Thoughts on the Market

Our analysts Paul Walsh, James Lord and Marina Zavolock discuss the dollar’s decline, the strength of the euro, and the mixed impact on European equities. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Paul Walsh: Welcome to Thoughts on the Markets. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's Head of European Product. And today we're discussing the weakness we've seen year-to-date in the U.S. dollar and what this means for the European stock market.It's Tuesday, July the 15th at 3:00 PM in London.I'm delighted to be joined by my colleagues, Marina Zavolock, Morgan Stanley's Chief European Equity Strategist, and James Lord, Morgan Stanley's Chief Global FX Strategist.James, I'm going to start with you because I think we've got a really differentiated view here on the U.S. dollar. And I think when we started the year, the bearish view that we had as a house on the U.S. dollar, I don't think many would've agreed with, frankly. And yet here we are today, and we've seen the U.S. dollar weakness proliferating so far this year –  but actually it's more than that.When I listen to your view and the team's view, it sounds like we've got a much more structurally bearish outlook on the U.S. dollar from here, which has got some tenure. So, I don't want to steal your thunder, but why don't you tell us, kind of frame the debate, for us around the U.S. dollar and what you're thinking.James Lord: So, at the beginning of the year, you're right. The consensus was that, you know, the election of Donald Trump was going to deliver another period of what people have called U.S. exceptionalism.Paul Walsh: Yeah.James Lord: And with that it would've been outperformance of U.S. equities, outperformance of U.S. growth, continued capital inflows into the United States and outperformance of the U.S. dollar.At the time we had a slightly different view. I mean, with the help of the economics team, we took the other side of that debate largely on the assumption that actually U.S. growth was quite likely to slow through 2025, and probably into 2026 as well – on the back of restrictions on immigration, lack of fiscal stimulus. And, increasingly as trade tariffs were going to be implemented…Paul Walsh: Yeah. Tariffs, of course…James Lord: That was going to be something that weighed on growth.So that was how we set out the beginning of the year. And as the year has progressed, the story has evolved. Like some of the other things that have happened, around just the extent to which tariff uncertainty has escalated. The section 899 debate.Paul Walsh: Yeah.James Lord: Some of the softness in the data and just the huge amounts of uncertainty that surrounds U.S. policymaking in general has accelerated the decline in the U.S. dollar. So, we do think that this has got further to go. I mean, the targets that we set at the beginning of the year, we kind of already met them. But when we published our midyear outlook, we extended the target.So, we may even have to go towards the bull case target of euro-dollar of 130.Paul Walsh: Mm-hmm.James Lord: But as the U.S. data slows and the Fed debate really kicks off where at Morgan Stanley U.S. Economics research is expecting the Fed to ultimately cut to 2.5 percent...Paul Walsh: Yeah.Lord: That’s really going to really weigh on the dollar as well. And this comes on the back of a 15-year bull market for the dollar.Paul Walsh: That's right.James Lord:  From 2010 all the way through to the end of last year, the dollar has been on a tear.Paul Walsh: On a structural bull run.James Lord: Absolutely. And was at the upper end of that long-term historical range. And the U.S. has got 4 percent GDP current account deficit in a slowing growth environment. It's going to be tough for the dollar to keep going up. And so, we think we're sort of not in the early stages, maybe sort of halfway through this dollar decline. But it's a huge change compared to what we've been used to. So, it's going to have big implications for macro, for companies, for all sorts of people.Paul Walsh: Yeah. And I think that last point you make is absolutely critical in terms of the implications for corporates in particular, Marina, because that's what we spend every hour of every working day thinking about. And yes, currency's been on the radar, I get that. But I think this structural dynamic that James alludes to perhaps is not really conventional wisdom still, when I think about the sector analysts and how clients are thinking about the outlook for the U.S. dollar.But the good news is that you've obviously done detailed work in collaboration with the floor to understand the complexities of how this bearish dollar view is percolating across the different stocks and sectors. So, I wondered if you could walk us through what your observations are and what your conclusions are having done the work.Marina Zavolock: First of all, I just want to acknowledge that what you just said there. My background is emerging markets and coming into covering Europe about a year and a half ago, I've been surprised, especially amid the really big, you know, shift that we're seeing that James was highlighting – how FX has been kind of this secondary consideration. In the process of doing this work, I realized that analysts all look at FX in different way. Investors all look at FX in different way. And in …Paul Walsh: So do corporates.Marina Zavolock: Yeah, corporates all look at FX in different way. We've looked a lot at that. Having that EM background where we used to think about FX as much as we thought about equities, it was as fundamental to the story...Paul Walsh: And to be clear, that's because of the volatility…Marina Zavolock: Exactly, which we're now seeing now coming into, you know, global markets effectively with the dollar moves that we've had. What we've done is created or attempted to create a framework for assessing FX exposure by stock, the level of FX mismatches, the types of FX mismatches and the various types of hedging policies that you have for those – particularly you have hedging for transactional FX mismatches.Paul Walsh: Mm-hmm.Marina Zavolock: And we've looked at this from stock level, sector level, aggregating the stock level data and country level. And basically, overall, some of the key conclusions are that the list of stocks that benefit from Euro strength that we've identified, which is actually a small pocket of the European index. That group of stocks that actually benefits from euro strength has been strongly outperforming the European index, especially year-to-date.Paul Walsh: Mm-hmm.Marina Zavolock: And just every day it's kind of keeps breaking on a relative basis to new highs. Given the backdrop of James' view there, we expect that to continue. On the other hand, you have even more exposure within the European index of companies that are being hit basically with earnings, downgrades in local currency terms. That into this earning season in particular, we expect that to continue to be a risk for local currency earnings.Paul Walsh: Mm-hmm.Marina Zavolock: The stocks that are most negatively impacted, they tend to have a lot of dollar exposure or EM exposure where you have pockets of currency weakness as well. So overall what we found through our analysis is that more than half of the European index is negatively exposed to this euro and other local currency strength. The sectors that are positively exposed is a minority of the index. So about 30 percent is either materially or positively exposed to the euro and other local currency strength. And sectors within that in particular that stand out positively exposed utilities, real estate banks. And the companies in this bucket, which we spend a lot of time identifying, they are strongly outperforming the index.They're breaking to new highs almost on a daily basis relative to the index. And I think that's going to continue into earning season because that's going to be one of the standouts positively, amid probably a lot of downgrades for companies who have translational exposure to the U.S. or EM.Paul Walsh: And so, let's take that one step further, Marina, because obviously hedging is an important part of the process for companies. And as we've heard from James, of a 15-year bull run for dollar strength. And so most companies would've been hedging, you know, dollar strength to be fair where they've got mismatches. But what are your observations having looked at the hedging side of the equation?Marina Zavolock: Yeah, so let me start with FX mismatches. So, we find that about half of the European index is exposed to some level of FX mismatches.Paul Walsh: Mm-hmm.Marina Zavolock: So, you have intra-European currency mismatches. You have companies sourcing goods in Asia or China and shipping them to Europe. So, it's actually a favorable FX mismatch. And then as far as hedging, the type of hedging that tends to happen for companies is related to transactional mismatches. So, these are cost revenue, balance sheet mismatches; cashflow distribution type mismatches. So, they're more the types of mismatches that could create risk rather than translational mismatches, which are – they're just going to happen.Paul Walsh: Yeah.Marina Zavolock: And one of the most interesting aspects of our report is that we found that companies that have advanced hedging, FX hedging programs, they first of all, they tend to outperform, when you compare them to companies with limited or no hedging, despite having transactional mismatches. And secondly, they tend to have lower share price volatility as well, particularly versus the companies with no hedging, which have the most share price volatility.So, the analysis, generally, in Europe of this most, the most probably diversified region globally, is that FX hedging actually does generate alpha and contributes to relative performance.Paul Walsh: Let's connect the two a little bit here now, James, because obviously as companies start to recalibrate for a world where dollar weakness might proliferate for longer, those hedging strategies are going to have to change.So just any kind of insights you can give us from that perspective. And maybe implications across currency markets as a result of how those behavioral changes might play out, I think would be very interesting for our listeners.James Lord: Yeah, I think one thing that companies can do is change some of the tactics around how they implement the hedges. So, this can revolve around both the timing and also the full extent of the hedge ratios that they have. I mean, some companies who are – in our conversations with them when they're talking about their hedging policy, they may have a range. Maybe they don't hedge a 100 percent of the risk that they're trying to hedge. They might have to do something between 80 and a hundred percent. So, you can, you can adjust your hedge ratios…Paul Walsh: Adjust the balances a bit.James Lord: Yeah. And you can delay the timing of them as well.The other side of it is just deciding like exactly what kind of instrument to use to hedge as well. I mean, you can hedge just using pure spot markets. You can use forward markets and currencies. You can implement different types of options, strategies.And I think this was some of the information that we were trying to glean from the survey was this question that Marina was asking about. Do you have a limited or advanced hedging program? Typically, we would find that corporates that have advanced programs might be using more options-based strategies, for example. And you know, one of the pieces of analysis in the report that my colleague Dave Adams did was really looking at the effectiveness of different strategies depending on the market environment that we're in.So, are we in a sort of risk-averse market environment, high vol environment? Different types of strategies work for different types of market environments. So, I would encourage all corporates that are thinking about implementing some kind of hedging strategy to have a look at that document because it provides a lot of information about the different ways you can implement your hedges. And some are much more cost effective than others.Paul Walsh: Marina, last thought from you?Marina Zavolock: I just want to say overall for Europe there is this kind of story about Europe has no growth, which we've heard for many years, and it's sort of true. It is true in local currency terms. So European earnings growth now on consensus estimates for this year is approaching one percent; it’s close to 1 percent. On the back of the moves we've already seen in FX, we're probably going to go negative by the time this earning season is over in local currency terms. But based on our analysis, that is primarily impacted by translation.So, it is just because Europe has a lot of exposure to the U.S., it has some EM exposure. So, I would just really emphasize here that for investors; so, investors, many of which don't hedge FX, when you're comparing Europe growth to the U.S., it's probably better to look in dollar terms or at least in constant currency terms. And in dollar terms, European earnings growth at this point are 7.6 percent in dollar terms. That's giving Europe the benefit for the euro exposure that it has in other local currencies.So, I think these things, as FX starts to be front of mind for investors more and more, these things will become more common focus points. But right now, a lot of investors just compare local currency earnings growth.Paul Walsh: So, this is not a straightforward topic, and we obviously think this is a very important theme moving through the balance of this year. But clearly, you're going to see some immediate impact moving through the next quarter of earnings.Marina and James, thanks as always for helping us make some sense of it all.James Lord: Thanks, Paul.Marina Zavolock: Thank you.Paul Walsh: And to our listeners out there, thank you as always for tuning in.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.

Transcribed - Published: 16 July 2025

Stocks hold steady as tariff uncertainty continues. Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains how policy deferrals, earnings resilience and forward guidance are driving the market. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing why stocks remain so resilient. It's Monday, July 14th at 11:30am in New York. So, let’s get after it. Why has the equity market been resilient in the face of new tariff announcements? Well first, the import cost exposure for S&P 500 industries is more limited given the deferrals and exemptions still in place like the USMCA compliant imports from Mexico. Second, the higher tariff rates recently announced on several trading partners are generally not perceived to be the final rates as negotiations progress. I continue to believe these tariffs will ultimately end up looking like a 10 percent consumption tax on imports that generate significant revenue for the Treasury. And finally, many companies pre-stocked inventory before the tariffs were levied and so the higher priced goods have not yet flowed through the cost of goods sold. Furthermore, with the market’s tariffs concerns having peaked in early April, the market is looking forward and focused on the data it can measure. On that score, the dramatic v-shaped rebound in earnings revisions breadth for the S&P 500 has been a fundamental tailwind that justifies the equity rally since April in the face of continued trade and macro uncertainty. This gauge is one of our favorites for predicting equity prices and it troughed at -25 percent in mid-April. It’s now at +3 percent. The sectors with the most positive earnings revisions breadth relative to the S&P 500 are Financials, Industrials and Software — three sectors we continue to recommend due to this dynamic. The other more recent development helping to support equities is the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill. While this Bill does not provide incremental fiscal spending to support the economy or lower the statutory tax rate, it does lower the cash earnings tax rates for companies that spend heavily on both R&D and Capital Goods.Our Global Tax Team believes we could see cash tax rates fall from 20 percent today back toward the 13 percent level that existed before some of these benefits from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that expired in 2022. This benefit is also likely to jump start what has been an anemic capital spending cycle for corporate America, which could drive both higher GDP and revenue growth for the companies that provide the type of equipment that falls under this category of spending. Meanwhile, the Foreign-Derived Intangible Income is a tax incentive that benefits U.S. companies earning income from foreign markets. It was designed to encourage companies to keep their intellectual property in the U.S. rather than moving it to countries with lower tax rates. This deduction was scheduled to decrease in 2026, which would have raised the effective tax rate by approximately 3 percent. That risk has been eliminated in the Big Beautiful Bill. Finally, the Digital Service Tax imposed on online companies that operate overseas may be reduced. Late last month, Canada announced that it would rescind its Digital Service Tax on the U.S. in anticipation of a mutually beneficial comprehensive trade arrangement with the U.S. This would be a major windfall for online companies and some see the potential for more countries, particularly in Europe, to follow Canada’s lead as trade negotiations with the U.S. continue. Bottom line, while uncertainty around tariffs remains high, there are many other positive drivers for earnings growth over the next year that could more than offset any headwinds from these policies. This suggests the recent rally in stocks is justified and that investors may not be as complacent as some are fearing. Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!

Transcribed - Published: 14 July 2025

As U.S. retailers manage the impacts of increased tariffs, they have taken a number of approaches to avoid raising prices for customers. Our Head of Corporate Strategy Andrew Sheets and our Head of U.S. Consumer Retail and Credit Research Jenna Giannelli discuss whether they can continue to do so. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Jenna Giannelli: And I'm Jenna Giannelli, Head of U.S. Consumer and Retail Credit Research.Andrew Sheets: And today on the podcast, we're going to dig into one of the biggest conundrums in the market today. Where and when are tariffs going to show up in prices and margins? It's Friday, July 11th at 10am in New York. Jenna, it's great to catch up with you today because I think you can really bring some unique perspective into one of the biggest puzzles that we're facing in the market today. Even with all of these various pauses and delays, the U.S. has imposed historically large tariffs on imports. And we're seeing a rapid acceleration in the amount of money collected from those tariffs by U.S. customs. These are real hard dollars that importers – or somebody else – are paying. Yet we haven't seen these tariffs show up to a significant degree in official data on prices – with recent inflation data relatively modest. And overall stock and credit markets remain pretty strong and pretty resilient, suggesting less effect.So, are these tariffs just less impactful than expected, or is there something else going on here with timing and severity? And given your coverage of the consumer and retail sectors, which is really at the center of this tariff debate – what do you think is going on?Jenna Giannelli: So yes, this is a key question and one that is dominating a lot of our client conversations. At a high level, I'd point to a few things. First, there's a timing issue here. So, when tariffs were first announced, retailers were already sitting on three to four months worth of inventory, just due to natural industry lead times. And they were able to draw down on this product.This is mostly what they sold in 1Q and likely into 2Q, which is why you haven't seen much margin or pricing impact thus far. Companies – we also saw them start to stock up heavily on inventory before the tariffs and at the lower pause rate tariffs, which is the product you referenced that we're seeing coming in now. This is really going to help mitigate margin pressure in the second quarter that you still have this lower cost inventory flowing through. On top of this timing consideration, retailers – we've just seen utilizing a range of mitigation measures, right? So, whether it's canceled or pause shipments from China, a shifting production mix or sourcing exposure in the short run, particularly before the pause rate on China. And then really leaning into just whether it's product mix shifts, cost savings elsewhere in the PNL, and vendor negotiations, right? They're really leaning into everything in their toolbox that they can. Pricing too has been talked about as something that is an option, but the option of last resort. We have heard it will be utilized, but very tactically and very surgically, as we think about the back half of the year. When you put this all together, how much impact is it having? On average from retailers that we heard from in the first quarter, they thought they would be able to mitigate about half of the expected tariff headwind, which is actually a bit better than we were expecting. Finally, I'll just comment on your comment regarding market performance. While you're right in that the overall equity and credit markets have held up well, year-to-date, retail equities and credit have fared worse than their respective indices. What's interesting, actually, is that credit though has significantly outperformed retail equities, which is a relationship we think should converge or correct as we move throughout the balance of the year.Andrew Sheets: So, Jenna, retailers saw this coming. They've been pulling various levers to mitigate the impact. You mentioned kind of the last lever that they want to pull is prices, raising prices, which is the macro thing that we care about. The thing that would actually show up in inflation. How close are we though to kind of running out of other options for these guys? That is, the only thing left is they can start raising prices?Jenna Giannelli: So closer is what I would say. We're likely not going to see a huge impact in 2Q, more likely as we head into 3Q and more heavily into the all-important fourth quarter holiday season. This is really when those higher cost goods are going to be flowing through the PNL and retailers need to offset this as they've utilized a lot of their other mitigation strategies. They've moved what they could move. They've negotiated where they could, they've cut where they could cut. And again, as this last step, it will be to try and raise price.So, who's going to have the most and least success? In our universe, we think it's going to be more difficult to pass along price in some of the more historically deflationary categories like apparel and footwear. Outside of what is a really strong brand presence, which in our universe, historically hasn't been the case.Also, in some of the higher ticket or more durable goods categories like home goods, sporting goods, furniture, we think it'll be challenging as well here to pass along higher costs. Where it's going to be less of an issue is in our Staples universe, where what we'd put is less discretionary categories like Beauty, Personal Care, which is part of the reason why we've been cautious on retail, and neutral and consumer products when we think about sector allocation.Andrew Sheets: And when do you think this will show up? Is it a third quarter story? A fourth quarter story?Jenna Giannelli: I think this is going to really start to show up in the third quarter, and more heavily into the fourth quarter, the all-important holiday season.Andrew Sheets: Yeah, and I think that’s what’s really interesting about the impact of this backup to the macro. Again, returning to the big picture is I think one of the most important calls that Morgan Stanley economists have is that inflation, which has been coming down somewhat so far this year is going to pick back up in August and September and October. And because it's going to pick back up, the Federal Reserve is not going to cut interest rates anymore this year because of that inflation dynamic. So, this is a big debate in the market. Many investors disagree. But I think what you're talking about in terms of there are some very understandable reasons, maybe why prices haven't changed so far. But that those price hikes could be coming have real macroeconomic implications.So, you know, maybe though, something to just close on – is to bring this to the latest headlines. You know, we're now back it seems, in a market where every day we log onto our screens, and we see a new headline of some new tariff being announced or suggested towards countries. Where do you think those announcements, so far are relative to what retailers are expecting – kind of what you think is in guidance?Jenna Giannelli: Sure. So, look what we've seen of late; the recent tariff headlines are certainly higher or worse, I think, than what investors in management teams were expecting. For Vietnam, less so; I'd say it was more in line. But for most elsewhere, in Asia, particularly Southeast Asia, the rates that are set to go in effect on August 1st, as we now understand them, are higher or worse than management teams were expecting. Recall that while guidance did show up in many flavors in the first quarter, so whether withdrawn guidance or lowered guidance. For those that did factor in tariffs to their guide, most were factoring in either pause rate tariffs or tariff rates that were at least lower than what was proposed on Liberation Day, right? So, what's the punchline here? I think despite some of the revisions we've already seen, there are more to come. To put some numbers around this, if we look at our group of retail consumer cohort, credits, consensus expectations for calling for EBITDA in our universe to be down around 5 percent year-over-year. If we apply tariff rates as we know them today for a half-year headwind starting August 1st, this number should be down around 15 percent year-over-year on a gross basis…Andrew Sheets: So, three times as much.Jenna Giannelli: Pretty significant. Exactly. And so, while there might be mitigation efforts, there might be some pricing passed along, this is still a pretty significant delta between where consensus is right now and what we know tariff rates to be today – could imply for earnings in the second half.Andrew Sheets: Jenna, thanks for taking the time to talk.Jenna Giannelli: My pleasure. Thank you.Andrew Sheets: And thank you as always for your time. If you find Thoughts to the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

Transcribed - Published: 11 July 2025

The ultimate market outcomes of President Trump’s tactical tariff escalation may be months away. Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy Michael Zezas takes a look at implications for investors now. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy. Today: The latest on U.S. tariffs and their market impact. It’s Thursday, July 10th at 12:30pm in New York. It's been a newsy week for U.S. trade policy, with tariff increases announced across many nations. Here’s what we think investors need to know. First, we think the U.S. is in a period of tactical escalation for tariff policy; where tariffs rise as the U.S. explores its negotiating space, but levels remain in a range below what many investors feared earlier this year. We started this week expecting a slight increase in U.S. tariffs—nothing too dramatic, maybe from 13 percent to around 15 percent driven by hikes in places like Vietnam and Japan. But what we got was a bit more substantial. The U.S. announced several tariff hikes, set to take effect later, allowing time for negotiations. If these new measures go through, tariffs could reach 15 to 20 percent, significantly higher than at the beginning of the year, though far below the 25 to 30 percent levels that appeared possible back in April. It’s a good reminder that U.S. trade policy remains a moving target because the U.S. administration is still focused on reducing goods trade deficits and may not yet perceive there to be substantial political and economic risk of tariff escalation. Per our economists’ recent work on the lagged effects of tariffs, this reckoning could be months away. Second, the implications of this tactical escalation are consistent with our current cross-asset views. The higher tariffs announced on a variety of geographies, and products like copper, put further pressure on the U.S. growth story, even if they don’t tip the U.S. into recession, per the work done by our economists. That growth pressure is consistent with our views that both government and corporate bond yields will move lower, driving solid returns. It's also insufficient pressure to get in the way of an equity market rally, in the view of our U.S. equity strategy team. The fiscal package that just passed Congress might not be a major boon to the economy overall, but it does help margins for large cap companies, who by the way are more exposed to tariffs through China, Canada, Mexico, and the EU – rather than the countries on whom tariff increases were announced this week. Finally, How could we be wrong? Well, pay attention to negotiations with those geographies we just mentioned: Mexico, Canada, Europe, and China. These are much bigger trading partners not just for U.S. companies, but the U.S. overall.  So meaningful escalation here can drive both top line and bottom line effects that could challenge equities and credit.  In our view, tariffs with these partners are likely to land near current levels, but the path to get there could be volatile.  For the U.S., Mexico and Canada, background reporting suggests there’s mutual interest in maintaining a low tariff bloc, including exceptions for the product-specific tariffs that the U.S. is imposing. But there are sticking points around harmonizing trade policy. The dynamic is similar with China. Tariffs are already steep—among the highest anywhere. While a recent narrow deal—around semiconductors for rare earths—led to a temporary reduction from triple-digit levels, the two sides remain far apart on fundamental issues.  So when it comes to negotiations with the U.S.’ biggest trading partners, there’s sticking points. And where there’s sticking points there’s potential for escalation that we’ll need to be vigilant in monitoring. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market please leave us a review. And tell your friends about the podcast. We want everyone to listen.

Transcribed - Published: 10 July 2025

Our Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Serena Tang discusses whether demand for U.S. stocks has fallen and where fund flows are surging.  Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Serena Tang: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Cross-Asset Strategist.Today – is the demand for U.S. assets declining? Let's look at the recent trends in global investment flows.It’s Wednesday, July 9th at 1pm in New York.The U.S. equity market has reached an all-time high, but at the same time lingering uncertainty about U.S. trade and tariff policies is forcing global investors to consider the riskiness of U.S. assets. And so the big question we need to ask is: are investors – particularly foreign investors – fleeing U.S. assets?This question comes from recent data around fund flows to global equities. And we have to acknowledge that demand for U.S. stocks overall has declined, going by high-frequency data. But at the same time, we think this idea is exaggerated. So why is that? As many listeners know, fund flows – which represent the net movement of money into and out of various investment vehicles like mutual funds and ETFs – are an important gauge of investor sentiment and market trends. So what are fund flows really telling us about investors’ sentiment towards U.S. equities? It would be nice to get an unequivocal answer, but of course, the devil is always in the details. And the problem is that different data sources and frequencies across different market segments don’t always lead to the same conclusions. Weekly data across global equity ETF and mutual funds from Lipper show that international investors were net buyers through most of April and May. But the pace of buying has slowed year-to-date versus 2024. Still, it remains much higher than during the same period in 2021 through 2023. Treasury TIC data point to something similar – a slowdown in foreign demand, but not significant net selling. So where are the flows going, if not to the U.S.? They are going to the rest of the world, but more particularly, Europe. Europe stocks, in fact, have been the biggest beneficiary of decreasing flows to the U.S. Nearly $37 billion U.S. has gone into Europe-focused equity funds year-to-date. This is significantly higher than the run-rates over the prior five years. What’s more notable here is that year-to-date, flows to European-focused ETFs and mutual funds dominated those targeting Japan and Emerging Markets. This suggests that Europe is now the premier destination for equity fund flows, with very little demand spillovers to other regions' equity markets.These shifts have yet to show up in the allocation data, which tracks how global asset managers invest in stocks regionally. Global equity funds' portfolio weights to Rest-of-the-World has gone up by roughly the same amount as allocation to the U.S. has come down. But allocation to the U.S. has actually gone down by roughly the same amount, as its share in global equity indices; which means that If allocation to the U.S. has changed, it's simply because the U.S. is now a smaller part of equity indices. Meanwhile, an estimated U.S.$9 billion from Rest-of-the World went into international equity funds, which excludes U.S. stocks altogether. Granted, it’s not a lot; but scaled for fund assets, it's the highest net flows international equities have seen. In other words, some investors are choosing to invest in equities excluding U.S. altogether. These trends are unlikely to reverse as long as lingering policy uncertainty dampens demand for U.S.-based assets. But as we've argued in our mid-year outlook, there are very few alternative markets to the U.S. dollar markets right now. U.S. stocks might start to see less marginal flows from foreign investors – to the benefit of Rest-of-the-World equities, especially Europe. But demand is unlikely to dry up completely over the next 12 months. 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.

Transcribed - Published: 9 July 2025

Arushi Agarwal from the European Sustainability Strategy team and Aerospace & Defense Analyst Ross Law unpack what a reshaped defense industry means for sustainability, ethics and long-term investment strategy. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Ross Law: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ross Law from Morgan Stanley's European Aerospace and Defense team.Arushi Agarwal: And I'm Arushi Agarwal from the European Sustainability Research Team.Ross Law: Today, a topic that's rapidly defining the boundaries of sustainable investing and technological leadership – the use of AI in defense.It's Tuesday, July 8th at 3pm in London. At the recent NATO summit, member countries decided to boost their core defense spending target from 2 percent to 3.5 percent of GDP. This big jump is sure to spark a wave of innovation in defense, particularly in AI and military technology. It's clear that Europe is focusing on rearmament with AI playing a major role. In fact, AI is revolutionizing everything from unmanned systems and cyber defense to simulation training and precision targeting. It’s changing the game for how nations prepare for – and engage in – conflict. And with all these changes come serious challenges. Investors, policy makers and technologists are facing some tough questions that sit at the intersection of two of Morgan Stanley's four key themes: The Multipolar World and Tech Diffusion.So, Arushi, to set the stage, how is the concept of sustainability evolving to include national security and defense, particularly in Europe?Arushi Agarwal: You know, Ross, it's fascinating to see how much this space has evolved over the past year. Geopolitical tensions have really pushed national security much higher on the sustainability agenda. We're seeing a structural shift in sentiment towards defense investments. While historically defense companies were largely excluded by sustainability funds, we're now seeing asset managers revisiting these exclusions, especially around conventional and nuclear weapons. Some are even launching thematic funds, specifically focused on security and resilience.However, in the absence of standard methodologies to assess weapon related exposures, evaluate sector-specific ESG risks and determine transparency, there is no clear consensus on what sustainability focused managers can hold. Greater policy focus has created the need to identify a long-term approach to investing in this sector, one that is cognizant of ethical issues. Investors are now increasingly asking whether rapid technological integration might allow for a more forward-looking, risk aware approach to investing in national security.Ross Law: So, it's no news that Europe has historically underspent on defense. Now, the spending goal is moving to 3.5 percent of GDP to try and catch up. Our estimates suggest this could mean an additional $200 billion per year in additional spend – with a focus on equipment over personnel, at least for the time being. With this new focus, how is AI shaping the European rearmament strategy?Arushi Agarwal: Well, AI appears to be at the core of EU’s 800 billion euro rearmament plan. The commission has been quite clear that escalating tensions have not only led to a new arms race but also provoked a global technological race. Now to think about it, AI, quantum, biotech, robotics, and hypersonic are key inputs not only for long-term economic growth, but also for military pre-eminence.In our base case, we estimate that total NATO military spend into AI applications will potentially more than double to $112 billion by 2030. This is at a 4 percent AI investment allocation rate. If this allocation rate increases to 10 percent as anticipated by European deep tech firms, then NATOs AI military spend could grow sixfold to $306 billion by 2030 in our bull case.So, Ross, you were at the Paris Air Show recently where companies demonstrated their latest product capabilities. Which AI applications are leading the way in defense right now? Ross Law: Yeah, it was really quite eye-opening. We've identified nine key AI applications, reshaping defense, and our Application Readiness Radar shows that Cybersecurity followed by Unmanned Systems exhibit the highest level of preparedness from a public and private investment perspective.Cybersecurity is a major priority due to increased proliferation of cyber attacks and disinformation campaigns, and this technology can be used for both defensive and offensive measures. Unmanned systems are also really taking off, no pun intended, mainly driven by the rise in drone warfare that's reshaping the battlefield in Ukraine.At the Paris Airshow, we saw demonstrations of “Wingman” crewed and uncrewed aircraft. There have also been several public and private partnerships in this area within our coverage. Another area gaining traction is simulation and war gaming. As defense spending increases and potentially leads to more military personnel, we see this theme in high demand in the coming years.Arushi Agarwal: And how are European Aerospace and Defense companies positioning themselves in terms of AI readiness?Ross Law: Well, they're really making significant advancements. We've assessed AI technology readiness for our A&D companies across six different verticals: the number of applications; dual-use capabilities; AI pricing power; responsible AI policy; and partnerships on both external and internal product categories.What's really interesting is that European A&D companies have higher pricing power relative to the U.S. counterparts, and a higher percentage are both enablers and adopters of AI. To accelerate AI integration, these companies are increasingly partnering with government research arms, leading software firms, as well as peers and private players.Arushi Agarwal: And some of these same technologies can also be used for civilian purposes. Could you share some examples with us?Ross Law: The dual use potential is really significant. Various companies in our coverage are using their AI capabilities for civilian applications across multiple domains. For example, geospatial capabilities can also be used for wildfire management and tracking deforestation. Machine learning can be used for maritime shipping and port surveillance. But switching gears slightly, if we talk about the regulatory developments that are emerging in Europe to address defense modernization, what does this mean, Arushi, for society, the industry and investors?Arushi Agarwal: There's quite a lot happening on the regulatory front. The European Commission is working on a defense omnibus simplification proposal aimed at speeding up defense investments in the EU. It's planning to publish a guidance notice on how defense investment will fit within the sustainable finance framework. It’s also making changes to its sustainability reporting directive. If warranted, the commission will make additional adjustments to reflect the needs of the defense industry in its sustainability reporting obligations. The Sustainable Fund Reform is another important development. While the sustainability fund regulation doesn't prohibit investment into the defense sector, the commission is seeking to provide clarification on how defense investment goals sit within a sustainability framework.Additionally at the European Security Summit in June, the European Defense Commissioner indicated that a roadmap focusing on the modernization of European defense will be published in autumn. This will have a special focus on AI and quantum technologies. For investors, whilst exclusions easing has started to take place, pickup in individual positioning has been slow. As investors ramp up on the sector, we believe these regulatory developments can serve as catalysts, providing clear demand and trend signals for the sector.Ross Law: So finally, in this context, how can companies and investors navigate these ethical considerations responsibly?Arushi Agarwal: So, in the note we highlight that AI risk management requires the ability to tackle two types of challenges. First, technical challenges, which can be mitigated by embedding boundaries and success criteria directly into the design of the AI model. For example, training AI systems to refuse harmful requests. Second challenges are more open-ended and ambiguous set of challenges that relate to coordinating non-proliferation among countries and preventing misuse by bad actors. This set of challenges requires continuous interstate dialogue and cooperation rather than purely technical fixes.From an investor perspective, closer corporate engagement will be key to navigating these debates. Ensuring firms have clear documentation of their algorithms and decision-making processes, human in the loop systems, transparency around data sets used to train the AI models are some of the engagement points we mention in our note.Ultimately, I think the key is balance. On the one hand, we have to recognize the legitimate security needs that defense technologies address. And on the other hand, there's the need to ensure appropriate safeguards and oversight.Ross Law: Arushi, thanks for taking the time to talk.Arushi Agarwal: It was great speaking with you, Ross,Ross Law: And thank you all 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.

Transcribed - Published: 8 July 2025

The American consumer isn’t simply pulling back. They are changing the way they spend – and save. Our U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist Michelle Weaver digs into the data. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist.Today, the U.S. consumer. What's changing about the ways Americans spend, save and feel about the future?It's Monday, July 7th at 10am in London.As markets digest mixed signals – whether that's easing inflation, changing politics, and persistent noise around tariffs – U.S. consumers are recalibrating. Under the surface of headline numbers, a more complex story is unfolding about the ways Americans are not just reacting but adapting to macro challenges.First, I want to start with a big picture. Data from our latest consumer survey shows that consumer sentiment has stabilized, even as uncertainty around tariffs persists, especially into these rolling July deadlines. Inflation remains the top concern for most. But the good news is that it's trending lower. This month more than half of respondents cited inflation as their primary concern, a slight decrease from last month and a year ago. Now, that's a subtle but a meaningful decline suggesting consumers may be adjusting their expectations rather than bracing for continued price shocks. At the same time though political concerns are on the rise. More than 40 percent of consumers now list the U.S. political environment as a major worry. That's slightly up from last month; and not surprisingly concern around geopolitical conflicts has also jumped from a month ago.Now, when we break this down by income levels, we see some interesting trends. Inflation is the top concern across all income groups, except for those earning more than $150,000. For them, politics takes the top spot. Lower income households, though, are more focused on paying rent and debts, while higher income groups are more concerned about their investments.As for tariffs, concern remains high but stable. About 40 percent of consumers are very worried about tariffs and another 25 percent are moderately so. But if we look under the surface, it's really showing us a political divide. 63 percent of liberals are very concerned, compared to just 23 percent of conservatives who say they're very concerned.Despite these worries, though, fewer people overall are planning to cut back on spending. Only about a third say they'll spend less due to tariffs, which is down quite a bit from earlier this year. Meanwhile, about a quarter plan to spend more, and roughly a third don't expect to change their plans at all.This resilience points to the notable behavioral trend I mentioned at the start. Consumers are not just reacting, they're adapting. Looking at the broader economy, consumer confidence is holding steady according to our survey, although it's slightly down from last month. But when it comes to household finances, the outlook is more positive with a significant number expecting their finances to improve and fewer expecting them to worsen – a net positive.Savings are also showing some resilience. The average consumer has several months of savings, slightly up from last year. Spending intentions are stable with nearly a third of consumers planning to spend more next month while fewer planned to spend less. And when it comes to big ticket items, more than half of U.S. consumers are planning a major purchase in the next three months, including vehicles, appliances, and vacations.Speaking of vacations, summer travel season is here and I'm looking forward to taking a trip soon. Around 60 percent of consumers are planning to travel in the next six months, with visiting friends and family being the top reason.So, what's the biggest takeaway for investors?Despite ongoing concerns about inflation, politics and tariffs, U.S. consumers are showing remarkable resilience. It's a nuanced picture, but one that overall suggests stability in the face of uncertainty.Thanks for listening. I hope you enjoyed the show, and if you did, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. 

Transcribed - Published: 7 July 2025

For a special Independence Day episode, our Head of Corporate Credit Research considers a popular topic of debate, on holidays or otherwise – national debt.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Today on a special Independence Day episode of the podcast, we're going to talk a bit about the history of U.S. debt and the contrast between corporate and federal debt trajectories.It's Thursday, July 3rd at 9am in Seattle.The 4th of July, which represents the U.S. declaring independence from Great Britain, remains one of my favorite holidays. A time to gather with friends and family and celebrate what America is – and what it can still be.It is also, of course, a good excuse to talk about debt.Declaring independence is one thing, but fighting and beating the largest empire in the world at the time would take more than poetic words. The borrowing that made victory possible for the colonies also almost brought them down in the 1780s under a pile of unsustainable debt. It was a young treasury secretary Alexander Hamilton, who successfully lobbied to bring these debts under a federal umbrella – binding the nation together and securing a lower borrowing cost. As we'd say, it's a real fixed income win-win.Almost 250 years later, the benefits of that foresight are still going strong, with the United States of America enjoying the world's largest economy, and the largest and most liquid equity and bond markets. Yet lately there's been more focus on whether those bond markets are, well, too large.The U.S. currently runs a budget deficit of about 7 percent of GDP, and the current budget proposals in the house and the Senate could drive an additional 4 trillion of borrowing over the next decade above that already hefty baseline. Forecast even further out, well, they look even more challenging.We are not worried about the U.S. government's ability to pay its bills. And to be clear, in the near term, we are forecasting at Morgan Stanley, U.S. government yields to go down as growth slows and the Federal Reserve cuts rates more than expected in 2026. But all of this borrowing and all the uncertainty around it – it should increase risk premiums for longer term bonds and drive a steeper yield curve.So, it's notable then – as we celebrate America's birthday and discuss its borrowing – that it's really companies that are currently unwrapping the presents. Corporate balance sheets, in contrast, are in very good shape, as corporate borrowing trends have diverged from those of the government.Many factors are behind this. Corporate profitability is strong. Companies use the post-COVID period to refinance debt at attractive rates. And the ongoing uncertainty – well, it's kept management more conservative than they would otherwise be. Out of deference to the 4th of July, I've focused so far on the United States. But we see the same trend in Europe, where more conservative balance sheet trends and less relative issuance to governments is showing up on a year-over-year basis. With companies borrowing relatively less and governments borrowing relatively more, the difference between what companies and the government pay, that so-called spread that we talk so much about – well, we think it can stay lower and more compressed than it otherwise would.We don't think this necessarily applies to the low ratings such as single B or lower borrowers, where these better balance sheet trends simply aren't as clear. But overall, a divergent trend between corporate and government balance sheets is giving corporate bond investors something additional to celebrate over the weekend.Thank you as always for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen, and also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

Transcribed - Published: 3 July 2025

Our analysts Michael Zezas and Ariana Salvatore discuss the upcoming expiration of reciprocal tariffs and the potential impacts for U.S. trade.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, US Public Policy Strategist.Michael Zezas: Today we're talking about the outlook for US trade policy. It's Wednesday, July 2nd at 10:00 AM in New York.We have a big week ahead as next Wednesday marks the expiration of the 90 day pause on reciprocal tariffs. Ariana, what's the setup?Ariana Salvatore: So this is a really key inflection point. That pause that you mentioned was initiated back on April 9th, and unless it's extended, we could see a reposition of tariffs on several of our major trading partners. Our base case is that the administration, broadly speaking, tries to kick the can down the road, meaning that it extends the pause for most countries, though the reality might be closer to a few countries seeing their rates go up while others announce bilateral framework deals between now and next week.But before we get into the key assumptions underlying our base case. Let's talk about the bigger picture. Michael, what do we think the administration is actually trying to accomplish here?Michael Zezas: So when it comes to defining their objectives, we think multiple things can be true at the same time. So the administration's talked about the virtue of tariffs as a negotiating tactic. They've also floated the idea of a tiered framework for global trading partners. Think of it as a ranking system based on trade deficits, non tariff barriers, VAT levels, and any other characteristics that they think are important for the bilateral trade relationship. A lot of this is similar to the rhetoric we saw ahead of the April 2nd "Liberation Day" tariffs.Ariana Salvatore: Right, and around that time we started hearing about the potential, at least for bilateral trade deals, but have we seen any real progress in that area?Michael Zezas: Not much, at least not publicly, aside from the UK framework agreement. And here's an important detail, three of our four largest trading partners aren't even scoped for higher rates next week. Mexico and Canada were never subject to the reciprocal tariffs. And China's on a separate track with this Geneva framework that doesn't expire until August 12th. So we're not expecting a sweeping overhaul by Wednesday.Ariana Salvatore: Got it. So what are the scenarios that we're watching?Michael Zezas: So there's roughly three that we're looking at and let me break them down here.So our base case is that the administration extends the current pause, citing progress in bilateral talks, and maybe there's a few exceptions along the way in either direction, some higher and some lower. This broadly resets the countdown clock, but keeps the current tariff structure intact: 10% baseline for most trading partners, though some potentially higher if negotiations don't progress in the next week. That outcome would be most in line, we think, with the current messaging coming out of the administration.There's also a more aggressive path if there's no visible progress. For example, the administration could reimpose tariffs with staggered implementation dates. The EU might face a tougher stance due to the complexity of that relationship and Vietnam could see delayed threats as a negotiating tactic. A strong macro backdrop, resilient data for markets that could all give the administration cover to go this route.But there's also a more constructive outcome. The administration can announce regional or bilateral frameworks, not necessarily full trade deals, but enough to remove the near term threat of higher tariffs, reducing uncertainty, though maybe not to pre-2024 levels.Ariana Salvatore: So wide bands of uncertainty, and it sounds like the more constructive outcome is quite similar to our base case, which is what we have in place right now. But translating that more aggressive path into what that means for the economy, we think it would reinforce our house view that the risks here are skewed to the downside.Our economists estimate that tariffs begin to impact inflation about four months after implementation with the growth effects lagging by about eight months. That sets us up for weak but not quite recessionary growth. We're talking 1% GDP on an annual basis in 2025 and 2026, and the tariff passed through to prices and inflation data probably starting in August.Michael Zezas: So bottom line, watch carefully on Wednesday and be vigilant for changes to the status quo on tariff levels. There's a lot of optionality in how this plays out, as trade policy uncertainty in the aggregate is still high. Ariana, thanks for taking the time to talk.Ariana Salvatore: Great speaking with you, Michael.Michael Zezas: And 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.

Transcribed - Published: 2 July 2025

Ron Kamdem, our U.S. Real Estate Investment Trusts & Commercial Real Estate Analyst, discusses how GenAI could save the real estate industry $34 billion and where the savings are most likely to be found.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ron Kamdem, Head of Morgan Stanley’s U.S. Real Estate Investment Trusts and Commercial Real Estate research. Today I’ll talk about the ways GenAI is disrupting the real estate industry.It’s Tuesday, July 1st, at 10am in New York.What if the future of real estate isn’t about location, location, location – but automation, automation, automation?While it may be too soon to say exactly how AI will affect demand for real estate, what we can say is that it is transforming the business of real estate, namely by making operations more efficient. If you’re a customer dealing with a real estate company, you can now expect to interact with virtual leasing assistants. And when it comes to drafting your lease documents, AI can help you do this in minutes rather than hours – or even days.In fact, our recent work suggests that GenAI could automate nearly 40 percent of tasks across half a million occupations in the real estate investment trusts industry – or REITs. Indeed, across 162 public REITs and commercial real estate services companies or CRE with $92 billion of total labor costs, the financial impact may be $34 billion, or over 15 percent of operating cash flow. Our proprietary job posting database suggests the top four occupations with automation potential are management – so think about middle management – sales, office and administrative support, and installation maintenance and repairs.Certain sub-sectors within REITs and CRE services stand to gain more than others. For instance, lodging and resorts, along with brokers and services, and healthcare REITs could see more than 15 percent improvement in operating cash flow due to labor automation. On the other hand, sectors like gaming, triple net, self-storage, malls, even shopping centers might see less than a 5 percent benefit, which suggests a varied impact across the industry.Brokers and services, in particular, show the highest potential for automation gains, with nearly 34 percent increase in operating cash flow. These companies may be the furthest along in adopting GenAI tools at scale. In our view, they should benefit not only from the labor cost savings but also from enhanced revenue opportunities through productivity improvement and data center transactions facilitated by GenAI tools.Lodging and resorts have the second highest potential upside from automating occupations, with an estimated 23 percent boost in operating cash flow. The integration of AI in these businesses not only streamline operations but also opens new avenues for return on investments, and mergers and acquisitions.Some companies are already using AI in their operations. For example, some self-storage companies have integrated AI into their digital platforms, where 85 percent of customer interactions now occur through self-selected digital options. As a result, they have reduced on-property labor hours by about 30 percent through AI-powered staffing optimization. Similarly, some apartment companies have reduced their full-time staff by about 15 percent since 2021 through AI-driven customer interactions and operational efficiencies.Meanwhile, this increased application of AI is driving new revenue to AI-enablers. Businesses like data centers, specialty, CRE services could see significant upside from the infrastructure buildout from GenAI. Advanced revenue management systems, customer acquisition tools, predictive analytics are just a few areas where GenAI can add value, potentially enhancing the $290 billion of revenue stream in the REIT and CRE services space.However, the broader economic impact of GenAI on labor markets remains hotly debated. Job growth is the key driver of real estate demand and the impact of AI on the 164 million jobs in the U.S. economy remains to be determined. If significant job losses materialize and the labor force shrinks, then the real estate industry may face top-line pressure with potentially disproportionate impact on office and lodging. While AI-related job losses are legitimate concerns, our economists argue that the productivity effects of GenAI could ultimately lead to net positive job growth, albeit with a significant need for re-skilling.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.

Transcribed - Published: 1 July 2025

The U.S. housing market appears to be stuck. Our co-heads of Securitized Product research, Jay Bacow and James Egan, explain how supply and demand, as well as mortgage rates, play a role in the cooling market. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- 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 at Morgan Stanley. And after getting through last week's blistering hot temperatures, today we're going to talk about what may be a cooling housing market. It's Monday, June 30th at 2:30pm in New York. Now, Jim, home prices. We just got another index. They set another record high, but the pace of growth – the acceleration as a physicist in me wants to say – appears to be slowing. What's going on here?James Egan: The pace of home price growth reported this month was 2.7 percent. That is the lowest that it's been since August of 2023. And in our view, the reason's pretty simple. Supply is increasing, while demand has stalled.Jay Bacow: But Jim, this was a report for the spring selling season. I know we got it in June, but this is supposed to be the busiest time of the year. People are happy to go around. They're looking at moving over the summer when the kids aren't in school. We should be expecting the supply to increase. Are you saying that it's happening more than it's anticipated?James Egan: That is what we're saying. Now, we should be expecting inventories today to be higher than they were in, call it January or February. That's exactly the seasonality that you're referring to. But it's the year-over-year growth we're paying attention to here. Homes listed for sale are up year-over-year, 18 months in a row. And that pace, it's been accelerating. Over the past 40 years, the pace of growth from this past month was only eclipsed one time, the Great Financial Crisis.Jay Bacow: [sighs] I always get a little worried when the housing analyst brings up the Great Financial Crisis. Are you saying that this time the demand isn't responding?James Egan: That is what we're saying. So, through the first five months of this year, existing home sales are only down about 2 percent versus the first five months of 2024. So they've basically kind of plateaued at these levels. But that also means that we're seeing the fewest number of transactions through May in a calendar year since 2009. And that combination of easing inventory and lackluster demand, it's pushed months of supply back to levels that we haven't seen since the beginning of this pandemic. Call it the fourth quarter of 2019, first quarter of 2020, right before inventory has really plummeted to historic lows.Jay Bacow: All right, so 2009, another financial crisis reference. But you're also – you're speaking around a national level, and as a housing analyst, I feel like you haven't really spoken about the three most important factors when we think about things which are: Location. Location. And location.James Egan: Absolutely. And the deceleration that we're seeing in home price growth – and I would point out it is still growth – has been pervasive across the country. Year-over-year, HPA is now decelerating in 100 percent of the top 100 MSAs, for which we have data. In fact, a full quarter of them, 25 percent of these cities are now actually seeing prices decline on a year-over-year basis. And that's up from just 5 percent with declining home prices one year ago.Jay Bacow: As a homeowner, I do like the home price growth. And is it the same story when you look more narrowly around supply and demand?James Egan: So, there might be some geographical nuances, but we do think that it largely boils down to that. Local inventory growth has been a very good indicator of weaker home price performance, particularly the level of for-sale inventory today versus that fourth quarter of 2019. If we look at it on a geographic basis, of 14 MSAs that have the highest level of inventory today compared to 2019, 11 of them are in either Florida or Texas. On the other end of the spectrum, the cities where inventory remains furthest away from where it was four and a half years ago, they're in the Northeast, they're in the Midwest.Jay Bacow: As somebody who lives in the Northeast, I'd like to hear that again. But you're also; you're quoting existing prices, which that's been the outperformer in the housing market. Right?James Egan: Exactly. New home prices have actually been decreasing year-over-year for the past year and a half at this point. It's actually brought the basis between new home prices, which tend to trade at a little bit of a premium to existing sales; it's brought that basis to its tightest level that we've seen in at least 30 years. And that's before we take into account the fact that home builders have been buying down some of these mortgage rates. But Jay, you've recently done some work trying to size this.Jay Bacow: Yeah. First it might help to explain what a buydown is.A home builder might have a new home listed at say, $450,000. And with mortgage rates in the context of about 6.5 percent right now, the home buyer might not be able to afford that, so they offer to pay less. The home builder – often many of them also have an origination arm as well. They'll say, you know what? We'll sell it to you at that $450,000, but we'll give you a lower mortgage rate; instead of 6.5 percent, we'll sell it to you for $450,000 with a 5 percent mortgage rate. Then maybe the home buyer can afford that.James Egan: And so, new home prices are actually coming down. And by that we're specifically referring to the median price of new home transactions. They're falling despite the fact that these buy downs might be influencing prices a little bit higher.Jay Bacow: Right. And when we look at how often this is happening, it's a little actually hard to get it from the data because they don't have to report it. But when we look at the distribution of mortgage rates in a given month – prior to 2022, there were effectively no purchase loans that were originated less than one point below the prevailing mortgage rate for a given month.However, more recently we're up to about 12 percent of Ginnie Mae purchases, and those are the more credit constrained borrowers that might have a harder time buying a home. And about 5 percent of conventional purchase loans are getting originated with a rate 1 percent below the outstanding marketJames Egan: And so, this might be another sign that we're seeing a little bit of softening in home prices. But what are the implications on the agency mortgage side?Jay Bacow: I would say there's probably two things that we're keeping an eye out on. Because these are homeowners that are getting below market rate, the investors are getting a below market coupon. And because they're getting sold at a discount, they don't want that, but they're going to stay around for a while. So, investors are getting these rates that they don't want for longer.And then the other thing you think about from the home buyer perspective is, you know, maybe they – it's good for them right now. But if they want to sell that home, because they're getting a below market mortgage rate, they bought the home for maybe more than other people would've. So, unless they can sell it with that mortgage attached, which is very difficult to do, they probably have to sell it for a lower price than when they bought it.Now Jim, what does all this mean for home prices going forward?James Egan: Now, when we think about home prices, we're talking about the home price indices, right? And so those are going to be repeat sales. It’s going to, by definition, look at existing prices and not necessarily the dynamics we're talking in the new home price market.Jay Bacow: Okay, so all this builder buy down stuff is interesting for what it means for new home prices – but doesn't impact all the HPA indices that you reference.James Egan: Exactly, and at the national level, despite what we've been talking about on this podcast, we do think that home prices remain more supported than what we are seeing locally. Inventory is increasing, but it also remains near historically low levels. Months of supply that I mentioned at the top of this podcast, it's picked up to the highest level it's been since the beginning of this pandemic. We're also talking about four to four and a half months of supply. Anything below six is a tight environment that has been historically associated with home prices continuing to climb.That's why our base case is for positive HPA this year. We're at +2 percent. That's slower than where we are now. We think you're going to continue to see deceleration. And because of what we're seeing from a supply and demand perspective, we are a little bit more skewed to the downside in our bear case. Instead of that +2, we're at -3 percent than we are towards the upside in our bull case. Instead of that plus two, we’re at plus 5 percent in the bull case. So slower HPA from here, but still positive.Jay Bacow: Well, Jim, it's always a pleasure talking to you, particularly when you're highlighting that the home price growth is going to be stronger in the place where I own a home.James Egan: Pleasure talking to you too, Jay. And to all of you listening, thank you for listening to another episode of Thoughts on the Market. Please leave a review or a like wherever you get this podcast and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.Jay Bacow: Go smash that subscribe button.

Transcribed - Published: 30 June 2025

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

Transcribed - Published: 27 June 2025

Our Global Head of Macro Strategy Matt Hornbach and U.S. Economist Michael Gapen assess the Fed’s path forward in light of inflation and a weaker economy, and the likely market outcomes. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Matt Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy. Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Matt Hornbach: Today we're discussing the outcome of the June Federal Open Market Committee meeting and our expectations for rates, inflation, and the U.S. dollar from here. It's Thursday, June 26th at 10am in New York. Matt Hornbach: Mike, the Federal Reserve decided to hold the federal funds rate steady, remaining within its target range of 4.25 to 4.5 percent. It still anticipates two rate cuts by the end of 2025; but participants adjusted their projections further out suggesting fewer cuts in 2026 and 2027. You, on the other hand, continue to think the Fed will stay on hold for the rest of this year, with a lot of cuts to follow in 2026. What specifically is behind your view, and are there any underappreciated dynamics here? Michael Gapen: So, we've been highlighting three reasons why we think the Fed will cut late but cut more. The first is tariffs introduce differential timing effects on the economy. They tend to push inflation higher in the near term and they weaken consumer spending with a lag. If tariffs act as a tax on consumption, that tax is applied by pushing prices higher – and then only subsequently do consumers spend less because they have less real income to spend. So, we think the Fed will be seeing more inflation first before it sees the weaker labor market later. The second part of our story is immigration. Immigration controls mean it's likely to be much harder to push the unemployment rate higher. That's because when we go from about 3 million immigrants per year down to about 300,000 – that means much lower growth in the labor force. So even if the economy does slow and labor demand moderates, the unemployment rate is likely to remain low. So again, that's similar to the tariff story where the Fed's likely to see more inflation now before it sees a weaker labor market later. And third, we don't really expect a big impulse from fiscal policy. The bill that's passed the house and is sitting in the Senate, we’ll see where that ultimately ends up. But the details that we have in hand today about those bills don't lead us to believe that we'll have a big impulse or a big boost to growth from fiscal policy next year. So, in total the Fed will see a lot of inflation in the near term and a weaker economy as we move into 2026. So, the Fed will be waiting to ensure that that inflation impulse is indeed transitory, but a Fed that cuts late will ultimately end up cutting more. So we don't have rate hikes this year, Matt, as you noted. But we do have 175 basis points in rate cuts next year. Matt Hornbach: So, Mike, looking through the transcript of the press conference, the word tariffs was used almost 30 times. What does the Fed's messaging say to you about its expectations around tariffs? Michael Gapen: Yeah, so it does look like in this meeting, participants did take a stand that tariffs were going to be higher, and they likely proceeded under the assumption of about a 14 percent effective tariff rate. So, I think you can see three imprints that tariffs have on their forecast.First, they're saying that inflation moves higher, and in the press conference Powell said explicitly that the Fed thinks inflation will be moving higher over the summer months. And they revised their headline and core PCE forecast higher to about 3 percent and 3.1 percent – significant upward revisions from where they had things earlier in the year in March before tariffs became clear. The second component here is the Fed thinks any inflation story will be transitory. Famous last words, of course. But the Fed forecast that inflation will fall back towards the 2 percent target in 2026 and 2027; so near-term impulse that fades over time. And third, the Fed sees tariffs as slowing economic growth. The Fed revised lower its outlook for growth in real GDP this year. So, in some [way], by incorporating tariffs and putting such a significant imprint on the forecast, the Fed's outlook has actually moved more in the direction of our own forecast. Matt Hornbach: I'd like to stay on the topic of geopolitics. In contrast to the word tariffs, the words Middle East only was mentioned three times during the press conference. With the weekend events there, investor concerns are growing about a spike in oil prices. How do you think the Fed will think about any supply-driven rise in energy, commodity prices here? Michael Gapen: Yeah, I think the Fed will view this as another element that suggests slower growth and stickier inflation. I think it will reinforce the Fed's view of what tariffs and immigration controls do to the outlook. Because historically when we look at shocks to oil prices in the U.S.; if you get about a 10 percent rise in oil prices from here, like another $10 increase in oil prices; history would suggest that will move headline inflation higher because it gets passed directly into retail gasoline prices. So maybe a 30 to 40 basis point increase in a year-on-year rate of inflation. But the evidence also suggests very limited second round effects, and almost no change in core inflation. So, you get a boost to headline inflation, but no persistence elements – very similar to what the Fed thinks tariffs will do. And of course, the higher cost of gasoline will eat into consumer purchasing power. So, on that, I think it's another force that suggests a slower growth, stickier inflation outlook is likely to prevail.Okay Matt, you've had me on the hot seat. Now it's your turn. How do you think about the market pricing of the Fed's policy path from here? It certainly seems to conflict with how I'm thinking about the most likely path. Matt Hornbach: So, when we look at market prices, we have to remember that they are representing an average path across all various paths that different investors might think are more likely than not.     So, the market price today, has about 100 basis points of cuts by the end of 2026. That contrasts both with your path in terms of magnitude. You are forecasting 175 basis points of rate cuts; the market is only pricing in 100. But also, the market pricing contrasts with your policy path in that the market does have some rate cuts in the price for this year, whereas your most likely path does not. So that's how I look at the market price. You know, the question then becomes, where does it go to from here? And that's something that we ultimately are incorporating into our forecasts for the level of Treasury yields. Michael Gapen: Right. So, turning to that, so moving a little further out the curve into those longer dated Treasury yields. What do you think about those? Your forecast suggests lower yields over the next year and a half. When do you think that process starts to play out? Matt Hornbach: So, in our projections, we have Treasury yields moving lower, really beginning in the fourth quarter of this year. And that is to align with the timing of when you see the Fed beginning to lower rates, which is in the first quarter of next year. So, market prices tend to get ahead of different policy actions, and we expect that to remain the case this year as well. As we approach the end of the year, we are expecting Treasury yields to begin falling more precipitously than they have over recent months. But what are the risks around that projection? In our view, the risks are that this process starts earlier rather than later. In other words, where we have most conviction in our projections is in the direction of travel for Treasury yields as opposed to the timing of exactly when they begin to fall. So, we are recommending that investors begin gearing up for lower Treasury yields even today. But in our projections, you'll see our numbers really begin to fall in the fourth quarter of the year, such that the 10-year Treasury yield ends this year around 4 percent, and it ends 2026 closer to 3 percent. Michael Gapen: And these days it's really impossible to talk about movements in Treasury yields without thinking about the U.S. dollar. So how are you thinking about the dollar amidst the conflict in the Middle East and your outlook for Treasury yields? Matt Hornbach: So, we are projecting the U.S. dollar will depreciate another 10 percent over the next 12 to 18 months. That's coming on the back of a pretty dramatic decline in the value of the dollar in the first six months of this year, where it also declined by about 10 percent in terms of its value against other currencies. So, we are expecting a continued depreciation, and the conflict in the Middle East and what it may end up doing to the energy complex is a key risk to our view that the dollar will continue to depreciate, if we end up seeing a dramatic rise in crude oil prices. That rise would end up benefiting countries, and the currencies of those countries who are net exporters of oil; and may end up hurting the countries and the currencies of the countries that are net importers of oil. The good news is that the United States doesn't really import a lot of oil these days, but neither is it a large net exporter either.So, the U.S. in some sense turns out to be a bit of a neutral party in this particular issue. But if we see a rise in energy prices that could benefit other currencies more than it benefits the U.S. dollar. And therefore, we could see a temporary reprieve in the dollar’s depreciation, which would then push our forecast perhaps a little bit further into the future. So, with that, Mike, thanks for taking the time to talk. Michael Gapen: It's great speaking with you, Matt. Matt Hornbach: 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.

Transcribed - Published: 26 June 2025

Our Australia Materials Analyst Rahul Anand discusses why critical minerals may be the Achilles’ heel of humanoids as demand significantly outpaces supply amid geopolitical uncertainties. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Rahul Anand: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Rahul Anand, Head of Morgan Stanley’s Australia Materials Research team.Today, I'll dig deeper into one of the vital necessities for the development of robotics – critical minerals – and why they're so vital to be front of mind for the Western world today. It's Wednesday, June 25th at 8am in Sydney, Australia. Humanoid robots will soon become an integral part of our daily lives. A few weeks ago, you heard my colleagues Adam Jonas and Sheng Zhong discuss how humanoids are going to transform the economy and markets. Morgan Stanley Research expects this market to reach more than a billion units by 2050 and generate almost [$] 5 trillion in annual revenue. When we think about that market, and we think about what it could do for critical minerals demand, that could skyrocket. And the key areas of critical minerals demand would basically be focused on rare earths, lithium and graphite. Each one of these complex machines is going to require about a kilo of rare earths, 2 kgs of lithium, 6.5 kgs kilos of copper, 1.5 kgs of nickel, 3 kgs of graphite, and about 200 grams of cobalt. Importantly, this market from a cumulative standpoint by the year 2050, could be to the tune of about $800 billion U.S., which is staggering.And beyond that market size of $800 billion U.S., I think it's important to drill a bit deeper – because if we now consider how these markets are dominated currently, comes the China angle. And China currently dominates 88 percent of rare earth supply, 93 percent of graphite supply and 75 percent of refined lithium supply. China recently placed controls on seven heavy rare earths and permanent magnet exports in response to tariff announcements that were made by the U.S., and a comprehensive deal there is still awaited. It's very important that we have to think about diversification today, not just because these critical minerals are so heavily dominated by China. But more importantly, if we think about how the supply chain comes about, it's now taking circa 18 years to get a new mine online, and that's the statistic for the past five years of mines that came online. That number is up nearly 50 percent from last decade, and that's been driven basically by very long approval processes now in the Western world, alongside very long exploration times that are required to get some of these mines up and running. On top of that, when we think about the supply demand balance, by 2040 we're expecting that the NdPr, or the rare earth, market would be in a 26 percent deficit. Lithium could be in a deficit close to 80 percent. So, it's not just about supply security. It's also about how long it will take to bring these mines on. And on top of that, how big the amount of supply that's required is really going to be. I know when you think about 2040, it sounds very long dated, but it's important to understand that we have to act now. And in this humanoid piece of research that we have done as the global materials team, which was led by the Australian materials team, we basically have provided 34 global stocks to play this thematic in the rare earths, lithium and rare earth magnet space. It's also very important to remember and keep front of mind that as part of the London negotiations that happened between U.S. and China, no agreement was reached on critical military use rare earth magnets and exports. Now that's an important point because that's going to play as a key point of leverage in any future trade deal that comes about between the two countries. This remains an evolving situation, and this is something that we are going to continue monitoring and will bring you the latest on as time progresses.Look, 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.

Transcribed - Published: 25 June 2025

Morgan Stanley’s Chief Asia Equity Strategist Jonathan Garner explains why Indian equities are our most preferred market in Asia. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Jonathan Garner, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Asia Equity Strategist. Today I’ll discuss why we remain positive on India’s long-term equity story.It’s Tuesday, the 24th of June at 9am in Singapore.We’ve had a long-standing bullish outlook on the India economy and its stock market. In the last five years MSCI India has delivered a total return in U.S. dollars of 145 percent versus 94 percent for global equities and just 39 percent for emerging markets. Indian equities are our most preferred market within Asia for three key reasons. First, India’s superior economic and earnings growth. Second, lower exposure to trade tariffs. And third, a strong domestic investor base. And all of this adds up to structural outperformance not just in Asia but indeed globally, and with significantly lower volatility than peer group markets. So let’s dive deeper. To start with – the macroeconomic backdrop. We expect India to account for 20 percent of overall incremental global GDP growth in the coming decade. Manufacturing competitiveness is improving thanks to bolstered infrastructure in power, ports, roads, freight transport systems as well as investments in social infrastructure such as water, sewage and hospitals. Additionally, India's growing middle class offers market opportunities to companies across many product categories. There’s robust domestic consumption, a strong investment cycle led by public and private capital expenditure and continuing structural reforms, including in the legal sphere. GDP growth in the first quarter was more than 7 percent and our team expects over 6 percent in the medium term, which would be by far the highest of the major economies. Furthermore, we continue to expect robust corporate earnings growth. Since the end of COVID, MSCI India has delivered around 12 percent per annum [U.S.] dollar earnings per share growth versus low single digits for Emerging Markets overall. And we forecast 14 percent and 16 percent over the next two fiscal years. Growth drivers in the short term include an emerging private CapEx cycle, re-leveraging of corporate balance sheets, and a structural rise in discretionary consumption – signaling increased business and consumer confidence, after last year’s elections. Another key reason that we’re positive on India currently is its lower-than-average vulnerability to ongoing trade and tariff disputes between the U.S. and its trade partners. Exports of goods to the U.S. amount to only 2 percent of India’s GDP versus, for example, 10 percent in Thailand or 14 percent in Taiwan. And India’s total goods exports are only around 12 percent of GDP. Moreover, for the time being, India’s very large services sector’s exports are not exposed to tariff actions, and are actually early beneficiaries of AI adoption. Finally, India’s strong individual stock ownership means that there’s persistent retail buying, which underpins the equity market. Systematic Investment Plan (SIP) flows driven by a young urbanizing population are making new highs, and in May amounted to over U.S.$3 billion. They provide consistent capital inflows. That means that this domestic bid on stocks is unlikely to fade anytime soon. This provides a strong foundation for the market and supports valuations which are slightly above emerging market averages. It also means that its market beta to global equities are low and falling, approximately 0.4 versus 1.1 ten years ago. And price volatility is well below other emerging markets. All told, making India an attractive play in volatile times. 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.

Transcribed - Published: 24 June 2025

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains why investors have largely remained calm amid recent developments in the Middle East. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing how to think about the tensions in the Middle East for U.S. equities.  It's Monday, June 23rd at 11:30am in New York.  So, let’s get after it.  Over the weekend, the United States executed a surprise attack on Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities. While the extent of the damage has yet to be confirmed, President Trump has indicated Iran’s nuclear weapon development efforts have been diminished substantially, if not fully. If true, then this could be viewed as a peak rate of change for this risk. In many ways this fits our overall narrative for U.S. equities that we have likely passed the worst for many risks that were weighing on stocks in the first quarter of the year. Things like immigration enforcement, fiscal spending cuts, tariffs and AI CapEx deceleration all contributed to dragging down earnings forecasts.  Fast forward to today and all of these items have peaked in terms of their negative impact, and earnings forecasts have rebounded since Mid-April. In fact, the rebound in earnings revision breadth is one of the sharpest on record and provides a fundamental reason for why U.S. stocks have been so strong since bottoming the week of April 7th. Add in the events of this past weekend and it makes sense why equities are not selling off this morning as many might have expected.  For further context, we looked at 23 major geopolitical events since 1950 and the impact on stock prices. What we found may surprise listeners, but it is a well understood fact by seasoned investors. Geopolitical shocks are typically followed by higher, not lower equity prices, especially over 6 to12 months. Only five of the 23 outcomes were negative. And importantly, all the negative outcomes were accompanied by oil prices that were at least 75 percent higher on a year-over-year basis. As of this morning, oil prices are down 10 percent year-over-year and this is after the actions over the weekend. In other words, the conditions are not in place for lower equity prices on a 6 to12 month horizon.  Having said that, we continue to recommend large cap higher quality equities rather than small cap lower quality names. This is mostly a function of sticky long term interest rates and the fact that we remain in a late cycle environment in which the Fed is on hold. Should that change and the Fed begin to signal rate cuts, we would pivot to a more cyclical areas of the market.  Our favorite sectors remain Industrials which are geared to higher capital spending for power and infrastructure, Financials which will benefit from deregulation this fall and software stocks that remain immune from tariffs and levered to the next area of spending for AI diffusion across the economy. We also like Energy over consumer discretionary as a hedge against the risk of higher oil prices in the near term.  Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found today's episode informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review; and if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!

Transcribed - Published: 23 June 2025

Our analysts Andrew Sheets and Kelvin Pang explain why international issuers may be interested in so-called ‘dim sum’ bonds, despite Asia’s growth drag. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Kelvin Pang: And I'm Kelvin Pang, Head of Asia Credit Strategy. Andrew Sheets: And today in the program we're going to finish our global tour of credit markets with a discussion of Asia. It's Friday, June 20th at 2pm in London. Kelvin Pang: And 9pm in Hong Kong. Andrew Sheets: Kelvin, thank you for joining us. Thank you especially for joining us so late in your day – to complete this credit World tour. And before we get into the Asia credit market, I think it would just be helpful to frame at a very high level – how you see the economic picture in the region. Kelvin Pang: We do think that the talks and potential deals will probably provide some reprieve towards the growth for the region, but not a big relief. We do think that tariff uncertainty will linger here, and it will keep growth low here; especially if we do think that CapEx of the region will be weaker due to tariff uncertainty. A weaker U.S. dollar, for example, plus monetary easing will help offset some of this growth drag. But overall, we do think that the Asia region could see 90 basis point down in real GDP growth from last year. Andrew Sheets: So, we've got weaker growth in Asia as a function of high tariffs and high tariff uncertainty that can't be offset by further policy easing. In the context of that weaker growth backdrop, higher uncertainty – are credit spreads in the region wide? Kelvin Pang: No, they're actually really low. They're probably at like the lowest since we start having a data in 2013. So definitely like a 12 to 13 year low of the range. Andrew Sheets: And so why is that? Why do you have this kind of seemingly odd disconnect between some real growth challenges? And as you just mentioned, really some of the tightest credit spreads, some of the lowest risk premiums that we've seen in quite some time? Kelvin Pang: Yeah, we get this question a lot from clients, and the short answer is that, you know, the technicals, right? Because the last two years, two-three years, we've been seeing negative net supply for Asia credit. A lot of that is driven by China credit. And if you look at year-to-date, non supply remain still negative net supply. And demand side, for example, has not really picked up that strongly. But it still offsets any outflows that we see the last two-three years; is offset by this negative net supply. So, you put this two together, we have this very strong technicals that support very tight spread. And that's why spread has been tight at historical end in the last, I would say, one to two years. Andrew Sheets: Do you see this changes? Kelvin Pang: Yeah, we do think it's changed. We have a framework that we call the normalization of Asia Credit technicals. And for that to change, essentially our framework is saying that Treasury yields use need to go down, and dollar funding need to go down. Cheaper dollar funding will bring back issuers. Net supply should pick up. Demand for credit tends to do well in a rate cut cycle. Demand tends to pick up in a rate cut cycle. So, if we have these two supports, we do think that Asia credit technicals will normalize. It's just that, you know, we have four stages of normalization. Unfortunately we are in stage two now, and we still have a bit of room to see some further normalization, especially if we don't get rate cuts. Andrew Sheets: Got it. So, you know, we do think that if Morgan Stanley's yield forecasts are correct, yields are going to fall. Issuers will look at those lower yields as more attractive. They'll issue more paper in Asia and that will kind of help rebalance the market some. But we're just not quite there yet. Kelvin Pang: Yeah, we feel like this road to rate cuts has been delayed a few times, in the last two-three years. And that has really been a big conundrum for a lot of Asia credit investors. So hopefully third time's a charm, right. So next year's a big year. Andrew Sheets: So, I guess while we're waiting for that, you also have this dynamic where for companies in Asia, or I guess for any company in the world, borrowing money locally in Asia is quite cheap. You have very low yields in China. You have very low local yields in Japan. How do those yields compare with the economics of borrowing in dollars? And what do you think that, kind of, means for your market? Kelvin Pang: Yeah, I think the short answer is that we are going to see more foreign issuers in local currency market. And, you know, we wrote a report in in March to just to pick on the dim sum corporate bond market. It benefits… Andrew Sheets: And Kelvin, just to stop you there, could you just describe to the listener what a dim sum bond is? And probably why you don't want to eat it? Kelvin Pang: Yes. So dim sum bond is basically a bond denominator in CNH. So, CNH is a[n] offshore Chinese renminbi, sort of, proxy. And it's called dim sum because it's like the most local cuisine in Hong Kong. Most – a lot of dim sum bonds are issued in Hong Kong. A lot of these CNH bonds are issued in Hong Kong, And that's why, [it has] this, you know, sort nickname called dim sum. Andrew Sheets: So, what is the outlook for that market and the economics for issuers who might be interested in it? Kelvin Pang: Yeah. We think it's a great place for global issuers who have natural demand for renminbi or CNH to issue; 10 years CGB is now is like 1.5-1.6 percent. That makes it a very attractive yield. And for a lot of these multinationals, they have natural renminbi needs. So, they don't need to worry about the hedging part of it. And what – and for a lot of investor base, the demands are picking up because we are seeing that renminbi internationalization are making some progress. You know, progress in that means better demand. So, overall, we do think that there is a good chance that the renminbi market or the dim sum market can be a bit more global player – or global, sort of, friendly market for investors. Andrew Sheets: Kelvin, another sector I wanted to ask you about was the China property sector. This was a sector that generated significant headlines over the last several years. It's faced significant credit challenges. It's very large, even by global standards. What's the latest on how China Property Credit is doing and how does that influence your overall view? Kelvin Pang: it's been four plus years, since first default started. and we've been through like 44 China property defaults, close to about 127 billion of total dollar bonds that defaulted. So, we are close to the end of the default cycle. Unfortunately, the end or default cycle doesn't mean that we are in the recovery phase, or we are in the speedy recovery phase. We are seeing a lot of companies struggling to come out restructuring. There are companies that come out restructuring and re-enter defaults. So, we do think that it is a long way to go for a lot of these property developers to come out restructuring and to get back to a going concern, kind of, status – I think we are still a bit far. We need to see the recovery in the physical property markets. And for that to happen, we do need to see the China economy to pick up, which give confidence to the home buyers in that sense. Andrew Sheets: So, Kelvin, we started this conversation with this kind of odd disconnect that kind of defines your market. You have a region that has some of the most significant growth risks from tariffs, some of the highest tariff exposure, and yet also has some of the lowest credit risk premiums with these quite tight spreads. If you look more broadly, are there any other kind of disconnects in your market that you think investors around the world should be aware of? Kelvin Pang: Yeah, we do think that investors need to take advantage of the disconnect because what we have now is a very compressed spread. And we like to be in high quality, right? Whether it is switching our Asia high yield into Asia investment grade, whether it is switching out of, you know, BBB credit into A credit. We think, you know, investors don't lose a lot of spread by doing that. But they manage to pick out higher quality credit. At the same time, we do think that one thing unique about Asia credit is that we have significant exposure to tariff risk. Asia countries are one of the few that are, you know; seven out the 10 countries that are having trade surplus with the U.S. And that's why we think that the iTraxx Asia Ex-Japan CDS index could be a good way to get exposure to tariffs. And the index did very well during the Liberation Day sell off. Now it's trading back to more like normal level of 70-75 basis point. We do think that, you know, for investors who want long tariff with risk, that could be a good way to add risk. Andrew Sheets: Kelvin, it's been great talking to you. Thanks for taking the time to talk. Kelvin Pang: Thank you, Andrew. Andrew Sheets: And thank you listeners as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts of the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

Transcribed - Published: 20 June 2025

Our Global Commodities Strategist Martijn Rats explores three possible scenarios for oil prices in light of geopolitical shifts in the Middle East.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.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Martijn Rats: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Martin Rats, Morgan Stanley's Global Commodity Strategist. Today I'll talk about oil price dynamics amidst escalating tensions between Israel and Iran. It's Wednesday, June 18th at 3pm in London. Industry watchers with an eye on the Brent Forward Curve recently noticed a rare smile shape: downward sloping in the first couple of months, but then an upward sloping curve later this year, and into 2026. Now that changed last Friday. The oil market creates these various shapes in the Forward Curve, depending on how it sees the supply demand balance. When the forward curve is downward sloping, holding inventory really is quite unattractive; so typically, operators release barrels from storage under those conditions. The market creates that structure when the conditions are tight, and barrels indeed need to be released from storage.Now on the other end, when the market is oversupplied, oil needs to be put into inventory, and the market makes this possible by creating an upward sloping curve. So, the curve that existed until only recently told the story of some near-term tightness first, but then a substantial surplus later this year and into 2026. Now when the tensions in the Middle East escalated late last week, the oil complex responded strongly. But not only did the front-month Brent future, i.e. oil for delivery next month rise quite sharply by about 17 percent, the impact of the conflict was also felt across all future delivery dates. By now, the entire forward curve is downward sloping, which means that the oil market no longer is pricing in any surplus next year – a big change from only a few days ago. Now, no doubt, Friday's events have sharply widened the range of possible future oil price paths. However, looking ahead, we would argue that oil prices fall in three main scenarios. Together they provide a framework to navigate the oil market in the next couple of weeks and months. First, let's consider the most benign scenario. Military conflict does not always correlate with disruptions to oil supply, even in major oil producing regions. So far, there is no reduction in supply from the region. If oil and gas infrastructure remains out of the crosshairs, it is entirely possible that that continues. In that case, we might see brand prices retract to around about $60 per barrel, down from the current level of about $76 per barrel.Our second scenario recognizes that Iran's oil exports could be at risk either because of attacks on physical infrastructure or because of sanctions – mirroring the reductions that we saw during 2018’s Maximum Pressure Campaign by the United States. If Iran were to lose most of its export capacity, that would broadly offset the surplus that we are currently modeling for the oil market next year, which would then in turn leave a broadly balanced market. Now in a balanced oil market, oil prices are probably in a $75 to $80 per barrel range. The third and most severe scenario encompasses a broad regional disruption, possibly pushing prices as high as 2022 levels of around $120 a barrel. Now, that could unfold if Iran targets oil infrastructure across the wider Gulf region, including critical routes like the Strait of Hormuz, through which a significant portion of the world's oil transits. The situation remains very fluid, and we could see a wide spectrum of potential oil price outcomes. We believe the most likely scenario remains the first – our base case – with supply eventually remaining stable. However, the probabilities of the more severe disruptions whilst currently still lower, still justify a risk premium of about $10 per barrel for the foreseeable future. As we monitor these developments, investors should stay alert to signs such as further attacks on all infrastructure or escalations in sanctions, which could signal shifts towards our more severe scenarios. Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen. And share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Transcribed - Published: 18 June 2025

Our Senior Japan Economics Advisor discusses Japan’s systematic approach to AI and the lessons it offers for other markets. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Robert Feldman, Senior Advisor at Morgan Stanley MUFG Securities in Tokyo. Today I’d like to discuss Japan’s crucial contributions in global AI development.It’s Tuesday, June 17, at 2 PM in Tokyo.Japan has always been a world leader in advanced technology infrastructure and robotics. So it comes as no surprise that Japanese devices and materials play critical roles in the global AI supply chain. For investors, however, it's vital to understand Japan's unique systematic approach to AI and the lessons it offers other countries. In Japan, AI has historically developed through this symbiotic interaction of four elements: Hardware, Software, Data, and Ethics. Japanese technology advances not only evolve, but they co-evolve – meaning that advances in one element make advances in others more urgent. And when those latter advances occur, chokepoints arise in yet other elements. However, unlike co-evolution in nature, where chance mutations just happen to reinforce each other, co-evolution in AI is driven by human intent. That is, humans see a chokepoint and address it with innovation. These chokepoints – or bottlenecks in development – they’re crucial to the way we think about AI. Identifying the chokepoints allows firms and industries to innovate. And Investors should also pay particular attention to these chokepoints because that’s where the investment opportunities are. For example, at a recent event, we asked a medium-sized Japanese retail food manufacturing company president – who is an energetic AI advocate – which factor was the biggest chokepoint for his firm. And he replied unequivocally, immediately, “Data.” His firm has some data; so do his competitors. But there is no common protocol for recording the data, contributing information to a common database, and still maintaining anonymity. So clearly, the chokepoint around Data suggests that this company will need innovative data solutions so that it can then take advantage of the other three key elements: the Hardware, the Software, and the Ethics. Ethics is crucial because people won’t use AI unless there is an ethical basis. So in terms of this element – the ethics element – Japan's commitment to ethical AI development has been very flexible. On one hand, Japan has robust legal frameworks, like the Act for the Protection of Personal Information and subsequent amendments. These laws ensure that AI advances within a secure and ethical boundary. And the laws are not just on paper. They are actively enforced. A few years ago there was a landmark court ruling that upheld data privacy against unauthorized AI use. However, Japan also is flexible. The data rules are tweaked, to allow more practical approach to developing large language models. Another unique part of Japan’s approach to ethics is the proactive emphasis on AI literacy. From corporate giants to small businesses, there is a concerted effort to train personnel not just in the AI technology but also in the ethical application, and thus ensure this well-rounded acceptable advancement in AI capability. This approach to training workers is not just altruism; Japan faces a severe labor shortage, and AI is widely viewed as a critical part of the solution. So good ethics are bringing faster AI diffusion. Ultimately, on a global macroeconomic level, the winners from AI will be the corporations and the nations that do three things: First quickly introduce the technology; second, rapidly innovate new products and processes that use AI; and third, retrain labor and reallocate capital to produce these new and innovative products. With this macro backdrop, Japan’s intentional use of the symbiosis between Hardware, Software, Data, and Ethics gives Japan some unique advantages in accelerating AI diffusion and spurring economic 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.

Transcribed - Published: 17 June 2025

While market sentiment on U.S. large caps turns cautious, our Chief CIO and U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains why there's still room to stay constructive. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast, I’ll be discussing why we remain more constructive than the consensus on large cap U.S. equities – and which sectors in particular.   It's Monday, June 16th at 9:30am in New York.  So, let’s get after it.  We remain more constructive on U.S. equities than the consensus mainly because key gauges we follow are pointing to a stronger earnings backdrop than others expect over the next 12 months. First, our main earnings model is showing high-single-digit Earnings Per Share growth over the next year. Second, earnings revision breadth is inflecting sharply higher from -25 percent in mid-April to -9 percent today. Third, we have a secondary Earnings Leading model that takes into account the cost side of the equation; and that one is forecasting mid-teens Earnings Per Share growth by the first half of 2026. More specifically, it’s pointing to higher profitability due to cost efficiencies.  Interestingly, this was something we heard frequently last week at the Morgan Stanley Financials Conference with many companies highlighting the adoption of Artificial Intelligence to help streamline operations. Finally, the most underappreciated tailwind for S&P 500 earnings remains the weaker dollar which is down 11 percent from the January highs. As a reminder, our currency strategists expect another 7 percent downside over the next 12 months.  The combination of a stronger level of earnings revisions breadth and a robust rate of change on earnings revisions breadth since growth expectations troughed in mid-April is a powerful tailwind for many large cap stocks, with the strongest impact in the Capital Goods and Software industries.  These industries have compelling structural growth drivers. For Capital Goods, it’s tied to a renewed focus on global infrastructure spending. The rate of change on capacity utilization is in positive territory for the first time in two and a half years and aggregate commercial and industrial loans are growing again, reaching the highest level since 2020. The combination of structural tech diffusion and a global infrastructure focus in many countries is leading to a more capital intensive backdrop. Bonus depreciation in the U.S. should be another tailwind here – as it incentivizes a pickup in equipment investment, benefitting Capital Goods companies most directly. Meanwhile, Software is in a strong position to drive free cash flow via GenAI solutions from both a revenue and cost standpoint.  Another sector we favor is large cap financials which could start to see meaningful benefits of de-regulation in the second half of the year. The main risk to our more constructive view remains long term interest rates. While Wednesday's below consensus consumer price report was helpful in terms of keeping yields contained, we find it interesting that rates did not fall on Friday with the rise in geopolitical tensions. As a result, the 10-year yield remains in close distance of our key 4.5 percent level, above which rate sensitivity should increase for stocks. On the positive side, interest rate volatility is well off its highs in April and closer to multi-year lows.   Our long-standing Consumer Discretionary Goods underweight is based on tariff-related headwinds, weaker pricing power and a late cycle backdrop, which typically means underperformance of this sector. Staying underweight the group also provides a natural hedge should oil prices rise further amid rising tensions in the Middle East. We also continue to underweight small caps which are hurt the most from higher oil prices and sticky interest rates. These companies also suffer from a weaker dollar via higher costs and a limited currency translation benefit on the revenue side given their mostly domestic operations.   Finally, the concern that comes up most frequently in our client discussions is high valuations.  Our more sanguine view here is based on the fact that the rate of change on valuation is more important than the level. In our mid-year outlook, we showed that when Earnings Per Share growth is above the historical median of 7 percent, and the Fed Funds Rate is down on a year-over-year basis, the S&P 500's market multiple is up 90 percent of the time, regardless of the starting point. In fact, when these conditions are met, the S&P's forward P/E ratio has risen by 9 percent on average. Therefore, our forecast for the market multiple to stay near current levels of 21.5x could be viewed as conservative. Should history repeat and valuations rise 10 percent, our bull case for the S&P 500 over the next year becomes very achievable.   Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found this episode informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review; and if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!

Transcribed - Published: 16 June 2025

Our economists Michael Gapen and Sam Coffin discuss how a drop in immigration is tightening labor markets, and what that means for the U.S. economic outlook and Fed policy.  Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Michael Gapen: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist.Sam Coffin: And I'm Sam Coffin, Senior Economist on our U.S. Economics research team.Michael Gapen: Today we're going to have a discussion about the potential economic consequences of the administration’s shift in immigration policies. In particular, we’ll focus much of our attention on the influence that immigration reform is having on the U.S. labor market. And what it means for our outlook on Federal Reserve policy.It's Friday, June 13th at 9am in New York.So, Sam, news headlines have been dominated by developments in the President's immigration policies; what is being called by, at least some commentators, as a toughening in his stance.But I'd like to set the stage first with any new information that you think we've received on border encounters and interior removals. The administration has released new data on that recently that covered at least some of the activity earlier this year. What did it tell you? And did it differ markedly from your expectations?Sam Coffin: What we saw at first was border encounters falling sharply to 30,000 a month from 200,000 or 300,000 a month last year. It was perhaps a surprise that they fell that sharply. And on the flip side, interior removals turned out to be much more difficult than the administration had suggested. They'd been targeting maybe 500,000 per year in removals, 1500 a day. And we're hitting a third or a half of that pace.Michael Gapen: So maybe the recent escalation in ICE raids could be in response to this, right? The fact that interior removals have not been as large as some in the administration would desire.Sam Coffin: That's correct. And we think those efforts will continue. The House Budget Reconciliation Bill, for example, has about $155 billion more in the budget for ICE, a large increase over its current budget. This will likely mean greater efforts at interior removals. About half of it goes to stricter border enforcement. The other half goes to new agents and more operations. We'll see what the final bill looks like, but it would be about a five-fold increase in funding.Michael Gapen: Okay. So much fewer encounters, meaning fewer migrants entering the U.S., and stepped-up enforcement on interior removals. So, I guess, shifting gears on the back of that data. Two important visa programs have also been in the news. One is the so-called CHNV Parole Program that's allowed Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans to enter the U.S. on parole. The Supreme Court recently ruled that the administration could proceed with removing their immigration status.We also have immigrants on TPS, or Temporary Protected Status, which is subject to periodic removal; if the administration determines that the circumstances that warranted their immigration into the U.S. are no longer present. So, these would be immigrants coming to the U.S. in response to war, conflict, environmental disasters, hurricanes, so forth.So, Sam, how do you think about the ramping up of immigration controls in these areas? Is the end of these temporary programs important? How many immigrants are on them? And what would the cancellation of these mean in terms of your outlook for immigration?Sam Coffin: Yeah, for CHNV Paroles, there are about 500,000 people paroled into the U.S. The Supreme Court ruled that the administration can cancel those paroles. We expect now that those 500,000 are probably removed from the country over the next six months or so. And the temporary protected status; similarly, there are about 800,000 people on temporary protected status. About 600,000 of them have their temporary status revoked at this point or at least revoked sometime soon. And it looks like we'll get a couple hundred thousand in deportations out from that program this year and the rest next year.The result is net immigration probably falling to 300,000 people this year. We'd expected about a million, when we came into this year, but the faster pace of deportation takes that down. So, 300,000 this year and 300,000 next year, between the reduction in border encounters and the increase in deportations.Michael Gapen: So that's a big shift from what we thought coming into the year. What does that mean for population growth and growth in the labor force? And how would this compare – just put it in context from where we were coming out of the pandemic when immigration inflows were quite large.Sam Coffin: Yeah. Population growth before the pandemic was running 0.5 to 0.75 percent per year. With the large increase in immigration, it accelerated 1-1.25 percent during the years of the fastest immigration. At this point, it falls by about a point to 0.3-0.4 percent population growth over the next couple of years.Michael Gapen: So almost flat growth in the labor force, right? So, translate that into what economists would call a break-even employment rate. How much employment do you need to push the unemployment rate down or push the unemployment rate up?Sam Coffin: Yeah, so last year – I mean, we have the experience of last year. And last year about 200,000 a month in payroll growth was consistent with a flat unemployment rate. So far this year, that's full on to 160,000-170,000 a month, consistent with a flat unemployment rate. With further reduction in labor force growth, it would probably decline to about 70,000 a month. So much slower payrolls to hold the unemployment rate flat.Michael Gapen: So, as you know, we've taken the view, Sam, that immigration controls and restrictions will mean a few important things for the economy, right? One is fewer consuming households and softening demand, but the foreign-born worker has a much higher participation rate than domestic workers; about 4 to 5 percentage points higher.So, a lot less labor force growth, as you mentioned. How have these developments changed your view on exactly how hard it's going to be to push the unemployment rate higher?Sam Coffin: So, so far this year, payrolls have averaged about 140,000 a month, and the unemployment rate's been going sideways at 4.2 percent. It's been going sideways since – for about nine months now, in fact. We do expect that payroll growth slows over the course of this year, along with the slowing in domestic demand. We have payroll growth falling around 50,000 a month by late in the year; but the unemployment rate going sideways, 4.3 percent this year because of that decline in breakeven payrolls.For next year, we also have weak payroll growth. We also expect weak payroll growth of about 50,000 a month. But the unemployment rate rising somewhat more to 4.8 percent by the end of the year.Michael Gapen: So, immigration controls really mean the unemployment rate will rise, but less than you might expect and later than you might expect, right? So that's I guess what we would classify as the cyclical effect of immigration.But we also think immigration controls and a much slower growth in the labor force means downward pressure on potential. Where are we right now in terms of potential growth and where's that vis-a-vis where we were? And if these immigration controls go into place, where do we think potential growth is going?Sam Coffin: Well, GDP potential is measured as the sum of productivity growth and growth in trend hours worked. The slower immigration means slower labor force growth and less capacity for hours. We estimated potential growth between 2.5 and 3 percent growth in 2022 to 2024. But we have it falling to 2.0 percent presently – or back to where it was before COVID. If we're right on immigration going forward and we see those faster deportations and the continued stoppage at the border, it could mean potential growth of only 1.5 percent next year.Michael Gapen: That’s a big change, of course, from where the economy was just, you know, 12 to 18 months ago. And I'd like to circle back to one point that you made in bringing up the recent employment numbers. In the May job report that was released last week, we also saw a decline in labor force participation. It went down two-tenths on the month.Now, on one hand that may have prevented a rise in the unemployment rate. It was 4.2 but could have been maybe 4.5 percent or so – had the participation rate held constant. So maybe the labor market weakened, and we just don't know it yet. But you have an idea that you've put forward in some of our reports that there might be another explanation behind the drop in the participation rate. What is that?Sam Coffin: It could be that the threat of increased deportations has created a chilling effect on the participation rate of undocumented workers.Michael Gapen: So, explain to listeners what we mean by a chilling effect in participation, right? We're not talking about restricting inflows or actual deportations. What are we referring to?Sam Coffin: Perhaps undocumented workers step out of the workforce temporarily to avoid detection, similar to how people stayed out of the workforce during the pandemic because of fear of infection or need to take care of children or parents. If this is the case, some of the foreign-born population may be stepping out of the labor force for a longer period of time.Michael Gapen: Right. Which would mean the unemployment rate at 4.2 percent is real and does not mask weakness in the labor market. So, whether it's less in migration, more interior removals, or a chilling effect on participation, then the labor market still stays tight.Sam Coffin: And this is why we think the Fed moves later but ultimately cuts more. It's a combination of tariffs and immigration.Michael Gapen: That's right. So, our baseline is that tariffs push inflation higher first, and so the Fed sees that. But if we're right on immigration and your forecast is that the unemployment rate finishes the year at 4.3, then the Fed just stays on hold. And it's not until the unemployment rate starts rising in 2026 that the Fed turns to cuts, right. So, we have cuts starting in March of next year. And the Fed cutting all the way down to 250 to 275.Well, I think altogether, Sam, this is what we know now. It's certainly a fluid situation. Headlines are changing rapidly, so our thoughts may evolve over time as the policy backdrop evolves. But Sam, thank you for speaking with me.Sam Coffin: Thank you very much.Michael Gapen: And 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.

Transcribed - Published: 13 June 2025

Our analysts Andrew Sheets and Aron Becker explain why European credit markets’ performance for the rest of 2025 could be tied to U.S. growth. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Aron Becker: And I'm Aron Becker, Head of European Credit Strategy.Andrew Sheets: And today on the program, we're continuing a series of conversations covering the outlook for credit around the world. Morgan Stanley has recently updated its forecast for the next 12 months, and here we're going to bring you the latest views on what matters for European credit.It's Thursday, June 12th at 2pm in London.So, Aron, it's great to have this conversation with you. Today we're going to be talking about the European credit outlook. We talked with our colleague Vishwas in the other week about the U.S. credit outlook. But let's really dive into Europe and how that looks from the perspective of a credit investor.And maybe the place to start is, from your perspective, how do you see the economic backdrop in Europe, and what do you think that means for credit?Aron Becker: Right. So, on the European side, our growth expectations remain somewhat more challenging. Our economists are expecting growth after a fairly strong start to slow down in the back half of this year. The German fiscal package that was announced earlier this year will take time to lift growth further out in 2026. So, in the near term, we see a softening backdrop for the domestic economy.But I think what's important to emphasize here is that U.S. growth, as Vishwas and you have talked about last time around, is also set to decelerate on our economists forecast more meaningfully. And that matters for Europe.Two reasons why I think the U.S. growth outlook matters for European credit. One, nearly a quarter of European companies’ revenues are generated in the U.S. And two, U.S. companies themselves have been very actively tapping the European corporate bond markets. And in fact, if you look at the outstanding notion of bonds in the euro benchmarks, the largest country by far is U.S. issuers. And so, I do think that we need to think about the outlook on the macro side, more in a global perspective, when we think about the outlook for European credit. And if we look at history, what we can deduct from the simple correlation between growth and credit spreads is current credit valuations imply growth would be around 3 percent. And that's a stark contrast to our economists’ forecast where both Europe and U.S. is decelerating to below 1 percent over the next 12 months.Andrew Sheets: But Aron, you know, you talked about the slow growth, here in Europe. You talked about a slower growth picture in the U.S. You talked about, you know, pretty extensive exposure of European companies into the U.S. story. All of which sound like pretty challenging things. And yet, if one looks at your forecasts for credit spreads, we think they remain relatively tight, especially in investment grade.So, how does one square that? What's driving what might look like, kind of, a more optimistic forecast picture despite those macro challenges?Aron Becker: Right. That's a very important question. I think that it's not all about the growth, and there are a number of factors that I think can alleviate the pressures from the macro side. The first is that unlike in the U.S., in Europe we are expecting inflation to decelerate more meaningfully over the coming year. And we do think that the ECB and the Bank of England will continue to ease policy. That's good for the economy and the eventual rebound. And we also think that it's good for demand for credit products. For yield buyers where the cash alternative is getting less and less compelling, I think they will see yields on corporate credit much more attractive. And I do think that credit yields right now in Europe are actually quite attractive.Andrew Sheets: So, Aron, you know, another question I had is, if you think about some of those dynamics. The fact that interest rates are above where they've been over the last 10 years. You think about a growth environment in Europe, which is; it's not a recession, but growth is, kind of, 1 percent or a little bit below.I mean, some ways this is very similar to the dynamic we had last year. So, what do you think is similar and what do you think is different, in terms of how investors should think about, say, the next 12 months – versus where we've been?Aron Becker: Right. So, what's really similar is, for example, the yield, like I just mentioned. I think the yield is attractive. That hasn't really changed over the past 12 months. If you just think about credit as a carry product, you're still getting around between 3-3.5 percent on an IG corporate bond today.What's really different is that over the same period, the ECB has already lowered front-end rates by 200 basis points. And at the same time, if you think about the fiscal developments in Germany or broader rates dynamics, we've seen a sharp steepening of yield curves; and curves are actually at the steepest levels in two years now. And what this leaves us with is not only high carry from the yield on corporate bonds, but also investors are now rolling down on a much steeper curve if they buy bonds today, especially further out the curve.So, by our estimate, if you aggregate the two figures in terms of your expected total return, credit offers actually total returns much higher than over the past 12 months, and closer to where we were in the LDI crisis in 2022.Andrew Sheets: So, Aron, another development I wanted to ask you about is, if you look at our forecast for the year ahead, our global forecast. One theme is that on the government side there's projected to be a lot more borrowing. There's more borrowing in Germany, and then there's more borrowing in the U.S., especially under certain versions of the current budget proposals being debated. So, you know, it does seem like you have this contrast between more borrowing and kind of a worsening fiscal picture in governments, a better fiscal picture among corporates. We talk about the spread. The spread is the difference between that corporate and government borrowing.So, I guess looking forward first, do you think European companies are going to be borrowing more money? And certainly more money on a relative, incremental basis at these yield levels, which are higher than what they're used to in the past. And, secondly, how do you think about the relative valuation of European credit versus some of the sovereign issuers in Europe, which is often a debate that we'll have with investors?Aron Becker: Big picture? We have seen companies be very active in tapping the corporate bond markets this year. We had a record issuance in May in terms of supply. Now I would push back on the view that that's negative for investors, and expectations for spreads to widen as a result for a number of reasons. One is a lot of gross issuance tends to be good for investors who want to pick up some new issue premiums – as these new bonds do come a little bit cheap to what's out there in terms of available secondary bonds.And second, it creates a lot of liquidity for investors to actually deploy capital, when they do want to enter the bond market to invest. And what we really need to remember here is all this strong issuance activity is coming against very high maturing, volumes of bonds. Redemptions this year are rising by close to 20 percent versus last year. And so, even though we are projecting this year to be a record year for growth issuance from investment grade companies, we think net supply will be lower year-on-year as a result of those elevated, maturities.So overall, I think that's going to be a fairly positive technical backdrop. And as you alluded to it, that's a stark contrast to what the sovereign market is facing at the moment.Andrew Sheets: So, on that net basis, on the amount that they're issuing relative to what they're paying back, that actually is probably looking lower than last year, on your numbers.Aron Becker: Exactly.Andrew Sheets: And finally, Aron, you know, so we've talked a bit about the market dynamics, we've talked about the economic backdrop, we've talked about the issuance backdrop. Where does this leave your thoughts for investors? What do you think looks, kind of, most attractive for those who are looking at the European credit space?Aron Becker: Opportunities are abound, but I think you need to be quite selective of where to actually increase your risk exposure, in my view. One part which we are quite out of consensus on here at Morgan Stanley is our recommendation in European credit to extend duration further out the curve.This goes back to the point I made earlier, that curves are very steep and a lot of that carry and roll down that I think look particularly attractive; you do need to extend duration for that. But there are a number of reasons why I think that that type of trade can work in this backdrop.For one, like I said, valuations are attractive. Two, I also think that from an issuer perspective, it is expensive to tap very long dated bonds now because of that yield dynamic, and I don't necessarily see a lot of supply coming through further out the curve. Three, our rates team do expect curves to bull steepen on the rate side and historically that has tended to favor excess returns further out the curve.And fourth is, a word we love to throw around – convexity. Cash prices further out the curve are very low in investment grade credit. That tends to be actually quite attractive because then even if you get the name wrong, for example, and there are some credit challenges down the line for some of these issuers, your loss given default may be more muted if you entered the bond at a lower cash price.Andrew Sheets: Aron, thanks for taking the time to talk.Aron Becker: Thanks, Andrew. Andrew Sheets: And to our listeners, thank you for sharing a few minutes of your day with us. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen to this podcast and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Transcribed - Published: 12 June 2025

Our analysts Andrew Sheets and Aron Becker explain why European credit markets’ performance for the rest of 2025 could be tied to U.S. growth. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Aron Becker: And I'm Aron Becker, Head of European Credit Strategy.Andrew Sheets: And today on the program, we're continuing a series of conversations covering the outlook for credit around the world. Morgan Stanley has recently updated its forecast for the next 12 months, and here we're going to bring you the latest views on what matters for European credit.It's Thursday, June 12th at 2pm in London.So, Aron, it's great to have this conversation with you. Today we're going to be talking about the European credit outlook. We talked with our colleague Vishwas in the other week about the U.S. credit outlook. But let's really dive into Europe and how that looks from the perspective of a credit investor.And maybe the place to start is, from your perspective, how do you see the economic backdrop in Europe, and what do you think that means for credit?Aron Becker: Right. So, on the European side, our growth expectations remain somewhat more challenging. Our economists are expecting growth after a fairly strong start to slow down in the back half of this year. The German fiscal package that was announced earlier this year will take time to lift growth further out in 2026. So, in the near term, we see a softening backdrop for the domestic economy.But I think what's important to emphasize here is that U.S. growth, as Vishwas and you have talked about last time around, is also set to decelerate on our economists forecast more meaningfully. And that matters for Europe.Two reasons why I think the U.S. growth outlook matters for European credit. One, nearly a quarter of European companies’ revenues are generated in the U.S. And two, U.S. companies themselves have been very actively tapping the European corporate bond markets. And in fact, if you look at the outstanding notion of bonds in the euro benchmarks, the largest country by far is U.S. issuers. And so, I do think that we need to think about the outlook on the macro side, more in a global perspective, when we think about the outlook for European credit. And if we look at history, what we can deduct from the simple correlation between growth and credit spreads is current credit valuations imply growth would be around 3 percent. And that's a stark contrast to our economists’ forecast where both Europe and U.S. is decelerating to below 1 percent over the next 12 months.Andrew Sheets: But Aron, you know, you talked about the slow growth, here in Europe. You talked about a slower growth picture in the U.S. You talked about, you know, pretty extensive exposure of European companies into the U.S. story. All of which sound like pretty challenging things. And yet, if one looks at your forecasts for credit spreads, we think they remain relatively tight, especially in investment grade.So, how does one square that? What's driving what might look like, kind of, a more optimistic forecast picture despite those macro challenges?Aron Becker: Right. That's a very important question. I think that it's not all about the growth, and there are a number of factors that I think can alleviate the pressures from the macro side. The first is that unlike in the U.S., in Europe we are expecting inflation to decelerate more meaningfully over the coming year. And we do think that the ECB and the Bank of England will continue to ease policy. That's good for the economy and the eventual rebound. And we also think that it's good for demand for credit products. For yield buyers where the cash alternative is getting less and less compelling, I think they will see yields on corporate credit much more attractive. And I do think that credit yields right now in Europe are actually quite attractive.Andrew Sheets: So, Aron, you know, another question I had is, if you think about some of those dynamics. The fact that interest rates are above where they've been over the last 10 years. You think about a growth environment in Europe, which is; it's not a recession, but growth is, kind of, 1 percent or a little bit below.I mean, some ways this is very similar to the dynamic we had last year. So, what do you think is similar and what do you think is different, in terms of how investors should think about, say, the next 12 months – versus where we've been?Aron Becker: Right. So, what's really similar is, for example, the yield, like I just mentioned. I think the yield is attractive. That hasn't really changed over the past 12 months. If you just think about credit as a carry product, you're still getting around between 3-3.5 percent on an IG corporate bond today.What's really different is that over the same period, the ECB has already lowered front-end rates by 200 basis points. And at the same time, if you think about the fiscal developments in Germany or broader rates dynamics, we've seen a sharp steepening of yield curves; and curves are actually at the steepest levels in two years now. And what this leaves us with is not only high carry from the yield on corporate bonds, but also investors are now rolling down on a much steeper curve if they buy bonds today, especially further out the curve.So, by our estimate, if you aggregate the two figures in terms of your expected total return, credit offers actually total returns much higher than over the past 12 months, and closer to where we were in the LDI crisis in 2022.Andrew Sheets: So, Aron, another development I wanted to ask you about is, if you look at our forecast for the year ahead, our global forecast. One theme is that on the government side there's projected to be a lot more borrowing. There's more borrowing in Germany, and then there's more borrowing in the U.S., especially under certain versions of the current budget proposals being debated. So, you know, it does seem like you have this contrast between more borrowing and kind of a worsening fiscal picture in governments, a better fiscal picture among corporates. We talk about the spread. The spread is the difference between that corporate and government borrowing.So, I guess looking forward first, do you think European companies are going to be borrowing more money? And certainly more money on a relative, incremental basis at these yield levels, which are higher than what they're used to in the past. And, secondly, how do you think about the relative valuation of European credit versus some of the sovereign issuers in Europe, which is often a debate that we'll have with investors?Aron Becker: Big picture? We have seen companies be very active in tapping the corporate bond markets this year. We had a record issuance in May in terms of supply. Now I would push back on the view that that's negative for investors, and expectations for spreads to widen as a result for a number of reasons. One is a lot of gross issuance tends to be good for investors who want to pick up some new issue premiums – as these new bonds do come a little bit cheap to what's out there in terms of available secondary bonds.And second, it creates a lot of liquidity for investors to actually deploy capital, when they do want to enter the bond market to invest. And what we really need to remember here is all this strong issuance activity is coming against very high maturing, volumes of bonds. Redemptions this year are rising by close to 20 percent versus last year. And so, even though we are projecting this year to be a record year for growth issuance from investment grade companies, we think net supply will be lower year-on-year as a result of those elevated, maturities.So overall, I think that's going to be a fairly positive technical backdrop. And as you alluded to it, that's a stark contrast to what the sovereign market is facing at the moment.Andrew Sheets: So, on that net basis, on the amount that they're issuing relative to what they're paying back, that actually is probably looking lower than last year, on your numbers.Aron Becker: Exactly.Andrew Sheets: And finally, Aron, you know, so we've talked a bit about the market dynamics, we've talked about the economic backdrop, we've talked about the issuance backdrop. Where does this leave your thoughts for investors? What do you think looks, kind of, most attractive for those who are looking at the European credit space?Aron Becker: Opportunities are abound, but I think you need to be quite selective of where to actually increase your risk exposure, in my view. One part which we are quite out of consensus on here at Morgan Stanley is our recommendation in European credit to extend duration further out the curve.This goes back to the point I made earlier, that curves are very steep and a lot of that carry and roll down that I think look particularly attractive; you do need to extend duration for that. But there are a number of reasons why I think that that type of trade can work in this backdrop.For one, like I said, valuations are attractive. Two, I also think that from an issuer perspective, it is expensive to tap very long dated bonds now because of that yield dynamic, and I don't necessarily see a lot of supply coming through further out the curve. Three, our rates team do expect curves to bull steepen on the rate side and historically that has tended to favor excess returns further out the curve.And fourth is, a word we love to throw around – convexity. Cash prices further out the curve are very low in investment grade credit. That tends to be actually quite attractive because then even if you get the name wrong, for example, and there are some credit challenges down the line for some of these issuers, your loss given default may be more muted if you entered the bond at a lower cash price.Andrew Sheets: Aron, thanks for taking the time to talk.Aron Becker: Thanks, Andrew. Andrew Sheets: And to our listeners, thank you for sharing a few minutes of your day with us. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen to this podcast and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Transcribed - Published: 12 June 2025

Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy Michael Zezas reads the fine print of U.S. tax legislation to understand how it might affect foreign companies operating in the U.S. and foreign investors holding U.S. debt. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy. Today we're talking about a proposal tucked away in U.S. tax legislation that could impact investors in meaningful ways: Section 899.It’s Wednesday, June 11th, at 12 pm in New York. So, Section 899 is basically a new rule that's part of a bigger bill that passed the House. It would give the U.S. Treasury the power to hit back with taxes on foreign companies if they think other countries are unfairly taxing U.S. businesses. And this rule could override existing tax agreements between countries, even applying to government funds and pension plans.The immediate concern is whether foreign holdings of U.S. bonds would be taxed – something that’s not entirely clear in the draft language. Making the costs of ownership higher would affect holders of tens of trillions of U.S. securities. That includes about 25 percent of the U.S. corporate bond market. In short, the concern is that this would disincentivize ownership of U.S. bonds by overseas investors, creating extra costs or risk premium – meaning higher yields. The good news is that there's a decent chance the Senate will tweak or clarify Section 899. Consider the evidence that the motive of those who drafted this provision doesn’t seem to have been to tax fixed income securities. If it was, you’d expect the official estimates of how much tax revenue this provision would generate to be far higher than what was scored by Congress. Public comments by Senators seem to mirror this, signaling changes are coming. But while that might mitigate one acute risk associated with 899, other risks could linger. If the provision were enacted, it acts as an extra cost on foreign multinationals investing in building businesses in the U.S. That means weaker demand for U.S. dollars overall. So while this is not at the core of our FX strategy team’s thesis on why the dollar weakens further this year, it does reinforce the view. For European equities, our equity strategy team flags that Section 899 adds a whole new layer of worry on top of the tariff concerns everyone's been talking about. While people have been focused on European goods exports to the U.S., Section 899 could affect a much broader range of European companies doing business in America. The most vulnerable sectors include Business Services, Healthcare, Travel & Leisure, Media, and Software – basically, any European company with significant U.S. business.The bottom line, even if modified, if section 899 stays in the bill and is enacted, there’s key ramifications for the U.S. dollar and European stocks. But pay careful attention in the coming days. The provision could be jettisoned from the Senate bill. It's still possible that it's too big of a law change to comply with the Senate’s budget reconciliation procedure, and so would get thrown out for reasons of process, rather than politics. We’ll be tracking it and keep you in the loop.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market please leave us a review. And tell your friends. We want everyone to listen. 

Transcribed - Published: 11 June 2025

Our Head of Asia Technology Research Shawn Kim discusses China's distinctly different approach to AI development and its investment implications. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Shawn Kim, Head of Morgan Stanley’s Asia Technology Team. Today: a behind-the-scenes look at how China is reshaping the global AI landscape.     It’s Tuesday, June 10 at 2pm in Hong Kong. China has been quietly and methodically executing on its top-down strategy to establish its domestic AI capabilities ever since 2017. And while U.S. semiconductor restrictions have presented a near-term challenge, they have also forced China to achieve significant advancements in AI with less hardware. So rather than building the most powerful AI capabilities, China’s primary focus has been on bringing AI to market with maximum efficiency. And you can see this with the recent launch of DeepSeek R1, and there are literally hundreds of AI start-ups using open-source Large Language Models to carve out niches and moats in this AI landscape.  The key question is: What is the path forward? Can China sustain this momentum and translate its research prowess into global AI leadership? The answer hinges on four things: its energy, its data, talent, and computing. China’s centralized government – with more than a billion mobile internet users – possess enormous amounts of data. China also has access to abundant energy: it built 10 nuclear power plants just last year, and there are ten more coming this year. U.S. chips are far better for the moment, but China is also advancing quickly; and getting a lot done without the best chips. Finally, China has plenty of talent – according to the World Economic Forum, 47 percent of the world’s top AI researchers are now in China. Plus, there is already a comprehensive AI governance framework in place, with more than 250 regulatory standards ensuring that AI development remains secure, ethical, and strategically controlled. So, all in all, China is well on its way to realizing its ambitious goal of becoming a world leader in AI by 2030. And by that point, AI will be deeply embedded across all sectors of China’s economy, supported by a regulatory environment. We believe the AI revolution will boost China’s long-term potential GDP growth by addressing key structural headwinds to the economy, such as aging demographics and slowing productivity growth. We estimate that GenAI can create almost 7 trillion RMB in labor and productivity value. This equals almost 5 percent of China’s GDP growth last year. And the investment implications of China’s approach to AI cannot be overstated. It’s clear that China has already established a solid AI foundation. And now meaningful opportunities are emerging not just for the big players, but also for smaller, mass-market businesses as well. And with value shifting from AI hardware to the AI application layer, we see China continuing its success in bringing out AI applications to market and transforming industries in very practical terms. As history shows, whoever adopts and diffuses a new technology the fastest wins – and is difficult to displace. 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.

Transcribed - Published: 10 June 2025

Our analysts Betsy Graseck, Manan Gosalia and Ryan Kenny discuss the major discussions they expect to highlight Morgan Stanley’s upcoming U.S. Financials conference. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Betsy Graseck: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Betsy Graseck, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Large Cap Bank Analyst and Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Banks and Diversified Finance Research. Today we take a look at the key debates in the U.S. financials industry. It’s Monday, June 9th at 10:30am in New York.Tomorrow Morgan Stanley kicks off its annual U.S. Financials Conference right here in New York City. We wanted to give you a glimpse into some of the most significant themes that we expect will be addressed at the conference. And so, I'm here with two of my colleagues, Manan Gosalia, U.S. Midcap Banks Analyst, and Ryan Kenny, U.S. Midcaps Advisor Analyst.Investors are grappling with navigating economic uncertainty from new tariff policies, inflation concerns, and immigration challenges – all of which impacts financial growth and credit quality. On the positive side, they are also looking closely at regulatory shifts under the Trump administration, which could ease banking rules for the first time since the Great Financial Crisis.Let's hear what our experts are expecting. Manan, ahead of the conference, what key themes do you expect mid-cap banks will highlight?Manan Gosalia: So, there are three key themes that we've been focused on for the mid-cap banks: loan growth, net interest margins, and capital. So, first on loan growth. Loan growth for the regional banks has been fairly tepid at about 2 to 3 percent year-on-year, and the tone from bank management teams has been fairly mixed in the April earning season that followed the tariff announcements on April 2nd. Some banks were starting to see the uncertainty weigh on corporate decision making and borrowing activity, while others were only seeing a slow down in some parts of their portfolio, with a pickup in other parts. Now that we've had two months to digest the announcements and several more positive developments on tariff negotiations, we expect that the tone from bank management teams will be more positive. Now, we don't expect them to say growth is accelerating, but we do expect that they will say loan growth is holding up with strong pipelines. On the second topic, net interest margins, we expect to hear that there is still room for margin expansion as we go through this year. And that's coming in two places, particularly as bank term deposits continue to reprice lower. And then the back book of fixed rate loans and securities, essentially assets that were put on the books four to five years ago when rates were a lot lower, are now rolling over at today's higher rates. Betsy Graseck: So, is the long end of the curve going up a good thing?Manan Gosalia: Yes, for net interest margins. But on the flip side, the tenure going up is slightly negative for bank capital. So that brings me to my third theme. The regional banks are overall in a much better place on capital than they were two years ago. Balance sheets have improved. Capital levels remain solid across the sector. But the recent increase in the long end of the curve is marginally negative for capital, given that there will be a higher negative mark on securities that banks hold. But we believe that higher capital levels that regional banks have accumulated over the past couple of years will help cushion some of these negative marks, and we don't expect the recent shift in the tenure will have a meaningful impact on bank capital plans.Betsy Graseck: So, the increase in the 10-year pulls down capital a little bit, but not enough to trip any regulatory minimums?Manan Gosalia: Correct.Betsy Graseck: So, all in the 10-year yield going up is a good thing?Manan Gosalia: It's slightly negative, but I would expect it does not impact bank growth plans. Betsy Graseck: Okay. All in, what's the message from mid-cap banks?Manan Gosalia: All in, I would expect the tone to be a little more positive than the banks had at April earnings.Betsy Graseck: Excellent. Thanks so much, Manan. Ryan, what about you? What are you expecting mid-cap advisors will say?Ryan Kenny: So, I think we'll hear a lot about the trends in M&A. And when we last heard from investment bank management teams during April earnings, the messaging was more cautious. We heard about M&A deals being paused as companies processed the Liberation Day tariffs, and a small number of deals being pulled. Tomorrow at our conference, expect to hear a measured but slightly improved tone. Look, there's still a lot of uncertainty out there, but what's changed since April is the fact that the U.S. administration is flexing in response to markets. So that should help shore up more confidence needed to do deals, and there's tremendous pent-up demand for corporate activity. Over the last three years – so 2022 to 2024 – M&A volumes relative to nominal GDP have been running 30 to 40 percent below three-decade averages. Equity capital markets volumes 50 to 60 percent below average. There is tremendous need for private equity firms to exit their portfolio investments and deploy $4 trillion of dry powder that has accumulated and also structural themes for corporates – like the need for AI capabilities, energy and biotech consolidation and reshoring – that should fuel mergers as a cycle gets going.So, I think for this group, the message will likely be: April and May – more challenged from a deal flow perspective; but back up of the year, you should start to expect some improvement.Betsy Graseck: So slightly improved tone…Ryan Kenny: Slightly improved. And one of the other really interesting themes that the investment banks will talk about is the substantial growth of private capital advisory.So, this is advising private equity funds and owners on capital raising, liquidation, including secondary transactions and continuation funds. And what will be interesting is how the clients set here is growing. We've seen this quarter, major universities, some local governments that increasingly need liquidity and they're hiring investment banks to advise on selling private equity fund interests.It's really going to be a great discussion because private capital advisory is a major growth area for the boutique investment banks that I cover.Betsy Graseck: How big of a sleeve do you think this could become – as big as M&A outright?Ryan Kenny: Probably not as big as M&A outright, but significant. And it helps give the investment banks’ relationships with financial sponsors who are active on the M&A front. So, it can be a share gain story.So, Betsy, what about you? You cover the large cap banks. What do you expect to hear?Betsy Graseck: Well, before I answer that, I do want to just put a pin on it.So, you're saying that for your coverage Ryan, we have some green shoots coming through...Ryan Kenny: Yeah, green shoots and more positive than in April.Betsy Graseck: And Manan on your side? Same?Manan Gosalia: A little bit more of a positive than April earnings, but more of the same as we heard at the start of the year.Betsy Graseck: Okay. Going back to the future then, I suppose we could say. Excellent. Well on large cap banks, I do expect large cap banks will be reflecting some of the same themes that you both just discussed. In particular, you know, we'll talk about IPOs. IPOs are holding up. We look at IPOs where we had 26 IPOs in the past week alone.That's up from 22 on average year-to-date in 2025. And I do think that the large cap banks will highlight that capital market activity is building and can accelerate from here, as long as equity volatility remains contained. By which we mean VIX is at 20 or below. And with capital market activity should come increased lending activity. It's very exciting. What's going on here is that when you do an M&A, you have to finance it, and that financing comes from either the bond market or banks or private credit. M&A financing is a key driver of CNI loan growth. A lot of people don't know that. And CNI loan growth, we do think will be moving from current levels of about 2 percent year-on-year, as per the most recent Fed H.8 data to 5 percent as M&A comes through over the next year plus. And then the other major driver of CNI loans is loans to non-depository financial institutions, which is also known as NDFI Loans. NDFI loans have been getting a lot of press recently. We see this as much ado about reclassification. That said, investors are asking what is the risk of this book of business? Our view is that it's similar to overall CNI loan risk, and we will dig into that outlook with managements at the conference. It'll be exciting. Additionally, we will touch on regulation and how easing of regulation could change strategies for capital utilization and capital deployment. So, you want to have an ear out for that. Well, Manan, Ryan, it's been great speaking with you today.Manan Gosalia: Should be an exciting conference.Ryan Kenny: Thanks for having us on.Betsy Graseck: And thanks for listening everyone. 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.

Transcribed - Published: 9 June 2025

Morgan Stanley’s midyear outlook defied the conventional view in a number of ways. Our analysts Serena Tang and Vishy Tirupattur push back on the pushback to their conclusions, explaining the thought process behind their research.  Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Serena Tang: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's Chief Cross-Asset StrategistVishy Tirupattur: And I'm Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist.Serena Tang: Today's topic, pushback to our outlook.It's Friday, June 6th at 10am in New York.Morgan Stanley Research published our mid-year outlook about two weeks ago, a collaborative effort across the department, bringing together our economist views with our strategist high conviction ideas. Right now, we're recommending investors to be overweight in U.S. equities, overweight in core fixed income like U.S. treasuries, like U.S. IG corporate credit. But some of our views are out of consensus.So, I want to talk to you, Vishy, about pushback that you've been getting and how we pushback on the pushback.Vishy Tirupattur: Right. So, the biggest pushback I've gotten is a bit of a dissonance between our economics narrative and our markets narrative. Our economics narrative, as you know, calls for a significant weakening of economic growth. From about – for the U.S. – 2.5 percent growth in 2024 goes into 1 percent in 2025 and in 2026. And Fed doesn't cut rates in 2025, and cuts seven times in 2026.And if you look at a somewhat uninspiring outlook for the U.S. economy from our economists – reconciling an uninspiring economic outlook on the U.S. economy with the constructive view we have on U.S. assets, equities, credit, treasuries – that's been a source of contention. So, reconciling an uninspiring outlook on the U.S. economy with a constructive view on risk assets, as well as risk-free assets in the U.S. economy – so, equities, credit, as well as government bonds – has been a somewhat contentious issue.So how do we reconcile this? So, my pushback to the pushback is the following; that they are different plot lines across different asset classes. So, our economists have slowing of the economy – but not an outright recession. Our economists don't have rate cuts in 2025 but have seven rate cuts in 2026.So, if you look at the total number of rate cuts that are being priced in by the markets today, roughly about two rate cuts in [20]25, and about between two and three rate cuts in 2026, we expect greater policy easing than what's currently priced in the markets. So that makes sense for our constructive view on interest rates, and in government bonds and in duration that makes sense.From a credit point of view, we enter this point with a much better credit fundamentals in leverage and coverage terms. We have the emergence of a total yield-based buyer base, which we think will be largely intact at our expectations, and you layer on top of that – the idea that growth slows but doesn't fall into recession is also constructive for higher quality credit. So that explains our credit view.From an equities view, the drawdowns that we experienced in April, our equity strategists think marks the worst outcomes from a policy point of view that we could have had. That has already happened. So looking forward, they look for EPS growth over the course of the next 12 months. They look for benefits of deregulation to kick in. So, along with that seven rate cuts, get them to be comfortable in being constructive about their views on equities. So all of that ties together.Serena Tang: And I think what you mentioned around macro not being the markets is important here. Because when we did some analysis on historical periods where you had low growth and low inflation, actually in that kind of a scenario equities did fine. And corporate credit did fine. But also, in an environment where you have rather unencouraging growth, that tends to map onto a slightly risk-off scenario. And historically that's also a kind of backdrop where you see the dollar strengthen.This time out, we have a very out of consensus view; not that the dollar will weaken, that seems quite consensus. But the degree of magnitude of dollar weakening. Where have you been getting the most pushback on our expectations for the dollar to depreciate by around 9 percent from here?Vishy Tirupattur: So, the dollar weakness in itself is not out of consensus, largely driven by narrowing of free differentials; growth differentials. I think some of the difference between the extent of weakness that we are projecting comes from the assessment on the policy and certainty. So, the policy uncertainty adds a greater degree of risk premia for taking on U.S. assets.So, in our forecast, we take into account not only the differentials in rates and growth, but also in the policy uncertainty and the risk premia that the investors would demand in the face of that kind of policy uncertainty. And that really explains why we are probably more negative on the outcome for U.S. dollar than perhaps our competition.Serena Tang: The risk premium part, I think bring us to one of the biggest debates we've been having with investors over, not just the last few weeks, but over the last few months. And that is on U.S. exceptionalism. Now clearly, we have a view that U.S. assets can outperform over the next six to 12 months, but why aren't we factoring in higher risk premium for holding any kind of U.S. assets? Why should U.S. assets still do well?Vishy Tirupattur: So, as I said earlier, we are calling for the economy to slow without tipping into recession. We are also calling for greater amount of policy easing than what is currently priced in the markets. Both those factors are constructive.So, I think we also should keep in mind the sheer size of the U.S. markets. The U.S. government bond markets, for example, are 10 times the size of comparably rated European bond markets, government bond markets put together. The U.S. equity markets is four-five times the size of the European equity markets. Same thing for investment grade corporate credit bonds. The market is many, many times larger.So, the sheer size of the U.S. assets makes it very difficult for a globally diversified portfolio to substantially under-allocate to U.S. assets. So, what we are suggesting, therefore, is that allocate to U.S. assets, where there are all these opportunities we described. But if you are not a U.S. investor, hedge the currency risk. Not hedging currency risk had worked in the past, but we are now saying hedge your currency risk.Serena Tang: And the market size and liquidity point is interesting. I think after the outlook was published, we had a lot of questions on this. And I think it's underappreciated, how about, sort of, 60 percent of liquid, high quality fixed income paper is actually denominated in U.S. dollars. So, at the end of the day, or at least over the next six to 12 months, it does seem like there is no alternative.Now Vishy, we've talked a lot about where we are getting pushback. I think that one part of the outlook where – very little discussed because very highly consensus – is credit. And the consensus is credit is boring. So how do you see corporate credit, and maybe securitized credit, fit into the wider allocation views on fixed income?Vishy Tirupattur: Boring is good for a fixed income investor perspective, Serena. Our expectation of rate cuts, slowing growth but not going tipping into recession, and our idea that these spreads are really not going very far from where they are now, gets us to a total return of about over 10 percent for investment related corporate credit.And that actually is a pretty good outcome for credit investors. For fixed income investors in general that calls for continued allocations to high quality credit, in corporate credit as well as in securitized credit.Serena Tang: So just to sum up, Morgan Stanley Research has very differentiated view this time around on how many times the Fed can cut, which is a lot more than what markets are pricing in at the moment, how much yields can fall, and also how much weakening in the U.S. dollar that we can get. We are recommending investors to be overweight U.S. equities and overweight U.S. core fixed income like U.S. treasuries and like U.S. IG corporate credits. And as much as we're not arguing [that] U.S. exceptionalism can continue on forever, over the next six to 12 months, we are constructive on U.S. assets.That is not to say policy uncertainty won't still create bouts of volatility over the next 12 months. But it does mean that during those scenarios, you want to sell U.S. dollars rather than U.S. assets.Vishy, thank you so much for taking the time to talk.Vishy Tirupattur: Great speaking with you, Serena.Serena Tang: And for those tuned in, 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.

Transcribed - Published: 6 June 2025

The global market for obesity drugs is expanding. Our U.S. Pharma and Biotech Analyst Terrence Flynn discusses what’s driving the next stage of global growth for GLP-1 medicines. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Terrence Flynn: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Terrence Flynn, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Pharma and Biotech Analyst. The market for obesity medicines is at an inflection point, and today I'll focus on what's driving the next stage of global growth.It's Thursday, June 5th at 2pm in New York.GLP-1 medicines have been viewed by many stakeholders as one of the most transformative medications in the market today. They've exploded in popularity over the last few years and become game changers for many people who take them. These drugs have large cap biopharma companies racing to innovate. They've had ripple effects on food, fitness, and fashion. They truly are a major market force. And now we're on the cusp of a significant broadening of use of these medicines.Currently the U.S. is the largest consumer in the world of GLP-1s. But new versions of these medicines suggest that this market will extend beyond the U.S. to significantly larger numbers of patients globally. On our estimate, the Total Addressable Market or TAM for obesity medications should reach $150 billion globally by 2035, with approximately [$]80 billion from the U.S. and [$]70 billion from international markets.Now this marks a meaningful increase from our 2024 forecast of [$]105 billion and reflects a greater appreciation of opportunities outside of the U.S. We think obesity drug adoption will likely accelerate as patients and providers become more familiar with the new products and as manufacturers address hurdles in production, distribution, and access.Current adoption rates of GLP-1 treatments within the eligible obesity population are about 2 to 3 percent. This is in the U.S., and roughly 1 percent in the rest of the world. Now, when we look out further, we anticipate these figures to surge to 20 percent and 10 percent respectively, really driven by five things.First, after a period of shortages, supply constraints have improved, and the drug makers are investing aggressively to increase production. Second new data show that obesity drugs have broader clinical applications. They can be used to treat coronary heart disease, stroke, hypertension, kidney disease, or even sleep apnea. They could also potentially fight Alzheimer's disease, neuropsychiatric conditions, and even cancer.Third, we think coverage will expand as obesity drugs are approved to treat diseases beyond obesity. Public healthcare coverage through Medicare should also broaden based on these expected approvals. Fourth, some drug makers are successfully developing obesity drugs, in pill form instead of injectables. Pills are of course easier to administer and can reach global scale quickly. And finally, drug makers are also developing next gen medications with even higher efficacy, new mechanisms of action, and more convenient, less frequent dosing.All in all, we think that over the next decade, broader GLP-1 adoption will extend well beyond biopharma. We expect significant impacts on medical technology, healthcare services, and consumer sectors like food, beverages, and fashion, where changes in patient diets could reshape market dynamics.Thanks so much 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.

Transcribed - Published: 5 June 2025

Our analysts Andrew Sheets and Vishwas Patkar take stock of the U.S. credit market, noting which segments are on firm footing going into a period of slower growth. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts On the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Vishwas Patkar: And I'm Vishwas Patkar, Head of U.S. Credit Strategy at Morgan Stanley.Andrew Sheets: Today on the program, we're going to have the first in a series of conversations covering our outlook for credit around the world.It's Wednesday, June 4th at 2pm in London.Vishwas Patkar: And 9am in New York.Andrew Sheets: Vishwas, along with many of our colleagues at Morgan Stanley, we recently updated our 12-month outlook for credit markets around the world. Focusing on your specialty, the U.S., how do you read the economic backdrop and what do you think it means for credit at a high level?Vishwas Patkar: So, our central scenario of slowing growth, somewhat firm inflation and no rate cuts from the Fed until the first quarter of 2026 – when I put all of that together, I view that as somewhat mixed for credit. It's good for certain segments of the market, not as good for others.I think the positive on the one side is that with the recent de-escalation in trade tensions, recession risks have gone lower. And that's reflected in our economists' view as well. I think for an asset class like credit, avoiding that drill downside tail I think is important. The other positive in the market today is that the level of all in yields you can get across the credit spectrum is very compelling on many different measures.The negative is that we are still looking at a fair bit of slowing in economic activity, and that's a big downshift from what we've been used to in the past few years. So, I would say we're certainly not in the Goldilocks environment that we saw for credit through the second half of last year. And it's important here for investors to be selective around what they invest in within the credit market.Andrew Sheets: So, Vishwas, you kind of alluded to this, but you know, 2025 has been a year that so far has been dominated by a lot of these large kind of macro questions around, you know, what's going to happen with tariffs. Big moves in interest rates, big moves in the U.S. dollar. But credit is an asset class that's, you know, ultimately about lending to companies. And so how do you see the credit worthiness of U.S. corporates? And how much of a risk is there that with interest rates staying higher for longer than we expected at the start of the year – that becomes a bigger problem?Vishwas Patkar: Yeah, sure. I think it's a very important question Andrew because I think taking a call on markets based on the gyrations in headlines is very hard. But in some ways, I think this question of the credit worthiness of U.S. companies is more important and I think it really helps us filter the signal from the noise that we've seen in markets so far this year.I would say broadly, the health of corporate balance sheets is pretty good and, in some ways, I think it's maybe a more distinguishing feature of this cycle where corporate credit overall is on a firmer footing going into a period of slower growth – than what we may have seen in prior instances. And you can sort of look at this balance sheet health along a few different lines.In aggregate, we haven't really seen credit markets grow a lot in the last few years. M&A activity, which is usually a harbinger of corporate aggression, has also been fairly muted in absolute terms. Corporate balance sheet leverage has not grown. And I think we've been in this high-interest rate environment, which has kept some of these animal spirits at bay. Now what this means is, that the level of sensitivity of credit markets to a slow down in the economy is somewhat lower.It does not mean that credit markets can remain immune no matter what happens to the economy. I think it's clear if we get a recession, spread should be a fair bit wider. But I think in our central scenario, it makes us more confident than otherwise that credit overall can hold up okay.Now your question around the risk of rates staying higher. This I think goes back to my point about where in the credit market you're looking. I think up the quality spectrum, I think there are actually – there's a lot of demand tailwinds for credit given the pickup in sponsorship we've seen from insurance companies and pension funds in this cycle.At the other end of the quality spectrum, if you're looking at highly levered capital structures, that's where I think the risk of interest rates being high can lead to defaults being sort of around average levels and higher than they would otherwise be.Andrew Sheets: So, Vishwas, kind of sticking with that central scenario, kind of briefly, what would be a segment of U.S. credit that you think offers some of the best risk adjusted return at the moment? And what do you think offers some of the worst?Vishwas Patkar: Yep. So, we framed our credit outlook as being good for quality, badfor beta. So, as that suggests, I think this is a fairly good environment for investment grade credit. In our base case, we are calling for double digit total returns. In IG we also expect investment grade credit to modestly outperform government bonds.And I would sort of extend that to the upper tiers within the high yield market as well, specifically BBs. And where I would say risk reward looks the weakest is the lowest tier. So, for CCCs and for many segments within Bs where leverage is fairly elevated, debt costs are still high. We think this is still a challenging environment where growth is set to slow and rate cuts are still a fair bit out the outer forecast rise.Andrew Sheets: So far we focused on that central scenario, but let's close out with how things could be different. In our view, what do you think are the realistically better and worse scenarios for U.S. credit this year, and how does that shape your overall view on the market?Vishwas Patkar: So, I think the better scenario for credit versus our base case potentially revolve around tariffs being rolled back even further. And it's essentially a repeat of the second half of 2024, where you had a combination of good growth and declining inflation and rate cuts moving up versus our expectations.I think in that scenario, it's likely that you see investment grade credit spreads go back to the tights that we saw in December. On the flip side, I think the worst scenario really is you know – what if we are being too optimistic about growth? And what if the economy is set to slow much further? And then what if we get a recession?So, I think in that environment, we see spreads retesting the wides that we saw through the volatility in April. Although even here, I would draw an important nuance that because of some of the fundamental and technical tailwinds I discussed earlier, we think spreads even in this downside scenario may not test the types of levels that we've seen through prior bear markets.Andrew Sheets: Vishwas, thanks for taking the time to talk.Vishwas Patkar: Thanks, Andrew.Andrew Sheets: And thanks for sharing a few minutes of your day with us. If you enjoy Thoughts of the Market, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen, and tell a friend or colleague about us today.

Transcribed - Published: 4 June 2025

Our Thematics and U.S. Economics analysts Michelle Weaver and Arunima Sinha discuss how American consumers are planning to spend as they consider tariffs, inflation and potential new tax policies.  Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, U.S. Thematic and Equity strategist.Arunima Sinha: And I'm Arunima Sinha from the Global and U.S. Economics Teams.Michelle Weaver: Today – an encouraging update on the U.S. consumer.It's Tuesday, June 3rd at 10am in New York.Arunima, the last couple of months have been challenging not only for global markets, but also for everyday people and for individual households; and we heard pretty mixed information on the consumer throughout earning season. Quite a few different companies highlighted consumers being more choiceful, being more value oriented. All this to say is we're getting a little bit of a mixed message.In your opinion, how healthy is the U.S. consumer right now?Arunima Sinha: So, Michelle, I'm glad we're starting with the sort of up upbeat part of the consumer. The macro data on the consumer has been holding up pretty well so far. In the first quarter of [20]25, consumer spending has actually been running at a similar pace as the first quarter of [20]24. Nominal consumption spending grew 5.5 percent on a year-on-year basis. Goods were up almost 4 percent. Services were up more than 6 percent.So, all of that was good. What our takeaway was that we had a lot of strength in good spending, and that did probably reflect some of the pull forward on the back of tariff news. But that pace of growth suggests that there is an aggregate consumer. They have healthy balance sheets, and they're willing to spend.And then what's driving that consumption growth from our point of view. We think that labor market compensation has been running at a pretty steady pace so far. So more than 5.5 percent quarterly analyzed. PCE inflation has been running at just over 3 percent. And so even though equity markets did see some greater volatility, they didn't seem to impact the consumer at least in the first quarter of data. And so, we've had that consumer in a pretty good shape.But with all of this in the background, we know, tariffs have been in the news, and tariff fears have weighed heavily on consumer sentiment. But then tariff headlines have also become more positive lately, and consumers might be feeling more optimistic. What's your data showing?Michelle Weaver: So that really depends on what data you're looking at. We saw a pretty big rebound in consumer sentiment if you look at the Conference Board survey. But then we saw flat sentiment, when you look at the University of Michigan survey. These two surveys have some different questions in them, different subcomponents.But my favorite way to track consumer sentiment is our own proprietary consumer survey, which did show a pretty big pickup in sentiment towards the economy last month. And we saw sentiment rebound significantly for both conservatives and liberals.So, this wasn't just a matter of one political party, you know, having a change of opinion. Both sides did see an improvement in sentiment. Although consumer sentiment for conservatives improved off a much higher base. The percent of people reporting being very concerned about tariffs also fell this month. We saw that move from 43 percent to 38 percent after the reduction in tariffs on China. So, people are, you know, concerned a little bit less there. And that's been a really big thing people are watching.Arunima Sinha: Feeling better about the news is great. Are they actually planning to spend more?Michelle Weaver: So encouragingly we did also see a big rebound in consumers short term spending outlooks in the survey. 33 percent of consumers expect to spend more next month and 17 percent expect to spend less.So that gives us a net of positive 16 percent. This is in line with the five-year average level we saw there, and up really substantially from last month's reading of 5 percent. So, 5 percent to 16 percent. That's a pretty big improvement.We also saw spending plans rise across all income groups. though we did see the biggest pickup for higher income consumers and that figure moved from 12 percent to 31 percent. Additionally, we saw longer term spending plans – so what people are planning to spend over the next six months – also improve across all the categories we look at.Arunima Sinha: And were there any specific changes about how the consumers were responding to the tariff headlines?Michelle Weaver: Yeah, so people reported pulling forward some purchases, due to fear of tariff driven price increases. So, people were planning for this, similarly to what we saw with companies. They were doing a little bit of stockpiling. Consumers were doing this as well. So, our survey showed that over half of people said they accelerated some purchases over the past month to try and get ahead of potential tariff related price increases.And this did skew higher among upper income consumers. The categories that people cited at the top of the list for pull forward are non-perishable groceries, household items. So, both of those things you need in your day-to-day life. And then clothing and apparel as well, which I thought was interesting. But that's been one thing that's been in the news a lot that's heavily manufactured overseas.So, people were thinking about that. And this does align overall with our March survey data, where we asked what categories people were most concerned about seeing price increases. So, their behavior did line up with what they were concerned about in March.Arunima, your turn on tariffs now. The reason tariffs have been on consumer's minds is because of what they might mean for price levels and inflation. Throughout earning season, we heard a lot of companies talking about raising prices to offset the cost of tariffs. What has this looked like from an economist’s perspective? Has this actually started to show up in the inflation data yet?Arunima Sinha: So not quite yet, and that's something that, as you might expect, we're tracking very, very closely. So, one of the things that our team did was to think about which types of goods or services were going to be impacted by inflation. And so, we think that that first order effects are going to be on goods. And we think that the effects could start to show up in the May data, but we really see that sequential pace of inflation starting to step up starting June. And then in our third quarter inflation estimate, we see that number peaking for the year. So, in the third quarter, we think that core PCE inflation number is going to be about 4.5 percent Q1-Q analyzed.Michelle Weaver: And then aside from tariffs and inflation, how are people going to be affected by a fiscal policy, specifically the tax bill that just passed the house?Arunima Sinha: So, the house version of the bill has government spending reductions that can be quite regressive for different cohorts of the consumer. So, we have, reductions around the Medicaid program, cuts to the SNAP program as well as possible elimination of the income driven loans repayment plans. So, all of these would have a pretty adverse impact on the lower income and the middle-income consumers.This could be – but will likely not be fully offset by the removal of taxes, on tips and overtime. And then on the other side, the higher income consumers could benefit from some of that increase in SALT caps. But overall, the jury is still out on how the aggregate consumer will be affected.Michelle Weaver: So, taking this all into account, the effects of fiscal policy, of tariff policy, of labor market income – what's your overall outlook on U.S. consumption for the rest of the year?Arunima Sinha: So, we recently published our mid-year outlook for U.S. economics and our forecast for consumption spending over 2025 and [20]26 does see the consumer slowing. And this is really due to three factors. The first is on the back of those greater tariffs and the uncertainty around them and the fact that we have slowing net immigration, we're going to be expecting a slowdown in the labor market. As the pace of hiring slows, you have a slower growth in labor market income. And that really is the main driver of aggregate consumption spending. And then as we talked about, we are expecting that pass through of higher tariffs into inflation, and that's going to impact real spending. And then finally the uncertainty around tariffs, the volatilities and equity markets could weigh on consumer spending; and may actually push the upper income cohorts, the big drivers of consumption spending in the economy, to have higher precautionary savings.And so, with all of that, we see our nominal consumption spending growth slowing down to about 3.9 percent by the end of this year.Michelle Weaver: Well a little unfortunate to wrap up on a more negative note, but we are seeing, you know, mixed messages – and some more positive data in the near term, at least. Arunima, thank you for taking the time to talk.Arunima Sinha: Thanks so much for having me, Michelle.Michelle Weaver: 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.

Transcribed - Published: 3 June 2025

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains how his outlook on earnings and valuations give him a constructive view on U.S. equities for the next 12 months. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Mike Wilson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll discuss where there is the most push back to our Mid-year outlook and why I remain convicted in our generally constructive view on U.S. equities for the next 12 months.It's Monday, June 2nd at 11:30am in New York.So, let’s get after it.To briefly summarize our outlook, we have maintained our 6500 12-month price target for the S&P 500 this year despite what has been a very volatile first five months – both in terms of news flow and price action. Part of the reason we didn’t change this view stems from the fact that we expected the first half to be challenging for U.S. stocks but to be followed by a more favorable second half. Much of this was related to our view that the new administration would pursue the growth negative part of their policy agenda first. This played out -- with their focus on immigration enforcement, spending cutbacks and tariffs. In addition to these policy adjustments, we also expected AI capex to decelerate in the first half after such fast growth last year. All of these factors conspired to weigh on both economic growth and earnings revisions.Second, the way in which tariffs were rolled out on Liberation Day was a shock to most market participants, including us, and served as the perfect catalyst for what can only be described as capitulation selling by many institutional investors. That capitulation has set the stage for the very reflexive snap back in equity prices that is also supported by a positive rate of change on policy, earnings revisions breadth, financial conditions and a weaker U.S. dollar.The main push back to our views centers on our constructive earnings outlook for high single digit growth both this year and next and our view that valuations can remain elevated at 21.5x forward Earnings. On the earnings front, our calendar year earnings estimates already incorporate a  mid-single-digit percent hit to bottoms-up consensus forecasts. Second, our Leading Earnings Indicator  which projects Earnings Per Share growth 12 months out is suggesting a sideways consolidation in growth in the high single-digit range over the next year.Third, a weaker dollar, elements of the tax bill and AI-driven productivity should be incremental tailwinds for earnings that are not in our model. Fourth, we have  experienced rolling recessions for many sectors of the private economy for the last 3 years, which makes  growth comparisons easier. Finally, and most importantly, the rate of change on earnings revisions breadth has inflected higher from a very low level after a year-long downturn. On valuation, our work shows that if earnings growth is above the long-term median of 7 percent and if the fed funds rate is down on a year-over-year basis, it's very rare to see multiple compression. In fact, Price Earnings multiples have expanded 90 percent of the time under these conditions to the tune of 9 percent over a 12- month period. Therefore, in some ways we’re being conservative with our forecast for the S&P 500's  price earnings ratio to remain flat at current levels over the next year.With respect to our favorite  valuation metric, the equity risk premium, it’s interesting to note that in the week following Liberation Day, the Equity Risk Premium reached the same level we witnessed in the aftermath of the 9-11 shock in 2001 and even exceeded the risk premium reached during the Long-Term Capital Management crisis in 1998. Both episodes resulted in 20 percent corrections to the S&P 500 much like we experienced this year only to be followed by very strong equity markets over the next year.The bottom line is that I remain convicted in both our earnings forecast for high single digit earnings growth for this year and next; and my view that valuations can remain elevated in this classic late cycle expansion of slower economic growth that typically elicits interest rate cuts from the Fed.Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review; and if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!

Transcribed - Published: 2 June 2025

Our Head of Corporate Credit Research explains why the legal confusion over U.S. tariffs plus the pending U.S. budget bill equals a revived focus on interest rates for investors. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Today I'm going to revisit a theme that was topical in January and has become so again. How much of a problem are higher interest rates?It's Friday, May 30th at 2pm in London.If it wasn't so serious, it might be a little funny. This year, markets fell quickly as the U.S. imposed tariffs. And then markets rose quickly as many of those same tariffs were paused or reversed. So, what's next?Many tariffs are technically just paused and so are scheduled to resume; and overall tariff rates, even after recent reductions towards China, are still historically high. The economic data that would really reflect the impact of recent events, well, it simply hasn't been reported yet. In short, there is still significant uncertainty around the near-term path for U.S. growth. But for all of our tariff weary listeners, let's pretend for a moment that tariffs are now on the back burner. And if that's the case, interest rates are coming back into focus.First, lower tariffs could mean stronger growth and thus higher interest rates, all else equal. But also importantly, current budget proposals in the U.S. Congress significantly increase government borrowing, which could also raise interest rates. If current proposals were to become permanent. for example, they could add an additional [$]15 trillion to the national debt over the next 30 years, over and above what was expected to happen per analysis from Yale University.Recall that prior to tariffs dominating the market conversation, it was this issue of interest rates and government borrowing that had the market's attention in January. And then, as today, it's this 30-year perspective that is under the most scrutiny. U.S. 30-year government bond yields briefly touched 5 percent on January 14th and returned there quite recently.This represents some of the highest yields for long-term U.S. borrowing seen in the last two decades. Those higher yields represent higher costs that must ultimately be borne by the U.S. government, but they also represent a yardstick against which all other investments are measured. If you can earn 5 percent per year long term in a safe U.S. government bond, how does that impact the return you require to invest in something riskier over that long run – from equities to an office building.I think some numbers here are also quite useful. Investing $10,000 today at 5 percent would leave you with about $43,000 in 30 years. And so that is the hurdle rate against which all long-term investments or now being measured.Of course, many other factors can impact the performance of those other assets. U.S. stocks, in fairness, have returned well over 5 percent over a long period of time. But one winner in our view will be intermediate and longer-term investment grade bonds. With high yields on these instruments, we think there will be healthy demand. At the same time, those same high yields representing higher costs for companies to borrow over the long term may mean we see less supply.Thank you as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And tell a friend or colleague about us today.

Transcribed - Published: 30 May 2025

After the federal court’s ruling against Trump’s reciprocal tariffs, and an appeals court’s temporary stay of that ruling, our analysts Michael Zezas and Michael Gapen discuss how the administration could retain the tariffs and what this means for the U.S. economy. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Michael Zezas: Welcome to the Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Chief U.S. Economist.Today, the latest on President Trump's tariffs.It's Thursday, May 29th at 5pm  in New York.So, Mike, on Wednesday night, the U.S. Court of International Trade struck down President Trump's reciprocal tariffs. This ruling certainly seems like a fresh roadblock for the administration.Michael Zezas: Yeah, that's right. But a quick word of caution. That doesn't mean we're supposed to conclude that the recent tariff hikes are a thing of the past. I think investors need to be aware that there's many plausible paths to keeping these tariffs exactly where they are right now.Michael Zezas: First, while the administration is appealing this decision, the tariffs can stay in place. But even if courts ultimately rule against the Trump administration, there are other types of legal authorities that they can bring to bear to make sure that the tariff levels that are currently applied endure. So, what the court said the administration had done improperly was levy tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).And there's been active debate all along amongst legal scholars about if this was the right law to justify those tariff levies. And so, there's always the possibility of court challenges. But what the administration could do, if the courts continue to uphold the lower court's ruling, is basically leverage other legal authorities to continue these tariffs.They could use Section 122 as a temporary authority to levy the 10 percent tariffs that were part of this kind of global tariff, following the reciprocal trade announcement. They also could use the existing Section 301 authority that was used to create tariffs on China in 2018 and 2019, and extend that across of all China imports; and therefore, fill in the gap that would be lost by not being able to use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to tariff some of China's imports.So bottom line, there's lots of different legal paths to keep tariffs where they are across the set of goods that they're already applied to.Michael Gapen: So, I think that makes a lot of sense. And with all that said, where do you think we stand right now with tariffs?Michael Zezas: So, if the court ruling were to stand then the 10 percent tariffs on all imports that the U.S. is currently levying, that would have to go away. The 30 percent tariffs on roughly half of China imports, that would've to go away. And the 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico around fentanyl, that would have to go away as well.What you'd be left with effectively is anything levied under section 232 or 301. So that's basically steel, aluminum, automobile tariffs. And tariffs on the roughly half of China imports that were started in 2018 and 2019. But as we said earlier, there's lots of different ways that the authority can be brought to bear to make sure that that 10 percent import tariff globally is continued as well as the incremental tariffs on China.But Michael, turning to you on the U.S. economy, what’s your reaction to the court's ruling? It seems like we're just going to have a continuation of existing tariff policy, but is there something else that investors need to consider here?Michael Gapen: Well, I'm not a trade lawyer. I'm not entirely surprised by the ruling. It did seem to exceed what I'll call the general parameters of the law, and it wasn't what we – as a research group and a research team – were thinking was the most likely path for tariffs coming into the year, as you mentioned. And as we, as a group wrote, we thought that they would rely mainly on section 301 and 232 authority, which would mean tariffs would ramp up much more slowly. And that's what we had put into our original outlook coming into the year.We didn't have the effective tariff rate reaching 8 to 9 percent until around the middle of 2026. So, it reflected the fact that it would take effort and time for the administration to put its plans on tariffs in into place. So, I think this decision kind of shifts our views back in that direction. And by that I mean, we originally thought most of 2025 would be about getting the tariff structure in place. And therefore, the effects of tariffs would be hitting the economy mainly in 2026.We obviously revise things where tariffs would weigh on activity in 2025 and postpone Fed cuts into 2026. So, I think what it does for the moment is maybe tilts risks back in the other direction. But as you say, it's just a matter of time that there appears to be enough legal authority here for the administration to implement their desires on trade policy and tariff policy. So, I'm not sure this changes a lot in terms of where we think the economy's going. So, I'm not entirely surprised by the decision, but I'm not sure that the decision means a lot for how we think about the U.S. economy.Michael Zezas: Got it. So, the upshot there is – really no change from your perspective on the outlook for growth, for inflation or for Fed policy. Is that fair?Michael Gapen: That's right. So, it's still a slow growth, sticky inflation, patient Fed. It's just we're kind of moving around when that materializes. We pulled it into 2025 given the abrupt increase in in tariffs and the use of the IEEPA authority. And now it probably would come later if the lower court ruling stands.Michael Zezas: Right. So, sticking with the Fed. Several Fed speakers took to the airwaves last week, and it sounds like the Fed is still waiting for some of these public policy changes to have an effect on the real economy before they react. Is that a fair way to characterize it? And what are you watching at this point in terms of what determines your expectations for the Fed's policy path from here?Michael Gapen: Yeah, that's right. And I think, given that the appeals court has allowed the tariffs to stay in place as they review the lower court, the trade court's ruling, I think the Fed right now would say: Okay, status quo, nothing has changed.So, what does that mean? And what the Fed speakers said last week, and it also appeared in the minutes, is that the Fed expects that tariffs will do two things with respect to the Fed's mandate. It'll push inflation higher and puts risks around unemployment higher, right? So, the Fed is offsides, or likely to be offsides on both sides of its mandate.So, what Fed speakers have been saying is, well, when this happens, we will react to whichever side of the mandate we're furthest from our target. And their forecasts seem to say and are pretty consistent with ours, that the Fed expects inflation to rise first, but the labor market to soften later. So, what that means for our expectations for the Fed's policy path is they're likely to be on hold as they evaluate that inflation shock.And we'll keep the policy rate where it is to ensure that inflation expectations are stable. And then as the economy moderates and the labor market softens, then they can turn to cuts. But we don't think that happens until 2026. So, I don't think the ruling yesterday and the appeal process initiated today changes that.For now, the tariffs are still in place. The Fed's message is it's going to take us at least until probably September, if not later, to figure out which way we should move. Moving later and right is preferable for them than moving earlier and wrong.Michael Zezas: Got it. So bottom line, from our perspective, this court case was a big deal. However, because the administration has a lot of options to keep tariffs going in the direction that they want, not too much has really changed with our expectations for the outlook for either the tariff path and it's not going to fix to the economy.Michael Gapen: That’s right. That's, I think what we know today. And we'll have to see how things evolve.Michael Zezas: Yep. They seem to be evolving every day. Mike, thanks for speaking with me.Michael Gapen: Thank you, Mike. It's been a pleasure. And 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.

Transcribed - Published: 30 May 2025

Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research & Public Policy Strategy, Michael Zezas, shares the answers to clients’ top U.S. policy questions from Morgan Stanley’s Japan Investor Summit. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Fixed Income Research & Public Policy Strategy. Today, takeaways from our Japan Investor Summit. It’s Wednesday, May 28th at 10:30am in New York. Last week, I attended our Japan Investor Summit in Tokyo: Two full days of panels on key investment themes and one-on-one meetings with clients from all parts of the Morgan Stanley franchise. During the meeting, Morgan Stanley Research launched its mid year economics and market strategy outlooks. So needless to say there was a healthy dialogue on investment strategy over those 48 hours. And I want to share what were the most frequent questions I received and, of course, our answers to those questions.  As you could guess, U.S. tariff policy was a key focus. Could tariffs re-escalate? Or was the worst behind us; and if so, could investors set aside their concerns about the U.S. economy? It’s a complicated issue so accordingly our answer is nuanced. On the one hand, the current state of play is mostly aligned where we thought tariff policy would be by end of year. It’s just arrived much earlier. Higher overall U.S. tariffs with a skew toward higher tariffs on China relative to the rest of world, as the U.S. has less common ground with them and thus greater challenges in reaching a trade agreement with China in a timely manner. So that might imply we’ve arrived at the end point. But we think that’s too simple of a way for investors to think about it. First there’s plenty of potential for escalation from current levels as part of ongoing negotiations. And even if it’s only temporary it could affect markets. Second, and perhaps more importantly, even though the U.S. cutting tariffs on China from very high levels recently brought down the effective tariff rate, it’s still considerably higher than where we started the year. So one’s market outlook will still have to account for the pressures of tariffs, which our economists translate into slower growth and higher recession risk this year.  Another key concern – U.S. fiscal policy, and whether the U.S. would be embarking on a path to smaller deficits, in line with campaign promises. Or if the tax and spending bill making its way through Congress would keep that from happening. For investors we think it’s most important to focus on the next year, because what happens beyond that is highly speculative. And we do not expect deficits to come down in the next year. Extending expiring tax cuts, and extending some new ones, albeit with some spending offsets, should modestly expand the deficit next year in our estimates; and some further deficit expansion should come from other factors baked into the budget, like higher interest payments.  It's understandable these two questions came up, because we do think the answers are key to the outlook for markets. In particular, they inform some of the stronger views in our markets’ outlook. For example, slower relative U.S. growth and the related potential for foreign investors to increasingly prefer their portfolios reflect their local currency should keep the U.S. dollar weakening – a key call our team started this year with and now continues. Another example, the shape of the U.S. Treasury yield curve. Higher deficits and the uncertainty about inflation caused by tariffs should make for a steeper yield curve. So while we expect U.S. Treasury yields to fall, making for good returns for high grade bonds including corporate credit, the better returns might be in shorter maturities.  Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen. And if you like what you hear, tell a friend or a colleague about us today.

Transcribed - Published: 28 May 2025

Live from the Morgan Stanley Luxury Conference in Paris, our analysts Arunima Sinha and Eduoard Aubin discuss the economic and consumer trends shaping demand for luxury goods. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Arunima Sinha: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Arunima Sinha from Morgan Stanley's Global and U.S. Economics teams.Eduoard Aubin: And I'm Eduoard Aubin, Head of the Luxury Goods team.Arunima Sinha: This episode was recorded last week when we were at the annual Morgan Stanley Luxury Conference in Paris. In it, we bring you an overview of what we heard from companies and investors about the hottest trends in the luxury industry.It's Tuesday, May 27th at 8am in Paris.For several years now, the luxury industry has been riding a post pandemic boom. And the top luxury brands experience 80 percent or greater sales growth between 2019 and [20]24. So Ed, is this trend going to continue or has it started to moderate and why?Eduoard Aubin: No, it has already started to moderate clearly last year. So, the growth rates of some of the leading luxury good brands, you know, over the past, four or five years, was clearly double digit CAGR growth.What we've seen in 2024 – is the market, luxury goods market worldwide has already started to contract. It was very moderate, about 2-3 percent. But it's very unusual because over the past 30 years, the market has contracted only once or twice. So, it started last year already. But we think it's going to, you know, accelerate; the decline could be even a bit more significant this year to low to mid single digit.And there are a number as to – of reasons as to why the market has luxury goods market has moderated. First of all, there's been post-COVID; post pandemic. There's been a wallet shift away from ownership of goods to more spend on experiences such as travel, restaurants, dining out, et cetera.The other thing is that you had a lot of, you know, closets, which were full post the pandemic. People were at home, disposable income was high and there were certainly a lot of, you know, purchase, which was done during the pandemic. And then, and we'll talk about it in a second, there is also this view that maybe luxury good companies have increased prices maybe a bit touch excessively during the pandemic; and potentially pricing out the middle income consumer.Arunima Sinha: This is an incredible conference and we've been talking to a lot of corporates and we've been talking to a lot of investors. What are some of the key debates that you've been hearing about?Eduoard Aubin: So I mean, front and center, it's what's going on in terms of the – from a macro standpoint – in terms of the key, two key markets for the luxury good sector, which are China and the U.S., to put things in perspective, and we look at it on a nationality standpoint here rather than a geographic standpoint.The reason is that there is a lot of cross-border shopping, which is done when it comes to luxury. The Chinese nationals account for about a third of total demand, total spend on the luxury goods market, 32-33 percent. So, they are the number one nationality today, clearly. The number two is the Americans, which account for, who account for about 21-22 percent of the spend.So, combined that's more than 50 percent of the spend and certainly more than supposedly 50 percent of the growth over the next three to five years. So clearly a lot of focus on these two nationalities. What's going on in terms of the wealth effect in China and in the U.S.? What's going on in terms of the health of the middle-income consumer in China and in the U.S.?The other debate related to that is what's going on in terms of international travel? What we've heard from companies during the conference is that there are certainly less Americans now coming to Europe, in this quarter, in the second quarter, and this had been a key driver of the spend over the past few months partially related to the currency.There is also; there are also less Chinese going to Japan, which was also a key – a factor of growth for the industry. Chinese spend about 30 percent of their total spend outside of China, and Japan was the number one market in terms of spend for them in recent years ahead of Europe.And what we've seen and what we heard from the companies attending the conference is that these two nationalities are spending less abroad, which is why we think, the second quarter sales could be a bit under pressure more than in the first quarter.The other debate is about, you know, the middle-income consumers we talked about. Luxury brands have raised prices quite a bit. For some of them they doubled the sales price of the items during the pandemic. And again, there is a debate about the fact that they might have been pricing out the middle-income consumer. And obviously that has come at the time where the discretionary spend of the middle-income consumer, you know, the aspirational customer, has been under pressure.So, it's kind of a double whammy in terms of the propensity of this cohort to spend on luxury goods and for the sector to grow in the medium- to long-term, it cannot just rely on millionaires and billionaires. It has to increase; to recruit, from the middle class. That has been the one of the gross engines of this industry over the past 10, 20, 30 years.And so that's certainly one of the key debate is – when will the products become affordable again? The challenge for the luxury goods company is that you can; there is a cardinal rule in luxury. You can never lower your prices. So, what you can do is you can play a bit with the mix, or you can wait for the discretionary spend to increase and make your product more affordable.But obviously that takes some time. So, these are some of the key debates, you know, that have been discussed at the conference.So Arunima, let's shift our focus from macro to micro concerns. So, we've been talking a lot about the economic outlook, uncertainty around tariffs and currency markets on this podcast. Will these factors hurt luxury consumption?Arunima Sinha: So, this is great timing Ed, because we just published our economics outlooks the global, the U.S., and for other regions. And our basic view is that tariffs, both the levels, the uncertainty around them are going to weigh on growth around the world. They're going to weigh on U.S. consumers quite specifically because here now you have a couple of different ways that tariffs will matter.One, for the general consumer, it's going to be higher prices; so you drive up prices, you're going to drive down real spending. And so, we do have our real spending moderating across the forecast horizon. We go down almost a full two percentage points by the end of [20]25 relative to where we were in 2024. With respect to how we think about consumers spending on discretionary items, we think of labor income being an important factor. We think of wealth; supportive wealth effects and that you already mentioned. And then we also think about just how consumers are feeling uncertain about their prospects for the economy and so on.So, with respect to luxury consumption, we think that it is the last two factors, the supportive wealth effects and how uncertainty was playing out, that's going to matter. So, between 2020 and [20]24, the United States saw some of the largest increases in net worth for U.S. households. So, U.S. households saw $51 trillion in additional net worth being created over this period; that was more than what they saw over the prior decade.And from this 51 trillion pool, about 70 percent went to the top 20 percent of the income cohort, so that's $35 trillion. So, these guys were feeling very positively supported by wealth. And the other factor in this is that it was really tied to financial wealth because that's where we saw some of the largest increases as well.And so, how do we think it's going to weigh on luxury consumers? To the extent that we may not see these very large increases in wealth going forward, given where equity markets, the ride that they've seen over this past year, so far. If we don't have these very large increases in financial wealth, we may not have very large increases in planned consumption for this particular cohort.And so that's driving some of our forecast about the moderation and overall consumption, but it will also translate into just growth for luxury consumption. And the other aspect, of course is uncertainty. So, we do think that there's going to be some resolution of tariff uncertainty this year, but there are other factors in the U.S. that are weighing on policy uncertainty. So where is the fiscal bill going to go? How is immigration going to solve out? So, all of these factors are weighing on the consumer, and they may also be weighing very well on luxury consumption.Great talking with you Ed, we could all find little ways of incorporating luxury in our lives and this conference has really just been an incredible experience. So, thank you and thank you for taking the time to talk with me today.Eduoard Aubin: Great speaking with you, ArunimaArunima Sinha: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review when you'll listen and share with the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Transcribed - Published: 27 May 2025

Global trade tensions have eased after a steadying in U.S. policy shifts, leading our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson to make a more bullish case for the second half of 2025. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast, I will discuss recent developments on tariffs and interest rates, and how it affects our 12 month view for U.S. Equities.It's Friday, May 23rd at 9am in New York.So, let’s get after it.The reduction in the headline tariff rate on China from 145 percent to 30 percent extended the rally in stocks last week and should help to support both corporate and consumer confidence. More importantly, the 90-day détente came at a critical juncture, in my view, as a few more weeks of what was essentially a trade embargo would have likely led to a recession.Equity market volatility also subsided considerably amid the decline in trade policy uncertainty. In fact, both measures peaked well before the deal with China came together and are now back below where they were pre-Liberation Day. To me, this means trade headwinds have likely peaked in rate of change terms and are unlikely to return to such levels again. This would fit with the capitulatory price action we saw in early April with the average stock in the S&P 500 experiencing a 30 percent drawdown. In short, while the lagging hard data is likely to come in softer over the next coming months, the equity market already priced it in April. In the event of a recession that still arrives, we think the April lows will still hold, assuming it's a mild one with manageable risk to credit and funding markets.As further support for stocks, earnings revisions breadth appears to have bottomed. This indicator has leading properties in terms of the direction of earnings forecasts and is an important gauge of corporate confidence, in our view. The combination of upside momentum in revision breadth and last week's deal with China has placed the S&P 500 firmly back in our original pre-Liberation Day first half range of 5500-6100. Having said that, we think continued upward progress in earnings revisions breadth into positive territory will be necessary to break through 6100 in the near term, given the stickiness of 10-year Treasury yields.Amidst these developments, we released our mid -year outlook earlier this week and updated our base, bear and bull case targets for the S&P 500. In short, we effectively pushed out the timing of our original 6500 price target for the end of this year to 12 months from today. This is mainly due to a less dovish Fed and therefore higher 10-year Treasury yields than our economists and rates strategists expected at the end of last year. We also trimmed our EPS forecasts modestly to adjust for higher than expected tariff rates, at least for now.Looking ahead, we are more bullish today than we were at the end of last year given the growth negative policy announcements are now behind us and the Fed’s next move is likely to be multiple cuts. In short, the rate of change on earnings revisions breadth, interest rates and policy changes from the administration are all now pointing in a positive direction, the opposite of six months ago and why I was not bullish on the first half of this year.The near-term risk for U.S. equities remains very overbought conditions and interest rates. With the Fed on hold due to lingering inflation concerns and Moody’s downgrade of U.S. Treasury debt last Friday, 10-year Treasury yields are back above 4.5 percent; the level where the correlation between equities and rates tends to move back into negative territory. Ultimately, we think the Treasury and Fed have tools they can and will use to manage this risk. However, in the short term, this is a potential catalyst for the S&P 500 to take a break and even lead to a 5 percent correction. We would look to add equity risk into such a correction should it materialize given our bullish 6-12-month view.Thanks for tuning in. I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review; and if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!

Transcribed - Published: 23 May 2025

Our analysts Serena Tang and Seth Carpenter discuss Morgan Stanley’s out-of-consensus view on U.S. exceptionalism, and how investors should position their portfolios given the current market uncertainty. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Seth: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist.Serena: And I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's, Chief Global Cross-Asset Strategist.Seth: Today, we're going to pick up the conversation where we left it off, talking about our mid-year outlook; but this time I get to ask Serena the questions.It's Thursday, May 22nd at 10am in New York.Serena, we're back for part two of this podcast. Let's jump in where we left off. We've seen a lot of policy surprise in the last six months. We've had a big sell off in the beginning of April, in part inspired by all of this uncertainty.What are you telling clients? What do you think investors should be doing? How should they be positioning their portfolios in the current circumstances?Serena: So, we are recommending going overweight in U.S. equities and going overweight in core fixed income like U.S. treasuries and like investment grade corporate credit. And we have a very strong preference for U.S. over rest of the world assets, except the dollar. Now I think for us, the main message is that you have global growth slowing, which is what you talked about yesterday.But you know, risky assets can look past the low growth and do well, while treasuries can look forward to the many Fed cuts you guys are expecting in 2026 and rally. But if I look at valuations that does suggest equities and credit have completely, almost priced out, growth slowdown odds. Meaning that I think there is still some downside and we'd recommend quality across the board.Seth: In your judgment then, looking around the world at all the different asset classes, how well, or perhaps how poorly, are those asset classes priced for the sort of macro views that we were just discussing?Serena: So I think the market that’s probably least priced for the slowing economy that you and your team have been forecasting is really in the government bond space. I think the prospect of a lot more Fed cuts than what is currently priced into the market will lower government bond yields, particularly starting in 2026.As you know, our rates team has a target of 3.45 percent for U.S. Treasury 10-year yields, and 2.6 percent for U.S. Treasury two-year yields. Meaning that we also get a steeper curve by this time next year. And this translates to more than 10 percent of total returns for U.S. Treasuries – very attractive; in large part because the markets aren't priced for the Fed scenario that you and your team are forecasting.Seth: Let me, then push a little bit on one of the things that I've been talking to clients about, or at least been asked about, which is the dollar. The role of the dollar? U.S. exceptionalism? Is it real?Serena: Yeah that's a great question because I think this is where we are the most out of consensus. If you've noticed, all of our views right now really line up as us being pretty constructive on U.S. dollar assets. Like at a time when everyone's still really debating the end of U.S. exceptionalism. And we really push back against the idea that foreign investors would or should abandon U.S. assets significantly.There are very few alternatives to U.S. dollar assets right now. I mean, like if you look at investible stock market cap, U.S. is nearly five times the size of the next biggest market, which is Europe. And in the fixed income side of things, more than half of liquid high grade fixed income paper is in U.S. dollars.Now, even if there were significant outflows from U.S. dollar assets, there are very few places that money can find a haven, safe or otherwise. This is not to say there won't ever be any other alternatives to U.S. dollar assets in the future. But that shift in market size takes time, which means that TINA -- there is no alternative -- remains a theme for now.Seth: That view on the dollar weakening from here, it's baked into my team's economic forecast. It's baked into the strategy team's forecast across research. So then let me take it one step forward. What does all this mean about portfolio preferences, your recommendation for clients when when they're investing in assets that are not U.S. dollar denominated.Serena: You are right. I mean, if there's one U.S. asset that we just like, it's the U.S. dollar. So, you know, over the next 12 months we expect key factors, which drove the dollar strength. You know, positive growth, yield differentials relative to other G10 economies. Those factors will fade substantially. And we also think because of the political uncertainty in the U.S. currency hedging ratios on exposure to U.S. assets may increase, which could further pressure the U.S. dollar. So, our FX team sees euro/dollar at 1.25 and dollar/yen at 1.30 by the second quarter of 2026.Which means that we're really recommending non-U.S. dollar investors to buy U.S. stocks and fixed income on an FX hedge basis.Seth: If we look forward but focus just on the next, call it three to six months; what asset classes, or if you want, what regions around the world are best positioned, and what would you say to investors?Serena: So, you're right. I think there is a big difference between what we like over the next three to six months versus what we like over the next 12 months. Because if I look at U.S. equities and U.S. government bonds, both of which we're overweight on most of the gains, probably won't happen until the first half of next year because you have to have U.S. equities really feeling the tailwind of dollar weakness. And you need to have U.S. government bond investors to grow more confident that we will get all of those Fed cuts next year.What we do like over the next three to six months and feel pretty highly convicted on is really U.S. investment grade corporate credit, which we think can, you know, do well in the second half of this year and do well in the first half of next year.Seth: But then let's take a step back [be]cause I think investors around the world are wrestling with a lot of the same issues. They're talking to, you know, strategists like us at lots of different places. What would you say are our most out of consensus views right now?Serena: I think we're pretty out of consensus on our preference for U.S. and U.S. dollar assets. As I mentioned, there was still a huge debate on the end of U.S. exceptionalism. Now the other place where I think it's notable is we're much more bullish on U.S. treasuries than what's being priced into markets and where consensus is. And I think that's really been driven by your economics team being much more convicted on many Fed cuts in 2026.And the last thing I would point out here is, again, we're more bearish than consensus on the dollar. If I look at euro/dollar, if I look at dollar/yen, the kind of appreciation we're forecasting for at around through 10 percent, is higher than I think what most investors are expecting at the moment.Now back to Seth. Given all of the uncertainty around U.S. fiscal, trade, and industrial policy, what indicators are you watching to assess whether global growth is becoming more fragile or more resilient?Seth: Yeah, it's a great question. It's always difficult to monitor in real time how things are going, especially with these sorts of shocks. We are looking at a bunch of the shipping data to see how trade flows are going. There was clearly some front-running into the United States of imports to try to get ahead of tariffs. There's got to be some payback for that. I think the question becomes where do we settle in when it comes to trade?I'm going to be looking in the U.S. at the labor market to see signs of reduced demand for labor. But also try to pay attention to what's going on with the supply of labor from immigration restriction. And then there are all the normal indicators about spending, especially consumer spending. Consumer spending tends to drive a lot of the big developed market economies around the world and how well that holds up or doesn't. That's going to be key to the overall outlook.Serena: Thank you so much, Seth. Thanks for taking the time to talk.Seth: Serena, I could talk to you all day.Serena: 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.

Transcribed - Published: 22 May 2025

Our analysts Seth Carpenter and Serena Tang discuss why they believe the global economy is set to slow meaningfully in the second half of 2025. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Serena: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's, Chief Global Cross-Asset Strategist.Seth: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist.Serena: Today we'll discuss Morgan Stanley's midyear outlook for the global economy and markets.It's Wednesday, May 21st at 10am in New York.Seth, you published a year ahead outlook last November. Since President Trump took office back in January, there's been pretty significant policy and economic uncertainty and quite a few surprises. With this in mind, what is your current outlook for the global economy for the second half of this year and into 2026.Seth: So, we titled the outlook Skewed to the Downside because we really do think the U.S. economy, the global economy, is set to slow meaningfully from where we were coming into this year. Let's start with the U.S.As you said, policy changes came in a lot this year since the new administration took over. I would say the two key ones from a macro perspective so far have been trade policy and immigration policy.Tariffs have gone up, tariffs have gone down, tariffs have been suspended. Right now, what we think is going to ultimately take place is that we will see persistent, notable tariffs on China, lower tariffs on the rest of the world, and then we'll have to see how things evolve. What does that mean? Well, it means for the U.S. higher inflation and lower growth. In addition, immigration reform means that growth is going to slow because the growth rate of the labor force is going to slow.Now around the rest of the world, the tariff shock matters as well. When the U.S. puts in tariffs on its imports from other countries, that's negative demand for those other countries. So, we're looking for pretty weak growth in the euro area. Now, I will note, lots of people were excited about possible expansionary fiscal policy in Germany, and we think that's still there. We just don't think it's enough to give the euro area robust growth.In Asia, China's a main driver of the economy. China is a big recipient of these tariffs. We think the deflation cycle that we expected in China keeps going on. This reduction in demand from the U.S. is not going to help, but there'll probably be a little bit at the margin offsetting fiscal policy.So, what does that mean put together? Lackluster growth in China. Call it 4 percent slow growth for yet another year. Overall, the global economy should step down. Will it be a recession? That's one of the key questions that we hear from clients, but we don't think so. Not quite. Just a meaningful step downSerena: Interesting. Any particular regions that seem to be bright spots or surprises -- or perhaps have seen the biggest shift in your outlook?Seth: I guess I'd flag two potential bright spots around the world. The first is India. India has been, for us, a favorite. It will have the highest growth rate of any economy that we have in our coverage area. And because it's such a big economy, that's part of why the global economy can't lose that much steam. India has lots going for it. There are cyclical factors boosting growth in the near term. But there are also longer-term structural policy driven reasons to think that Indian growth will stay solid for the foreseeable future.I guess I'd also throw in Japan. Now its growth rate isn't going to be anywhere near the kind of growth in number terms that we're going to see from India. But this has to be taken in the context of 25 years of essentially zero growth of nominal GDP. The reflationary cycle that we think started a couple years ago remains intact, even with the tariff shock. And so, we're pretty optimistic still that Japanese reflation will continue.Serena: And to what extent are U.S. tariffs contributing to global inflationary pressures? I mean, how do you expect the Fed and other central banks to respond?Seth: The tariffs are imposed by the United States on most of the imports coming into the country, whereas other countries, maybe they have some retaliatory tariffs just against the U.S., but definitely not as broad as the U.S. That means for the U.S. tariffs are going to drive up inflation domestically and drive down growth, whereas for the rest of the world, it's mostly just a negative demand shock. So, they will be disinflationary for the rest of the world and pushing down growth.What does that mean for central banks? Well, outside of the U.S., central banks are going to see this as slowing aggregate demand, and so it's pretty clear what it is that they want to do. If they were hiking, they can stop hiking. If they were going to hold steady, they can lower rates a little bit. And if they were already lowering interest rates like the European Central Bank, well they can probably keep going with that without having to worry. And that's why we think the ECB is going to lower its policy rate to probably 1.5 percent and maybe even lower, which is below where the market is expecting things.Now for the Fed, things are much more tricky. The Fed cares about inflation, the Fed cares about U.S. growth, and both of those variables are going in the opposite direction of what they want over the rest of this forecast. Right now, inflation's too high for the Fed, and history shows that inflation goes up first with tariffs before the growth rate hits. So, the Fed's probably going to wait until the hard data show a bigger slowdown in the economy, a worsening. And the labor market. That is a bigger concern for them than the already too high inflation that is set to rise further over the rest of the year.Serena: And in your view, how does trade policy uncertainty influence business investment, particularly in export-oriented industries or in economies tightly linked to U.S. demand?Seth: Yeah. I think it has to be negative and therein lies one of the biggest challenges is just how negative. And I can't say for sure. But what we do know is that an uncertainty tends to be very negative for business investment spending decisions. If you're trying to make a decision, should I build a new factory?This is something that's going to have a long life to it, and you're going to get benefits hopefully for several years. How big are those benefits relative to the cost? Well, right now it's not at all clear, and so there's an option value to waiting.And we think that uncertainty is depressing investment decisions right now. I think it has to affect export-oriented industries. There's a lot of questions about what sort of retaliatory tariffs, other countries might impose.But it also affects domestic driven businesses because, well, they're going to have to see what their demand is. And some of the ones that are just focused on the U.S. economy are selling imported goods. So, it affects businesses across the board. Serena: Right. And how do U.S. tariff hikes spill over into emerging markets, and how might these countries buffer against these shocks?Seth: Yeah, I think there's a range of outcomes and the range is as wide as there are different countries. If you stay close to home. Take Mexico. Mexico is a big trading partner with the U.S. and early on in this whole tariff discussion, they were actually the targets of lots of tariff threats. That could have hurt them directly because there'd be less demand for their exports to the United States.Now we've got some resolution. We have the trade agreement with Canada and Mexico, and most of Mexico's exports to the U.S. are exempt under those conditions. However, the indirect effect is important as well. Mexico is very attached to the U.S. economy, and so as the U.S. economy slows because of these tariffs, the Mexican economy will slow as well.But there's also an indirect effect through currency markets, and I think this is a channel that's more broadly applicable across EM. If the Fed is going to be on hold, like we think holding interest rates higher for longer than the market might currently think, that means that EM central banks who might want to lower their policy rate to support their economy are going to be caught in a bit of a bind.They can't afford to take the risks that their currency will misbehave if they ease too much too far ahead of the Fed. And so, I think there is a little bit of a constraint for EM central banks, thinking about how much can I attend to domestic matters and how much do I have to pay attention to external matters?Serena: Now, I know forecasting economic growth is difficult in even the best of times, and this has been a period of exceptional volatility. How are you and your economic colleagues factoring all of this uncertainty?Seth: It's a great question and luminary minds like Neils Bohr, the Nobel Laureate in physics, and Yogi Berra, everyone's favorite prophet, have both said, ‘Forecasting is hard, especially about the future.’ And this time, as you note, is even more so. So, what can we do? We try to come up with as many different scenarios as we can. We ask ourselves not just what's the most likely outcome, because there's uncertainty. The policy changes could come fast and furious. We also try to ask ourselves, if tariffs were to go back up from where they are now, how would that outcome turn out. If tariffs were to go away entirely, how would that turn out?You have to start thinking more and more, I think, in terms of scenarios.Serena:  And does this, in your view, change how much or how little investors should focus on the macro economy?Seth: Well, I think it means that investors have to focus every bit as much on the macro economy as they have in the past. I think it's undeniable that if we're right – and the U.S. economy slows down materially, and the global economy slows down with it – longer-term interest rates are probably going to come down along the lines of what our colleagues in interest rate strategy think. That makes a lot of sense to me. I think the trickier part though is knowing where the macro economy is going.We've got our forecast, but we are ready to make a revision if the facts change. And I think that's the trickier part for investors. The macro economy still matters but having a lot of conviction about where it's going, and as a result, what it means for asset prices? Well, that's the trickier part.Serena, you've been asking me lots of questions and they've been great questions, but I'm going to turn the table. I'm going to start asking questions right back to you.But we probably have to save that for another episode. So, let's pause it there.Serena: That sounds great Seth.Seth: And to the people listening, I want to say thanks for listening. And 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.

Transcribed - Published: 21 May 2025

Live from the Morgan Stanley Japan Summit, our analysts Chiwoong Lee and Sho Nakazawa discuss their outlook for the Japanese economy and stock market in light of the country’s evolving trade partnerships with the U.S. and China. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Lee-san: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Chiwoong Lee, Principal Global Economist at Morgan Stanley MUFG Securities.Nakazawa-san: And I’m Sho Nakazawa, Japan Equity Strategist at Morgan Stanley MUFG Securities.Lee-san: Today we’re coming to you live from the Morgan Stanley Japan Summit in Tokyo. And we’ll be sharing our views on Japan in the context of global economic growth. We will also focus on Japan’s position vis-à-vis its two largest trading partners, the U.S. and China.It’s Tuesday, May 20, at 3pm in Tokyo.Lee-san: Nakazawa-san, you and I both have been talking with a large number of clients here at the summit. Based on your conversations, what issues are most top of mind right now?Nakazawa-san: There are many inquiries about how to position because of the uncertainty of U.S. trade policy and the investment strategy for governance reform. These are both catalysts for Japan. And in Japan, there are multiple governance investment angles, with increasing interest in the removal of parent-child listings, which is when a parent company and a subsidiary company are both listed on an exchange. This reform [would] remove the subsidiaries. So, clients are very focused on who will be the next candidate for the removal of a parent-child listing.And what are you hearing from clients on your side, Lee-san?Lee-san: I would say the most frequent questions we received were regarding the Trump administration's policies, of course. While the reciprocal tariffs have been somewhat relaxed compared to the initial announcements, they still remain very high; and there was a strong focus on their negative impact on the U.S. economy and the global economy, including Japan. Of course, external demand is critical for Japanese economy, but when we pointed out the resilience of domestic demand, many investors seemed to agree with that view.Nakazawa-san: How do investors’ views square with your outlook for the global economy over the rest of the year?Lee-san: Well, there was broad consensus that tariffs and policy uncertainty are negatively affecting trade and investment activities across countries. In particular, there is concern about the impact on investment. As Former Fed Chair Ben Bernanke wrote in his papers in [the] 1980s, uncertainty tends to delay investment decisions. However, I got the impression that views varied on just how sensitive investment behavior is to this uncertainty.Nakazawa-san: How significant are U.S. tariffs on global economy including Japan both near-term and longer-term?Lee-san: The negative effects on the global economy through trade and investment are certainly important, but the most critical issue is the impact on the U.S. economy. Tariffs essentially act as a tax burden on U.S. consumers and businesses.For example, in 2018, there was some impact on prices, but the more significant effect was on business production and employment. Now, with even higher tariff rates, the impact on inflation and economic activity is expected to be even greater. Given the inflationary pressures from tariffs, we believe the Fed will find it difficult to cut rates in 2025. On the other hand, once it becomes feasible, likely in 2026, we anticipate the Fed will need to implement substantial rate cuts.Lee-san: So, Nakazawa-san, how has the Japanese stock market reacted to U.S. tariffs?Nakazawa-san: Investors positioning have skewed sharply to domestic-oriented non-manufacturing sectors since the U.S. government’s announcement of reciprocal tariffs on April 2nd. Tariff talks with some nations have achieved some progress at this stage, spurring buybacks of export-oriented manufacturer shares. However, the screening by our analysts of the cumulative surplus returns against Japan’s TOPIX index for around 500 stocks in their coverage universe, divided into stocks relatively vulnerable to tariff effects and those less impacted, finds a continued poor performance at the former. We believe it is important to enhance the portfolio’s robustness by revising sector skews in accordance with any progress in the trade talks and adjusting long/short positioning with the sectors in line with the impact of the tariffs.Lee-san: I see. You recently revised your Topix index target, right. Can you quickly walk us through your call?Nakazawa-san：Yes, of course. We recently revised down our base case TOPIX target for end-2025 from 3,000 to 2,600. This revision was considered by several key factors: So first, our Japan economics team revised down its Japanese nominal growth forecast from 3.7% to 3.3%, reflecting implementation of reciprocal tariffs and lower growth forecasts for the U.S., China, and Europe. Second, our FX team lowered its USD/JPY target from 145 to 135 due to the risk of U.S. hard data taking a marked turn for the worse. The timing aligns with growing uncertainty on the business environment, which may lead firms to manage cash allocation more cautiously. So, this year might be a bit challenging for Japanese equities that I recommend staying defensive positioning with defensive non-manufacturing sectors overall.Nakazawa-san: And given tariff risks, do you see a change in the Bank of Japan’s rate path for the rest of the year?Lee-san: Yeah well, external demand is a very important driver of Japanese economy. Even if tariffs on Japan do not rise significantly, auto tariffs, for example, remain in place and cannot be ignored. The earnings deterioration among export-oriented companies, especially in the auto sector, will take time for the Bank of Japan to assess in terms of its impact on winter bonuses and next spring's wage growth. If trade negotiations between the U.S. and countries including Japan make major progress by summer, a rate hike in the fall could be a risk scenario. However, our Japan teams’ base case remains that the policy rate will be unchanged through 2026.Lee-san: How is the Japanese yen faring relative to the U.S. dollar, and how does it impact the Japanese stock market, Nakazawa-san?Nakazawa-san：I would say USD/JPY is not only driver for Japanese equities. Of course, USD/JPY still plays a key role in earnings, as our regression model suggests a 1% higher USD/JPY lifting TOPIX 0.5% on average. But this sensitivity has trended down over the past decade. A structural reason is that as value chain building close to final demand locations has lifted overseas production ratios, which implies continuous efforts of Japanese corporate optimizing global supply chain.That said, from sector allocation perspective, sectors showing greater resilience include domestic demand-driven sectors, such as foods, construction & materials, IT & services/others, transportation & logistics, and retails.Nakazawa-san: And finally, the trade relationship between Japan and China is one of the largest trading partnerships in the world. Are U.S. tariffs impacting this partnership in any way?Lee-san: That's a very difficult question, I have to say, but I think there are multiple angles to consider. Geopolitical risk remains to be a key focus, and in terms of the military alliance, Japan-U.S. relationships have been intact. At the same time, Japan faces increased pressure to meet U.S. demands. That said, Japan has been taking steps such as strengthening semiconductor manufacturing and increasing defense spending, so I believe there is a multifaceted evaluation which is necessary.Lee-san: That said, I think it’s time to head back to the conference. Nakazawa-san, thanks for taking the time to talk.Nakazawa-san: Great speaking with you, Lee-san.Lee-san: 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.

Transcribed - Published: 20 May 2025

Live from the Morgan Stanley Japan Summit, our analysts Chiwoong Lee and Sho Nakazawa discuss their outlook for the Japanese economy and stock market in light of the country’s evolving trade partnerships with the U.S. and China. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Lee-san: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Chiwoong Lee, Principal Global Economist at Morgan Stanley MUFG Securities.Nakazawa-san: And I’m Sho Nakazawa, Japan Equity Strategist at Morgan Stanley MUFG Securities.Lee-san: Today we’re coming to you live from the Morgan Stanley Japan Summit in Tokyo. And we’ll be sharing our views on Japan in the context of global economic growth. We will also focus on Japan’s position vis-à-vis its two largest trading partners, the U.S. and China.It’s Tuesday, May 20, at 3pm in Tokyo.Lee-san: Nakazawa-san, you and I both have been talking with a large number of clients here at the summit. Based on your conversations, what issues are most top of mind right now?Nakazawa-san: There are many inquiries about how to position because of the uncertainty of U.S. trade policy and the investment strategy for governance reform. These are both catalysts for Japan. And in Japan, there are multiple governance investment angles, with increasing interest in the removal of parent-child listings, which is when a parent company and a subsidiary company are both listed on an exchange. This reform [would] remove the subsidiaries. So, clients are very focused on who will be the next candidate for the removal of a parent-child listing.And what are you hearing from clients on your side, Lee-san?Lee-san: I would say the most frequent questions we received were regarding the Trump administration's policies, of course. While the reciprocal tariffs have been somewhat relaxed compared to the initial announcements, they still remain very high; and there was a strong focus on their negative impact on the U.S. economy and the global economy, including Japan. Of course, external demand is critical for Japanese economy, but when we pointed out the resilience of domestic demand, many investors seemed to agree with that view.Nakazawa-san: How do investors’ views square with your outlook for the global economy over the rest of the year?Lee-san: Well, there was broad consensus that tariffs and policy uncertainty are negatively affecting trade and investment activities across countries. In particular, there is concern about the impact on investment. As Former Fed Chair Ben Bernanke wrote in his papers in [the] 1980s, uncertainty tends to delay investment decisions. However, I got the impression that views varied on just how sensitive investment behavior is to this uncertainty.Nakazawa-san: How significant are U.S. tariffs on global economy including Japan both near-term and longer-term?Lee-san: The negative effects on the global economy through trade and investment are certainly important, but the most critical issue is the impact on the U.S. economy. Tariffs essentially act as a tax burden on U.S. consumers and businesses.For example, in 2018, there was some impact on prices, but the more significant effect was on business production and employment. Now, with even higher tariff rates, the impact on inflation and economic activity is expected to be even greater. Given the inflationary pressures from tariffs, we believe the Fed will find it difficult to cut rates in 2025. On the other hand, once it becomes feasible, likely in 2026, we anticipate the Fed will need to implement substantial rate cuts.Lee-san: So, Nakazawa-san, how has the Japanese stock market reacted to U.S. tariffs?Nakazawa-san: Investors positioning have skewed sharply to domestic-oriented non-manufacturing sectors since the U.S. government’s announcement of reciprocal tariffs on April 2nd. Tariff talks with some nations have achieved some progress at this stage, spurring buybacks of export-oriented manufacturer shares. However, the screening by our analysts of the cumulative surplus returns against Japan’s TOPIX index for around 500 stocks in their coverage universe, divided into stocks relatively vulnerable to tariff effects and those less impacted, finds a continued poor performance at the former. We believe it is important to enhance the portfolio’s robustness by revising sector skews in accordance with any progress in the trade talks and adjusting long/short positioning with the sectors in line with the impact of the tariffs.Lee-san: I see. You recently revised your Topix index target, right. Can you quickly walk us through your call?Nakazawa-san：Yes, of course. We recently revised down our base case TOPIX target for end-2025 from 3,000 to 2,600. This revision was considered by several key factors: So first, our Japan economics team revised down its Japanese nominal growth forecast from 3.7% to 3.3%, reflecting implementation of reciprocal tariffs and lower growth forecasts for the U.S., China, and Europe. Second, our FX team lowered its USD/JPY target from 145 to 135 due to the risk of U.S. hard data taking a marked turn for the worse. The timing aligns with growing uncertainty on the business environment, which may lead firms to manage cash allocation more cautiously. So, this year might be a bit challenging for Japanese equities that I recommend staying defensive positioning with defensive non-manufacturing sectors overall.Nakazawa-san: And given tariff risks, do you see a change in the Bank of Japan’s rate path for the rest of the year?Lee-san: Yeah well, external demand is a very important driver of Japanese economy. Even if tariffs on Japan do not rise significantly, auto tariffs, for example, remain in place and cannot be ignored. The earnings deterioration among export-oriented companies, especially in the auto sector, will take time for the Bank of Japan to assess in terms of its impact on winter bonuses and next spring's wage growth. If trade negotiations between the U.S. and countries including Japan make major progress by summer, a rate hike in the fall could be a risk scenario. However, our Japan teams’ base case remains that the policy rate will be unchanged through 2026.Lee-san: How is the Japanese yen faring relative to the U.S. dollar, and how does it impact the Japanese stock market, Nakazawa-san?Nakazawa-san：I would say USD/JPY is not only driver for Japanese equities. Of course, USD/JPY still plays a key role in earnings, as our regression model suggests a 1% higher USD/JPY lifting TOPIX 0.5% on average. But this sensitivity has trended down over the past decade. A structural reason is that as value chain building close to final demand locations has lifted overseas production ratios, which implies continuous efforts of Japanese corporate optimizing global supply chain.That said, from sector allocation perspective, sectors showing greater resilience include domestic demand-driven sectors, such as foods, construction & materials, IT & services/others, transportation & logistics, and retails.Nakazawa-san: And finally, the trade relationship between Japan and China is one of the largest trading partnerships in the world. Are U.S. tariffs impacting this partnership in any way?Lee-san: That's a very difficult question, I have to say, but I think there are multiple angles to consider. Geopolitical risk remains to be a key focus, and in terms of the military alliance, Japan-U.S. relationships have been intact. At the same time, Japan faces increased pressure to meet U.S. demands. That said, Japan has been taking steps such as strengthening semiconductor manufacturing and increasing defense spending, so I believe there is a multifaceted evaluation which is necessary.Lee-san: That said, I think it’s time to head back to the conference. Nakazawa-san, thanks for taking the time to talk.Nakazawa-san: Great speaking with you, Lee-san.Lee-san: 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.

Transcribed - Published: 20 May 2025

Markets have reacted positively to the U.S.-China détente in tariffs. Our Chief Fixed Income Strategist, Vishy Tirupattur, digs into the rallies to better understand potential longer-term outcomes. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Today I'll talk about the impact of last week's 90-day pause in the reciprocal tariffs between the U.S. and China, and the impact on the economy and markets.It's Monday, May 19th at 11am in New York.Market response to last Monday's announcement has been resoundingly positive. The S&P 500 was up 4.5 percent in the first four days since the announcement and the year-to-date returns are back in the black after Liberation Day drove steep declines in April.Credit markets have also rallied, notably with the investment grade spreads tightening by over 10 basis points and high yield spreads by over 50 basis points. And the Treasury market took out 50 basis points of rate cuts in 2025, leaving market implied rate cuts by the end of 2026 at around 100 basis points.While these moves across markets are significant, it is really important to put them into perspective and tease out what this detente in trade tensions implies. And more importantly, what it does not imply.On the positive side, we think that the de-escalation reduces the risk of a sudden stop in trade volumes and a sharp rise in unemployment rate. While this is clearly just a truce and we don't know exactly where the tariffs between the two largest economies in the world will end up, it seems reasonable to infer that tariffs in the vicinity of 125 percent or 145 percent are substantially less likely now. Overall, the probability of a U.S. recession, therefore, has fallen on the margin.To be clear, a recession during 2025 was never really our base case. But the de-escalation shifts risks in the direction of a little more growth, a little less inflation, and keeps unemployment rate at near current levels. If the world before Liberation Day was bimodal and close to a coin toss; it is still bimodal, but skewed towards an expansion, not contraction. Since we were in the expansion mode to begin with, this detente gives us greater comfort in our baseline outlook and strengthens our conviction that the Fed will remain on hold for rest of the year.The positive vibes from Geneva not withstanding, we would stress that it is far from clear that the 90-day pause is an uncertainty clearing event. Trade tensions are likely to remain elevated. The administration is still investigating tariffs on pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, copper, and other products. It is also unclear if the template of negotiations between the U.S. and China can work for other regions, especially Europe. Even if U.S. tariffs on imports from China and the rest of the world end up roughly around the current levels, they would still be about four times higher than the levels at the start of the year.This means inflation should continue to move higher into year end, with the surge that peaks in the third quarter. While the impulse inflation from tariffs is likely to be smaller, it still is coming. Likewise, higher tariffs will dampen growth even though recession will continue to be avoided.For risk markets, we think that the detente has reduced the risk of substantial drawdowns. While policy uncertainty about the ultimate level of tariff remains, a return to last month’s mind-boggling volatility driven by trade policy is probably behind us. So, it's unlikely that we will see markets revisiting the lows of April in the near term.For credit markets, a lower likelihood of recession is indeed welcome news, especially considering the current strong credit fundamentals. With the market taking out a couple of rate cuts, the all in yields for credit remain in the range to sustain the demand for yield buyers such as insurance companies.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.

Transcribed - Published: 19 May 2025

As market uncertainty continues around the Trump administration’s trade policy, our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets reflects on the key takeaways that investors may learn from the ongoing volatility. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I'm going to discuss what we think we can actually learn from all of the back and forth in markets.It's Friday, May 16th at 2pm in London.One of the dominant questions of 2025 has been and continues to be: What exactly is the strategy behind U.S. tariff policy. Are these tariffs simply a negotiating tactic, designed to bring countries to the table in order to strike quick deals. Or are they something very, very different. An attempt to fundamentally reduce U.S. trade deficits, raise significant revenue, and bring production back to American shores.At a recent conference with some of our largest investors, we asked them which of these explanations they thought best applied. Well, about a quarter thought it was a negotiating tactic; another quarter thought it was that fundamental shift. And the remaining half simply weren't sure yet.Now, it's possible that this ambiguity is actually the point designed to keep trade partners guessing in order to secure better terms. It's also possible that very different views on trade exist within the administration, and we're seeing them vie for influence – perhaps almost in real time. So, amidst all this uncertainty and back and forth, it's useful for investors to try to take a step back and think what, if anything, we've learned.First, we think we've learned that markets have a pretty clear view on tariffs. Credit and equities sold off aggressively as tariffs were ramped up. They have rallied back almost as quickly as these same policies were paused or reversed. Second, this back and forth does complicate the economic data and makes it more likely that the Federal Reserve will leave interest rates unchanged, waiting for more clarity. At Morgan Stanley, we continue to think that the Fed makes no interest rate cuts this year.Third, even with the Fed doing nothing and interest rates moving around, bonds did diversify portfolios. Over the last 90 days, a portfolio of high-grade bonds, like the U.S. aggregate bond index has had just one-fifth of the volatility of the S&P 500, while at the same time delivering a higher total return. Yes, we think there is absolutely still a case for bonds to diversify within portfolios.Fourth and finally, the shock of the initial tariff announcement has passed. But there is still very real uncertainty about the economic impact, as even with the recent pauses, U.S. tariffs remain relatively high versus recent history.The next two months should start to give us the true picture of this impact – or the lack thereof – on both activity and prices. That will tell us whether the storm has truly passed through or whether we're simply in the eye of it.Thanks for listening. Let us know what you think about our thoughts in the market. You can leave us a review wherever you get this podcast. And if you like what you hear, share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Transcribed - Published: 16 May 2025

Our analysts Adam Jonas and Sheng Zhong discuss the rapidly evolving humanoid technologies and investment opportunities that could lead to a $5 trillion market by 2050.  Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Adam Jonas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Adam Jonas Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Autos and Shared Mobility.Sheng Zhong: And I'm Sheng Zhong, Head of China Industrials.Adam Jonas: Today we're talking about humanoid robots and the $5 trillion global market opportunity we see by 2050.It's Thursday, May 15th at 9am in New York.If you're a Gen Xer or a boomer, you probably grew up with the idea of Rosie, the robot from the Jetsons. Rosie was a mechanical butler who cooked, cleaned, and did the laundry while dishing out a side of sarcasm.Today's idea of a humanoid robot for the home is much more evolved. We want robots that can adapt to unpredictable environments, and not just clean up a messy kitchen but also provide care for an elderly relative. This is really the next frontier in the development of AI. In other words, AI must become more human-like or humanoid, and this is happening.So, Sheng, let's start with setting some expectations. What do humanoid robots look like today and how close are we to seeing one in every home?Sheng Zhong: The humanoid is like a young child, in my opinion, although their abilities are different. A robot is born with a developed brain that is Large Language Model, and its body function develops fast.Less than three years ago, a robot barely can walk, but now they can jump, they can run. And just in last week, Beijing had a humanoid half marathon. While robot may lack on connecting its brain to its body action for work execution; sometimes they fail a lot of things. Maybe they break cups, glasses, and even they may fall down.So, you definitely don't want a robot at home like that, until they are safe enough and can help on something. To achieve that a lot of training and practice are needed on how to do things at a high success rate. And it takes time, maybe five years, 10. But in the long term, to have a Rosie at every family is a goal.So, Adam, our U.S. team has argued that the global humanoid Total Adjustable Market will reach $5 trillion USD by 2050. What is the current size of this market and how do we get to that eye-popping number in next 25 years?Adam Jonas: So, the current size of the market, because it's in development phase, is extremely low. I won't put it a zero but call it a black zero – when you look back in time at where we came from. The startups, or the public companies working on this are maybe generating single digit million type dollar revenues. In order to get to that number of $5 trillion by 2050 – that would imply roughly 1 billion humanoids in service, by that year. And that is the amount of the replacement value of actual units sold into that population of 1 billion humanoid robots on our global TAM model.The more interesting way to think about the TAM though is the substitution of labor. There are currently, for example, 4 billion people in the global labor market at $10,000 per person. That's $40 trillion. You know, we're talking 30 or 40 per cent of global GDP. And so, imagining it that way, not just in terms of the unit times price, but the value that these humanoids, can represent is, we think, a more accurate way of thinking about the true economic potential of this adjustable market.Sheng Zhong: So, with all these humanoids in use by 2050, could you paint us a picture in broad strokes of what the economy might look like in terms of labor market and economic growth?Adam Jonas: We can only work through a scenario analysis and there's certainly a lot of false precision that could be dangerous here. But, you know, there's no limit to the imagination to think about what happens to a world where you actually produce your labor; what it means for dependency ratios, retirement age, the whole concept of a GDP could change.I don't think it's an exaggeration to contemplate these technologies being comparable to that of electric light or the wheel or movable type or paper. Things that just completely transform an economy and don't just increase it by five or 10 per cent but could increase it by five or 10 times or more. And so, there are all sorts of moral and ethical and legal issues that are also brought up.The response to which; our response to which will also dictate the end state. And then the question of national security issues and what this means for nation states and, we've seen in our tumultuous human history that when there are changes of technologies – even if they seem to be innocent at first, and for the benefit of mankind – can often be  uh, used to, grow power and to create conflict. So Sheng, how should investors approach the humanoid theme and is it investible right now?Sheng Zhong: Yes, it's not too early to invest in this mega trend. Humanoid will be a huge market in the future, like you said. And it starts now. There are multi parties in this industry, including the leading companies from various background: the capital, the smart people, and the government. So, I believe the industry will evolve rapidly. And in Morgan Stanley’s Humanoid: A Hundred Report a hundred names was identified in three categories. They are brand developers, bodies components suppliers, and the robot integrators. And we'd like to stick with the leading companies in all these categories, which have leading edge technology and good track record. But at the meantime, I would emphasize that we should keep close eyes on the disruptors.Adam Jonas: So, Sheng, it seems that national support for the humanoid and embodied AI theme in China is at least today, far greater than in any other nation. What policy support are you seeing and how exactly does it compare to other regions?Sheng Zhong: Government plays an important role in the industry development in China, and I see that in humanoid industry as well. So currently, the local government, they set out the target, and they connect local resources for supply chain corporation. And on the capital perspective, we see the government background funds flow into the industry as well. And even on the R&D, there are Robot Chinese Center set up by the government and corporates together. In the past there were successful experience in China, that new industry grow with government support, like solar panels, electronic vehicles. And I believe China government want to replicate this success in humanoids. So, I won't be surprised to see in the near future there will be national humanoid target industry standard setup or adoption subsidies even at some time.And in fact we see the government supports in other countries as well. Like in South Korea there is a K Humanoid Alliance and Korean Ministry of Trade has full support in terms of the subsidy on robotic R&D infrastructure and verification.So, what is U.S. doing now to keep up with China? And is the gap closing or widening?Adam Jonas: So, Sheng, I think that there's a real wake up call going on here. Again, some have called it a Sputnik moment. Of course the DeepSeek moment in terms of the GenAI and the ability for Chinese companies to show just extraordinary and remarkable level of ingenuity and competition in these key fields, even if they lack the most leading-edge compute resources like the U.S. has – has really again been quite shocking to the rest of the world. And it certainly gotten the attention of the administration, and lawmakers in the DOD. But then thinking further about other incentives, both carrot and stick to encourage onshoring of critical embodiment of AI industries – including the manufacturing of these types of products across not just humanoids, but electronic vertical takeoff and landing aircraft drones, autonomous vehicles – will become increasingly evident. These technologies are not seen as, ‘Hey, let's have a Rosie, the robot. This is fun. This is nice to have.’ No, Sheng. This is seen as existential technology that we have to get right.Finally, Sheng, as far as moving humanoid technology to open source, is this a region specific or a global trend? And what is your outlook on this issue?Sheng Zhong: I actually think this could be a global trend because for technology and especially for humanoid, the Vision Language Model is obviously if there is more adoption, then more data can be collected, and the model will be smarter. So maybe unlike the Windows and Android dominant global market, I think for humanoid there could be regional level open-source models; and China will develop its own model. For any technology the application on the downstream is key. For humanoid as an AI embodiment, the software value needs to be realized on hardware. So I think it's key to have mass production of nice performance humanoid at a competitive cost.Adam Jonas: Listen, if I can get a humanoid robot to take my dog, Foster out and clean up after him, I'm gonna be pretty excited. As I am sure some of our listeners will be as well. Sheng, thank you so much for this peak into our near future.Sheng Zhong: Thank you very much, Adam, and great speaking with you,Adam Jonas: 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. 

Transcribed - Published: 15 May 2025

Our strategists Michael Zezas and Ariana Salvatore provide context around U.S. House Republicans’ proposed tax bill and how investors should view its potential market impact. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Public Policy Strategist.Michael Zezas: Today, we'll dig into Congress's deliberations on taxes and fiscal spending.It's Wednesday, May 14th at 10am in New York.Michael Zezas: So, Ariana, there's been a lot of news around the tax and spending plans that Congress is pursuing; this fiscal package – and clients are really, really focused on it. You're having a lot of those conversations right now. Why are clients so focused on all of this?Ariana Salvatore: So, clients have reasons to focus on this tax policy bill across equities, fixed income, and for macroeconomic impacts.Starting with equities, there's a lot of the 2017 tax cut bill that's coming up for expiration towards the end of this year. So, this bill is Congress's chance to extend the expiring TCJA. And add on some incremental tax cuts that President Trump floated on the campaign trail. So, there's some really important sector impacts on the specific legislation side. And then as far as the deficit goes, that matters a lot for the economic ramifications next year and for bond yields.But Mike, to pivot this back to you, where do you think investor expectations are for the outcome of this package?Michael Zezas: So there's a lot of moving pieces in this fiscal policy package, and I think what's happening here is that investors can project a lot onto this. They can project a lot of positivity and constructive outcomes for markets; and a lot of negativity and negative outcomes for markets.So, for example, if you are really focused on the deficit impact of cutting taxes and whether or not there's enough spending cuts to offset those tax extensions, then you could look at the array of possible outcomes here and expect a major deficit expansion. And that might make you less constructive on bonds because you would expect yields to go higher as there was greater supply of Treasuries needed to borrow that much to finance the tax cuts. Again, not necessarily fully offset by spending cuts.So, you could look at this and say, well, this will ultimately be something where economic growth helps tax revenues. And you might be looking at the benefits for companies and the feed through to the equity markets and think really positively about it.And we think the truth is probably somewhere in between. You’re not going to get policy that really justifies either your highest hopes or your greatest fears here.Ariana Salvatore: So, it's really like a Rorschach test for investors. When we think about our base case, how do you think that's going to materialize? What on the policy front are we watching for?Michael Zezas: Yeah, so we have to consider the starting point here, which is Congress is trying to address a series of tax cuts that are set to expire at the end of the year. And if they extend all of those tax cuts, then on a year-over-year basis, you didn't really change any policy. So that just on its own might not mean a meaningful deficit increase.Now, if Congress is able to extend greater tax cuts on top of that; but it's going to offset those greater tax cuts with spending cuts in revenue raises elsewhere, then again you might end up with a net effect close to zero on a deficit basis.And the way our economists look at this mix is that you might end up with an effect from a stimulus perspective on the economy that's something close to neutral as well. So, there's a lot of policy changes happening beneath the surface. But in the aggregate, it might not mean a heck of a lot for the economic outlook for next year.Now, that doesn't mean that there would be zero deficit increase in the aggregate next year because this is just one policy that is part of a larger set of government policies that make up the total spending posture of the government. There's already something in the range of $200-250 billion of deficit increase that was already going to happen next year. Because of weaker revenue growth on slower economic growth this year, and some spending that would automatically have happened because of inflation cost adjustments and higher interest on the debt. So, long story short, the policy that's happening right now that we think is going to be the endpoint for congressional deliberations isn't something our economists see as meaningfully uplifting growth for next year, and it probably increases the deficit – at least somewhat next year.Now we're thinking very short term here about what happens in 2026. But I think investors need to think around that timeline because if you're thinking about what this means for getting deficits smaller, multiple years ahead, or creating the type of tax environment that might induce greater corporate investment and greater economic growth years ahead – all those things are possible. But they're very hypothetical and they're subject to policy changes that could happen after the next Congress comes in or the next president comes in.So, Ariana, that's the overall look at our base case. But I think it's important to understand here that there are multiple different paths this legislation could follow. Can you explain what are some of the sticking points? And, depending on how they're resolved, how that might change the trajectory of what's ultimately passed here?Ariana Salvatore: There are a number of disagreements that need to be resolved. In particular, one of the biggest that we're focused on is on the SALT cap; so that's the cap on State And Local Tax deductions that individuals can take. That raised about a trillion dollars of revenue in the first iteration of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017.Republicans generally are okay with making a modification to that cap, maybe taking it a bit higher, or imposing some income thresholds. But the SALT caucus, this small group of Republicans in Congress, they're pushing for a full repeal or something bigger than just a small dollar amount increase.There's also a group of moderate Republicans pushing against any sort of spending cuts to programs like Medicaid and SNAP; that's the food stamps program. And then there's another cohort of House Republicans that are seeking to preserve the Inflation Reduction Act. Ultimately, these are all going to be continuous tension points. They're going to have to settle on some pay fors, some savings, and we think where that lands is effectively at a $90 billion or so deficit increase from just the tax policy changes next year.Now with tariff revenue excluded, that's probably closer to [$]130 billion. But Mike, to your point, there are these scheduled increases in outlays that also are going to have to be considered for next year's deficit. So, you're looking at an overall increase of about $310 billion.Michael Zezas: Yeah, I think that's right and the different ways those different dynamics could play out, I think puts us in a range of a $200 billion expansion maybe on the low end, and a $400 billion expansion on the high end. And these are meaningful numbers. But I think important context for investors is that these numbers might seem a lot smaller than some of what's been reported in the press, and that's because the press reports on the congressional budget office scoring, and these are typically 10-year numbers.So, you would multiply that one-year number by 10 at least conceptually. And these are numbers relative to a reality in which the tax cuts were allowed to expire. So, it's basically counting up revenue that is being missed by not allowing the tax cuts to expire. So, the context matters a lot here. And so we have been encouraging investors to really kind of look through the headlines, really kind of break down the context and really kind of focus on the short term impacts because those are the most reliable impacts and the ones to really anchor to; because policy uncertainty beyond a year is substantially higher than even the very high policy uncertainty we're experiencing right now.So, sticking with the theme of uncertainty, let's talk timing here. Like we came into the year thinking this tax bill would be resolved late in the year. Is that still the case or are you thinking it might be a bit sooner?Ariana Salvatore: I think that timing still holds up. Right now, the reconciliation bill is supposed to address the expiring debt ceiling. So, the real deadline for getting the bill done is the X date or the date by which the extraordinary measures are projected to be exhausted. That's the date that we would potentially hit an actual default.Of course, that date is somewhat of a moving target. It's highly dependent on tax receipts from Treasury. But our estimate is that it's somewhere around August or September. In the meantime, there's a number of key catalysts that we're watching; namely, I would say, other projections of the X date coming from Treasury, as well as some of these markups when we start to get more bill text and hear about how some of the disputes are being resolved.As I mentioned, we had text earlier this week, but there's still no quote fix for the SALT cap, and the house is still tentatively pushing for its Memorial Day deadline. That's just six legislative days away.Michael Zezas: Got it. So, I think then that means that we're starting to learn a lot more about how this bill comes together. We will be learning even a lot more over the next few months and while we set out our expectations that you're going to have some fiscal policy expansion. But largely a broadly unchanged posture for U.S. fiscal policy. We're going to have to keep checking those regularly as we get new bits of information coming out of Congress on probably a daily basis at this point.Ariana Salvatore: That's right.Michael Zezas: Great. Well, Ariana, thanks for taking the time to talk.Ariana Salvatore: Great speaking with you, Michael.Michael Zezas: Thank you for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market and the topics we cover of interest, leave us a review wherever you listen. And if you like what you hear, tell a friend or colleague about us today.

Transcribed - Published: 14 May 2025

Our analysts Vishy Tirupattur and Joyce Jiang discuss the health of private credit as default pressures are building for borrowers amid weaker growth, fewer rate cuts and policy uncertainty. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist.Joyce Jiang: And I'm Joyce Jiang, U.S. Leverage Finance Strategist.Vishy Tirupattur: Today we'll take a look at private credit markets. Will it stay resilient in the current macro conditions? Or a reckoning is ahead of us.It's Tuesday, May 13th at 10am in New York.Tariffs and policy uncertainty are on the top of mind for people with an eye on the economy and markets. Certainly, a frequent topic of discussion for us on this podcast. In this environment, there has been growing concern about the health of corporate credit – and within corporate credit direct lending or middle market segments, where companies tend to be smaller in size and have weaker fundamentals are of particular concern. The business models of these companies are sensitive to slower growth.Joyce, can you map out the risks associated with private credit companies?Joyce Jiang: To your point, risks are rising in private credit, but I think these risks would be measured given the still resilient fundamental backdrop. Looking at fundamental trends, there is no clear sign of leverage building up in the system yet, and multiple data sources actually show that the leverage ratios among direct lending companies have either improved or remained flat. And that's very different from the previous cycles where excessive corporate leverage set the stage for the eventual downturn.So, this time around credit, including both public credit and private credit, is not the source of the problem. But, of course, these direct lending companies would be impacted by higher tariffs. So, Vishy what's your view on the tariff impact?Vishy Tirupattur: So, the direct impact of tariffs, Joyce, we think is likely to be muted. It's quite hard to quantify this exposure, but if you look at a number of different data sources, we find that the direct lending loans are more skewed towards defensive and service-oriented sectors.For example, sectors such as a technology, business services and healthcare account for over half of the loans in typical BDC portfolios or Business Development Company portfolios of direct lending loans. But that said, even though the direct impact could be somewhat limited, there could be second order effects because there is higher uncertainty and weaker confidence, and that could weigh on demand. There could be a tail cohort that could be developing.So, some data from Lincoln International, for example, shows that about 15 per cent of direct lending companies have EBITDA interest coverage ratio below 1x. Another way of looking at tail cohort is by looking at companies generating negative free operating cash flow. According to S&P data, that's about 40 per cent. These tail cohorts are stretched and are weakly positioned to weather macro challenges ahead.So, Joyce, another thing that comes up frequently when we talk about private credit is Payment In Kind interest or the so-called PIK interest. Can you walk us through what is a PIK and why is it a concern?Joyce Jiang: So, Payment In Kind interest – it occurs when the company stops paying interest in cash, but instead the interest is accrued and added to the principal balance. It is quite common for companies under liquidity stress to switch to PIKs for cash preservation, But in many cases, PIKs don't really clean up the company's balance sheet, and the companies may still end up in a conventional default. So, PIK is generally considered as a leading indicator of default by market participants.And to be clear, not all PIK loans are bad. PIK toggles are actually a key feature that distinguishes direct lending loans from syndicated loans because it provides non-distressed companies the flexibility to reallocate cash for other business needs. So, PIKs do not necessarily signal higher defaults. And in fact, data showed that BDCs or Business Development Companies with a higher PIK income don't always see a greater increase in nonaccruals. So, in other words, the relationship between PIK income and defaults is not persistently strong.Vishy Tirupattur: So, to summarize, overall fundamentals are on a relatively strong footing, but risks in private credit are rising, especially if we have a potential economic slowdown ahead. On the other hand, there are a few structural features with the private credit loans that could potentially help mitigate some of the vulnerabilities we've just talked about.First thing, direct lending loans are not marked to market by design, so they have lower volatility and are relatively immune from daily price moves. And really related to that, redemption risk of private credit funds has been fairly contained so far. These funds usually have tools like lockup periods and redemption caps to guard against unexpected large outflows.But of course, the effectiveness of these mechanisms has not yet been tested in severe downturns. Moreover, the capital that is going into private credit is relatively sticky capital. Key investors, such as insurance companies and pension funds are hold-to-maturity type buyers, and they're entering in the space for the attractiveness of the higher yields and to harvest illiquidity premia embedded in these loans. So, with that long-term investment horizon, they would be more willing to support companies through temporary liquidity challenges. Also, small lender groups in direct lending market makes it easier to negotiate restructurings.Joyce Jiang: Lastly, there is also ample dry powder. According to PitchBook, there is $570 billion of dry powder in private debt fund, and another $2 trillion in private equity funds. And this capital can be deployed to backstop distressed companies and help keeping defaults in check. And in terms of defaults, we are expecting syndicated loan defaults to end the year at 4 per cent. And that's our base case.And based on the historical relationship, that implies a like for like default rate for perfect credit at 5 per cent, which means a mild uptake from the current level, but is still below the COVID peak.Vishy Tirupattur: Joyce, thanks for taking the time to talk about this.Joyce Jiang: Thanks for having me, Vishy.Vishy Tirupattur: And to our listeners, thank you for your attention. Let us know what you think of this podcast and the topics we cover. And if you think a friend or a colleague might find this information useful, please share Thoughts on the Market with them today.

Transcribed - Published: 13 May 2025

Equity markets saw big rallies after trade tensions eased over the weekend. Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains why he’s optimistic that the worst of the market trough is over. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing how to think about the recent tariff negotiations for equity markets. It's Monday, May 12th at 11:30am in New York.  So, let’s get after it. Over the weekend, U.S.-China trade negotiations made better than expected progress with both sides agreeing to a détente in the trade war that began just one short month ago. The main question I’m getting from investors is whether they should trust this initial agreement, and if it will eventually lead to something more sustainable? From my perspective, this misses the more important point for equity investors. To remind listeners, equity markets trade in the future.  Therefore, the question to ask yourself is do you think things will be more or less uncertain in six months and will they be better or worse? The other thing to consider is that stocks trade on the second derivative, or rate of change, in growth. On that score, I believe it is likely we saw the trough rate of change in variables that tend to correlate with stock prices the most.  More specifically, earnings revisions breadth showed a meaningful uptick last week for the first time this year. Some of this was driven by a pull forward in demand during the first quarter ahead of the tariff announcements that led to better than feared earnings. In addition, several leading companies posted better than expected results thanks to a weaker dollar. Importantly, the translation benefit for U.S. multinational earnings is likely to be a big earnings tailwind for the next six months.  Many of the growth negative things we were worried about five months ago have played out now with Liberation Day marking the point of maximum negative sentiment and positioning. There is an adage that equity markets bottom on bad news, and I can’t think of a better example of that than Liberation Day last month. Similarly, markets tend to top on good news and this weekend’s better than expected outcome on trade negotiations with China could very well lead to a pause in the rally. Therefore, we would buy dips rather than chase stocks on days like today. Markets can look forward to the possibility of growth positive policy changes that still may be in front of us. Things like tax cut extensions, de-regulation and resolution of the debt ceiling and budget appropriations for the next year.  Finally, with the threat of further escalation of tariff rates now diminished, the Fed can also come back into the picture with rate cuts sooner than perhaps what the Fed told us last week. While we don’t know exactly how much the tariffs will impact inflation over the next year, it is likely to be front-end loaded. In fact, there is a case to be made that tariffs may hurt demand and end up being disinflationary. The Fed is likely to determine this outcome over the summer and could begin to at least signal rate cuts. Such a move will potentially lead to a more sustainable rotation towards lower quality, cyclical stocks and drive animal spirits in a way that many investors were expecting six months ago but simply jumped the gun. Bottom line, I feel more confident in our original outlook for this year for a tough first half, followed by a strong second one. This outlook was based on our view that AI capex growth was bound to decelerate this year, while policy changes were likely to be growth negative to start. Now, we can look forward to growth positive policy changes and productivity benefits from the spending on AI that has already taken place. After such a strong rally, pullbacks are inevitable but unlikely to be anything like we saw last month. So, buy the dips.  Thank you for choosing to listen. Leave us a review, and let us know what you think about the podcast. If you enjoy listening to Thoughts on the Market, tell a friend or colleague about us today.

Transcribed - Published: 12 May 2025

The initial shock of the U.S. administration’s tariff announcements is over, but Andrew Sheets, our Head of Corporate Credit Research, suggests the current calm could still give way to headwinds for the markets. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today we're going to discuss whether the worst is over for markets – or whether it's just the eye of the storm.It's Friday, May 9th at 2pm in London.After extreme recent volatility, markets have bounced back, generally unwinding their losses since April 2nd. So was that it? The shock of tariff announcements and positioning adjustments may have now passed through, but the impact on the real economy is still to come. In meteorological terms, we think this may be just the eye of the storm.There are several specific bouts of potentially bad weather that we're looking at, driven by tariffs that may be about to pass through.First is the Federal Reserve. Our economists still see no cuts from the Fed this year as tariffs keep inflation elevated on our forecast. The markets in contrast are expecting more action. A scenario where credit markets face both weaker growth and a lack of central bank support remains one of our top concerns.Second is the data. So far in 2025, measures of consumer and company expectations have generally been weak, while readings of activity have tended to be stronger. Now, we think there's a good historical case that it's the expectations that tend to leave and are thus concerned that actual activity could start to soften – as it starts to be measured in a post tariff period.To this end, we're keenly watching measures like shipping and trucking activity, which could give us a better picture of the real impact. Again, a core driver of our concern, despite the economic data holding up so far, is that the impact of tariffs usually takes more time. As our economists note, tariffs historically have pushed up prices after a couple of months and pushed down growth after a couple of quarters. In short, the full storm of that impact may be yet to pass through.That thinking also lies behind our inflation views. Those more optimistic on inflation, and thus expecting more interest rate cuts from the Fed, note that the latest core inflation readings were generally fine. But in contrast, our economists remain more concerned that tariff price impacts simply haven't yet arrived in the official data, noting little change in the core inflation readings for things like goods that in theory should see the largest tariff impact. This, in our view, suggests that the impact on the underlying numbers that the Fed is looking at is still to come.The initial surprise of the U.S. tariff announcements is behind us. Things feel calmer. And the recent economic data has been relatively resilient. One scenario is this simply speaks to how resilient the U.S. economy is. But another explanation is that there's a gap between the surprise of those tariffs and their ultimate economic impact. And our concern remains that those impacts are real, driving forecast at Morgan Stanley for weaker growth, higher inflation, and later interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve than the market consensus.With credit spreads below average, we'd recommend patience. Those forecasts at these spreads could still drive turbulence.Thank you, as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts in the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen; and also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

Transcribed - Published: 9 May 2025

Investors were caught off guard last week when the Taiwanese dollar surged to a multi-year high. Our strategists Michael Zezas and James Lord look at what was behind this unexpected rally. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.James Lord: And I'm James Lord Morgan Stanley's, Global Head of FX and EM Strategy.Michael Zezas: Today, we'll focus on some extreme moves in the currency markets and give you a sense of what's driving them, and why investors should pay close attention.It's Thursday, May 8th at 10am in New York.James Lord: And 3pm in London.Michael Zezas: So, James, coming into the year, the consensus was that the U.S. dollar might strengthen quite a bit because the U.S. was going to institute tariffs amongst other things. That's actually not what's happened. So, can you explain why the dollar's been weakening and why you expect this trend to continue?James Lord: I think a big factor for the weakening in the dollar, at least in the initial part of the year before the April tariff announcements came through, was a concern that the U.S. economy was going to be slowing down this year. I mean, this was against some of the consensus expectations at the beginning of the year.In our year ahead outlook, we made this call that the dollar would be weakening because of the potential weakness in the U.S. economy, driven by slow down in immigration, limited action on fiscal policy. And whatever tariffs did come through would be kind of damaging for the U.S. economy.And this would all sort of lead to a big slowdown and a kind of end to the U.S. exceptionalism trade that people now talk about all the time. And I think since April 1st or April 2nd tariff announcements came, the tariffs were so large that it raised real concerns about the damage that was potentially going to happen to the U.S. economy.The sort of methodology in which the tariff formulas were created raised a bit of concern about the credibility of the announcements. And then we had this constant on again, off again, on again, off again tariffs. That just created a lot of uncertainty. And in the context of a 15-year bull market of the dollar where it had sucked enormous amounts of capital inflows into the U.S. economy. You know, investors just felt that maybe it was worth taking a few chips off the table and unwinding a little bit of that dollar risk. And we've seen that play out quite notably over the last month. So, I think it's been, yeah, really that those concerns about growth but also this sort of uncertainty about policy in general in the context of, you know, a big bull run for the dollar; and fairly heavy valuations and positioning. Those have been the main issues, I think.Michael Zezas: Right, so we've got here this dynamic where there are economic fundamental reasons the dollar could keep weakening. But also concerns from investors overseas, whether they're ultimately founded or not, that they just might have less demand for owning U.S. dollar denominated assets because of the U.S. trade dynamic. Now it seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that there was a major market move in the past week around the Taiwanese dollar, which reflected these concerns and created an unusually large move in that currency. Can you explain that dynamic?James Lord:  Yeah, so we've seen really significant moves in the Taiwan dollar. In fact, on May 2nd, the currency saw its largest one-day rally since the 1980s, and over two days gained over 6.5 percent, which for a Taiwan dollar, which is pretty low volatility currency usually, these are really big moves. So in our view, the rally in the Taiwan dollar, and it was remarkably big. We think it's been mostly driven by Taiwanese exporters selling some of their dollar assets with a little bit of foreign equity inflow helping as well. And this is linked back to the sort of trade negotiations as well.I mean, as you know, like one of the things that the U.S. administration has been focused on currency valuations. Historically, many people in the U.S. administration believe the dollar is very strong. And so there has been this sort of issue of currency valuations hanging over the trade negotiations between the U.S. and various Asian countries. And local media in Taiwan have been talking about the possibility that as part of a trade negotiation or trade deal, there could be a currency aspect to that – where the U.S. government would ask the Taiwanese authorities to try to push Taiwan dollar stronger.And you know, I think this sort of media reporting created a little bit of a -- well, not just a little, a significant shift from Taiwanese exporters where they suddenly rush to sell their dollar deposits in to get ahead of any possible effort from the Taiwanese authorities to strengthen their currency. The central bank is being very clear on this.We should have to point this out that the currency has not been part of the trade deal. And yet this hasn't prevented market participants from acting on the perceived risk of it being part of the trade talks. So, you know, Taiwanese exporters own a lot of dollars. Corporates and individuals in Taiwan hold about $275 billion worth of FX deposits and for an $800 billion or so economy, that's pretty sizable. So we think that is that dynamic, which has been the biggest factor in pushing Taiwan dollar stronger.Michael Zezas: Right, so the Taiwan dollar is this interesting case study then in how U.S. public policy choices might be creating the perception of changes in demand for the dollar changes in policy around how foreign governments are supposed to value their currency and investors might be getting ahead of that.Are there any other parts of the world where you're looking at foreign exchange globally, where you see things mispriced in a way relative to some of these expectations that investors need to talk about?James Lord: We do think that the dollar has further to go. I mean, it's on the downside. It's not necessarily linked to expectations that currency agreements will be part of any trade agreement. But, we think the Fed will need to cut rates quite a bit on the back of the slow down in the U.S. economy. Not so much this year. But Mike Gapen and Seth Carpenter, and the U.S. economics team are expecting to see the Fed cut to around 2.5 per cent or so next year. And that's absolutely not priced. And, And so I think as this slowdown – and, this is more of a sort of traditional currency driver compared to some of these other policy issues that we've been talking about. But if the Fed does indeed cut that far, I do think that that's going to put some meaningful pressure on the dollar. And on a sort of interest rate differential perspective, and when we look at what is mispriced and correctly priced, we see the Fed as being mispriced, but the ECB is being quite well priced at the moment.So as that weakening downward pressure comes through on the dollar, it should be reflected on the euro leg. And we see it heading up to 1.2. But just on the trade issue, Mike, what's your view on how those trade negotiations are going? Are we going to get lots of deals being announced soon?Michael Zezas: Yeah, so the news flow here suggests that the U.S. is engaged in multiple negotiations across the globe and are looking to establish agreements relatively quickly, which would at least give us some information about what happens next with regard to the tariffs that are scheduled to increase after that 90 day pause that was announced in earlier in April. We don't know much beyond that.I'd say our expectation is that because the U.S. has enough in common in terms of interests and how it manages its own economy and how most of its trading partners manage their own economies – that there are trade agreements, at least in concept. Perhaps memorandums of understanding that the U.S. can establish with more traditional allies, call it Japan, Europe, for example, that can ultimately put another pause on tariff escalation with those countries.We think it'll be harder with China where there are more fundamental disagreements about how the two countries should interact with each other economically. And while tariffs could come down from these very, very high levels with China, we still see them kind of settling out at still meaningful substantial headline numbers; call it the 50 to 60 per cent range. And while that might enable more trade than we're seeing right now with China because of these 145 per cent tariff levels, it'll still be substantially less than where we started the year where tariff levels were, you know, sub 20 per cent for the most part with China.So, there is a variety of different things happening. I would expect the general dynamic to be – we are going to see more agreements with more counterparties. However, those will mostly result in more pauses and ongoing negotiation, and so the uncertainty will not be completely eliminated. And so, to that point, James, I think I hear you saying that there is potentially a difference between sometimes currencies move based on general policy uncertainty and anxieties created around that.James Lord: Yeah, that's right. I think that's safer ground, I think for us as currency strategists to be anchoring our view to because it’s something that we deal with day in, day out for all economies. The impact of this uncertainty variable. It could be like, I think directionally supports a weaker dollar, but sort of quantifying it, understanding like how much of that is in the price; could it get worse, could it get better? That's something that's a little bit more difficult to sort of anchor the view to. So, at the moment we feel that it's pushing in the same direction as the core view. But the core view, as you say, is based around those growth and monetary policy drivers.So, best practice here is let's keep continuing to anchor to the fundamentals in our investment view, but sort of recognize that there are substantial bands of uncertainty that are driven by U.S. policy choices and by investors' perceptions of what those policy choices could mean.Michael Zezas: So, James conversations like this are extremely helpful to our audience. We'll keep tracking this carefully. And so, I just want to say thank you for taking the time to talk with us today.James Lord: I really enjoyed it. Looking forward to the next one.Michael Zezas: Great. And thank you for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen to the podcast and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Transcribed - Published: 8 May 2025

The traditional correlations between some asset classes went haywire in April. Our analysts Serena Tang and Vishy Tirupattur discuss whether, in this environment, investors still consider U.S. Treasuries and the U.S. dollar to be reliable ports in a storm.  Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Serena Tang: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's Chief Cross Asset Strategist.Vishy Tirupattur: And I'm Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist.Serena Tang: Today's topic, how investors' perceptions of safe havens are evolving, the impact on correlation between asset classes, and what all this means for your portfolio.It's Wednesday, May 7th at 10am in New York.April was a really challenging month, and some market moves were highly unusual. There was also a lot of investor concern whether U.S. Treasuries would continue to be a safe haven. In fact, this became one of the biggest market debates over the last few weeks.Vishy, let's start here. Prior to this recent sell off, foreign investors looked at U.S. assets as a safe haven. Why is that? And is it still the case now after this turbulent month?Vishy Tirupattur: So, Serena, if you just step back and look at it, U.S. enjoyed positive growth differentials and positive yield differentials with developed markets in the rest of the world. On top of that, there was a consistent policy – not necessarily infallible policy – but there's a consistent policy with a clear sense of demarcation between the executive and the central bank.All of this meant U.S. was a very attractive destination for foreign investor flows. Not only during periods of normalcy where U.S. equities really attracted inflows and performed really well, but also during the periods of economic stress; where even periods where the stress was coming from the U.S. itself, such as the Global Financial Crisis. This correlation between bonds and stocks held and U.S. Treasuries were the safe haven asset as the single largest and most liquid, and highly negatively correlated asset with risk assets. So that really worked.What we are now seeing is that growth differential I talked about may no longer be holding. You know, for these [20]25 and [20]26 U.S. and euro area growth basically will converge – and if our economists’ expectations are right, in 2026, euro area will be growing at a faster pace than the U.S.So, growth differential argument is fading. And there are some questions about the continued Fed independence. So put all these things together. Some investors are beginning to question whether U.S. assets will continue to be safe haven assets.So let me come back to you Serena. There've been some recent market moves that have been extremely unusual. That's what created all this debate. In some of – a few days in April, during the periods of sell off, we had both stocks and bonds selling off. And it felt like cross-asset correlations have gone totally haywire.So, can you talk a little bit about which correlations have changed? Which correlations have held up in these sell off?Serena Tang: What was highly unusual, and I think reflects part of the debate on U.S. as a safe haven, is the correlation between U.S. equities and the dollar. It is very high at the moment, about sort of two standard deviation above the five-year average. While it's not unheard of for FX stocks correlation to be high, it is usually more associated with EM or emerging markets rather than DM or developed markets. As a means, investors now require higher risk premium for holding the equities, which is a risk asset; but also holding the dollar, which again, traditionally is not thought of as a risk asset.Vishy Tirupattur: So, Serena, how did the correlation between bonds and stocks hold up in this period?Serena Tang: Surprisingly, the correlation have really, really held up. Stocks and bond return correlation turned very negative during the sell off that we saw, which means that equity losses were actually offset by bond returns. Now, this isn't entirely true across the curve. You saw 2 Year Treasuries being a much effective diversifier than say the 30 Year Treasury. But all in all, I think it means bonds still work as a diversifier.Now on this point Vishy, how do you think policy will impact asset correlations we've been talking about, as well as the perception of U.S. assets as a safe haven.Vishy Tirupattur: So, as I said before, positive growth differentials fade, and we have negative growth differential. And if there are continued questions about the Fed's independence, so some of the attraction of U.S. assets, particularly U.S. Treasuries as a safe haven asset, will be challenged. But that challenge hits the practical reality of the size and the scale of the safe haven assets.So, if you look around, if you add the comparably rated European government bond market and compare that to the U.S. government bond market, the U.S. market is about 10 times as larger. So, more scale, more liquidity, and the ability to deploy capital during the periods of stress is clearly more in the U.S.So, this is what I would say. The status of U.S. dollar as the global reserve currency and U.S. Treasuries as the global safe haven asset have taken a bit of a ding, but not gone away.Serena Tang: Vishy, thanks so much for taking the time to talk.Vishy Tirupattur: Great speaking with you, Serena, as always.Serena Tang: 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.

Transcribed - Published: 7 May 2025

With the May FOMC meeting in progress, our analysts Matt Hornbach and Michael Gapen offer perspective on U.S. economic projections and whether markets are aligned. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript ----- Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy.Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist.Matthew Hornbach: Today we're talking about the Federal Open Market Committee Meeting underway, and the path for rates from here.It's Tuesday, May 6th at 10am in New York.Mike, before we talk about your expectations for the FOMC meeting itself, I wanted to get your take on the U.S. economy heading into the meeting. How are you seeing things today? And in particular, how do you think what happened on April 2nd, so-called Liberation Day, affects the outlook?Michael Gapen: Yeah, I think right now, Matt, I would say the economy's still on relatively solid footing, and by that I mean the economy had been moderating. Yes, the first quarter GDP print was negative. But that was mainly because firms were frontloading a lot of inventories through imports. So imports were up over 40 percent at an annualized pace in the quarter. A lot of that went into inventories and into business spending. That was just a mechanical drag on activity.And the April employment report, I think, showed the same thing. We're now averaging about 145,000 jobs per month this year. That's down from about 170,000 per month in the second half of last year. So the hiring rate is slowing down, but no signs of a sudden stop. No signs in layoffs picking up. So I'd say the economy is on fairly solid footing, and the labor market is also on fairly solid footing – as we enter the period now when we think tariffs will have a greater effect on the outlook. So you asked, you know, Liberation Day. How does that affect the outlook? Right now we'd say it puts a lot of uncertainty in front of us. on pretty solid footing now. But Matt, looking forward, we have a lot of concerns about where things may go and we expect activity to slow and inflation to rise.Matthew Hornbach: That's great background, Mike, for what I want to ask you about next, which is of course the FOMC meeting this week. We won't get a new set of economic projections from the committee. But if we did, what do you think they would do with them and how would you assess the reaction function one might be able to tease out of those economic projections?Michael Gapen: You're right, we don't get a new set of projections, but New York Fed President John Williams did provide some indication about how he adjusted his forecast, and John tends to be one of the – kind of a median participant.He tends to be centrist in his thinking and his projection. So I do think that that gives us an indication of what the Fed is thinking; and he said he expects GDP growth to slow to somewhat below 1 percent in 2025. He expects inflation to rise to 3.5 to 4 percent this year, and he said the unemployment rates likely to move between 4.5 and 5 percent over the next year. And those phrases are really key. That's the same thing, Matt, as you know, we are expecting for the U.S. economy and I do think the Fed is thinking of it the same way.Matthew Hornbach: So one final question for you, Mike. In terms of this meeting itself, what are you expecting the Fed to deliver this week? And what are the risks you see being around that expectation; you know, that might catch investors off guard?Michael Gapen:I think the Fed's main message this week will be that they're prepared to wait, that they think policy's in a good spot right now. They think inflation will be rising sharply, that the tariff shock is a lot larger than they had anticipated earlier this year. And they will need time to assess whether that inflation impulse is transitory, or whether it creates more persistent inflation. So I think what they will say is we're in a good position to wait and we need clarity on the outlook before we can act.In this case, we think acting means doing nothing. But acting could also mean cutting if the labor market weakens. So I think there'll be worried about inflation today, a weak labor market tomorrow. And so I think risks around this meeting really are tilted in the direction of a more hawkish message than markets are expecting at least vis-a-vis current pricing. I think the market wants to hear the Fed will be ready to support the economy. Of course, we think they will, but I think the Fed's also going to be worried about inflation pressures in the near term. So that, I think, might catch investors off guard.So Matt, what I think might catch investors off guard may be a little misplaced. I'm an economist after all. You're the strategist, you're the expert on the treasury market and how investors may be perceiving events at the moment. So the treasury market had quite the month since April 2nd. For a moment U.S. treasuries didn't act like the safe haven asset many have come to expect. What do you think happened?Matthew Hornbach: So, Mike, you're absolutely right. Treasury yields initially fell, but then spent a healthy portion of the last month rising and investors were caught off guard by what they saw happening in the treasury market. I've seen this type of behavior in the treasury market, which I've been watching now for 25 years. I've seen this happen twice before in my career. The first time was during the Great Financial Crisis, and the second time I saw it was in March of 2020. So, this being the third time you know, I don't know if it was the charm or if it was something else, but treasury yields went up quite a bit.I think what investors were witnessing in the treasury market is really a reflection of the degree of uncertainty and the breadth with which that uncertainty, traversed the world. Both the Great Financial Crisis and the initial stage of the pandemic in March of 2020 were events that were global in nature. They were in many ways systemic in nature, and they were events that most investors hadn't contemplated or seen in their lifetimes. And when this happens, I think investors tend to reduce risk in all of its forms until the dust settles. And one of those very important forms of risk in the fixed income markets is duration risk.So, I think investors were paring back duration risk, which helped the U.S. Treasury market perform pretty poorly at one moment over the past month.Michael Gapen: So Matt, one aspect of market pricing that stands out to me is how rates markets are pricing 75 basis points of rate cuts this year. And just after April 2nd, the market had priced in about 100 basis points of cuts.How are you thinking about the market pricing today? Matt, as you know, it differs quite a bit from what we think will happen.Matthew Hornbach: Yeah. This is where, you know, understanding that market prices in the interest rate complex reflect the average outcome of a wide variety of scenarios; really every scenario that is conceivable in the minds of investors. And, of course, as you mentioned, Mike depending on exactly how this year ends up playing out there, there could be a scenario in which the Federal Reserve has to lower rates much more aggressively than perhaps even markets are pricing today.So, the market being an average of a wide variety of outcome will find it really challenging to take out all of the rate cuts that are priced in today. Or said differently, the market will find it challenging to price in your baseline scenario. And ultimately, I think the way in which the market ends up truing up to your projections, Mike, is just with time.I think as we make our way through this year and the economic data come in, in-line with your baseline projections, the market will eventually price out those rate cuts that you see in there today. But that's going to take time. It's going to take investors growing increasingly comfortable that we can avoid a recession at least in perception this year before, you know, on your projections, we have a bit of a slower economy in 2026.Michael Gapen: Well, it definitely does feel like a bimodal world, where investor conviction is low. Matt, where do you have conviction in the rates market today?Matthew Hornbach: So, the way we've been thinking about this environment where we can avoid a recession this year, but maybe 2026 the risks rise a bit more. We think that that's the type of environment where the yield curve in the United States can steepen, and what that means practically is that yields on longer maturity bonds will go up relative to yields on shorter maturity bonds. So, you get this steepening of the yield curve. And that is where we have the highest conviction; in terms of, what happens with the Treasury market this year is we have a steeper yield curve by the time we get to December.Now part of that steepening we think comes because as we approach 2026 where Mike, you have the Fed beginning to lower rates in your baseline, the market will have to increasingly price with more conviction a lower policy rate from the Fed. But then at the same time, you know, we probably will have an environment where treasury supply will have to increase.As a result of the fiscal policies that the government is discussing at the moment. And so you have this environment where yields on longer maturity securities are pressured higher relative to yields on shorter maturity treasuries.So, with that, Mike, we'll wrap our conversation. Thanks so much for taking the time to talk.Michael Gapen: It's been great speaking with you, Matt.Matthew Hornbach: 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.

Transcribed - Published: 6 May 2025