May. And that is a key reason why we remain cautious on China equities themselves. But we think the combination of underinvestment in the prior cycle in supply and the Russia-Ukraine conflict keep the commodity markets tight for the foreseeable future. The pattern of earnings revisions confirms our thesis. Analysts are upgrading numbers for stocks in Australia, Brazil, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia, in some cases at an accelerating pace. Whilst they’re downgrading for China, Korea and Taiwan, which are manufacturing exporting and commodity importing markets, Japan is slightly different, with balanced earnings revisions as corporate margins are helped by the recent trend to a weaker yen, amongst other factors. Hence, thus far, for some key emerging markets, notably Brazil and Indonesia, their commodity producing and exporting characteristics are offsetting, both from a currency and equity market perspective, the traditionally negative impact on growth from a stronger U.S. dollar and monetary policy tightening by the U.S. Federal Reserve. In time, this pronounced pattern of earnings dispersion may reverse and we are on the lookout for a trend reversal. This could be driven by factors like a change in COVID management approach in China or cessation of the conflict in Ukraine. For the time being though, we recommend keeping things simple in turbulent times. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. 

So far this year's economic story has been dominated by inflation and central bank policy, but as that landscape changes, is it time to shift focus back towards growth?-----Transcript-----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, May 27th at 2 p.m. in London. 2022 has given investors a lot to chew on. But out of the many developments of this year, one really stands out. It's inflation and the impact that high inflation has had on central bank policy. If you had to pick a defining economic trend in the last 40 years, it was probably the steady moderation of inflation. Then, if you had to pick a defining trend of the last decade, it was the issue of inflation being unusually low, a symptom of weak growth that warranted major central bank support. This year, the story changed. Rising prices started to be driven by strong demand that outstripped available supply, rather than COVID related disruptions. The persistence of these rising prices caught central banks and professional forecasters by surprise. Central bank policy then shifted rapidly, a shift that drove bond yields higher, market valuations lower, and defined much of the market's performance year to date. But now this story may be changing again, away from inflation and back towards growth. After rocketing higher over the first five months of the year, Morgan Stanley's economists do expect U.S. inflation to moderate for the rest of 2022. Some of this is that we're passing the peak rate of change, recall that on a year over year basis, prices today are being compared to May of 2021, a time when the U.S. vaccination rate was still low and activity was a long ways from being back to normal. We're also seeing encouraging signs that some of the worst disruption to supply chains are easing. Fewer ships are sitting off of U.S. ports, unloaded. The cost of freight is declining. Many retailers are now reporting plenty of inventory. And don't just take our word for it. Market based estimates of future inflation have been declining, in both the U.S. and Europe, over the last month. If this trend of moderating inflation can hold, there are some important implications. First, at a very simple but very important level, inflation that is high but falling, is much less frightening to the market than inflation that's high, but rising. This should help reduce the market's fear about a more extreme, 1970's style scenario. Second, it suggests that expectations of future central bank interest rates don't need to rise much further. That, in turn, could help bond yields stabilize, especially in the U.S. And more stable bond yields could help higher quality parts of the fixed income market, like mortgages and municipal bonds, that tend to be very sensitive to that interest rate volatility. The flip side is that as markets focus less on inflation, they will likely focus more on growth, where Morgan Stanley's economists see a sharp deceleration. While short term bounces are possible, we'd like to see more conservative estimates for earnings before assuming that the market's challenges are truly behind it. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you. 

With growth slowing and the Fed focused on fighting inflation, investors should note that the outlook for government bonds depends on more than just central bank policy.-----Transcript-----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about global macro trends and how investors can interpret these trends for rates and currency markets. It's Thursday, May 26th, at 11 a.m. in New York. For government bond markets, the start to 2022 will go down in the history books. Since the start of the year, central banks have delivered changes to monetary policies and associated forward guidance. And as a result, government bond markets have had their worst start to the year in decades. The repricing in markets ultimately came as a result of central banks surprising expectations among economists and market participants alike. Heading into the year, our economists thought that the Federal Reserve would continue to buy bonds well into 2022 and that it wouldn't be ready to raise policy rates until 2023. Since then, however, the Fed has stopped its asset purchases, announced plans to shrink its balance sheet starting in June and has hiked short term rates by 75 basis points already. Our economists now expect the Fed to deliver two more 50 basis point rate hikes this year, then downshift to a series of 25 basis point moves. At the end of the year, they see the Fed funds target range at 2.5% to 2.75%, and the Fed's balance sheet on its way to $6.5 trillion. However, investors should note that the outlook for government bonds depends on more than just central bank policies. For example, projected government deficits and related financing needs will decline substantially this year, and more fully in 2023. In addition, risks to global growth skew to the downside already. And as monetary policies tighten, downside risks to growth, and eventually inflation, will increase. These conditions, which traditionally support government bonds, factor into our view for how yields will evolve over the next 12 months. We expect U.S. Treasury yields to move higher through 2023, but not materially so. A continued focus on above target inflation should keep the Fed marching towards a neutral level for policy this year. Our economists anticipate a front loaded hiking cycle, with early increases in the Fed funds rate being more important than the potential for later ones. With this Fed forecast, we expect front end yields to trace market implied forward yields, largely consistent with two year Treasury yields reaching 3.25% by the end of the year. In contrast, demand from investors looking to hedge risks to a weaker outcome for global growth will likely show up in the longer end of the Treasury curve. We think the ten year yield will end the year near 3%, which is a level we were at not that long ago. As a result, we're forecasting an inverted yield curve at year end. With inflation remaining high and growth slowing, discussions of stagflation or outright recession should continue to lead investor debate this year. And ultimately, that should limit the degree to which Treasury yields rise into year end. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show.

Stress on supply chains has driven a slowdown in globalization, but there are also investment opportunities emerging, particularly in Asia. Head of Public Policy Research and Municipal Strategy Michael Zezas and Asia and Emerging Markets Equity Strategist Daniel Blake discuss.-----Transcript-----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Public Policy Research and Municipal Strategy for Morgan Stanley. Daniel Blake: And I'm Daniel Blake from Morgan Stanley's Asia and Emerging Markets Equity Strategy Team. Michael Zezas: And on this episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll continue our discussion of a theme that's been rightfully getting a lot of attention - "slowbalization", slowing globalization within an ever more multipolar world. It's Wednesday, May 25th, at 8 a.m. in New York. Michael Zezas: So Daniel, over the last few years, Morgan Stanley Research has published a lot of collaborative work across regions and sectors on the increasingly important themes of slowbalization and the multipolar world. But while in the past we focused more on the costs and challenges of this transition, today we want to put a greater emphasis on the opportunities from this theme, particularly in Asia. Investors are acutely aware that one of the key drivers behind this slowbalization trend is the tremendous disruption to the supply chain. You've been publishing a supply chain choke point tracker tool, so maybe let's start there with an update on the current state of supply chains in Asia and what your most recent tracker is indicating. Daniel Blake: Thanks, Mike. In short, this is showing that the supply chain in general remains very stressed. And in aggregate, we have not seen any material improvement over the last six weeks. Now, when we look at the aggregate measure put together by our economists, the Morgan Stanley Supply Chain Conditions Index, we are seeing that conditions are still slightly better than the peak of the disruptions and backlogs that occurred in late 2021, particularly around the delta wave in South East Asia. But we haven't seen much further improvement beyond that. Our checkpoint tracker does go down to the individual component or service level, and it shows that supply of certain auto and industrial semis and advanced packaging remains a constraint on downstream production. And we are seeing that show up in corporate results in the tech sector as well as the broader impact on margins that we're seeing into the consumer space. Michael Zezas: And one of the pressing issues that investors have been paying attention to is the new shocks to supply chains from China's COVID containment policy. Can you give us an update on the current impact of this policy?Daniel Blake: Now, so far, this is having a more noticeable impact on the domestic Chinese economy rather than on export markets, with policymakers trying to prioritize industrial output through systems such as closed loop management, which sees workers living on site for extended periods to maintain as much production as possible. The challenge has been most acute where mobility is needed, including in the transportation of raw materials and industrial production within China. Geographically, we've seen the impact on the Pearl River Delta around Shenzhen, the Yangtze River Delta around Shanghai and neighboring provinces, and more recently the capital, Beijing, is seeing an outbreak. So progress has been made on reopening from full lockdowns in Shenzhen and Shanghai gradually, but our China economics team still estimate that about 25% of national GDP is being subject to some additional COVID restrictions. And again, we need to watch out for the progression of the outbreak closely.Michael Zezas: When do you expect to see an easing of supply chain choke points and what factors could drive that easing? Daniel Blake: One of the points in the blue paper from late 2021 was the role on the demand side, the generous stimulus and acute shifts in spending patterns from COVID had in driving demand well above the world's productive capacity, even before you consider the supply disruptions we're seeing. So heading into summer 2022, we get the flip side, which is what our consumer analysts call the great reversion. Stimulus rolls off, fiscal spending does taper, and we see spending returning to categories like travel and tourism and leisure, as opposed to demand for goods and electronics. That may mean we get an outright contraction in some product segments. Now, this downturn may not be the best way, but it's the probably quickest way to get to an easing of supply chain choke points. And we are getting more evidence of this in order cuts across PC and smartphone in Asia. On the more constructive side, we're also seeing CapEx coming into areas like driving edge semiconductor foundry. But we'll also need to watch commodity markets, particularly as we've got agricultural trade channels into the European summer looking highly stressed. And we're seeing policy responses in some markets that are looking to prioritize domestic demand for industrial output and for agricultural output over export markets. So we don't think we're through the worst of this just yet. So we really need to watch for conditions to improve potentially later in 2022. Michael Zezas: Now let's zero in for a moment on some sector level observations. Semiconductors, for example, has been one of the sectors most in focus in the context of slowbalization. Can you talk about some of the particular challenges semis are facing in East Asia? Daniel Blake: There really are two dimensions, I think to this. One is the centrality of semiconductor companies at the leading edge and the concentration of global production in several key markets, and in particular in Taiwan and Korea. Now, when we look at the challenges here we can see policymakers in major capitals, in D.C. and Beijing, looking to try to encourage more localization, more internalization of supply chains. And that's putting some pressure, but also creating incentives for companies to add new capacity into the U.S., and we're seeing capacity coming into the Japanese market as well. So the challenge and opportunity I think for these leading companies is to try to manage those pressure points and protect return on invested capital as much as possible in the face of the need to strengthen and secure additional capacity in supply chains. The other element, which is important in terms of the challenges for semis, is more cyclical and we have seen a surge in demand, we've seen a build up of margins in the industry as it has benefited from this pull forward, from the work from home spending. And on the other side of that, we are going to see a downturn which is potentially exacerbated by the inventory buildup that has happened across the board in semis. Some semiconductor components are still in acute supply, but there are many that are not so disrupted, and when we look at the outlook we have seen inventory build up across the board. The risk is in the downturn, we start to see deeper order cuts because the inventory in aggregate is actually higher than what we've seen historically. Michael Zezas: Now shifting towards some macro level takeaways. The dynamic between the U.S. and China could be challenging, but is also creating potential opportunities for other countries such as Vietnam, India and Indonesia. Can you walk us through the tailwinds as well as the headwinds for these countries and what they're doing to take advantage of the situation? Daniel Blake: Yes, in Asia-Pacific, we have seen Vietnam already playing an important role for corporates as a complement to Chinese supply chains. It's smaller, but it's a natural extension of existing production facilities in China. But we've also seen policy and corporate momentum, the reform story, improving most notably in India, but also improving in Indonesia. And both markets have enacted quite deep and broad reform programs to lower corporate tax rates, to liberalize foreign direct investment rules, to invest in infrastructure and generally to make their market more attractive for multinational corporates as they're reassessing their supply chain strategy and looking to diversify. In terms of our preferences we are currently overweight Indonesia right now in our Asia Pacific, ex-Japan and Emerging Markets rankings. It benefits from strong commodity export dynamics and we also see long term opportunities coming through in terms of supply chain investments in Indonesia. But India has a very attractive long run story. If we can see continued execution, this market will present both domestic and export opportunities, and the production linked incentives being offered have been taken up by corporates and are helping to drive this foreign direct investment cycle. Michael Zezas: Daniel, thanks for taking the time to talk. It was great to have you here in person. Daniel Blake: Great speaking with you, Michael. Michael Zezas: And thanks for listening. For a look inside some of the human impacts of the recent supply chain disruptions, and how people are trying to resolve them, check out the latest season of Morgan Stanley's podcast "Now, What's Next?" on your podcast app of choice. If you enjoyed this show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show. 

So far this year cryptocurrencies have been on a swift downturn, increasingly in line with equity market moves. What's behind this correlation? And what should investors watch out for next?Digital assets, sometimes known as cryptocurrency, are a digital representation of a value that function as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, or a store of value, but generally do not have legal tender status. Digital assets have no intrinsic value and there is no investment underlying digital assets. The value of digital assets is derived by market forces of supply and demand, and is therefore more volatile than traditional currencies’ value. Investing in digital assets is risky, and transacting in digital assets carries various risks, including but not limited to fraud, theft, market volatility, market manipulation, and cybersecurity failures—such as the risk of hacking, theft, programming bugs, and accidental loss. Additionally, there is no guarantee that any entity that currently accepts digital assets as payment will do so in the future. The volatility and unpredictability of the price of digital assets may lead to significant and immediate losses. It may not be possible to liquidate a digital assets position in a timely manner at a reasonable price.Regulation of digital assets continues to develop globally and, as such, federal, state, or foreign governments may restrict the use and exchange of any or all digital assets, further contributing to their volatility. Digital assets stored online are not insured and do not have the same protections or safeguards of bank deposits in the US or other jurisdictions. Digital assets can be exchanged for US dollars or other currencies, but are not generally backed nor supported by any government or central bank.Before purchasing, investors should note that risks applicable to one digital asset may not be the same risks applicable to other forms of digital assets. Markets and exchanges for digital assets are not currently regulated in the same manner and do not provide the customer protections available in equities, fixed income, options, futures, commodities or foreign exchange markets.Morgan Stanley and its affiliates do business that may relate to some of the digital assets or other related products discussed in Morgan Stanley Research. These could include market making, providing liquidity, fund management, commercial banking, extension of credit, investment services and investment banking.-----Transcript-----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Sheena Shah, Lead Cryptocurrency Strategist for Morgan Stanley Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I will be talking about the crypto bear market. It's Tuesday, May 24th, at 2 p.m. in London. Bitcoin is down 55% from its November 2021 high, and currently trades at around $30,000. Over that same period, crypto market capitalization has lost over $1 trillion. All the while, Bitcoin's correlation with the equity markets has risen to new highs. So what is going on? Who is selling and what should we watch out for next? In 2018, retail investors were dominant in crypto markets, participating in 80% of trading volumes on Coinbase, the large crypto exchange. Today, the story couldn't be more different, with only 1/4 of trading volumes on Coinbase being with retail investors. Institutions, and more specifically crypto institutions, appear to have taken over, many of which are simply trading with each other. We think retail investors are more likely to buy and hold, but institutional investors are willing to both buy and sell crypto, if it means they can make a return. And because institutional investors are sensitive to the availability of capital and therefore interest rates, they trade crypto somewhat in sympathy with the way equities are traded. This shift in the type of market participant is key to understanding why crypto markets are selling off at the same time as the equity markets are experiencing a downturn. Cryptocurrency prices rose rapidly in 2020 and 2021, attracting a new set of investors. Bitcoin rose 10x from March 2020 to its first peak in April 2021. Ether, the second largest crypto, rose even more, over 40x in a similar period. The stimulus provided by central banks and governments throughout the pandemic was the key driver of the crypto bull market. As the Federal Reserve indicated late last year that it plans to raise interest rates and reduce the size of its balance sheet, crypto markets began to weaken. The downturn is now starting to have a broader impact on the crypto ecosystem. In mid-May a stablecoin called Terra Dollar, or UST, lost its peg to the U.S. dollar, which meant it was no longer trading at $1 USD and instead trades closer to $0 USD. UST lost its peg as it was backed by cryptocurrencies, which themselves were losing value, and because market makers no longer trusted the ability of the stablecoin to retain its dollar peg. There was a negative spillover into Bitcoin and other cryptos, with the largest stablecoin called Tether briefly losing its dollar peg intraday. Tether is the other side of half of all bitcoin traded on exchanges, so its stability is extremely important for the broader crypto market. The dollar asset reserves that backed Tether will continue to be scrutinized and questioned by market participants. Stablecoins are used to create leverage in decentralized finance crypto systems, and that leverage is now falling as crypto traders, that may have bought Bitcoin or other cryptos, have faced margin calls. In general, the elevated prices were traded on speculation, with limited real user demand. NFT and digital land prices are next areas to watch. Of course, many are looking for signs of a market turnaround. The retail investors may have been outnumbered by institutions, but they haven't gone away. The downturn may continue if central banks persist in their policy of tightening, but the strong hands of these retail investors have historically served as a support to falling prices. Thank you for listening. If you enjoy thoughts on the market, share this and other episodes with a friend or colleague today. 

As we enter the second half of 2022, the market is signaling a continued de-rating of equities, lingering challenges for consumers, and an increased bearishness among equity investors.-----Transcript-----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, May 23rd at 9 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. As we’ve discussed our mid-year outlook the past few weeks, I'd like to share some key takeaways on today's podcast. First, the de-rating of equities is no longer up for debate. However, there is disagreement on how low price earnings multiple should fall. We believe the S&P 500 price earnings multiple will fall towards 14x, ahead of the oncoming downward earnings revisions, which is how we arrive at our near-term overshoot of fair value of 3400 for the S&P 500. Second, the consumer is still a significant battleground. While COVID has been a terrible period in history, many U.S. consumers, like companies, benefited financially from the pandemic. Our view coming into 2022 was that this tailwind would end for most households, as we anniversaried the stimulus, asset prices de-rated and inflation in non discretionary items like shelter, food and energy ate into savings. Consumer confidence readings for the past six months support our view. Yet many investors have continued to argue the consumer is likely to surprise on the upside with spending, as they use excess savings to maintain a permanently higher plateau of consumption. Third, technology bulls are getting more concerned on growth. This is new and in stark contrast to the first quarter when tech bulls argued work from home benefited only a few select companies, while most would continue to see very strong growth from positive secular trends for technology spend. Some bulls have even argued technology spending is no longer cyclical but structural and non-discretionary, especially in a world where costs are rising so much. We disagree with that view and argue technology spending would follow corporate cash flow growth and sentiment. We have found many technology investors are now on our page and more worried about companies missing forecasts. While some may view this as bullish from a sentiment standpoint, we think it's a bearish sign as formerly dedicated tech investors will be more hesitant to buy the dip. In short, we believe technology spending is likely to go through a cyclical downturn this year, and it could extend to even the more durable areas like software. Finally, energy is the one sector where a majority of investors are consistently bullish now. This is not necessarily a contrarian signal in our view, but we are a bit more concerned about the recent crowding as energy remains the only sector other than utilities that is up on the year. With oil and gasoline prices so high, there is a growing risk we have reached a level of demand destruction. We remain neutral on energy with a positive bias for the more defensive names that pay a solid dividend.Bottom line, equity clients are bearish overall and not that optimistic about a quick rebound. While this is a necessary condition for a sustainable low in equity prices, we don't think it's a sufficient one. While our 12 month target for the S&P 500 is 3900, we expect an overshoot to the downside this summer that could come sooner rather than later. We think 3400 is a level that more accurately reflects the earnings risk in front of us, and expect that level to be achieved by the end of the second quarter earnings season, if not sooner. Vicious bear market rallies will continue to appear until then, and we would use them to lighten up on stocks most vulnerable to the oncoming earnings reset. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show.