Thoughts on the Market

Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy explains why conflicting news on tariffs and government spending may point to a case for bonds.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy. Today we’ll be discussing recent U.S. public policy headline noise and the signal within that for investors.

It’s Friday, February 28th, at 12:30 pm in New York.

For investors paying attention to events in Washington, D.C., the past few weeks have been disorienting. Tariff announcements have continued, but with shifting details on timing and magnitude. And Congress passed a bill to enable substantial spending cuts, but subsequent media reports made clear the votes to actually enact these cuts later this year may not be there.  

Our recent client conversations have revealed that investors’ confusion has reached new heights, and there’s little consensus, or conviction, about whether U.S. policy choices are set to help or hurt the economy and markets. 

Net-net, it's a lot of policy noise, and very little signal. That said, here’s what we think investors can anchor to. 

For all the headlines on potential new tariffs for China, Mexico, Canada and on products like copper, actual tariff actions have followed a graduated pace, in line with our base case of ‘fast announcement, slow implementation’ – where tariffs on China start and continue to climb, but tariffs on the rest of world move slowly and are more subject to negotiation. Tariffs on Mexico and Canada appear, in our view, likely to be pushed out once again given progress in negotiation on harmonizing trade policy and progress in reduced border crossings.  

On the other hand, tariffs on China, already raised an incremental 10 percent a few weeks back, seem likely to step up again as there are much bigger disagreements that the two nations don’t appear close to resolving. 

But even if tariffs move according to the pace that we expect, that doesn’t mean they come without cost. The U.S.’s goal is to bring more investment onshore, with an aim toward increasing goods production, thereby reducing trade deficits, securing important supply chains, and growing industrial jobs. The theory is that higher tariff barriers might incentivize more direct investment into the U.S., as companies build supply chains in the U.S. to avoid the higher tariff costs.  

But even if that theory plays out, there’s a cost to that transition. In a recent blue paper, my colleague Rajeev Sibal led a team through an analysis demonstrating that the next phase of supply chain realignment would be considerably costlier to companies, given the complexity of production that must be shifted. So either way, companies take on new costs – tariffs, CapEx, or both. That challenges corporate margins, and economic growth, at least for a time. And there’s plenty of execution risk along the way. 

So what’s an investor to do? Our cross asset and interest rate strategy teams think it's time to lean more heavily into bonds. Equity markets may do just fine here, with investors looking through these near term costs, but the risk of something going wrong with, for example, tariffs escalation or broader geopolitical conflict, may keep a ceiling on investors’ risk appetite. 

Conversely, a growth slowdown presents a clearer case for owning bonds, particularly since it wasn’t that long ago that better economic data helped the Treasury market price out most of the expected monetary policy cuts for 2025. 

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.

Two recent surveys indicate that U.S. consumer confidence has shown a notable decline amid talks about inflation and potential tariff. Our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets discusses the market implications.

----- Transcript -----

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 the consumer side of the confidence debate. 

It’s Thursday, February 27th at 2pm in London. 

Two weeks ago on this program I discussed signs that uncertainty in U.S. government policy might be hitting corporate confidence, as evidenced by an unusually slow start to the year for dealmaking. That development is a mixed bag. Less confidence and more conservatism in companies holds back investment and reduces the odds of the type of animal spirits that can drive large gains. But it can be a good thing for lenders, who generally prefer companies to be more cautious and more risk-averse. 

But this question of confidence is also relevant for consumers. And today, I want to discuss what some of the early surveys suggest and how it can impact our view.

To start with something that may sound obvious but is nonetheless important, Confidence is an extremely powerful psychological force in the economy and financial markets. If you feel good enough about the future, you’ll buy a stock or a car with little regard to the price or how the economy might feel at the moment. And if you’re worried, you won’t buy those same things, even if your current conditions are still ok, or if the prices are even cheaper. Confidence, you could say, can trump almost everything else. 

And so this might help explain the market’s intense focus on two key surveys over the last week that suggested that US consumer confidence has been deteriorating sharply.

First, a monthly survey by the University of Michigan showed a drop in consumer confidence and a rise in expected inflation. And then a few days later, on Tuesday, a similar survey from the Conference Board showed a similar pattern, with consumers significantly more worried about the future, even if they felt the current conditions hadn't much changed. 

While different factors could be at play, there is at least circumstantial evidence that the flurry of recent U.S. policy actions may be playing a role. This drop in confidence, for example, was new, and has only really showed up in the last month or two. And the University of Michigan survey actually asks its respondents how news of Government Economic policy is impacting their level of confidence. And that response, over the last month, showed a precipitous decline. 

These confidence surveys are often called ‘soft’ data, as opposed to the hard economic numbers like the actual sales of cars or heavy equipment. But the reason they matter, and the reason investors listened to them this week, is that they potentially do something that other data cannot. One of the biggest challenges that investors face when looking at economic data is that financial markets often anticipate, and move ahead of turns in the underlying hard economic numbers. And so if expectations are predictive of the future, they may provide that important, more leading signal. 

One weak set of consumer confidence isn’t enough to change the overall picture, but it certainly has our attention. Our U.S. economists generally agree with these respondents in expecting somewhat slower growth and stickier inflation over the next 18 months; and Morgan Stanley continues to forecast lower bond yields across the U.S. and Europe on the expectation that uncertainties around growth will persist. 

For credit investors, less confidence remains a double-edged sword, and credit markets have been somewhat more stable than other assets. But we would view further deterioration in confidence as a negative – given the implications for growth, even if it meant a somewhat easier policy path. 

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen discusses the possible economic implications of restrictive immigration policies in the U.S., highlighting their potential effect on growth, inflation and labor markets.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley’s Chief U.S. Economist. Today I’ll talk about the way restrictive immigration policies could potentially slow U.S. economic growth, push up inflation, and impact labor markets.

It’s Wednesday, February 26th, at 2pm in New York.

Lately, investors have been focused on the twists and turns of Trump’s tariffs. Several of my colleagues have discussed the issue of tariffs from various angles on this show. But we think the new administration’s immigration policy deserves more attention. 

Immigration is more than just the entry of foreign citizens into the U.S. for residency. It's a complex process with significant implications for our economy. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of June 2024, 19 per cent of the US workforce was made up of immigrants – which is over 32 million people. This is a significant increase from 1994, when only about 10 per cent of the workforce was foreign-born. Immigrants tend to be employed in sectors like agriculture, construction and manufacturing, but also in face-to-face services sectors like retail, restaurants, hotels and healthcare. 

Immigration surged to about 3 million per year after the pandemic. In fact, immigration rates in 2022 to 2024 were more than twice the historical run rate. This surge helped the US economy to "soft land" following a period of high inflation. It boosted both the supply side and the demand side of the U.S. economy. Labor force growth outpaced employment, which helped to moderate wage and price pressures. 

However, Trump’s policymakers are changing the rules rapidly and reversing the immigration narrative. Already by the second half of 2024, border flows were slowing significantly based on the lagged effects of steps previously taken by the Biden administration. Under the new administration, news reports suggest immigration has slowed to near zero in recent weeks.

In our 2025 year-ahead outlook, we noted that restrictive immigration policies were a key factor in our prediction for slower growth and firmer inflation. We estimate that immigration will slow from 2.7 million last year to about 1 million this year and 500,000 next year. The recent data suggests immigration may slow every more forcefully than we expect.

If immigration slows broadly in line as we predict, the result will be that population growth in 2025 will be about 4/10ths of 1 per cent. That’s less than half of what the U.S. economy saw in 2024. The impact of slower immigration on labor force measures should be visible over time. For the moment though, there is enough noise in monthly payrolls and the unemployment rate to mask some of the labor force effects. But over three or six months, the impact of slower immigration should become clearer.

In terms of economic growth, if immigration falls back to 1 million this year and 500,000 next year, this could reduce the rate of GDP growth by about a-half a percentage point this year and maybe even more next year, and put upward pressure on inflation, particularly in services, and to some extent overall wages. Slower immigration could pull short-run potential GDP growth down from the 2.5-3.0 per cent that we saw in recent years to 2 per cent this year, and 1-1.5 per cent next year. 

On the other hand, the unemployment rate might fall modestly as immigration controls reduce the number of households with high participation rates and low spending capacity. This could lead to tighter labor markets, moderately faster wage growth, and upward pressure on inflation. So we think we are looking at a two-speed labor market. Slower employment growth will feel soft and sluggish. But a low unemployment rate suggests the labour market itself is still tight. 

Given all of this, we think more restrictive immigration policies could lead to tighter monetary policy and keep the Fed on its currently restrictive stance for longer. All of this supports our expectation of just one cut this year and further rate cuts only next year after growth slows.

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

A shift to private destinations for cruise lines could affect both operators and guests by 2030. Our Europe Leisure & Travel analyst Jamie Rollo explains.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Jamie Rollo, Morgan Stanley’s Europe Leisure & Travel Analyst. And today I’ll talk about an intriguing trend – the cruise lines’ accelerating expansion into private islands. 

It’s Tuesday, February the 25th, at 2 PM in London.

Now the lure of a private island cruise is simple. You get almost exclusive access to a tropical retreat. You can lounge or snorkel on a pristine beach, you can enjoy a meal in a private cabana, you can even book a massage or a yoga class. The only other people around are fellow passengers on your vacation. So this isn't just the stuff of popular TV shows. It’s potentially the future of cruising. 

Cruise lines have actually been offering private islands for more than a decade. So it’s hardly a new phenomenon. In fact, in 2019, we estimate the majority of Caribbean cruise passengers visited a private island. 

As it happens, the Caribbean is the world's largest cruise destination. About saw 36 million cruise calls were there last year; that’s about 40 percent of global passenger capacity. And that’s surpassing the second largest region, the Mediterranean, at about 17 percent. Of course, the Caribbean’s proximity to North America and its year-round tropical climate make it a prime location for cruising. But despite these advantages, historically the Caribbean’s been seen as more of a lower-yielding market compared to regions like Europe or Alaska, which arguably have even more amazing scenery or historic sites. 

Interestingly, recent trends suggest that reputation might be changing. And new private islands over the last few years have reinvigorated the Caribbean cruise market. 

So what’s a private destinations or islands offer? For your guests, they get a seamless integration with the cruise experience. There’s no transfer required to a destination. There’s no external visitors coming into the resort. No-hassle, no-traffic, and very low crime. 

And for the cruise lines, well, they get greater control over the customer experience. They create superior customer satisfaction, which generates more repeat business. In addition, they can get that on-island spend that the guest would have spent with external vendors. And they can charge premium rates for exclusive areas. 

On top of that, many of these islands are quote close to the U.S. mainland, so you’re saving on fuel because the ship doesn’t have to steam so far; and on port fees. And then finally, proximity to the U.S. also can increase the short cruise duration market, which widens the addressable market for new-to-cruise passengers. And also can limit anti-tourism or anti-cruise sentiment because it moves guests out of congested areas and prevents unwanted visitors. 

All in all, the private island model offers a very high return on invested capital and may well be the future of the cruise line industry. In fact, if we add up the expansion plans of the biggest listed cruise lines, we think their private island guest count will double over the next few years. And that could add over 10 per cent to top line sales and 30 per cent earnings-per-share for the fastest growing cruise lines. 

So very considerable financials, but also it’s a private paradise within reach … and an idea we can all set sail to. 

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains the challenges to growth for U.S. stocks and why some investors are looking to China and Europe.

----- 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 new headwinds for growth and what that means for equities. 

It's Monday, Feb 24th at 11:30am in New York. 

So let’s get after it.  

Until this past Friday’s sharp sell off in stocks, the correlation between bond yields and stocks had been in negative territory since December. This inverse correlation strengthened further into year-end as the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield definitively breached 4.5 per cent on the upside for the first time since April of 2024. In November, we had identified this as an important yield threshold for stock valuations. This view was based on prior rate sensitivity equities showed in April of 2024 and the fall of 2023 as the 10-year yield pushed above this same level. In our view, the equity market has been signaling that yields above this point have a higher likelihood of weighing on growth. Supporting our view, interest rate sensitive companies like homebuilders have underperformed materially. This is why we have consistently recommended the quality factor and industries that are less vulnerable to these headwinds.

In our year ahead outlook, we suggested the first half of 2025 would be choppier for stocks than what we experienced last fall. We cited several reasons including the upside in yields and a stronger U.S. dollar. Since rates broke above 4.5 per cent in mid-December, the S&P 500 has made no progress. Specifically, the 6,100 resistance level that we identified in the fall has proven to be formidable for the time being. In addition to higher rates, softer growth prospects alongside a less dovish Fed are also holding back many stocks. As we have also discussed, falling rates won’t help if it’s accompanied by falling growth expectations as Friday’s sharp selloff in the face of lower rates illustrated. 

Beyond rates and a stronger US dollar, there are several other reasons why growth expectations are coming down. First, the immediate policy changes from the new administration, led by immigration enforcement and tariffs, are likely to weigh on growth while providing little relief on inflation in the short term. Second, the Dept of Govt Efficiency, or DOGE, is off to an aggressive start and this is another headwind to growth, initially.

Third, there appears to have been a modest pull-forward of goods demand at the end of last year ahead of the tariffs, and that impulse may now be fading. Fourth, consumers are still feeling the affordability pinch of higher rates and elevated price levels which weighed on last month's retail sales data. Finally, difficult comparisons, broader awareness of Deep Seek, and the debate around AI [CapEx] deceleration are weighing on the earnings revisions of some of the largest companies in the major indices.

All of these items are causing some investors to consider cheaper foreign stocks for the first time in quite a while – with China and Europe doing the best. In the case of China, it’s mostly related to the news around DeepSeek and perhaps stimulus for the consumer finally arriving this year. The European rally is predicated on hopes for peace in Ukraine and the German election results that may lead to the loosening of fiscal constraints. Of the two, China appears to have more legs to the story, in my opinion. 

Our Equity Strategy in the U.S. remains the same. We see limited upside at the index level in the first half of the year but plenty of opportunity at the stock, sector and factor levels. We continue to favor Financials, Software over Semiconductors, Media/Entertainment and Consumer Services over Goods. We also maintain an overriding penchant for quality across all size cohorts.

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Hong Kong/China Transportation & Infrastructure Analyst Qianlei Fan explores how a potential peace deal in Ukraine could reshape the global airline industry.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Qianlei Fan, Morgan Stanley’s Hong Kong/China Transportation Analyst. Today’s topic is how a potential peace deal in Ukraine could affect global airlines. 

It’s Friday, February 21st, at 2pm in Hong Kong. 

The situation remains fluid, but we believe a potential peace deal in Ukraine could have broad implications for the global airline industry. From the reopening of Russian airspace to potential changes in fuel prices and flight routes, there are many variables at play. 

Russian airspace is currently off-limits due to the conflict, but a peace agreement could change that. The reopening of Russian airspace would be a significant catalyst for global airlines, reducing travel times and fuel consumption on routes between Europe, North America, and Asia. 

Fuel prices account for 20-40 per cent of airlines' costs, so any changes can have a significant impact on their bottom line. We believe a peace deal could lead to a moderate fall in fuel prices, benefiting all airlines, but particularly those with high-cost exposure and low margins. 

There could also be specific regional implications. The European air travel market could benefit significantly from an end to the Ukraine conflict. The reopening of Russian airspace would improve European airlines’ competitiveness on Asian routes, while a fall in fuel prices would reduce their operating costs. There would also be lower congestion in the intra-European market. 

Asian airlines, particularly Chinese ones, could experience a mixed impact. On the one hand, they could see an increase in wide-body utilization and passenger numbers if more direct flights to the U.S. are introduced. On the other hand, losing their advantage over European airlines of flying through Russian airspace would be negative. But, at the same time, Chinese airlines should remain competitive on pricing given meaningfully lower labor costs. 

U.S. airlines could also benefit in two significant ways. They could see a boost in revenues from adding back profitable routes such as U.S. to India or U.S. to South Korea that may have been suspended. Being able to fly directly over Russia would mean shorter, more direct flight paths resulting in less fuel burn and lower costs. U.S. airlines could also see a cost decrease from a moderate fall in jet fuel prices. 

Finally, Latin American carriers could also benefit from a peace deal. If global carriers reallocate capacity to China, it could tighten the market even further, creating an attractive capacity environment for the LatAm region. 

We’ll continue to bring you relevant updates on this evolving situation. 

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter explains the potential domino effect that President Trump’s reciprocal tariffs could have on the U.S. and global economies.

----- Transcript -----

Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist, and today I'm going to talk about downside risks to the U.S. economy, especially from tariffs.

It's Thursday, February 20th at 10am in New York.

Once again, tariffs are dominating headlines. The prospect of reciprocal tariffs is yet one more risk to our baseline forecast for the year. We have consistently said that the inflationary risk of tariffs gets its due attention in markets but the adverse growth implications that's an underappreciated risk.

But we, like many other forecasters, were surprised to the upside in 2023 and 2024. So maybe we should ask, are there some upside risks that we're missing?

The obvious upside risk to growth is a gain in productivity, and frequent readers of Morgan Stanley Research will know that we are bullish on AI. Indeed, the level of productivity is higher now than it was pre-COVID, and there is some tentative estimate that could point to faster growth for productivity as well.

Of course, a cyclically tight labor market probably contributes and there could be some measurement error. But gains from AI do appear to be happening faster than in prior tech cycles. So, we can't rule very much out. In our year ahead outlook, we penciled in about a-tenth percentage point of extra productivity growth this year from AI. And there is also a bit of a boost to GDP from AI CapEx spending.

Other upside risks, though, they're less clear. We don't have any boost in our GDP forecast from deregulation. And that view, I will say, is contrary to a lot of views in the market. Deregulation will likely boost profits for some sectors but probably will do very little to boost overall growth. Put differently, it helps the bottom line far more than it helps the top line. A notable exception here is probably the energy sector, especially natural gas.

Our baseline view on tariffs has been that tariffs on China will ramp up substantially over the year, while other tariffs will either not happen or be fleeting, being part of, say, broader negotiations. The news flow so far this year can't reject that baseline, but recently the discussion of broad reciprocal tariffs means that the risk is clearly rising.

But even in our baseline, we think the growth effects are underestimated. Somewhere in the neighborhood of two-thirds of imports from China are capital goods or inputs into U.S. manufacturing. The tariffs imposed before on China led to a sharp deterioration in industrial production. That slump went through the second half of 2018 and into and all the way through 2019 as a drag on the broader economy. Just as important, there was not a subsequent resurgence in industrial output.

Part of the undergraduate textbook argument for tariffs is to have more produced at home. That channel works in a two-economy model. But it doesn't work in the real world.

Now, the prospect of reciprocal tariffs broadens this downside risk. Free trade has divided production functions around the world, but it's also driven large trade imbalances, and it is precisely these imbalances that are at the center of the new administration's focus on tariffs. China, Canada, Mexico – they do stand out because of their imbalances in terms of trade with the U.S., but the underlying driving force is quite varied. More importantly, those imbalances were built over decades, so undoing them quickly is going to be disruptive, at least in the short run.

The prospect of reciprocity globally forces us as well to widen the lens. The risks aren't just for the U.S., but around the world. For Latin America and Asia in particular, key economies have higher tariff supply to U.S. goods than vice versa.

So, we can't ignore the potential global effects of a reciprocal tariff.

Ultimately, though, we are retaining our baseline view that only tariffs on China will prove to be durable and that the delayed implementation we've seen so far is consistent with that view. Nevertheless, the broad risks are clear.

Thanks for listening. And if you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our co-heads of Securitized Products Research, James Egan and Jay Bacow, explain how the increase in home prices, a tight market supply and steady mortgage rates are affecting home sales.

----- 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.

Today, a look at the latest trends in the mortgage and housing market.

It's Wednesday, February 19th, at 11am in New York.

Now, Jim, there's been a lot of headlines to kick off the year. How is the housing market looking here? Mortgage rates are about 80 basis points higher than the local lows in September. That can't be helping affordability very much.

James Egan: No, it is not helping affordability. But let's zoom out a little bit here when talking about affordability. The monthly payment on the medium-priced home had fallen about $225 from the fourth quarter of 2023 to local troughs in September. About a 10 percent decrease. Since that low, the payment has increased about $150; so, it's given back most of its gains.

Importantly, affordability is a three-pronged equation. It's not just that payment. Home prices, mortgage rates, and incomes. And incomes are up about 5 percent over the past year. So, affordability has improved more than those numbers would suggest, but those improvements have certainly been muted as a result of this recent rate move. 

Jay Bacow: Alright. Affordability is up, then it’s down. It’s wrong, then it’s right. It sounds like a Katy Perry song. So, how have home sales evolved through this rollercoaster?

James Egan: Well, you and I came on this podcast several times last year to talk about the fact that home sales volumes weren't really increasing despite the improvement in affordability. One point that we made over and over again was that it normally takes 9 to 12 months for sales volumes to increase when you get this kind of affordability improvement. And that would make the fourth quarter of 2024 the potential inflection point that we were looking for. And despite this move in mortgage rates, that does appear to have been the case. Existing home sales had a very strong finish to last year. And in the fourth quarter, they were up 8 percent versus the fourth quarter of 2023. That's the first year-over-year increase since the second quarter of 2021.

Jay Bacow: All right. So that's pretty meaningful. And if looking backward, home sales seem to be inflecting, what does that mean for 2025?

James Egan: So, there's a number of different considerations there. For one thing, supply – the number of homes that are actually for sale – is still very tight, but it is increasing. It may sound a little too simplistic, but there do need to be homes for sale for homes to sell, and listings have reacted faster than sales. That strong fourth quarter in existing home sales that I just mentioned, that brought total sales volumes for the year to 1 percent above their 2023 levels. For sale inventory finished the year up 14 percent.

Jay Bacow: Alright, that makes sense. So, more people are willing to sell their home, which means there's a little bit more transaction volume. But is that good for home prices?

James Egan: Not exactly. And it is those higher listings and our expectation that listings are going to continue to climb that's been the main factor behind our call for home price growth to continue to slow. Ultimately, we think that you see home sales up in the context of about 5 percent in 2025 versus 2024.

Our leading indicators of demand have softened, a little, in December and January, which may be a result of this sharp increase in rates. But ultimately, when we look at turnover in the housing market, and we're talking about existing sales as a share of the outstanding homes in the U.S. housing market, we think that we're kind of at the basement right now. If we're wrong in our sales volume call, I would think it's more likely that there are more sales than we think. Not less.

Jay Bacow: Let me ask you another easy question. How far would rates have to fall to really incentivize more supply and/or demand in the housing market?

James Egan: That's the $45 trillion question. We think the current housing market presents a fascinating case study in behavioral economics. Even if mortgage rates were to decline to 4.5 percent, only 35 percent of people would be in the money. And that's still over 200 basis points from where we are today.

That being said, we think it's unlikely that mortgage rates need to fall all the way to that level to unlock the housing market. While the lack of any historical precedent makes it difficult for us to identify a specific threshold at which activity could increase meaningfully, we recently turned to Morgan Stanley's AlphaWise to conduct a consumer pulse survey to get a better sense of how people were feeling about their housing options.

Jay Bacow: I like data. How are those people feeling?

James Egan: All right, so 31 percent of people anticipate buying a home over the next two years, and almost half are considering buying over the next five. Interestingly, only 21 percent are considering selling their home over the next two years. In other words, perceived demand is about 50 percent greater than marginal supply, at least in the immediate future, which we think could be a representation of that lock-in effect.

Current homeowners’ expectations of near-term listings are depressed because of how low their mortgage rate is. But we did ask: What if mortgage rates were to fall from 6.8 percent today to 5. 5 percent? In that world, 85 to 90 percent of the people planning to buy a home in the next two years stated that they would be more likely to execute on that purchase.

So, we think it's safe to say that a decline in mortgage rates could accelerate purchase decisions. But Jay, are we going to see that decline?

Jay Bacow: Well, our interest rate strategists do think that rates are going to rally from here. They've updated their 10-year forecast to expect the tenure note ends 2025 at 4 percent. If the tenure note's at 4 percent, mortgage rate should come down from here, but not to that 4.5 percent, or probably even that 5.5 percent level that you quoted. You know, honestly, you don't really want to stay, you don't really want to go. We're probably talking about like a 6 percent mortgage rate. Not quite that level.

But Jim, this is a national level, a national mortgage rate, and housing markets about location and location and location. Are there geographical nuances to your forecast?

James Egan: People all over the country are asking, should they stay or should they go now, and that answer is different depending on where you live, right? If you look at the top 100 MSAs in the country, 8 of the top 11 markets showing the largest increases in inventory over the past year can be found in Florida.

So, we would expect Florida to be a little bit softer than our national numbers. On the other hand, inventory growth has been most subdued in the Northeast and the Midwest, with several markets continuing to see inventory declines.

Jay Bacow: All right, well selfishly, as somebody that lives in the Northeast, I am a little bit happy to hear that. But otherwise, Jim, it's always a pleasure listening to you.

James Egan: Pleasure talking to you too, Jay. Thanks for listening, and if you enjoy this podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

DISCLAIMER

Jay Bacow: So, Jim, the lock-in effect is: You don’t really want to stay. No. But you don’t really want to go.

James Egan: That is exactly; that is perfect! Wow. That is the whole issue with the housing market.

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategy Mike Wilson suggests that stock, factor and sector selection remain key to portfolio performance.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing equities in the context of higher rates and weaker earnings revisions. 

It's Tuesday, Feb 18th at 11:30am in New York. 

So let’s get after it.

Since early December, the S&P 500 has made little headway. The almost unimpeded run from the summer was halted by a few things but none as important as the rise in 10-year Treasury yields, in my view. In December, we cited 4 to 4.5 percent as the sweet spot for equity multiples assuming growth and earnings remained on track. We viewed 4.5 percent as a key level for equity valuations. And sure enough, when the Fed leaned less dovish at its December meeting, yields crossed that 4.5 percent threshold; and correlations between stocks and yields settled firmly in negative territory, where they remain. In other words, yields are no longer supportive of higher valuations—a key driver of returns the past few years. 

Instead, earnings are now the primary driver of returns and that is likely to remain the case for the foreseeable future. While the Fed was already increasingly less dovish, the uncertainty on tariffs and last week’s inflation data could further that shift with the bond market moving to just one cut for the rest of the year. Our official call is in line with that view with our economists now just looking for just one cut–in June. It depends on how the inflation and growth data roll in. 

Our strategy has shifted, too. With the S&P 500 reaching our tactical target of 6100 in December and earnings revision breadth now rolling over for the index, we have been more focused on sectors and factors. In particular, we’ve favored areas of the market showing strong earnings revisions on an absolute or relative basis.

Financials, Media and Entertainment, Software over Semiconductors and Consumer Services over Goods continue to fit that bill. Within Defensives, we have favored Utilities over Staples, REITs and Healthcare. While we’ve seen outperformance in all these trades, we are sticking with them, for now. We maintain an overriding preference for Large-cap quality unless 10-year Treasury yields fall sustainably below 4.5 percent without a meaningful degradation in growth. The key component of 10-year yields to watch for equity valuations remains the term premium – which has come down, but is still elevated compared to the past few years. 

Other macro developments driving stock prices include the very active policy announcements from the White House including tariffs, immigration enforcement, and cost cutting efforts by the Department of Government Efficiency, also known as DOGE. For tariffs, we believe they will be more of an idiosyncratic event for equity markets. However, if tariffs were to be imposed and maintained on China, Mexico and Canada through 2026, the impact to earnings-per-share would be roughly 5-7 percent for the S&P 500. That’s not an insignificant reduction and likely one of the reasons why guidance this past quarter was more muted than fourth quarter results. 

Industries facing greater headwinds from China tariffs include consumer discretionary goods and electronics. Lower immigration flow and stock is more likely to affect aggregate demand than to be a wage cost headwind, at least for public companies. Finally, skepticism remains high as it relates to DOGE’s ability to cut Federal spending meaningfully. I remain more optimistic on that front, but realize greater success also presents a headwind to growth before it provides a tailwind via lower fiscal deficits and less crowding out of the private economy—things that could lead to more Fed cuts and lower long-term interest rates as term premium falls. 

Bottom line, higher backend rates and growth headwinds from the stronger dollar and the initial policy changes suggest equity multiples are capped for now. That means stock, factor and sector selection remains key to performance rather than simply adding beta to one’s portfolio. On that score, we continue to favor earnings revision breadth, quality, and size factors alongside financials, software, media/entertainment and consumer services at the industry level.  

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Head of Fixed Income and Public Policy Research, Michael Zezas, joins our Chief U.S. Economist, Michael Gapen, to discuss the possible outcomes for President Trump’s immigration policies and their effect on the U.S. economy.

----- Transcript -----

Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Public Policy Research.

Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Chief U.S. Economist for Morgan Stanley.

Michael Zezas: Our topic today: President Trump's immigration policy and its economic ramifications.

It's Friday, February 14th at 10am in New York.

Michael, migration has always been considered an important feature of the global economy. In fact, you believe that strong immigration flows were an important element in the supply side rebound that set the stage for a U.S. soft landing. If we think back to the time before President Trump took office almost a month ago, how would you categorize immigration trends then?

Michael Gapen: So, we saw a very sharp increase in immigration coming out of the pandemic. I would say, if you look at longer term averages, say the 20 years leading up to the pandemic, normally we'd get about a million and a half immigrants, per year into the United States. A lot of variation around that number, but that was the long-term average.

In 2022 through 2024, we saw immigration surge to about 3 million per year. So about twice as fast as we saw normally. And that happened at a very important time. It allowed for very significant and rapid growth in the labor force, just at a time when the economy was emerging from the pandemic and demand for labor was quite high.

So, it filled that labor demand. It allowed the economy to grow rapidly, while at the same time helping to keep wages lower and inflation starting to come down. So, I do think it was a major underpinning force in the ability of the U.S. economy to soft land after several years of above target inflation.

Michael Zezas: Got it. And so now, with a second President Trump term, are we set up for a reversal of this immigration driven boost to the economy?

Michael Gapen: Yeah, I think that's the key question for the outlook, and our answer is yes. That if we are going to significantly restrict immigration flows, the risk here is that we reverse the trends that we've just seen in the previous year.

So, I certainly believe one of the main goals of the Trump administration is to harden the border and initiate greater deportations. And these steps in my mind come on the back of steps that the Biden administration already took around the middle of last year that began to slow immigration flows.

So yes, I do think we should look for a reversal of the immigration driven boost to the economy. But Mike, I would actually throw this question back to you and say on the first day of his presidency, Trump issued a series of executive orders pertaining to immigration. Where are we now in that process after these initial announcements? And what do you expect in terms of policy implementation?

Michael Zezas: Well, I think you hit on it. There's two levers here. There's stepped up deportations and removals and there's working with Mexico on border enforcement. Things like the remain in Mexico policy where Mexico agrees to keep those seeking asylum on their side of the border; and to facilitate that, they've stepped up their military presence to do that.

Those are really kind of the two levers that the U.S. is pushing on to try and reduce the flow of migrants coming into the U.S. Still to be determined how much these actually have an impact, but I think that's the direction of policy travel.

Michael Gapen: And are there any catalysts specifically that you're watching for? I mean, recently the administration proposed tariffs on Mexico and Canada around border control, but those have been delayed. Is there anything on the horizon we should look for this time around?

Michael Zezas: Yeah. So obviously the president tied the potential for tariffs on Mexico and Canada to the idea that there should be some improvement on border enforcement. It's going to be difficult for investors, I think, to assess in real time how much progress has been made there. Mostly it's a data challenge here. There are official government statistics which have a good amount of detail about removals and folks stopped at the border and demographics in terms of age and, and whether or not they were working. That might really kind of help us piece together the story in terms of whether or not there's going to be future tariffs – and Michael, probably for you, to what extent there's an impact on the economy if folks are already in the labor force.

But that data is on a lag, it'll be really difficult to tell what's happening now for at least several months. Maybe we're going to get some hints about what's going on for comments coming in earnings calls, for example, from companies that deal in construction and food service and hospitality. But I don't know that those anecdotes would be sufficient to really draw substantial conclusions. So, I think we're a bit in a fog for the next couple months on exactly what's happening.

But based on all this, Michael, what's your outlook for immigration this year and beyond?

Michael Gapen: Yeah, so we, as I mentioned, we were getting about 3 million immigrants per year between 2022 and 2024; long run averages before the pandemic were more like a million and a half a year. Our outlook is that immigration flows should slow below pre- COVID averages to about 1 million this year and about 500,000 in 2026. And again, that would be the well below the long run average of about a million and a half per year.

Now, as you mentioned, understanding these flows in real time is hard and there's a lot of uncertainty around this and how effective policies may be. So, I think people should consider ranges around this baseline, if you will. On one hand, we could see a reduction in unauthorized immigration replaced by more authorized immigration. So maybe there's a benign scenario where immigration slows back to its one and a half million per year. But it's more through legal and formal channels than unauthorized channels.

Alternatively, it could be the case that some of the policies, you mentioned in terms of, say, stepped up deportations or other measures, and maybe there's a chilling effect. That there's just like an externality on immigration behavior. And in fact, we slow maybe to about 500,000 this year and see a decline in about 250,000 next year.

So, I think there's a lot of uncertainty about it. We think immigration slows below its longer run averages, which would represent a major shift from what we've seen over the last three years.

Michael Zezas: Got it. So, lots of crosscurrents here, about how the actual labour supply is impacted. But bottom line, if we do arrive at a point where there’s a significant reduction in immigration, what’s the expectation about what that means for the U.S. economy?

Michael Gapen: Yeah, so a lot of cross currents here. Number one, I think with a high degree of confidence, we can say reduced immigration should lead to slower potential growth, right? So, a slower growth in the labor force should mean slower growth in trend hours, right? Potential GDP is really only the sum of growth in trend hours and trend productivity.

So, the surge in immigration we saw really boosted potential growth up to 2.5 per cent to 3 per cent in recent years. So, if we reduce immigration, potential growth should slow. I think back towards, say, 2 per cent this year, maybe even 1 to 1.5 per cent next year. So, you slow down growth in the labor force, potential should moderate.

Second, and I think the more difficult question is, well, okay, if you also reduce growth in the labor force, you're going to get less employment, and that's a demand side effect. So, which dominates here, the supply side or the demand side? And here, I think to go back to your first question – yeah, I do think we're going to get a reversal of the outcome that we just saw.

So, I think it'll moderate both potential and actual growth. So, I think actual growth slows. The amount of employment we see should decline and soften. We're not saying the level of employment will decline, but the growth rate of employment should slow. But it should coincide with a low unemployment rate, so it's going to be a very different labor market. A lot less employment growth, but still a tight labor market in terms of low unemployment.

That should keep wages firm, particularly in the service sector where a lot of immigrants work, and we think it'll also help keep inflation firm. So, it could keep the Fed on the sideline for a significant period of time, for example.

And I'd just like to close, Mike, by saying I think this is an underappreciated risk for financial markets. I think investors have digested trade policy uncertainty, but I'm not convinced that risks around immigration and their effect on the economy are well understood.

Michael Zezas: Got it. Well Michael, thanks for taking the time to talk.

Michael Gapen: Thank you.

Michael Zezas: Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Head of Foreign Exchange & Emerging Markets Strategy James Lord discusses how much tariff-driven volatility investors can expect in currency markets this year.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m James Lord, Morgan Stanley’s Head of Foreign Exchange & Emerging Markets Strategy. 

Today – the implications of tariffs for volatility on foreign exchange markets. 

It’s Thursday, February 13th, at 3pm in London. 

Foreign exchange markets are following President Trump’s tariff proposals with bated breath. A little over a week ago investors faced significant uncertainty over proposed tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China. In the end, the U.S. reached a deal with Canada and Mexico, but a 10 per cent tariff on Chinese imports went into effect. Currencies experienced heightened volatility during the negotiations, but the net impacts at the end of the negotiations were small. Announced tariffs on steel and aluminum have had a muted impact too, but the prospect of reciprocal tariffs are keeping investors on edge. 

We believe there are three key lessons investors can take away from this recent period of tariff tension. First of all, we need to distinguish between two different types of tariffs. The first type is proposed with the intention to negotiate; to reach a deal with affected countries on key issues. The second type of tariff serves a broader purpose. Imposing them might reduce the U.S. trade deficit or protect key domestic industries.

There may also be examples where these two distinct approaches to tariffs meld, such as the reciprocal tariffs that President Trump has also discussed. 

The market impacts of these different tariffs vary significantly. In cases where the ultimate objective is to make a deal on a separate issue, any currency volatility experienced during the tariff negotiations will very likely reverse – if a deal is made. However, if the tariffs are part of a broader economic strategy, then investors should consider more seriously whether currency impacts are going to be more long-lasting. For instance, we believe that tariffs on imports from China should be considered in this context. As a result, we do see sustained dollar/renminbi upside, with that currency pair likely to hit 7.6 in the second half of 2025. 

A second key issue for investors is going to be the timing of tariffs. April 1st is very likely going to be a key date for Foreign Exchange markets as more details around the America First Trade Policy are likely revealed. We could see the U.S. dollar strengthen in the days leading up to this date, and investors are likely to consider where subsequently there will be a more significant push to enact tariffs. 

A final question for investors to ponder is going to be whether foreign exchange volatility would move to a structurally higher plane, or simply rise episodically. Many investors currently assume that FX volatility will be higher this year, thanks to the uncertainty created by trade policy. However, so far, the evidence doesn’t really support this conclusion. Indicators that track the level of uncertainty around global trade policy did rise during President Trump's first term, specifically around the period of escalating tariffs on China. And while this was associated with a stronger [U.S.] dollar, it did not lead to rising levels of FX volatility. 

We can see again, at the start of Trump's second term, that rising uncertainty over trade policy has been consistent with a stronger U.S. dollar. And while FX volatility has increased a bit, so far the impact has been relatively muted – and implied volatility is still well below the highs that we’ve seen in the past ten years. FX volatility is likely to rise around key dates and periods of escalation; and while structurally higher levels of FX volatility could still occur, the odds of that happening would increase if tariffs resulted in more substantial macro economic consequences for the U.S. economy.

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 a colleague today.

The down-to-the-deadline nature of Trump’s trade policy has created market uncertainty. Our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets points out a silver lining. 

----- Transcript -----

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 a potential silver lining to the significant uptick in uncertainty around U.S. trade policy. 

It's Wednesday, February 12th at 2pm in London. 

One of the nuances of our market view is that we think credit spreads remain tight despite rising levels of corporate confidence and activity. We think these things can co-exist, at least temporarily, because the level of corporate activity is still so low, and so it could rise quite a bit and still only be in-line with the long-term trend. And so while more corporate activity and aggression is usually a negative for lenders and drives credit spreads wider, we don’t think it’s quite one yet. 

But maybe there is even less tension in these views than we initially thought. 

The first four weeks of the new U.S. Administration have seen a flurry of policy announcements on tariffs. This has meant a lot for investors to digest and discuss, but it’s meant a lot less to actual market prices. Since the inauguration, U.S. stocks and yields are roughly unchanged. 

That muted reaction may be because investors assume that, in many cases, these policies will be delayed, reversed or modified. For example, announced tariffs on Mexico and Canada have been delayed. A key provision concerning smaller shipments from China has been paused. So far, this pattern actually looks very consistent with the framework laid out by my colleagues Michael Zezas and Ariana Salvatore from the Morgan Stanley Public Policy team: fast announcements of action, but then much slower ultimate implementation. 

Yet while markets may be dismissing these headlines for now, there are signs that businesses are taking them more seriously. Per news reports, U.S. Merger and Acquisition activity in January just suffered its lowest level of activity since 2015. Many factors could be at play. But it seems at least plausible that the “will they, won’t they” down-to-the-deadline nature of trade policy has increased uncertainty, something businesses generally don’t like when they’re contemplating big transformative action. 

And for lenders maybe that’s the silver lining. We’ve been thinking that credit in 2025 would be a story of timing this steadily rising wave of corporate aggression. But if that wave is delayed, debt levels could end up being lower, bond issuance could be lower, and spread levels – all else equal – could be a bit tighter. 

Corporate caution isn’t everywhere. In sectors that are seen as multi-year secular trends, such as AI data centers, investment plans continue to rise rapidly, with our colleagues in Equity Research tracking over $320bn of investment in 2025. But for activity that is more economically sensitive, uncertainty around trade policy may be putting companies on the back foot. That isn’t great for business; but, temporarily, it could mean a better supply/demand balance for those that lend to them. 

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Chief Asia Economist Chetan Ahya discusses the potential impact of reciprocal U.S. tariffs on Asian economies, highlighting the key markets at risk.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Asia Economist. Today: the possibilities of reciprocal tariffs between the U.S. and Asian economies. 

It’s Tuesday, February 11, at 2pm in Singapore.

President Trump’s recent tariff actions have already been far more aggressive than in 2018 and 2019. And this time around, multiple trade partners are simultaneously facing broad-based tariffs, and tariffs are coming at a much faster pace. The risk of trade tensions escalating has risen, and the latest developments may have kicked that risk up another notch. 

The U.S. president is pushing a sweeping tariff of 25 per cent on all foreign steel and aluminum products. Trump has also indicated that he would propose reciprocal tariffs on multiple countries – to match the tariffs levied by each country on U.S. imports. This potential reciprocal tariff proposal suggests that Asia ex China may be more exposed to possible tariff hikes. As of now, Asia’s tariffs on US imports are, for the most part, slightly higher than US tariffs on Asian imports. And based on [the] latest available data, six economies in Asia do impose [a] higher weighted average tariff on the U.S. than the U.S. does on individual Asia economies. 

The tariff differentials are most pronounced for India, Thailand, and Korea. These three economies may face a risk of a hike in tariffs by 4 to 6 percentage points on a weighted average basis, if the U.S. imposes reciprocal tariffs. Individual products may yet face higher tariffs rates but we think [the] overall impact from steel, aluminum and reciprocal tariffs will be manageable. 

But look, trade tensions may still rise further given that 7 out of 10 economies with the largest trade surplus with the U.S. are in Asia. Against this backdrop, policy makers may have to look for ways to address the demands from the U.S. administration. 

For instance, Japan’s Prime Minister Ishiba has committed to increasing investment in the U.S. and is looking to raise energy imports from the U.S. This is seen as a positive step to reduce the U.S. trade deficit with Japan. Meanwhile, ahead of the meeting between President Trump and India’s Prime Minister Modi later this week, India has already taken steps to lower tariffs on the U.S., and may propose [an] increase in imports of oil and gas, defense equipments and aircrafts to narrow its trade surplus with the U.S. 

However, as regards China is concerned, the wide scope of issues in the bilateral relationship suggests that [the] U.S. administration would cite a variety of reasons for expanding tariffs. As things stand, China has been the only economy so far where tariff hikes have stayed in place. Indeed, the recent 10 percent increase in tariffs has already matched the increase in the weighted average tariffs that transpired in 2018 and 2019. And we still expect that tariffs on imports from China will continue to rise over the course of 2025. 

To sum it up, there has been a constant stream of tariff threats from the U.S. administration. While the direct effects of [the] tariffs appear manageable, the bigger concern for us has been that this policy uncertainty will potentially weigh on corporate sector confidence, CapEx and growth cycle.

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.

Global Head of Fixed Income and Public Policy Research Michael Zezas and Head of Global Evaluation, Accounting and Tax Todd Castagno discuss the market and economic implications of proposed tax extensions and tax cuts.

----- 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.

Todd Castagno: And I'm Todd Castagno, Head of Global Evaluation, Accounting and Tax.

Michael Zezas: Today, we'll focus on taxes under the new Trump administration.

It's Monday, February 10th, at 10am in New York.

Recently, at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, President Trump stated his administration will pass the largest tax cut in American history, including substantial tax cuts for workers and families. He was short on the details, but tax policies were a significant focus of his election campaign.

Todd, can you give us a better sense of the tax cuts that Trump's been vocal about so far?

Todd Castagno: Well, there's tax cuts and tax extensions. So, I think that's an important place to set the baseline. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), under his first administration, starts to expire in 2025. And so, what we view is, the most likelihood is, an extension of those policies going forward. However, there's some new ideas, some new contours as well. So, for instance, a lower corporate rate that gets you in the 15 per cent ballpark can be through domestic tax credits, new incentives.

I think there's other items on the individual side of the code that could be explored as well. But we also have to kind of step back and creating new policy is very challenging. So again, that baseline is an extension of kind of the tax world we live in today.

So, Michael, looking at the broader macro picture and from conversations with our economist, how would these tax cuts impact GDP and macro in general?

Michael Zezas: Well, if you're talking about extension of current policy, which is most of our expectation about what happens with taxes at the end of the year, the way our economists have been looking at this is to say that there's no net new impulse for households or companies to behave differently.

That might be true on a sector-by-sector basis, but in the aggregate for the economy, there's no reason to look at this policy and think that it is going to provide a definitive uplift to the growth forecast that they have for 2026. Now, there may be some other provisions that could add in there that are incremental that we'd have to consider.

But still, they would probably take time to play out or their measurable impact would be very hard to define. Things like raising the cap on the state and local tax deduction, that tends to impact higher income households who already aren't constrained from a spending perspective. And things like a domestic manufacturing tax credit for companies, that could take several years to play out before it actually manifests into spending.

Todd Castagno: And you’re kind of seeing that with the prior administration's tax law, the Inflation Reduction Act. A lot of this takes years in order to actually play through the economy. So that's something that investors should consider.

Michael Zezas: Yeah, these things certainly take time; and you know back in 2018 it had been a long ambition, particularly of Republican lawmakers, to reduce the corporate tax rate. They succeeded in doing that, getting it down to 21 per cent in Trump's first term. Now, Trump's talked about getting corporate tax rates lower again here. If he's able to do that, how do you think he would do that? And would that affect how you're thinking about investment and hiring?

Todd Castagno: So, there's the corporate rate itself, and it's at 21 per cent currently. There is a view to change that rate, lower it. However, there's other ways you can reduce that effective tax burden through what we've just discussed. So enhanced corporate deductions, timing differences, companies can benefit from a tax system that ultimately gets them a lower effective rate, even if the corporate rate doesn't move much.

Michael Zezas: And so, what sorts of companies and what sorts of sectors of the market would benefit the most from that type of reduction in the corporate tax burden?

Todd Castagno: So, if you think they're mosaic of all these items, it's going to accrue to domestic companies. That might sound kind of obvious, but if you look at our economy, we have large multinationals and we have domestic companies and we have small businesses. The policies that are being articulated, I think, mostly orient towards domestic companies, industrials, for instance, R&D incentives, again powering our AI plants, energy, et cetera.

Michael Zezas: Got it. And is there any read through on if a company does better under this policy – if they're big relative to being small?

Todd Castagno: There are a lot of small business elements as well. So, I mentioned that timing difference, being able to deduct a piece of machinery day one versus over seven years. So, there's a lot of benefits that are not in the rate itself that can accrue through smaller businesses.

Michael Zezas: YAnd what about for individual taxpayers, particularly the middle class? What particular tax cuts are on the table there?

Todd Castagno: So, first and foremost is the child tax care credit. So, it’s current policy, but after COVID, it was enhanced. A higher dollar amount, different mechanism for receiving funds. And so, there is bipartisan support and President Trump as well, bringing back a version of an enhanced credit. Now, the policy is a little bit tricky, but I would say there's very good odds that that comes back. You know, you mentioned the state and local tax deduction, right? The politics are also tricky, but there could be a rate of change where that reverts back to pre-TCJA.

But one of the things, Michael, is all these policies are very expensive. So, I'm just curious, in your mind, how do we balance the price tag versus the outcome?

Michael Zezas: Well, I think the main constraint here to consider is that Republicans have a very slim majority in the House of Representatives and the Senate, and they're unlikely to get Democratic representatives crossing the aisle to vote with them on a tax package this large. So, they'll really need complete consensus on whatever tax items they extend and the deficit impact that it causes this is the type of thing that ultimately will constrain the package to be smaller than perhaps some of the president's stated ambitions.

So, for example, items like making the interest payments on auto loans tax deductible, we think there might not be sufficient support for that and the budget costs that it would create. So ultimately, we think you get back to a package that's mostly about extending current cuts, adding in a couple more items like that domestic manufacturing tax credit, which is also very closely tied to Republicans larger trade ambition. And you might also see Republicans do some things to reduce the price tag, like, for example, only extend the tax cuts for a few years, as opposed to five or 10 years.

Todd Castagno: Right.

Michael Zezas: Todd, thanks for taking the time to talk.

Todd Castagno: Great speaking with you, Mike.

Michael Zezas: Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Chief Fixed Income Strategist Vishy Tirupattur thinks that efficiency gains from Chinese AI startup DeepSeek may drive incremental demand for AI.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Today I’ll be talking about the macro implications of the DeepSeek development.

It's Friday February 7th at 9 am, and I’m on the road in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Recently we learned that DeepSeek, a Chinese AI startup, has developed two open-source large language models – LLMs – that can perform at levels comparable to models from American counterparts at a substantially lower cost. This news set off shockwaves in the equity markets that wiped out nearly a trillion dollars in the market cap of listed US technology companies on January 27. While the market has recouped some of these losses, their magnitude raises questions for investors about AI. My equity research colleagues have addressed a range of stock-specific issues in their work. Today we step back and consider the broader implications for the economy in terms of productivity growth and investment spending on AI infrastructure.

First thing. While this is an important milestone and a significant development in the evolution of LLMs, it doesn’t come entirely as a shock. The history of computing is replete with examples of dramatic efficiency gains. The DeepSeek development is precisely that – a dramatic efficiency improvement which, in our view, drives incremental demand for AI. Rapid declines in the cost of computing during the 1990s provide a useful parallel to what we are seeing now. As Michael Gapen, our US chief economist, has noted, the investment boom during the 1990s was really driven by the pace at which firms replaced depreciated capital and a sharp and persistent decline in the price of computing capital relative to the price of output. If efficiency gains from DeepSeek reflect a similar phenomenon, we may be seeing early signs [that] the cost of AI capital is coming down – and coming down rapidly. In turn, that should support the outlook for business spending pertaining to AI.

In the last few weeks, we have heard a lot of reference to the Jevons paradox – which really dates from 1865 – and it states that as technological advancements reduce the cost of using a resource, the overall demand for the resource increases, causing the total resource consumption to rise. In other words, cheaper and more ubiquitous technology will increase its consumption. This enables AI to transition from innovators to more generalized adoption and opens the door for faster LLM-enabled product innovation. That means wider and faster consumer and enterprise adoption. Over time, this should result in greater increases in productivity and faster realization of AI’s transformational promise.

From a micro perspective, our equity research colleagues, who are experts in covering stocks in these sectors, come to a very similar conclusion. They think it’s unlikely that the DeepSeek development will meaningfully reduce CapEx related to AI infrastructure. From a macroeconomic perspective, there is a good case to be made for higher business spending related to AI, as well as productivity growth from AI.

Obviously, it is still early days, and we will see leaders and laggards at the stock level. But the economy as a whole we think will emerge as a winner. DeepSeek illustrates the potential for efficiency gains, which in turn foster greater competition and drive wider adoption of AI. With that premise, we remain constructive on AI’s transformational promise.

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

DISCLAIMER

In the last few weeks… (Laughs) It’s almost like the birds are waiting for me to start speaking.

Our Hong Kong/China Transportation & Infrastructure Analyst Qianlei Fan explains why a resurgence in air travel is leading China’s emergence from deflation.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Qianlei Fan, Morgan Stanley’s Hong Kong/China Transportation Analyst. Chinese airlines are at a once-in-a-decade inflection point, and today I’ll break down the elements of this turnaround story.

It’s Thursday, Feb 6th at 10am in Hong Kong.

Last week, hundreds of millions of people across Asia gathered to celebrate the lunar new year with their families. I was one of them and took a flight back to my hometown Nanjing. Airports were jam-packed for days, with air travel expected to exceed 90 million trips.

It’s all indicative of Chinese airlines making a comeback after a seven-year run of underperformance. In fact, we believe Airlines will be one of the first industries to emerge from China's deflationary pressures this year. And this has implications for the country's broader economy.

Although COVID impacted Airlines globally, other regions have since recovered. In China, the earnings recovery is just beginning. Since 2018, Chinese Airlines have experienced demand hits from the trade tension, currency depreciation, COVID-19, and post-COVID macro headwinds.

It’s been two years since Chinese borders lifted restrictions and air travelers are returning in force. Excess capacity has now been digested. Slower deliveries of aircrafts continue to limit supply, and it is more difficult for airlines to get new aircraft and increase their available seats. Passenger load factors will continue to strengthen this year, which means the airlines are running close to full capacity. This will increase Airlines' pricing power within the next 6 to 12 months, feeding through to earnings.

If we put that in a global context, China’s airlines industry handled around 700 million passengers in 2024, 8 per cent of global air passengers; but that 700 million passengers only account for half of China’s population. In the US, air passenger numbers can be three times its population.

Chinese airlines have just reached break-even in the past year, while many of their global peers have already generated robust profits. Chinese Airlines’ earnings and valuations have lagged global peers in both absolute and relative terms. But now, with a turnaround coming into view, Chinese Airlines have a longer runway for stronger earnings growth and share price performance than global peers.

What’s more, the August 2024 turnaround in US airlines offers several key takeaways for China. US Airlines’ share prices recovered last year, following a long period of underperformance post COVID. The wait before the inflection was long, but share prices moved up quickly once the turning point was reached, and valuation expanded ahead of earnings recovery. Big US airlines outperformed smaller players during the most recent rally. We think all these are relevant to the Chinese Airlines story.

If we look at earnings – Chinese Big Three airlines reached breakeven in 2024, making a small profit in 2025, and that profit will double in 2026. But that’s not yet the peak of the cycle; peak cycle earnings could again double the 2026 level, probably in 2027 to 2028. That’s the reason why we think Chinese airlines are on the path to doubling share prices.

To sum up, Chinese Airlines represent a once-in-a-decade opportunity for investors. With strengthened passenger load factors and a positive demand outlook, coupled with significant potential for earnings growth, this industry looks ready for takeoff.

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. For those who celebrate – 新春快乐，恭喜发财！

Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research & Public Policy Strategy Michael Zezas discusses the potential economic outcomes of a shifting North American trade policy.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy. Today – the latest on tariffs and potential outcomes of a shifting North American trade policy. 

It’s Wednesday, February 5, at 10am in New York. 

In a series of last-minute phone calls on Monday, President Trump reached a deal with Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. President Trump agreed to delay the announced 25 percent tariffs on Mexico and Canada for a month – citing their intention to do more on their borders against migration and drug trafficking. But President Trump’s 10 percent tariffs on all Chinese products went into effect yesterday morning. China responded promptly with its own countermeasures, which are not expected to take effect until Monday, February 10, leaving room for potential negotiations. 

These developments don’t come as a surprise. We had been assuming – one – that Canada and Mexico could avoid tariffs by making border concessions, which they did. And – two – that the US would craft a tariff policy related to China independent from its considerations around Mexico and Canada. If the underlying goal is to transform its trade relationship with China, then the US has an interest in preserving an alignment with Canada and Mexico. 

Given all of that, our base case of “fast announcements, slow implementation” looks intact. We expect tariffs on China and some products from Europe to ramp up through the end of the year, putting downward pressure on economic growth into 2026. 

If tariffs on Mexico and Canada are avoided or delayed further, there would be no change to our broader economic outlook. The U.S. dollar could weaken as it prices out some tariff risk. Within U.S. equities, consumer discretionary as well as broader cyclical stocks could lead. 

If, however, we're wrong and tariffs do go up on Mexico and Canada after this one-month pause, then we expect some rise in inflation, growth to slow, and the U.S. dollar and Treasuries to outperform equities; at least for a time as the U.S. gets to work rewiring its global trade relationships. 

Tariffs are likely to dominate news headlines in the days and months to come. We'll keep tracking the topic and bring you updates. 

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our analysts Ariana Salvatore, Stephen Byrd and Devin McDermott discuss President Trump’s four executive orders around energy policy and how they could reshape the sector.

----- Transcript -----

Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Public Policy Strategist.

Stephen Byrd: And I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Head of Research Product for the Americas and Global Head of Sustainability Research.

Devin McDermott: And I'm Devin McDermott, Head of North American Energy Research.

Ariana Salvatore: Our topic today looms large in investors minds. We'll be digging into how the new policies proposed under President Trump's administration will fundamentally reshape energy markets.

It's Tuesday, February 4th at 10am in New York.

On his first day in office, President Trump declared a national energy emergency. He issued four key executive orders, setting out a sweeping plan to maximize oil and gas production. All of this on top of stepping back in tangible ways from the Biden administration's clean energy plans. We think these orders can have a significant impact on the future of energy, one of Morgan Stanley's four key themes for 2025.

So, Stephen, let's start there. One of the biggest questions is which segments of the power and AI theme stand to benefit the most, and which ones will be the most challenged?

Stephen Byrd: Yeah, Ariana, I'd say the two biggest beneficiaries will be natural gas and nuclear, probably in that order. And in terms of challenges, I do think, wind, especially offshore wind, will be quite challenged. So, when I think about natural gas, it's very clear that we have an administration that's very pro natural gas.

And natural gas is also going to need to be part of the power mix for data centers. It's flexible. It could be built relatively quickly. There are a lot of locational options that are perfect here. So, I do think natural gas is a winner.

On nuclear, we do think Republicans broadly, and also many Democrats, firmly support nuclear power. Nuclear is quite helpful, especially for larger data centers or supercomputers. They're large, there's a lot of land at these nuclear plants. And so, I would expect to see some very large data centers built at operational nuclear plants. And we do think the Trump administration will work hard to make that – from a regulatory point of view – make that happen.

I also think we'll see a lot of support at the federal level for new nuclear power plant construction, as well as bringing the U.S. nuclear fuel cycle back to the U.S. So those are a few of the areas that I would expect to do well.

Ariana Salvatore: Devin, same question for you on the energy sector. How are you thinking about the impacts?

Devin McDermott: Yeah, it's a good question, and there's a lot in these executive orders. I mean, some of the key things that we're focused on as impacting the sector include encouraging federal lands development and leasing for oil and gas activity, with a specific focus on Alaska. Resuming LNG permit authorizations, which lifts the ban that's been in place for the last year. Eliminating EV targets, including pausing some IRA funds tied to EVs. Broad support for infrastructure permitting, including pipelines. And then a broader review of environmental regulations, including some recent headlines that point to rolling back fuel efficiency and emission standards for cars and trucks – something that the prior Trump administration did as well.

The near-term financial impact to the industry of all this is fairly limited. But there are two key longer-term considerations. First, on the oil side, rolling back fuel efficiency standards and other environmental regulations doesn't stop the transition to lower carbon alternatives, but it does slow it. And in particular, it moderates the longer-term erosion of gasoline and diesel demand; and creates a backdrop where incumbent energy players have a longer runway to harvest cash from these legacy businesses and time to scale up profitable low carbon growth, which is still progressing, despite the policy changes.

And then second, gas is the biggest winner, building on some of Stephen's comments. The policy initiatives that we're seeing here are likely to support more LNG exports and more gas power generation relative to the status quo.

Ariana Salvatore: So, Devin, one of the things you mentioned there is regulation, and we think that's specifically reflected in this theme of unleashing American energy that Trump likes to talk about. It seems that this would set the stage for looser regulation and more supportive policy for oil and gas development.

Do you expect any meaningful changes in near-term investment levels or production growth across the industry?

Devin McDermott: It's an easy one, Ariana. No. The reality is the majority of U.S. oil and gas investment activity occurs on state or privately held lands. It's regulated at the state level. And the amount of investment that occurs across presidential election cycles really doesn't change all that much. And, in fact, some of the highest growth years ever for the U.S. oil and gas sector occurred under the Obama administration and also the most recent Biden term where production of both commodities actually hit all time highs.

So, when your baseline is things really aren't that bad, it's tough to do much that really accelerates the throttle and causes companies to add more activity or add more oil or gas drilling rigs. And the last thing I just say on this point is the sector is not funding constrained. There's adequate free cash flow; there's adequate investment capacity. And that also is another limiting factor on doing anything that positively influences willingness to spend capital.

In the end, it's really more about price – and where oil prices specifically goes as it relates to oil and gas investment – rather than policy.

Stephen Byrd: So, Ariana, let me move from Devin's thoughts on price back to policy – and if you take a step back, a key question that we often get asked is: Will the President's executive orders be fully implemented? What do you think?

Ariana Salvatore: Well, it's always necessary to frame these policy proposals in terms of their feasibility, right? So, we're still parsing through all of the details of these executive orders. But we already feel higher conviction in some areas over others, where we think the president has clear and present authority to make policy changes.

For example, President Trump can pretty easily unilaterally decide to move away from Biden's clean energy targets, but he's going to have a much harder time rescinding money that has already been appropriated, dispersed, or obligated towards these ends. For example, through the Inflation Reduction Act. We think that process is going to be much longer and likely result in a very targeted repeal as opposed to a broad-based claw back of funds.

Stephen Byrd: Just thinking about sequencing, can you talk more about, sort of, the potential specific sequencing of these policies?

Ariana Salvatore: There are a few different balls in the air right now, so to speak, as we noted in the run up to the inauguration. We expected President Trump to focus first on the areas that are more within his unilateral control as president. So, that really comes down to tariffs and trade policy more broadly, as well as immigration.

I would also put deregulation in that bucket, but more on a sector specific basis. So, as we've talked about, we think there's clear deregulatory tailwinds for the energy sector. It's also clear in financials. But across the board, these are going to have more limited success in the energy complex.

But Stephen, back to you, given everything that we've been talking about, how do you see the future of clean energy, renewables, EVs – all these elements that make up the Inflation Reduction Act and the broader energy transition?

Stephen Byrd: Yeah, as I think about the areas that are most at risk, I think it's very clearly electric vehicles as well as wind power. Both have been, the subject of direct criticism and we would expect a high risk of elimination or reduction of support there. So that will cause some issues. I would say especially offshore wind faces multiple issues and we think the growth outlook is now very challenged.

Now that said, onshore wind is often, for example, done on private land rather than public land, and the economics in many locations for both wind and solar remain quite favorable. And I think a big area of underappreciated upside would be AI itself – in the sense that the hyperscalers have very significant zero carbon emissions goals. So, what we see happening is we think these hyperscalers over time as they build out more and more data centers, which do have very high carbon footprints, we do think these hyperscalers are going to engage in power contracts with new renewable projects. So that is a boost to demand that I think the market is really not well appreciating.

Ariana Salvatore: And finally, let's consider the issue of powering data centers. Devin, you've spoken about your positive outlook for natural gas. Do you think natural gas is going to play a bigger role in powering large U.S. data centers?

Devin McDermott: Yeah, we do, and there's been an uptick in natural gas related announcements as it relates to data center growth in the U.S. over the last few months. And more recently, we've actually seen some very large deals; plus carbon capture which addresses some of the emissions concerns that Stephen was mentioning before – that the hyperscalers have longer term.

It's important to contextualize this, though, with the broader growth backdrop for natural gas. The market here domestically is on the cusp of what we see as a structural growth cycle driven really by two key pillars. The first of which is that rise in LNG exports that I was alluding to before, where we're on track to roughly double U.S. export capacity over the next five years. And the second pillar is power. And power has a lot of different subsets to it. It's onshore manufacturing, it's this broader trend of electrification, like more electric appliances, a little bit from EVs. Some underlying industrial activity growth and then data centers in AI.

So that is meaningful. That's a lot of gas, but there's also a lot more in all the other buckets I talked about.

Ariana Salvatore: Stephen, pivoting back to you, beyond natural gas, how do you see this theme of powering AI developing more broadly under the new Trump energy policies?

Stephen Byrd: Yeah, you know, I think broadly what we see is that a number of debottlenecking technologies are going to become very important. We cannot get enough power for data centers that we need really over the next several years. So, we're going to need to be very creative.

One option will be to build data centers at large nuclear power plants. I think we'll definitely see that. We will also, I think, see converting bitcoin sites into data centers. That's going to be quite popular. And then lastly, I do think electric transmission will see excellent growth. That is certainly one way to try to debottleneck the grid – is to increase the grid itself.

That takes many years, but I do think there will be more and more willpower. Both at the federal and state level to provide incentives for electric transmission. So that's an asset class that's definitely a winner.

Ariana Salvatore: Last question for both of you, Stephen. I know we're going to hear from you in an upcoming episode about the implications of DeepSeek, but just to get a little bit of a sneak peek here. I'd love a quick take on how you're thinking about DeepSeek.

Stephen Byrd: It's really quite jarring in a week to go from a $500 billion U.S. AI plan to a LLM with a reported price tag of just $6 million. I come away bullish on power demand, and let me walk through why that is. You know, I think that as the cost of inference drops, and we're seeing many signs of that – not just DeepSeek, but many other developments. As that happens, the absolute demand for inference compute goes up, and that compute requires a lot of electricity, so I'm quite bullish there.

Also on AI training, I think the market has gotten too negative. I think that what we'll see is continued LLM R&D to go to the next level of capability. And there are at least five U.S. companies who are going to spend in the tens of billions, possibly into the hundreds of billions of dollars each on training the next generation of Large Language Models, which could be much, much more capable than the current generation. So, I'm actually quite bullish on the outlook for power demand from AI.

Ariana Salvatore: Devin?

Devin McDermott: The news drove a big dislocation across the gas value chain and pullback in many exposed stocks. And we think those types of dips are a buying opportunity because the gas setup is constructive or compelling for many reasons. Power is one of them, but you're not paying for power in the stock prices today.

Ariana Salvatore: Stephen, Devin, thanks for taking the time to talk. And to our listeners, thanks 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.

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains why U.S. stocks took a hit that is likely to sustain through the first half of 2025.

----- 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 tariffs, recent developments in AI and what it means for stocks.

It's Monday, Feb 3rd at 11:30am in New York.

So, let’s get after it.

While 2024 was a strong year for many stocks, it was mostly a second half story. With recession fears peaking last summer and a Fed that remained on hold due to still elevated inflation, markets were essentially flat year-to-date in early August.

But then everything changed. The Fed surprised markets with a 50 basis points cut to show its commitment to keeping the economy out of recession. This was followed by better labor data and two more 25 basis points cuts from the Fed. Investors took this as a green light to add more equity to portfolios—the riskier the better. 

It also became clear to markets and many observers that President Trump was likely going to win the election, with a rising chance of a Republican sweep in Congress. Given the more pro-growth agenda proposed by candidate Trump and his track record during his first term as President, he made investors even more bullish. Finally, given all the concern about a hung election, the fact that we got such definitive results on election night only added fuel to the equation. Hedges were swiftly removed and even reversed to long positions as both asset managers and retail investors chased performance for fear of falling behind, or missing out. 

In October, I suggested the S&P 500 would likely trade to 6100 on a clean election outcome. After promptly hitting that level in early December, stocks had a very weak month to finish the year with deteriorating breadth. The S&P 500 started the year soft before rallying sharply into inauguration day, essentially re-testing that 6100 level once again. The difference this time is that the re-test occurred on much lower breadth with high quality resuming its leadership role. Tariffs were always on the agenda, as was immigration enforcement, both of which are growth negative in the short-term.

In my view, investors simply got complacent about these risks and are now dealing with them in real time. This also fits with our view that the first half of the year was likely to be tougher for stocks as equity negative policies would be implemented immediately before the equity positive policies like de-regulation, tax extensions and reduced government spending had time to play out in the form of less crowding out and lower interest rates.

At the Index level, I expect the S&P 500 to trade in a range between 5500 to 6100 for the next 3 to 6 months, with our fourth quarter price target at 6500 remaining intact. Since we have been expecting tariffs to be implemented, this realization only furthers our preference for consumer services over goods. It also supports our preference for financials and other domestically geared businesses that have limited currency or trade exposures. 

In addition to rising political uncertainty, we also saw the release of DeepSeek’s latest AI chat bot last week. This added another level of uncertainty for investors that could have lasting implications at both the stock and index level given the importance of this investment theme. On one hand it could also accelerate the adoption of AI technologies if it truly lowers the cost – but many portfolios will need to adjust for this shift if that’s the case. We think it further supports our ongoing preference for software and media over semiconductors. 

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Morgan Stanley Research analysts Michelle Weaver, Chris Snyder and Nik Lippmann discuss U.S.-Mexico trade and the future of reshoring and near-shoring under the Trump administration.

----- Transcript -----

Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist at Morgan Stanley.

Christopher Snyder: I’m Chris Snyder, US Multi-Industry Analyst.

Nikolaj Lippmann: And I'm Nik Lippmann, Chief Latin America Equity Strategist.

Michelle Weaver: On this episode of our special mini-series covering Big Debates, we'll talk about the U.S.-Mexico trade relationship and the key issues around reshoring and nearshoring.

It's Friday, January 31st at 10am in New York.

The imposition of tariffs back in 2018 under the first Trump administration and the COVID pandemic put a severe strain on global supply chains and catalyzed reshoring and nearshoring in North America. But with inflation and supply chain concerns no longer front and center, investors are questioning whether the U.S. reshoring momentum can continue.

Chris, what's your view here?

Christopher Snyder: I think it's in the very early innings. You know, if you look at the history of U.S. manufacturing, the country really started ceding share in about 2000 when China joined the World Trade Organization. So, it's been going on for 25 years; we've been giving share back to the world. I think the process of taking share back is probably slower and ultimately is a multi-decade opportunity.

But you're absolutely right. The supply chain concerns are no longer like they were three to four years ago. But what I think has persevered since the pandemic is this heightened focus on operational durability and resiliency; and really shortening supply chains and getting closer to the end user, which I'm sure we'll hear more from Nick about, on the Mexico side.

But, you know, if you kind of look back at global supply chains and manufacturing, it's really been a chase to find low-cost labor for the last 45 years. And while that's always important, we think going forward, capital and proximity to end users will increasingly dictate that regional allocation of CapEx. I mean, those parameters are very supportive for the U. S.

You know, one thing I would like to kind of, you know, make sure is known on our U.S. reshoring view is that, you know, oftentimes it's thought of that we're shutting down a factory in China and reopening the same factory in the United States, and that's really a very rare example.

Our view is that the world, and very specific industries need to add capacity. And we just simply think that the U.S. is better positioned to get that incremental factory relative to any point in the last 45 years, due to the combination of structural tech diffusion, but also this focus on resiliency. And one thing that I really do think is underappreciated is that global manufacturing grows 4 to 5 per cent a year. In the U.S. it's been more in the 1 to 2 percent range because we're constantly ceding share. But even if the U.S. just stops giving back share, you could see the growth profile of U.S. industrials double.

Michelle Weaver: How would you size the reshoring opportunity? Do you have a dollar amount on what that could be worth?

Christopher Snyder: Yeah, we’ve sized it at $10 trillion. You know, and it's been a combination of the CapEx, the fixed asset investment that's needed to build these factories, then ultimately the production, you know, opportunity that will come to those factories thereafter.

Michelle Weaver: And you've argued that the U.S. reshoring flame was really lit in 2018 with the first wave of the Trump tariffs. It seems clear that trade policies by the new administration will continue to support reshoring. What's your outlook there?

Christopher Snyder: Yeah, you're absolutely right. Prior to 2018, there wasn't really a thought process. If you need an incremental factory, you most likely just put it in China. And I think the tariffs, back in 2018 or [20]19 really started, or kickstarted boardroom conversations around global supply chains. So, I think a Trump presidency absolutely adds duration to this theme via protectionism or tariffs that the administration will implement.

If you go back to the Trump 1.0 tariffs, supply chains reacted to the change in cost structures very quickly. We didn't see a huge wave of investment back into the United States. We just saw production exit China and move to broader Asia, because the focus was tariff avoidance.

Now, we think the focus is around building operational, resiliency and durability which better positions the U.S. to get that incremental factory. And one thing that I think is underappreciated here is just how much leverage U.S. politicians have. The U.S. is the best demand region in the world. The U.S. accounts for about 30 per cent of global goods consumption. That's equal to the E.U. and China combined. It's also the best margin region in the world, not only for U.S. companies; but most international companies do their best margins in the United States. So, you can raise the cost to serve the U.S. market, and no one is turning away from the region that has the best demand and the best margins.

Michelle Weaver: So, of course, tariffs in the pandemic have been major catalysts for U.S. reshoring. Have there been any other drivers like tech diffusion?

Christopher Snyder: Yeah. I view the pandemic as the catalyst, and I view tech diffusion as the structural tailwind for U.S. manufacturing. Over time, we will continue to figure out ways to squeeze labor out of the manufacturing cost profile. It's hard to kind of pinpoint it, but I think if we look out over any 5- or 10-year window, we will see that. That's a structural talent for the United States, given the high labor costs. And really what it will help do is just narrow the cost delta, between low cost producing regions. I also think as we kind of extend this tech diffusion into GenAI; I also think what's going on is, will fuel another round of protectionism. So, you know, kind of further keeping that cycle going.

Michelle Weaver: Nick, of course the big question investors are asking is how will the Trump trade agenda impact Mexico? Contrary to the prevailing market view, you've argued that Mexico can actually win big with Trump. How's this possible?

Nikolaj Lippmann: That's right, Michelle. Look, we recently upgraded Mexico to equal weight, from underweight. And while some of the news we see around the administration seems a bit like a sequel, there are other things that are just very different.

We're not talking about ripping apart the USMCA but actually bringing forward renegotiations from [20]26 to [20]25. It's a much more constructive message. It's a very young deal, and yet I think the world we live in today is quite different from the world of 2018. When we look at what are some of the things where Mexico could actually end up winning big, we look at the regionalism that appears to be a number one agenda.

We look at the – how difficult it would be for the United States to de-risk from China. And from Mexico simultaneously. And also, fundamentally at that integration across the border, the industrial integration. It's clear that there's a need for calibration. There's a need for calibration in terms of a lot of the trade policy. There's been talks about maybe a customs union and I think that's far out in the future. But there's a need to try to figure out how to calibrate trade. And also, you know, there are things that Mexican policy makers can do to deal with the non-trade related issues, such as immigration or the cartels. And I think frankly, it's in Mexico's interest to deal with some of these issues.

Michelle Weaver: Where are we in the whole Mexico as a China bridge versus China buffer debate?

Nikolaj Lippmann: Right. That's another good question, Michelle. And one thing that we've been writing a lot about. The key difference from where we were, in Trump 1.0 and now is just how different the relationship with China really is. And I think one area where we've been scratching our head a little bit with regards to the – how Mexican policymakers have reacted after signing the USMCA deal is really just around that. That relationship with China. Well, I think that might have – they might have misread or underestimated just how much times have changed.

We've seen a big increase in import from China. There have been very specific manufacturing ecosystems. And we've also seen increased investments by China and Mexico. Now, this has caused Mexico's trade deficit with China to go up a lot – almost double. And we've also seen an increase in the trade deficit between Mexico and the United States, in Mexico's favor.

Now, that could imply that it's all the China bridge, I think that's far from the truth. But, you know, Mexico is probably two-third or a little more above. It's really that integration that I think policy makers in Mexico need to understand. And then you need to manage that these emerging elements of being a bridge. This is not in Mexico's interest; it's not in the U.S. interest to simply just be a bridge.

We have done a lot of surveys with corporates around the world; and the way the European, and American companies in particular view Mexico is completely different from the way Asian and in particular Chinese companies view Mexico. The Chinese companies view Mexico much more as a place of assembly – whereas Americans think of Mexico as an integrated part of the manufacturing value chain.

Michelle Weaver: Finally, how will the Mexico nearshoring theme develop from here?

Nikolaj Lippmann: This is a great debate, I think. And one that's going to be – I think we're going to be writing a lot with Chris about, and with you guys around, about. Also, with the U.S. policy team. We laid out in 2022 this hypothesis that onshoring, nearshoring was about to happen. In terms of Mexico, it would imply $150 billion over five years. And very importantly, it was going to be – it could happen so fast because it was brownfield.

It was more to the same. Where you already had manufacturing ecosystems, you could add to that. We saw very little evidence that you could do greenfield. But now that the world has evolved, we're looking at some of these greenfield manufacturing ecosystems that are really not present in North America, not in the United States, not in Canada, not in Mexico, such as EV batteries or IT hardware, some of the things that are starting to emerge around the big chip investments.

And we're wondering what are going to be the policy objectives pertaining to these very specific manufacturing ecosystems that in many cases are quite important for national security. If that is to happen, I think it's going to happen slower, much like what Chris laid out, but it's going to be much more impactful. So, I'm sure we're going to be working closely on these debates.

Michelle Weaver: Nick, Chris, thank you for taking the time to talk. And to our listeners, thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen to the show and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Head of Fixed Income and Public Policy Research, Michael Zezas, and Global Head of Macro Strategy, Matt Hornbach, discuss how the Trump administration’s fiscal policies could impact Treasuries markets.

----- Transcript -----

Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Public Policy Research.

Matthew Hornbach: And I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy.

Michael Zezas: Today, we'll talk about U.S. fiscal policy expectations under the new Trump administration and the path for U.S. Treasury yields.

It's Thursday, January 30th at 10am in New York.

Fiscal policy is one of the four key channels that have a major impact on markets. And I want to get into the outlook for the broader path for fiscal policy under the new administration. But Matt, let's start with your initial take on this week's FOMC meeting.

Matthew Hornbach: So, investors came into the FOMC meeting this week with a view that they were going to hear a message from Chair Powell that sounded very similar to the message they heard from him in December. And I think that was largely the outcome. In other words, investors got what they expected out of this FOMC meeting. What did it say about the chance the Fed would lower interest rates again as soon as the March FOMC meeting? I think in that respect investors walked away with the message that the Fed’s baseline view for the path of monetary policy probably did not include a reduction of the policy rate at the March FOMC meeting. But that there was a lot of data to take on board between now and that meeting. And, of course, the Fed as ever remains data dependent.

All of that said, the year ahead for markets will rely on more than just Fed policy. Fiscal policy may feature just as prominently. But during the first week of Trump's presidency, we didn't get much signaling around the president's fiscal policy intentions. There are plenty of key issues to discuss as we anticipate more details from the new administration.

So, Mike, to set the scene here. What is the government's budget baseline at the start of Trump's second term? And what are the president's priorities in terms of fiscal policies?

Michael Zezas: You know, I think the real big variable here is the set of tax cuts that expire at the end of 2025. These were tax cuts originally passed in President Trump's first term. And if they're allowed to expire, then the budget baseline would show that the deficit would be about $100 billion smaller next year.

If instead the tax cuts are extended and then President Trump were able to get a couple more items on top of that – say, for example, lifting the cap on state and local tax deduction and creating a domestic manufacturing tax credit; two things that we think are well within the consensus of Republicans, even with their slim majority – then the deficit impact swings from a contraction to something like a couple hundred billion dollars of deficit expansion next year. So, there's meaningful variance there.

And Matt, we've got 10-year Treasury yields hovering near highs that we haven't seen since before the global financial crisis around 10 years ago. And yields are up around a full percentage point since September. So, what's going on here and to what extent is the debate on the deficit influential?

Matthew Hornbach: Well, I think we have to consider a couple of factors. The deficit certainly being one of them, but people have been discussing deficits for a long time now. It's certainly news to no one that the deficit has grown quite substantially over the past several years. And most investors expect that the deficit will continue to grow. So, concerns around the deficit are definitely a factor and in particular how those deficits create more government bonds supply. The U.S. Treasury, of course, is in charge of determining exactly how much government bond supply ends up hitting the marketplace.

But it's important to note that the incoming U.S. Treasury secretary has been on the record as suggesting that lower deficits relative to the size of the economy are desired. Taking the deficit to GDP ratio from its current 7 per cent to 3 per cent over the next four years is desirable, according to the incoming Treasury secretary. So, I think it is far from conclusive that deficits are only heading in one direction. They may very well stabilize, and investors will eventually need to come to terms with that possibility.

The other factor I think that's going on in the Treasury market today relates to the calendar. Effectively we have just gone through the end of the year. It's typically a time when investors pull back from active investment, but not every investor pulls back from actively investing in the market. And in particular, there is a consortium of investors that trade with more of a momentum bias that saw yields moving higher and invested in that direction; that, of course, exacerbated the move.

And of course, this was all occurring ahead of a very important event, which was the inauguration of President Trump. There was a lot of concern amongst investors about exactly what the executive orders would entail for key issues like trade policy. And so there was, I think, a buyer's strike in the government bond market really until we got past the inauguration.

So, Mike, with that background, can you help investors understand the process by which legislation and its deficit impact will be decided? Are there signposts to pay attention to? Perhaps people and processes to watch?

Michael Zezas: Yeah, so the starting point here is Republicans have very slim majorities in the House of Representatives and the Senate. And extending these tax cuts in the way Republicans want to do it probably means they won't get enough Democratic votes to cross the aisle in the Senate to avoid a filibuster.

So, you have to use this process called budget reconciliation to pass things with a simple majority. That's important because the first step here is determining how much of an expected deficit expansion that Republicans are willing to accept. So, procedurally then, what you can expect from here, is the House of Representatives take the first step – probably by the end of May. And then the Senate will decide what level of deficit expansion they're comfortable with – which then means really in the fall we'll find out what tax provisions are in, which ones are out, and then ultimately what the budget impact would be in 2026.

But because of that, it means that between here and the fall, many different fiscal outcomes will seem very likely, even if ultimately our base case, which is an extension of the TCJA with a couple of extra provisions, is what actually comes true.

And given that, Matt, would you say that this type of confusion in the near term might also translate into some variance in Treasury yields along the way to ultimately what you think the end point for the year is, which is lower yields from here?

Matthew Hornbach: Absolutely. There's such a focus amongst investors on the fiscal policy outlook that any volatility in the negotiation process will almost certainly show up in Treasury yields over time.

Michael Zezas: Got it.

Matthew Hornbach: On that note, Mike, one more question, if I may. Could you walk me through the important upcoming dates for Congress that could shed light on the willingness or ability to expand the deficit further?

Michael Zezas: Yeah, so I'd pay attention to this March 14th deadline for extending stopgap appropriations because there will likely be a lot of chatter amongst Congressional Republicans about fiscal expectations. And it's the type of thing that could feed into some of the volatility and perception that you talked about, which might move markets in the meantime.

I still think most of the signal we have to wait for here is around the reconciliation process, around what the Senate might say over the summer. And then probably most importantly, the negotiation in the fall about ultimately what taxes will be passed, what that deficit impact will be. And then there's this other variable around tariffs, which can also create an offsetting impact on any deficit expansion.

So still a lot to play for despite that near term deadline, which might give us a little bit of information and might influence markets on a near term basis.

Matthew Hornbach: Great. Well Mike, thanks for taking the time to talk.

Michael Zezas: Matt, great speaking with you. And as a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Head of Corporate Credit Research and Head of Retail Consumer Credit discuss what choppy demand and tariff risk could mean for sectors that depend on consumer spending.

----- Transcript -----

Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.

Jenna Gianelli: I’m Jenna Gianelli, Head of Retail Consumer Credit, here at Morgan Stanley.

Andrew Sheets: And today on this episode, we're going to discuss the outlook for the retail and consumer sectors.

It’s Wednesday, Jan 29th at 9 am in New York.

So, Jenna, it's great to talk with you, and it's really great to talk about the retail and consumer sectors heading into 2025, because it's such an important part of the investor debate. On the one hand, a lot of economic data in the U.S. seems strong, including a very low unemployment rate. And yet, we’re also hearing a lot about cost-of-living pressures on consumers, lower consumer confidence, and investor concern that the consumer is just not going to be able to hold up in this higher rate environment. And then you can layer on uncertainty from the new administration. Will we see tariffs? How large will they be? And how will retailers, which often import a lot of their goods, handle those changes?

So, maybe just kind of starting off at a 40, 000-foot view, how are you thinking about consumer dynamics going into 2025?

Jenna Gianelli: Of course. So, I think that that choppy consumer demand environment is actually one of the strongest pillars of our more cautious view, going into next year. How the sector, performed last year was not in tandem with kind of what the macro headlines suggested. The macro headlines were quite positive, and the consumer was, you know, seemingly strong. But there was a lot going on under the hood when you looked at different dichotomies, right? So, if you looked at the high-end versus the low-end, if you looked at goods versus services. And then within, you know, certain categories, there were categories that were, you know, really quite strong based on what the consumer was prioritizing – goods, essentials, personal care, beauty, right? And then there were others that they really shied away from.

So, I think what we're going to see in 2025 is quite a bit more of that. When we think that the high-end will continue to be resilient, that pressure on the low-income consumer will continue. But actually moderate potentially as into [20]25, as we think about lower interest rates, potentially, you know, lesser immigration and so less competition for jobs at the lower income level. So maybe even some tailwinds, but it's really an alleviation of pressure and easier compares. But we do expect overall some deceleration, right? Because we had a lot of pent-up demand, especially on the high-end.

So, we are expecting services, demand to slow, in 2025 and goods actually to hold up relatively well. So, we really are focused on what's going on at the individual category level and the different types of consumers that we're looking at.

Andrew Sheets: And as you think about some of those, you know, subcategories that you, you cover, maybe just a minute on a couple that you think will perform the best over this year and some that you think might face the biggest challenges.

Jenna Gianelli: There are some that have been under relative pressure, in [20]23 and [20]24 where we might actually see some, you know, relief. Now, depending on the direction of rates in the housing market, we could see and expect to see an uptick in bigger ticket spending, durables, home related, that have been under, you know, some pressure.

And also, you know, categories where, you know, the consumer, they're arguably discretionary. But maybe they pulled back because there was a big surge in demand just post-COVID. Pet in our universe is actually one example of those, where it's been a bit depressed and we actually expect to see, you know, some recovery into next year; also tied to housing right as new house formation starts.

So, but again, a lot of that is predicated on the, you know, housing direction of rates and some of these other macro factors. I'd say, irrespective of the more macro influences, we do still expect that essentials – grocery, and certain categories like a beauty, pockets of apparel and brands, right? It really comes down to the brands, the brand heat, the brand relevance. If it's relevant to the consumer, they're going to spend on it. And so, that's where we really focus on the micro level; our picks of which brands are resonating, which categories are resonating. Which is, those are some of the, you know, the few that we're expecting, either a recovery in or still, you know, relative, outperformance.

I'd say on the laggard side, which is probably the next piece of that question. I mean, look, there's still a lot of secular headwinds at play. And so, you know, from a department store perspective outside of event risk or idiosyncratic risk, we're still generally expecting department stores and kind of traditional specialty apparel, mall-based, with not a lot of channel diversification to still generally underperform and see similar trends they've seen the last few years.

Andrew Sheets: So, Jenna, your sector is sitting at the center of this kind of very interesting economic debate over how healthy the consumer really is. And, you know, it's also sitting at the center of the policy debate because tariffs are a dynamic that could dramatically affect retailers depending on how large they are and how they're implemented.

So how do you think about tariff risk? And can you give some sense of how you think about exposure of your sector to those dynamics?

Jenna Gianelli: So, tariffs and policy risk and the uncertainty, is one of the big reasons. And when we think about, you know, retail – and particularly discretionary retail – why we're more cautious on the space into [20]25. Tariffs is the biggest piece of that. The degrees of exposure across our universe, varying degrees to a very wide range, right? So, we have some that are minimal, you know, let's say 5 per cent out of, you know, China sourcing some up to 70 per cent out of China sourcing. And then you layer in, well, what about goods from Canada and Mexico and what if there's a universal tariff?

And so, the range of outcomes, is, you know, so significant. And so, what we are advocating to investors is that we go in with the expectation that tariffs are a – an uncertain, but certain threat, right? And not completely minimizing them within a portfolio but reducing the ones that do tend to have those higher, you know, exposures.

I'd say the range from when we stress tested the earnings headwinds potential. I mean, it was anything from call it down 10 per cent EBITDA to down 60-70 per cent EBITDA in the most draconian scenarios. And so, I think taking a very prudent approach, assuming that there will be some level of tariffs phased in, you know; if we look back to the 2018 timeframe – different sets of goods, different times, different rates and go from there.

Andrew Sheets: So, Jenna, we've talked about the economy. We've talked about some of the policy and tariff risk potentially impacting consumer and retail. You know, a third really key strategic theme for us is more corporate activity, more M&A. And again, I think this is where your sector is so interesting because you were already kind of in the center of some of these debates, last year with corporate activity.

So, can you talk a little bit about how you see that? And again, you also have this interesting dynamic that some of the targets of M&A activity in your sector were some of the businesses that were kind of struggling, that were kind of seen as some of these laggards. And so how does that just represent different investor views of their prospects? How do you think people should think about that going forward?

Jenna Gianelli: So, look, I think M&A could have positive risk for 2025 and also negative risk for some of our companies. And it really depends, at least from a credit perspective, how we think about some of their indentures and bond language and likelihood of pro forma capital structures.

But I think without getting, you know, too deep into that, our expectation is that M&A will increase. We know that there is private equity capital on the sidelines to the extent that rates, even if we're in a little bit of a higher for longer, if the expectation is that we do on the year [20]25 in a slightly lower regime, at least we have some stability or visibility on the rate front. Which should, you know, spur more corporate activity.

And then also, I think, look, just equity valuations, right? I mean, our universe, particularly when you think about – the size of the equity check that you need to come in at and the valuations are a bit cheaper because across our universe, we did see some underperformance last year.

So, I think those are the kind of main drivers of why we'll see the activity pick up on the underperforming pieces of the space. There are still pockets of value that I think private equity sponsors are seeing. The ones that have come up most notably are real estate, right? And, you know, we saw…

Andrew Sheets: Because these retailers often own a large…

Jenna Gianelli: Many of the department stores own a significant amount of their real estate. 20, 20, 40, 50 per cent depending on your, you know, assumptions and how you value this real estate. But even with conservative LTV assumptions, there is lending capability here. And I think so that's, you know, one piece of it, those that have multi-banner assets that appeal to different consumer cohorts, that have maybe a solid private label portfolio.

When you think about intellectual property, there are real assets, for certain retailers. And so, I think that's what, you know, private equity historically has seen as the play. Now, how that manifests throughout the space? You know, from an LBO perspective; I do still think that getting a really large LBO for a traditional, you know, mature type of retailer could be challenging, but there are creative ways to get these deals done.

And again, I think because of what we have is some legacy indentures, traditional, more investment grade style capital structures, there might be flexibility to approach, you know, LBOs in a more creative way – without having to access the capital markets in such a big way as maybe you would traditionally think.

Andrew Sheets: And so, this would be examples of private equity firms coming in, doing an LBO or a leveraged buyout where you can actually almost take advantage of the borrowing that company has already done in the market…

Jenna Gianelli: Yes. Keep the debt outstanding.

Andrew Sheets: ... at attractive levels.

Jenna Gianelli: Exactly. Exactly.

Andrew Sheets: So, Jenna, it's so great to talk to you. Well, it's always great to talk to you, but it's so great to talk to you now because I do think, you know, as we, we look into 2025, I think there's always a lot of focus on, you know, the direction of markets, you know. Will rates go up or down? Will equities go up or down? But I think what's so clear talking to you about your sector is that there are all these themes that are really about dispersion. That we see, you know, really different trends by the type of consumer segment and sub segment; that we see very different trends by how exposed companies are to tariffs, right? You mentioned anything from, your earnings could be down 10 per cent to 60 per cent. And, you know, very different dynamics, you know, winners and losers from M&A.

And so, I do think it just highlights that this is a year where, from the strategy side, we think spreads are kind of more range bound. But there does seem to be a lot of dispersion within the sector. And there seems like, well, there's going to be plenty that's going to keep you busy.

Jenna Gianelli: I hope so.

Andrew Sheets: Great. Jenna, thanks for taking the time to talk.

Jena Gianelli: Thank you, Andrew.

Andrew Sheets: Great. And thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Head of Fixed Income and Public Policy Research Michael Zezas and Chief Asia Economist Chetan Ahya discuss the potential impact of U.S. tariffs in China and beyond.

----- Transcript -----

Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Public Policy Research.

Chetan Ahya: And I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia Economist.

Michael Zezas: Today, we'll talk about what U.S. tariffs would mean for Asia's economy.

It's Tuesday, January 28th at 8am in New York.

Chetan Ahya: And 9pm in Hong Kong.

Michael Zezas: Chetan, a week into the new Trump administration, I'm eager to talk tariffs with you. You and I came on the show before the U.S. election to discuss the potential impact of new tariff policies on China's economy in particular. And now that President Trump has taken office, he's been vocal about levying tariffs in a lot of places, including on China. The policy underpinning all of that appears to be a tariff review under the America First Trade Policy. That suggests to us that he's developing options to impose tariffs with China as a focus, but there's still time before implementation -- as these legal options are developed. That's in line with our base case; but investors have been talking a lot about the idea that maybe these tariffs never go on.

What's your view here? And why do you think ultimately we are headed to a place where tariffs go higher?

Chetan Ahya: Well, I think if you just look at the press comments that the president has made at the same time, if you read through this America First document, we sort of think that there are five avenues under which tariffs can go up on China.

Number one is the recommendation from the America First policy document that the agencies in the U.S. will have to study how the large trade partners, which are running trade surpluses with the U.S. are managing their trade practices. Number two, a para in the America First document, which is suggesting that the trade agreements that US and China signed in 2018-19, how is China dealing with the commitments under that agreement?

And number three is the clause which is currently exempting imports into the U.S. under [the] de minimis rule of imports under U.S. $800 per bill being allowed to import without any tariffs being imposed. And what the document is suggesting is to assess what is the potential revenue loss occurring to the government, and how can they plug that. Number four is a potential tariff action with the sale of a social media company. And number five, a potential tariff action which is linked to the fentanyl issue.

So, as you can see, there are a number of avenues under which tariffs can go up on China and therefore we kind of keep that in our base case that tariffs will go up on China.

And Mike, some investors are also optimistic and thinking that there is a possibility of a new trade deal being taken up by U.S. and China. What do you think are the chances of that?

Michael Zezas: I think they're quite low. So, you mentioned five areas of potential dispute that the U.S. might want to use tariffs as a way of dealing with -- and I think that speaks to the idea that the bar is pretty high for China to avoid tariffs relative to some of the other negotiations the U.S. wants to engage in with other trade partners. Or maybe said differently, if the America First Trade Policy is pointing the U.S. at closing goods, trades, deficits, and improving security and making sure that it's not engaged with trade with other countries that are harming national security -- it seems that there are more of those activities going on between the U.S. and China than with other trade partners. Closing, for example, a $300 billion goods trades deficit would seem to be just really, really difficult within the structures of the economy.

So, if we're right, and the chance of tariff de escalation with China appears to be slim, do you think Beijing, for example, might use renminbi depreciation to mitigate some of those economic risks?

Chetan Ahya: Well, yes, we do think that China’s policymakers will allow depreciation in [renminbi] when tariffs are being imposed. However, we also think that the depreciation this time that they will allow will be less than what they did in 2018-19. And China has already been facing some capital outflows; and allowing a large depreciation could bring self fulfilling situation of more capital outflows and even sharper currency depreciation pressures.

Michael Zezas: Beijing also started introducing stimulus measures last fall to boost the Chinese economy. Would tariffs disrupt this policy?

Chetan Ahya: Certainly in our base case, despite the policy stimulus measures that China is taking, we think that overall growth in China will be lower in 2025 meaningfully. And more importantly in our view, China’s biggest challenge is deflation and tariffs will only exacerbate deflationary pressures.

Michael Zezas: And so, we're talking a lot about China here, but obviously there's a risk of tariffs being applied to a broader set of U.S. trading partners in Asia. Now that's not our base case. We think ultimately the focus will be on China because a lot of those trading partners will be able to come to agreements with the U.S. to limit potential future tariffs; but of course, there's a considerable risk that we're wrong. As we mentioned this America First Trade Policy is developing a wide range of options to levy tariffs across multiple geographies and multiple products. So, if that were to come to pass, Chetan, what is it that other Asian governments might be able to do to mitigate the impact from higher tariffs?

Chetan Ahya: First of all, this will be significantly negative for region's growth outlook. And there are two ways in which [the] region will get impacted. Firstly, because of the fact that China will be facing tariffs and China's growth will slow down, it will also have spillover effects for the rest of the region. At the same time, as you mentioned, there is a possibility that there are bilateral disputes opened up with other economies in the region. And so that will also add to the downside pressure for [the] region's growth.

In terms of what they can do to offset this downside; we think that region's central bank will take up monetary easing and at the same time the governments will expand their fiscal deficit. But both of those measures will not be enough to fully offset the downside from tariff increase.

Michael Zezas: Makes sense. Chetan, thanks for taking the time to talk.

Chetan Ahya: Great speaking with you Mike.

Michael Zezas: And as a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Morgan Stanley Research looks at how the European defense industry might respond to military spending pressure from the Trump administration.

----- Transcript -----

Paul Walsh: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's Head of Europe Product.

Ross Law: And I'm Ross Law, Head of the European Aerospace and Defense Team.

Paul Walsh: Today, we're discussing the outlook for European defense amid renewed pressure for more military spending from the Trump administration.

It's Monday, the 27th of January, at 9.30am in London.

Now Ross, the new Trump administration is now in place, and shifting NATO's defense burden to Europe is a top priority for President Trump. In fact, President Trump has made several comments throughout his campaign and after taking office. He has suggested that Europe should increase defense spending to 5 per cent of GDP. And just for reference, right now, many European countries are at or above NATO's target of spending 2 per cent of GDP on defense.

What's your reaction? Are President Trump's demands of 5 percent realistic?

Ross Law: In short, we don't think so. In a perfect world, yes, 5 per cent is exactly where Europe should be, to make up for the huge underspend that we've seen over the past three decades since the end of the Cold War, which we've calculated at around the $2 trillion mark. There's also a desire in Europe to reduce its reliance on the US, particularly under a Trump presidency. But we see the 5 per cent spending level as unrealistic on multiple fronts.

Firstly, from an economic perspective, given the lack of fiscal headroom in Europe; and for reference, 5 per cent would require an additional $600 billion of spend annually. Secondly, from a political perspective, given multiple pockets of uncertainty, and the fact that a rise in defense spending may mean a cut to spending elsewhere. And lastly, from an industry perspective, given the multi-decade underspend I mentioned, we don't think the industry could absorb anywhere close to such a strong increase in demand, at least near-term.

So, while we do see upside pressure to European defense spending, our base case is that 3 per cent could be a more reasonable target. Not only would this be a compromise between the current 2 per cent target and Trump's 5 per cent demands; it would also allow Europe to match the spending levels of the US, which is expected at around 3.1 per cent in 2024. Even still, this would represent a 50 per cent increase or around $200 billion per year in additional European spent. This would, of course, further improve industry fundamentals and why we remain very positive on the sector.

Paul Walsh: And as of now, Europe is heavily dependent on the U.S. for its defense. According to various data sources, more than 50 per cent of European arms imports came from the U.S. in 2019 through 2023, and that's up from 35 per cent in 2014. Given this, what steps would Europe need to take to reduce its dependence on the U.S.?

Ross Law: The first step is to invest in the defense industrial base. Europe buys equipment from the U.S. for several reasons. Firstly, because the U.S. develops some of the most advanced technologies in the world because it has consistently invested in its defense industry. Secondly, because the U.S. equipment is often cheaper due to the benefits of scale. And thirdly, because it supports the very unique relationship between Europe and the U.S., which has essentially provided a security umbrella for the past three decades.

So, Europe needs to invest, both to develop capabilities and technologies to rival U.S. peers, and also to expand capacity so that we can meet our own equipment needs. This, of course, all requires investment and also time. So, Europe will remain reliant on the U.S. for many years to come. But if Europe is serious about wanting to be more sovereign, we need a more capable defense industry.

Paul Walsh: So, you talked there, Ross, about investment and time. So now the big question, how would Europe fund this upward pressure on defense budgets?

Ross Law: Well, this is the million-dollar question, or the 200-billion-dollar question, you might say. Unfortunately, this is part of the equation that is, so far, most unclear – and the basis for an ongoing series of reports we've entitled the “European Defense Dilemma” – essentially the very clear need to spend more on defense, but no clear way to fund it. So far, we've seen some creative ways to fund near-term spending plans, from off balance sheet special funds like in Germany, to using the interest received on frozen Russian assets.

But these, in our view, all seem fairly temporary in nature. What we really need is structural change, and that requires political commitment. Clearly, there is a lot of political change happening right now in Europe. Germany is holding an election in a few weeks time. France doesn't yet have a budget. There's also fiscal issues here in the UK. But we're hoping that 2025 is the year in which we may get clearer political commitments to longer-term structural improvements in defense spending. The German election is a clear near-term catalyst for us, where the raising of the debt break may in part be used to fund higher defense spending. But we're also looking to the upcoming NATO summit in June as an opportunity to officially increase the NATO spending target, we think potentially to 3 per cent, to support a more structural increase in European defense spending.

Paul Walsh: In light of all of this, what's your outlook for the European defense industry?

Ross Law: We remain bullish. In fact, we turned even more bullish as part of our 2025 outlook published earlier this month. The pressure to raise spending even to 3 per cent of GDP should progressively benefit industry fundamentals.

So, we see upside to both forecasts. Given these are currently premised on a 2 per cent of GDP assumption, as well as devaluation multiples, which we view today as very attractive, with the sector trading in line with this long-term average – despite the improving fundamentals I've just described.

Paul Walsh: And finally, Ross, what developments if any might change your outlook?

Ross Law: The key for us this year is seeing clear political commitments from governments on more structural increases in spending. So, we're going to be watching the German election and the outcome of the French budgetary process very carefully. It's unlikely to be plain sailing. There was a media article published just this morning suggesting the UK government may be unwilling to raise spending beyond the current 2.3 per cent level. But we are hoping that as a whole 2025 sees Europe make a stronger commitment to defending itself.

Paul Walsh: Ross, fascinating as always. Thanks for taking the time to talk.

Ross Law: Great speaking with you Paul.

Paul Walsh: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy thoughts on the market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets argues that while investor hopes are running high, corporate confidence isn’t.

----- Transcript -----

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 optimism, how we measure it, whether it’s overly excessive and what lies ahead. 

It's Friday January 24th at 2pm in London. 

A central tenet of investing, including credit investing, is to be on the lookout for excessive optimism. By definition, the highest prices in a market cycle will happen when people are the most convinced that only great things lie ahead. The lowest prices, when you’d love to buy, happen when investors have given up all hope. 

But identifying peak optimism, in real time, is tricky. It’s tricky because there is no generally agreed definition; and it's tricky because, sometimes, things just are good. Investors have been excited about the US Technology sector for more than a decade now. And yet this sector has managed to deliver extraordinary profit growth over this time – and extraordinarily good returns. 

Yet this debate does feel relevant. The US equity market has soared over 50 per cent in the last two years. Equity valuations are historically high, both outright and relative to bonds. Credit risk premiums are near 20-year lows. Speculative investor activity is increasing. And so, have we finally hit peak optimism, a level from which we can go no further? 

Our answer, for better or worse, is no. While we think investor optimism is elevated, corporate optimism is not. And corporations are really important in this debate, enjoying enormous financial resources that can invest in the economy or other companies. While we do think corporate confidence will pick up, it is going to take some time. 

One of our favorite measures of corporate confidence is merger and acquisition activity. Buying another company is one of the riskiest things management can do, making it a great proxy for underlying corporate confidence. Volumes of this type of activity rose about 25 per cent last year, but they are still well below historical averages. And it would be really unusual for a major market cycle to end without this sort of activity being above-trend. 

Another metric is the riskiness of new borrowing. Taking on new debt is another measure of corporate confidence, as you generally do something like this when you feel good about the future, and your ability to pay that debt off. But for the last three years the volume of low-rated debt in the US market has actually been shrinking, while the issuance of the riskiest grades of corporate borrowing is also down significantly from the 2017-2022 average. Again, these are not the types of trends you’d expect with excessive corporate optimism. 

Uncertainties around tariffs, or the policies from the new US administration could still hold corporate confidence back. But the low starting point for corporate confidence, combined with what we expect to be a deregulatory push, mean we think it is more likely that corporate activity and aggressiveness have room to rise – and that this continues throughout 2025. Such an increase usually does present greater risk down the line; but for now, we think it is too early to position for those more negative consequences of increasing corporate aggression.  

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.

Morgan Stanley Research analysts Michelle Weaver, Michael Cyprys and Ryan Kenny discuss the resurgence in capital markets activity and how sponsors might deploy the $4 trillion that has been sitting on the sidelines. 

----- Transcript -----

Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, U.S. Thematic and Equity strategist at Morgan Stanley.

Michael Cyprys: I'm Mike Cyprys, Head of U.S. Brokers, Asset Managers and Exchanges Research.

Ryan Kenny: And I'm Ryan Kenney, U.S. Mid-Cap Advisors Analyst at Morgan Stanley.

Michelle Weaver: In this episode of our special miniseries covering Big Debates, we'll focus on the improving M&A and IPO landscape and whether retail investing can sustain in 2025.

It's Thursday, January 23rd at 10am in New York.

2023 saw the lowest level of global M&A activity in at least 30 years. But we've started to see activity pick up in 2024. Mike, what have been the key drivers behind this resurgence, and where are we now?

Michael Cyprys: Look, I think it's been a combination of factors in the context of a lot of pent-up activity and a growing urge to transact after a very subdued period of, you know, call it four- to six quarters of quite limited activity. Key drivers as we see it ranging from equity markets that have expanded across much of the world, low levels of equity volatility. broad financing, availability with meaningful issuance as you look across investment grade and high yield bond markets, tight credit spreads, interest rates stabilizing in [20]24, and then the Fed began to cut.

So, liquidity pretty robust, all of that helping reduce bid-ask spreads. In terms of where we are now, post election, think there's just a lot of excitement here around a new administration; where we could see some changes around the antitrust environment that can be helpful, as we think about unlocking greater M&A activity across sponsors as well as strategics, and helping improve corporate confidence.

But look, the recent rout of market could delay some of the transactional activity uplift. But we view that as more of a timing impact, and we are quite positive here in [20]25 as we think about scope for continued surge of activity.

Michelle Weaver: We've seen rates rising pretty substantially since December. Does that throw a wrench into this at all, or do you think we see more stabilization there?

Michael Cyprys: I think it could be a little bit of a slowdown, right? That would be the risk here, but as we think about the path for moving forward, I do think that there are a lot of factors that can be very helpful in terms of driving a continued pickup in activity, which we're going to talk about -- and why that will be the case.

Michelle Weaver: Great. And you mentioned financial sponsors earlier, I want to drill down there a little more. What do you think would get sponsor activity to pick up more meaningfully?

Michael Cyprys: Well, as I think about it, activity is already starting to pick up clearly across strategics as well as sponsors. On the sponsor side, it's been lagging a bit relative to strategics. We think both of which will build, and Ryan will get to that on the strategic side. As we think about the sponsors -- they're sitting with $4 trillion of capital to put to work that's been sitting on the sidelines where you just haven't seen as much activity over the past couple of years.

Overall activity in [20]24 was probably call it maybe around 20 per cent below peak levels, and this is burning a hole in the pockets of both sponsors as well as their clients. And so, we see a growing urge to transact here, which gets to some of your earlier questions there too.

So why is that? Well, the return clock is ticking; the lack of deployment is hurting returns within funds. Some of this dry powder also expires by the end of [20]25; and so if it's not yet deployed, then sponsors won't get some of the performance fee economics that come through to them on that capital. So that's all, all on the deployment side.

As we think about the realization or exit side, we think that's probably going to lag, but we'd still expect, a steady build through this year. Today sponsors are sitting on call it around $10 trillion of portfolio of investments that are in the ground, and they haven't really provided much in the way of liquidity back to their customers, the LPs and the funds. And so, this is putting a little bit of a strain not only on the client relationships that want more money back from their private investments that haven't received it, but it's also one of the causes of what has been a little bit of a challenging fundraising backdrop across private equity funds.

Hence if sponsors can return more capital to their clients, that can be helpful in terms of healing the overall fundraising backdrop. So, look, putting all that together, we expect an expanding pace of transactional deal activity across the sponsors from both the buy side as well as the sell side in terms of our activity.

Michelle Weaver: And Ryan, how about IPOs? Have they been part of a similar trend?

Ryan Kenny: Yes, definitely. So, with IPOs, we're also expecting a significant resurgence off of a low base. So just to put some numbers on it. In 2024, announced M&A volumes relative to nominal GDP, we're around 40 per cent below three-decade averages; equity capital markets [ECM] or ECM was even more muted, 50 per cent below three decade averages. And the leading indicators for ECM are very similar to the leading indicators for M&A. You want a strong equity market, relatively low volatility so that companies have the confidence to go public and so that deals can price well. And those conditions are really starting to materialize already in 2024; and we saw a few big IPOs price well last year, and launch well. The fourth quarter also looks strong. We saw a significant acceleration in industry ECM activity in October, November, December. 4Q volumes tracking up over 50 per cent year-over-year.

Michelle Weaver: Let's dig a little deeper into potential policies from the incoming Trump administration. What are your expectations around antitrust regulation and its impact on M&A?

Ryan Kenny: So, Trump has announced his appointments to the FTC and to the DOJ antitrust division. And our expectation is a return to normal. And that's coming off of what was a more onerous and not-clear environment under Biden. The Biden administration's approach was to disincentivize M&A; and they did that by defining M&A market concentration in novel ways -- looking at things like labor markets, and looking at how competitiveness is defined in new ways. And these new ways of defining concentration decrease the clarity of whether a specific deal would be challenged.

So, from a CEO and board perspective, you don't want to waste the time of your management team and your board going through a deal that might not go through; in addition to the risk of prolonging the deal, and the risk of higher legal expenses during the process. So now that we're returning more towards normal, that's our expectation. We expect there will still be some deals like a challenge, but it will operate under more historical norms and so that really checks the box of getting CEO confidence up to transact more.

Michelle Weaver: And I know that dynamic you’re talking about with market concentration created quite a big drag on large M&A deals and large-cap M& A. Do you think we could start to see that come back as well?

Ryan Kenny: Yeah, expect large-cap deals to rebound even more than small-cap deals. When we started to see the activity pick up in 2024, it was led by more mid-cap corporates. And now we expect to see large deals return in force at a time when financial sponsors, like what Mike was just talking about, coming back in force at the same time -- which drives up the animal spirits when all parts of the M&A market are returning at the same time.

Michelle Weaver: And what are some other catalysts beyond the political side that investors should watch in 2025 around capital markets developments?

Ryan Kenny: So, I categorize it as macro catalysts and structural catalysts The macro catalysts are clarity on tariff and immigration policies, how that will impact GDP. Clarity on the interest rate path. And look you don't need more rate cuts to get this market moving; you can still have a significant increase, even if there are no more rate cuts this year.

But narrowing the range of outcomes is important. And I think we're already there, where maybe we get no cuts this year. Maybe we get two cuts. It's a much tighter environment than where we were over the last few years. And so that helps narrow the bid-ask spread between buyers and sellers.

Structural catalysts that are really critical this cycle are the need for AI capabilities. Innovation in tech, innovation in biotech healthcare, the energy transition, reshoring and exploring your geographic footprint in a multipolar world -- are all really critical when you evaluate the types of companies that a board would want to acquire.

Michelle Weaver: What’s your outlook for 2025? And then even beyond that when it comes to both M&A and IPO activity?

Ryan Kenny: So, in 2025, we see a strong rebound in both ECM and M&A. ECM volumes in our base case, we expect to roughly double off of a low base. M&A announcements, we expect up over 50 per cent year-over-year in 2025. And importantly, that's our base case. Even in our bear case, we model an increase in both ECM and M& A volumes, given we're coming off of such low levels.

We've had three years of light activity and pent-up demand, and pipelines have already begun to build. When we look forward beyond 2025, we think this is the beginning of a multi-year capital markets growth cycle -- with bigger deal sizes and more deal count than average, driven by three years of pent-up demand and an economy that's a third larger than 2021, which was the last time we had a capital markets cycle.

Michelle Weaver: And then Mike, what does this rebound in capital markets activity, including M&A and IPOs means specifically for retail investing?

Michael Cyprys: Overall, a supportive macro backdrop with a rebound in capital markets activity, we think should be helpful in terms of bringing more investors into the markets, including retail investors. Whether it's from corporate actions and IPOs, it helps in terms of more stocks to trade; also helps in terms of revising animal spirits.

I think that's all helpful in terms of supporting engagement across both single stock volumes and equity markets as well as options. So, all of that together, we were expecting greater investor engagement here in [20]25. And confidence as well can help boost not just trading volumes but also margin lending and securities lending. And so, all of that can be helpful as we think about our forecast for our retail brokerage coverage group.

Michelle Weaver: Mike, Ryan, thank you for taking the time to talk. And to our listeners, thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the podcast, please share it with a friend or colleague today.

On his first day in office, President Trump issued a series of executive orders, signaling his intent to deliver on campaign promises. Our Global Head of Fixed Income and Public Strategy Michael Zezas takes a closer look at economic impacts of Trump’s proposed policy path.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Public Policy Strategy. On this episode of the podcast, we’ll discuss how trade policy uncertainty is creating volatility in markets.

It’s Wednesday, January 22nd, at 10am in New York.

Earlier this week, Donald Trump was again inaugurated as President of the United States. In the days that have followed, we’ve fielded tons of questions from investors, who are trying to parse the meaning of myriad executive orders and answers to press questions – looking through that noise for signals about the if, when, and how of policy changes around tariffs, taxes, and more. This effort is understandable because – as we’ve discussed here many times – the US public policy path will have substantial effects on the outlook for the global economy and markets. 

And while we’ve spent some time here explaining our assumptions for the US policy path, it's important for investors to understand this. Even if you correctly forecast the timing and severity of changes to trade, tax, immigration, and other policies, you shouldn’t expect markets to consistently track this path along the way. That’s because there’s bound to be a fair amount of confusion among investors, as President Trump and his political allies publicly speculate on their policy tactics and make a wide variety of outcomes seem plausible. 

Take tariff policy for example. On Monday, the President announced an America First Trade Policy, where the whole of government was instructed to come up with policy solutions to reduce goods trade deficits and related economic and national security concerns. Tariffs were cited as a tool to be used in furtherance of these goals, and instructions were given to develop authorities on a range of regional and product-specific tariff options. Said more simply, while new tariffs were not immediately implemented, the President appears to be maximizing his optionality to levy tariffs when and how he wants. That will mean that all public comments about tariffs and deadlines, including Trump’s comments to reporters on tariffs for Mexico, Canada, and China, must be taken seriously – even if they don’t ultimately come to fruition, which currently we don’t think they will for Mexico and Canada. 

For markets, that max optionality can drive all sorts of short term outcomes. In the US Treasury market, for example, our economists believe these tariffs and a variety of other factors ultimately make for slower economic growth in 2026; and so we expect Treasury yields will ultimately end the year lower. But along the way they could certainly move higher first. As my colleague Matt Hornbach points out, tariff threats can drive investor concerns about temporary inflation leading markets to price in a slower pace of Fed interest rate cuts, which helps push short maturity yields higher. 

So bottom line: investors should be carefully considering US public policy choices when thinking about the medium term direction of markets. But they should also expect considerable volatility along the way, because the short term path can look a lot different from the ultimate destination. 

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Chief Asia Economist Chetan Ahya discusses how tariffs, the power of the U.S. dollar, and the strength of domestic demand will determine Asia’s economic growth in 2025.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Asia Economist. Today on the podcast: three critical themes that will shape Asia’s economy in 2025. 

It’s Tuesday, January 21, at 2 PM in Hong Kong. 

Let's start with the big picture: We foresee Asia's growth decelerating from 4.5 per cent last year to 4.1 per cent in 2025. The whole region faces a number of challenges and opportunities that could sway these numbers significantly. We highlight [the] following three key factors. 

First up, tariffs. They are our single biggest concern this year. The pace, scale and affected geographies will determine the magnitude of the growth drag. In our base case, within Asia, we expect tariffs to be imposed on China in a phased manner from the first half of 2025. As Mike Zezas, our Head of US Public Policy states, this will be about fast announcements and slow implementation. 

Given tariffs and trade tensions are not new, we think this means corporate confidence may not be as badly affected as it was in 2018-19. But the key risk is if trade tensions escalate. For instance, into more aggressive bilateral disputes outside of US-China or if [the] US imposes universal tariffs on all imports. Asia will be most affected, considering that seven out of [the] top ten economies that run large trade surpluses with the US are in Asia. If either of these risk scenarios materialize, it could bring a repeat of [the] 2018-19 growth shock. 

Next, let's consider the Fed and the US dollar. Asian central banks find themselves in a bind with the US Federal Reserve's hawkish shift – which we think will result in only two rate cuts in 2025. The Fed is taking a cautious approach, driven by worries over inflation concerns, which could be exacerbated by changes in trade and fiscal policy. This has led to strength in the US dollar and on the flipside, weakness in Asian currencies. This constrains Asian central banks from making aggressive rate reductions -- even though Asia’s inflation is in a range that central banks are comfortable with. 

Finally, with [the] external environment not likely to be supportive, domestic demand within key Asian economies will be an important anchor to [the[ region's growth outlook. We are constructive on the outlook for India and Japan but cautious on China. 

China has a deflation challenge, driven by excessive investment and excess capacity. Solving it requires policy makers to rely more on consumption as a means to meet its 5 per cent growth target. While some measures have been implemented and we think more are coming, we remain skeptical that these measures will be enough for China to lift consumption growth meaningfully. We see investment remaining the key growth driver and the implementation of tariffs will only exacerbate the ongoing deflationary pressures. 

In India and Japan, we think domestic demand tailwinds will be able to offset external headwinds. We expect a robust recovery in India fueled by government capital expenditure, monetary easing and acceleration in services exports. This should put GDP growth back on a 6.5 per cent trajectory. In Japan we expect real wage and consumption growth reacceleration, which will lead [the] Bank of Japan to be confident in the inflation outlook such that it hikes policy rates twice in 2025. 

This week marks the start of the new Trump administration. And together with my colleagues, we are watching closely and will continue to bring you updates on the impact of new policies on Asia.

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.

Government bond yields in the U.S. and Europe have risen sharply. Our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets explains why this surprising trend is not yet cause for concern.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.

With bond yields rising substantially over the last month, I’m going to discuss why we’ve been somewhat more relaxed about this development and what could change our mind. 

It's Friday January 17th at 2pm in London. 

We thought credit would have a good first half of this year as growth held up, inflation came down, and the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank and the Bank of England all cut rates. That mix looked appealing, even if corporate activity increased and the range of longer-term economic outcomes widened with a new U.S. administration. We forecast spreads across regions to stay near cycle tights through the first half of this year, before a modest softening in the second half. 

Since publishing that outlook in November of last year, some of it still feels very much intact. Growth – especially in the U.S. – has been good. Core inflation in the U.S. and in Europe has continued to moderate. And the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank did lower interest rates back in December. 

But the move in government bond yields in the U.S. and Europe has been a surprise. They've risen sharply, meaning higher borrowing cost for governments, mortgages and companies. How much does our story change if yields are going to be higher for longer, and if the Fed is going to reduce interest rates less? 

One way to address this debate, which we’re mindful is currently dominating financial market headlines, is what world do these new bond yields describe? Focusing on the U.S., we see the following pattern. 

There’s been strong U.S. data, with Morgan Stanley tracking the U.S. economy to have grown to about 2.5 per cent in the fourth quarter of last year. Rates are rising, and they are rising faster than the expected inflation – a development that usually suggests more optimism on growth. We’re seeing a larger rise in long-term interest rates relative to shorter-term interest rates, which often suggests more confidence that the economy will stay stronger for longer. And we’ve seen expectations of fewer cuts from the Federal Reserve; but, and importantly, still expectations that they are more likely to cut rather than hike rates over the next 12 months. 

Putting all of that together, we think it’s a pattern consistent with a bond market that thinks the U.S. economy is strong and will remain somewhat stronger for longer, with that strength justifying less Fed help. That interpretation could be wrong, of course; but if it's right, it seems – in our view – fine for credit. 

What about the affordability of borrowing for companies at higher yields? Again, we’re somewhat more sanguine. While yields have risen a lot recently, they are still similar to their 24 month average, which has given corporate bond issuers a lot of time to adjust. And U.S. and European companies are also carrying historically high amounts of cash on their balance sheet, improving their resilience. 

Finally, we think that higher yields could actually improve the supply-demand balance in corporate bond markets, as the roughly 5.5 per cent yield today on U.S. Investment Grade credit attracts buyers, while simultaneously making bond issuers a little bit more hesitant to borrow any more than they have to. We now prefer the longer-term part of the Investment Grade market, which we think could benefit most from these dynamics. 

If interest rates are going to stay higher for longer, it isn’t a great story for everyone. We think some of the lowest-rated parts of the credit market, for example, CCC-rated issuers, are more vulnerable; and my colleagues in the U.S. continue to hold a cautious view on that segment from their year-ahead outlook. But overall, for corporate credit, we think that higher yields are manageable; and some relief this week on the back of better U.S. inflation data is a further support. 

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

The Federal Reserve’s shrinking balance sheet could have far-reaching implications for the banking sector, money markets and monetary policy. Global Head of Macro Strategy Matthew Hornbach and Martin Tobias from the U.S. Interest Rate Strategy Team discuss. 

----- Transcript -----

Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy.

Martin Tobias: And I'm Martin Tobias from the U.S. Interest Rate Strategy Team.

Matthew Hornbach: Today, we're going to talk about the widespread concerns around the dip in reserve levels at the Fed and what it means for banking, money markets, and beyond.

It's Thursday, January 16th at 10am in New York.

The Fed has been shrinking its balance sheet since June 2022, when it embarked on quantitative tightening in order to combat inflation. Reserves held at the Fed recently dipped below [$]3 trillion at year end, their lowest level since 2020. This has raised a lot of questions among investors, and we want to address some of them.

Marty, you've been following these developments closely, so let's start with the basics. What are Fed reserves and why are they important?

Martin Tobias: Reserves are one of the key line items on the liability side of the Fed balance sheet. Like any balance sheet, even your household budget, you have liabilities, which are debts and financial obligations, and you have assets. For the Fed, its assets primarily consist of U.S. Treasury notes and bonds, and then you have liabilities like U.S. currency in circulation and bank reserves held at the Fed.

These reserves consist of electronic deposits that commercial banks, savings and loan institutions, and credit unions hold at Federal Reserve banks. And these depository institutions earn interest from the Fed on these reserve balances.

There are other Fed balance sheet liabilities like the Treasury General Account and the Overnight Reversed Repo Facility. But, to save us from some complexity, I won't go into those right now. Bottom line, these three liabilities are inversely linked to one another, and thus cannot be viewed in isolation.

Having said that, the reason this is important is because central bank reserves are the most liquid and ultimate form of money. They underpin nearly all other forms of money, such as the deposits individuals or businesses hold at commercial banks. In simplest terms, those reserves are a sort of security blanket.

Matthew Hornbach: Okay, so what led to this most recent dip in reserves?

Martin Tobias: Well, that's the good news. We think the recent dip in reserves below [$] 3 trillion was simply related to temporary dynamics in funding markets at the end of the year, as opposed to a permanent drain of cash from the banking system.

Matthew Hornbach: This kind of reduction in reserves has far reaching implications on several different levels. The banking sector, money markets, and monetary policy. So, let's take them one at a time. How does it affect the banking sector?

Martin Tobias: So individual banks maintain different levels of reserves to fit their specific business models; while differences in reserve management also appear across large compared to small banks. As macro strategists, we monitor reserve balances in the aggregate and have identified a few different regimes based on the supply of liquidity.

While reserves did fall below [$]3 trillion at the end of the year, we note the Fed Standing Repo Facility, which is an instrument that offers on demand access to liquidity for banks at a fixed cost, did not receive any usage. We interpret this to mean, even though reserves temporarily dipped below [$]3 trillion, it is a level that is still above scarcity in the aggregate.

Matthew Hornbach: How about potential stability and liquidity of money markets?

Martin Tobias: Occasional signs of volatility in money market rates over the past year have been clear signs that liquidity is transitioning from a super abundancy closer to an ample amount. The fact that there has become more volatility in money market rates – but being limited to identifiable dates – is really indicative of normal market functioning where liquidity is being redistributed from those who have it in excess to those in need of it.

Year- end was just the latest example of there being some more volatility in money market rates. But as has been the case over the past year, these temporary upward pressures quickly normalized as liquidity in funding markets still remains abundant. In fact, reserves rose by [$] 440 billion to [$] 3.3 trillion in the week ended January 8th.

Matthew Hornbach: Would this reduction in reserves that occurred over the end of the year influence the Fed's future monetary policy decisions?

Martin Tobias: Right. As you alluded to earlier, the Fed has been passively reducing the size of its balance sheet to complement its actions with its primary monetary policy tool, the Fed Funds Rate. And I think our listeners are all familiar with the Fed Funds Rate because in simplest terms it's the rate that banks charge each other when lending money overnight, and that in turn influences the interest you pay on your loans and credit cards. Now the goal of the Fed's quantitative tightening program is to bring the balance sheet to the smallest size consistent with efficient money market functioning.

So, we think the Fed is closely watching when declines in reserves occur and the sensitivity of changes in money market rates to those declines. Our house baseline view remains at quantitative tightening ends late in the first quarter of 2025.

Matthew Hornbach: So, bottom line, for people who invest in money market funds, what's the takeaway?

Martin Tobias: The bottom line is money markets continue to operate normally, and even though the Fed has lowered its policy rates, the yields on money markets do remain attractive for many types of retail and institutional investors.

Matthew Hornbach: Well, Marty, thanks for taking the time to talk.

Martin Tobias: Great speaking with you, Matt.

Matthew Hornbach: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, [00:06:00] please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Head of Fixed Income & Public Policy Research Michael Zezas discusses how Morgan Stanley’s key themes – deglobalization, longevity, the future of energy, and artificial intelligence – will evolve in 2025 and beyond.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Fixed Income and Public Policy Research. Today I’ll discuss the key investment megatrends Morgan Stanley Research will be following closely in 2025. 

It’s Wednesday, January 15th, at 10am in New York. 

Short-term trends can offer investors valuable insights into immediate market dynamics. But it’s the long-term trends that truly shape the investment landscape. That’s why each year, Morgan Stanley Research identifies a short list of megatrends that we believe will provide long-term investment opportunities in an ever-changing world. 

Three of Morgan Stanley’s megatrends—artificial intelligence, longevity, and the future of energy—carry over from last year. A fourth—the rewiring of the global economy—returns to our list after a hiatus in 2024. While none of these megatrends is new, each has evolved in terms of how it applies to investment strategies. 

Let’s start with the rewiring of global commerce for a Multipolar World. As I mentioned, this theme rejoins our list of key megatrends after a year-long break. Why? In short, it’s clear that policymakers globally are poised to implement policies that will speed up the breakdown of the post-Cold War globalization trend. Simply put, policymakers are keen to promote their visions of national and economic security through less open commerce and more local control of supply chains and key technologies. Multinationals and sovereigns may have to accelerate their adaptation to this reality. Some will face tougher choices than others, while there are some who may still benefit from facilitating this transition. Knowing who fits into which category—and how this new reality may play out—will be critical for investors. 

Our next theme—Longevity—remains an essential long-term secular trend, and this year the focus will be on measurable impacts for governments, economies, and corporates. The ripple effects of an aging population, the drive for healthy longevity, and challenging demographics across many geographies continue to impact markets. And in 2025, we see investors focusing on several specific longevity debates: First, innovation across healthcare – especially in an AI world, with obesity medications remaining front and center. Second, impacts on consumer behavior – including the drive for affordable nutrition. Third, the need to reskill aging workforces – especially if retirement ages move higher. And, finally, there’s implications for financial planning and retirement – with a bull market for financial advice just starting. 

Our next theme centers around energy. When we think about the future of energy, our focus for 2025 shifts from decarbonization to the wide range of factors driving the supply, demand, and delivery of energy across geographies. And the common thread here is the potential for rapid evolution. We’ll be tracking four key dynamics: First, an increasing focus on energy security. Second, the massive growth in energy demand driven by trillions of dollars of AI infrastructure spend, to be met both by fossil fuel-powered plants and renewables. Third, innovative energy technologies such as carbon capture, energy storage, nuclear power, and power grid optimization. And fourth, increased electrification across many industries. We continue to believe that carbon emissions will likely exceed the targets in various nations’ climate pledges. So, we expect focus to shift toward climate adaptation and resilience technologies and business models. 

Our last key theme is artificial intelligence and tech diffusion. Although it’s been two years since the launch of ChatGPT, we’re still in the early innings of AI's diffusion across sectors and geographies. However, while 2024 was driven by AI enablers and infrastructure companies, in 2025 we expect the market to focus on early AI downstream use cases that drive efficiency and market share. As you heard yesterday, our Global Head of Thematic Research Ed Stanley, explained that there’s alpha in understanding this rate of change. Agentic AI will be center stage, with robust enterprise adoption, stock outperformance for early adopters, positive surprises in model capabilities, greater breadth of monetization, and thus less attention to return-on-investment debates. 

Before I close, it’s worth mentioning that you will likely see connections between these complex themes. As an example, the complexity of a multipolar world makes energy security all the more vital. The demand for energy connects with the enormous power requirements of AI. And AI is set to drive healthcare innovations which could help us lead longer healthier lives. We see these four themes not as static categories but as an interconnected roadmap for investing over the long-term – and we’ll be sharing more on specific debates throughout the year. 

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Head of Thematic Research Ed Stanley discusses how artificial intelligence is changing and what could be in store for investors in 2025.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ed Stanley, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Thematic Research. Today I'll discuss how understanding AI’s rate of change can generate alpha in the year of AI agents.

It’s Tuesday, the 14th of January, at 2 PM in London.

Even if you haven't been using artificial intelligence in your work or home life yet – you’ll doubtless have heard about its capabilities by now. Tasked, for example, with drafting an elevator pitch for a 100-page report; it's a tedious task at the best of times. But using an AI model not only does it become a breeze, but these models can also generate you a podcast – if you so wish – through which to disseminate it, and almost in any language conceivable. But now imagine the algorithm begins thinking through multi-stage processes itself – planning, executing – to generate that 100-page report itself, in the first place. That … is an example of Agentic AI. 

As the name implies, this next phase of AI development is where software programs gain agency, transitioning from reactive chatbots that we’ve been using into proactive task fulfillment agents. And this transition is happening now. 

Over the past 36 months, we’ve gone from reliable output that can displace or supplement 5-second or 5-minute tasks, such as translation or quick summaries, to models that are providing reliable output for 15-minute tasks, 1-hour tasks – like the ones that I just mentioned. And each time the skeptics have claimed that model improvements are slowing down, and thus call into question the returns on hundreds of billions of dollars that have been spent on AI infrastructure, the AI research labs manage to take another leap forward, surprising even seasoned analysts. 

That’s why we think this is such an important trend for 2025. AI Adopter companies that can leverage these agents will start to pull ahead of their peers. And as a result, tracking AI’s evolution in the materiality of companies’ investment cases, we think, has never been more important. 

Since our first AI Adopter survey in January 2024 to our latest just published in January 2025, we've seen profound shifts in the thousands of stocks that we cover globally. This ongoing transformation not only underscores that AI’s diffusion is advancing rapidly, but that we’re still very much in its early innings.

To understand the breakneck speed of the AI evolution through the lens of its impact on the stock markets, we need to wrap our heads around the concept of “rate of change.” We just published the third iteration of our AI mapping survey of 3,700 global stocks under coverage. And it reveals that 585 of those stocks had their AI exposure or materiality to investment case changed by our analysts – and that is just versus 6 months ago. And it impacts around $14 trillion of global market cap. 

And this rate of change in AI isn't just a buzzword; it's a tangible metric driving outperformance. So, if we look back in the second half of last year, 2024, stocks where our analysts previously increased both AI exposure and materiality in our last survey – went on to outperform broader equity markets by over 20 per cent in the second half of 2024. If we apply the same logic looking forward, where do we think most outperformance is going to come from? It’s in those same stocks where our analysts have just upgraded the exposure and materiality to the investment case. 

Beyond this simple screen for AI outperformers we think there are three other key conclusions from our latest survey. The first is AI Enabler stocks with Rising Materiality, within which we believe that Semiconductors, which have outperformed well, might soon pass the baton to the Software layer in terms of equity market dominance. Second, Adopters with Pricing Power. These are companies that adopt AI early and use it to expand their margins but sustainably, without having to give it back to their customers. And the third is Financial stocks, in particular, where AI Rate of Change has been the fastest of any sector in our global coverage – in terms of the efficiency gains that we think it can manifest for the share prices. 

So all in all, 2025 promises a slew of significant developments in AI, and, of course, we’ll be here to bring you all of the updates. 

Thank you for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave a review wherever you listen to your podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.

In the latest edition of our Big Debates miniseries, Morgan Stanley Research analysts discuss the factors that will shape the global energy market in 2025 and beyond, and where to look for investment opportunities.

----- Transcript -----

Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, U.S. thematic and Equity strategist at Morgan Stanley.

Devin McDermott: I'm Devin McDermott, Head of Morgan Stanley's North America Energy Team.

Mike Canfield: And I'm Mike Canfield, Head of the Europe Sustainability Team,

Michelle Weaver: This is the second episode of our special miniseries, Big Debates, where we cover key investment debates for 2025. Today, we'll look at where we are in the energy transition and some key investment opportunities.

It's Monday, January 13th at 10am in New York.

Mike Canfield: And 3pm in London.

Michelle Weaver: Since 2005, U.S. carbon emissions have fallen by about 15 percent. Nearly all of this has been tied to the power sector. Natural gas has been displacing coal. Renewable resources have seen higher penetration. When you look outside the power sector, though, progress has been a lot more limited.

Let me come to you first, Devin. What is behind these trends, and where are we right now in terms of the energy transition in the U.S.?

Devin McDermott: Over the last 20 years now, it's actually been a pretty steady trend for overall U.S. emissions. There's been gradual annual declines, ratcheting lower through much of this period. [There’s] really two primary drivers.

The first is, the displacement of coal by natural gas, which is driven about 60 percent of this reduction over the period. And the remainder is higher penetration of renewable resources, which drive the remaining 40 percent. And this ratio between these two drivers -- net gas displacing coal, renewables adding to the power sector -- really hasn't changed all that much. It's been pretty consistent even in this post COVID recovery relative to the 15 years prior.

Outside of power, there's been almost no progress, and it doesn't vary much depending on which end market you're looking at. Industrial missions, manufacturing, PetChem -- all relatively stable. And then the transport sector, which for the U.S. in particular, relative to many other markets and the rest of the world, is a big driver transport, a big driver of emissions. And there it's a mix of different factors. The biggest of which, though, driving the slow uptick in alternatives is the lack of viable economic options to decarbonize outside of fossil fuels. And the fact that in the U.S. specifically, there is a very abundant, low-cost base of natural gas; which is a low carbon, the lowest carbon fossil fuel, but still does have carbon intensity tied to it.

Michelle Weaver: You've also argued that the domestic natural gas market is positioned for growth. What's your outlook for this year and beyond?

Devin McDermott: The natural gas market has been a story of growth for a while now, but these last few years have had a bit of a pause on major expansion.

From 2010 to 2020, that's when you saw the biggest uptick in natural gas penetration as a portion of primary energy in the U.S. The domestic market doubled in size over that 10-year period, and you saw growth in really every major end market power and decarbonization. There was a big piece of it. But the U.S. also transitioned from a major importer of LNG, which stands for liquefied natural gas, to one of the world's largest exporters by the end of last decade. And you had a lot of industrial and petrochemical growth, which uses natural gas as a feedstock.

Over the last several years, globally, gas markets have faced a series of shocks, the biggest of which is the Russia-Ukraine conflict and Europe's loss of a significant portion of their gas supply, which historically had come on pipelines from Russia. To replace that, Europe bought a lot more LNG, drove up global prices, and in response to higher global prices, you saw a wave of new project sanctioning activity around the world. The U.S. is a key driver of that expansion cycle.

The U.S. over the next five years will double; roughly double, I should say, its export capacity. And that is an unprecedented amount of volume growth domestically, as well as globally, and will drive a significant uptick in domestic consumption.

So that the additional exports is pillar number one; and pillar number two, which I'd say is more of an emerging trend, is the rise of incremental power consumption. For the last 15 years, U.S. electricity consumption on a weather adjusted basis has not grown. But if you look out at forecasts from utilities, from various market operators in the country, you're now seeing a trend of growth for the balance of this decade and beyond tied to three key things.

The first is onshore manufacturing. The second is power demand tied to data centers and AI. And the third is this broader trend of electrification. So, a little bit from EV's, more electric appliances, which fit into this decarbonization theme more broadly. We're looking at now an outlet, this is our base case of U.S. electricity demand growing at just shy of 2 percent per year over the next five years. That is a growth rate that we have not seen this century. And natural gas, which generates about 40 percent of U.S. power today, will continue to be a key player in meeting this incremental demand. And that becomes then a second pillar of consumption growth for the domestic market.

Michelle Weaver: And we're coming up on the inauguration here, and I think one really important question for investors is what's going to happen to the energy sector and to renewables when Trump takes office? What are you thinking here?

Devin McDermott: Yes. Well, the policy that supports renewable development in the U.S., wind and solar specifically, has survived many different administrations, both Republican and Democratic. And there's actually several examples over the last 10 to 15 years of Republican controlled Congress extending both the production tax credit and investment tax credit for wind and solar.

So, our base case is no major change on deployments, but also unlikely to see any incremental supportive policy for these technologies. Instead, I think the focus will be on some of the other major themes that we've been talking about here.

One, there's currently a pause on new LNG export permits under the Biden administration that should be lifted shortly post Trump's inauguration. Second, there are greenhouse gas intensity limits on new power plant and existing power plant construction in the U.S. that will likely be lifted, under the incoming Trump administration. So, gas takes a larger share of incremental power needs under Trump than it would have under the prior status quo. And then lastly. Consistently over the last few years, penetration of electric vehicles and low carbon vehicles in general in the United States have fallen short of expectations.

And interestingly, if you look at just the composition of new vehicles sold in the U.S. over the past years, nearly two-thirds were SUVs or heavier light duty vehicles that offset some of the other underlying trends of some uptick in EV penetration.

Under the prior Trump administration, there was a rollback of initiatives to improve the fuel economy of both light duty and heavy-duty transport. I would not be surprised if we see that same thing happen again, which means you have more longevity to gasoline, diesel, other fossil-based transport fuels. Which kind of put this all together -- significant growth for natural gas that could accelerate under Trump, more longevity to legacy businesses like gasoline and diesel for these incumbent energy companies is not a bad backdrop.

Trade's still at double its historical discount versus the broader market. So, not a bad setup when you put it all together.

Michelle Weaver: Great. Thank you, Devin. Mike, new policies under the second Trump administration will likely have an impact far beyond the U.S. And with a potential withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris Agreement and increased greenhushing, many investors are starting to question whether companies may walk back or delay their sustainability ambitions.

Will decarbonization still be a corporate priority or will the pace of the energy transition in Europe slow in 2025?

Mike Canfield: Yeah, that's the big question. The core issues for EU policymakers at the moment include things like competitiveness, climate change, security, digitalization, migration and the cost of living.

At the same time, Mario Draghi highlighted in his report entitled “The Future of European Competitiveness” that there are three transformations Europe has to contend with: to become more innovative and competitive; to complete its energy transition; and to adapt to a backdrop of less stable geopolitics where dependencies are becoming vulnerabilities, to use his phrase.

We do still expect the EU's direction of travel on things like the Fit for 55 goals, its targets to address critical mineral supplies, and the overall net zero transition to remain consistent. And the UK's Labour Party has advocated for Clean Power 2030 goals of 95 percent clean generation sources.

At the same time, it's fair to say some commentators have pointed to the higher regulatory burden on EU corporates as a potentially damaging factor in competitiveness, suggesting that regulations are costly and can be overcomplicated, particularly for smaller companies. While we've already had a delay in the implementation of the EU's deforestation regulation, some questions do remain over other rules, including things like the corporate sustainability, due diligence directive, and the design of the carbon border adjustment mechanism or CBAM.

We're closely watching corporates themselves to see whether they'll reevaluate their investment plans or targets. One example we've actually already seen is in the metals and mining space where decarbonisation investment plans were adjusted because of inadequate green hydrogen infrastructure and policy concerns, such as the effectiveness of the CBAM.

It does remain committed to its long-term net zero goals. But the company has acknowledged that practical hurdles may delay achievement of its 2030 climate ambitions. We wouldn't be surprised to see other companies take an arguably more pragmatic, in inverted commas, approach to their goals, accepting that technology, infrastructure and policy might not really be ready in time to reach 2030 targets.

Michelle Weaver: Do you believe there are still areas where the end markets will grow significantly and where companies still offer compelling opportunities?

Mike Canfield: Yeah, absolutely. We think sustainable investing continues to evolve and that, as with last year, stock selection will be key to generating alpha from the energy transition. We do see really attractive opportunities in enabling technologies across decarbonisation, whether that's segments like grid transmission and distribution, or in things like Industry 4.0.

We'd recommend focusing on companies with clear competitive moats and avoiding the relatively commoditized areas, as well as looking for strong pricing power, and those entities offering mission critical products or services for the transition. We do anticipate a continued investment focus on data center power dynamics in 2025 with cooling technology increasingly a topic of investor interest.

Beyond the power generation component, the urgent need for investment in everything from electrical equipment to grid technologies, smart grid software and hardware solutions, and even cables is now increasingly apparent. We expect secular growth in these markets to continue apace in 2025.

Within Industry 4.0, we do think adoption of automation, robotics, machine learning, and the industrial Internet of Things is set to grow strongly this year as well. We also see further growth potential in other areas like energetic modernization in buildings, climate resilience, and the circular economy.

Michelle Weaver: And with the current level of policy uncertainty has enthusiasm for green investing or the ‘E’ environmental pillar of ESG declined

Mike Canfield: I think evolved might be a fairer expression to use than declined. Certainly, reasonable to say that performance in some of the segments of the E pillar has been very challenging in the last 12 to 24 months -- with the headwinds from geopolitics, from the higher interest rate backdrop and inflation. At the same time, we have seen a transition towards improver investment strategies, and they're continuing to gain in popularity around the world.

As investors recognize that often the most attractive alpha opportunities are in the momentum, or direction of travel rather than simple, so-called positive screening for existing leaders in various spaces. To this end, the investors that we speak to are often focused on things like Capex trends for businesses as a way to determine how companies might actually be investing to deliver on their sustainability ambitions.

Beyond those traditional E, areas like renewables or electric vehicles, we have therefore seen investors try to diversify exposures. So, broadening out to include things like the transition enablers, the grid technologies, HVAC -- that's heating, ventilation and cooling, products supporting energy efficiency in buildings, green construction and emerging technologies even, like small modular nuclear reactors alongside things like industrial automation.

Michelle Weaver: And, given this evolution of the e pillar, do you think that creates an opportunity for the S or G, the social or governance components of ESG?

Mike Canfield: We do think the backdrop for socially focused investing is very strong. We see compelling opportunities in longevity across a lot of elements, things like advanced diagnostics, healthier foods, as well as digitalization, responsible AI, personal mobility, and even parts of social infrastructure. So things as basic as access to water, sanitation, and hygiene.

One topic we as a team have written extensively on in the last few months It's preventative health care, for example. So, while current health systems are typically built to focus on acute conditions and react to complications with pharmaceuticals or clinical care, a focus on preventative care would, at its most fundamental, address the underlying causes of illnesses to avoid problems from arising in the first place.

We argue that the economic benefits of a more effective health system is self evident, whether that's in terms of reducing the overall burden on the system, boosting the workforce or increasing productivity. Within preventative healthcare, we point to fascinating investment opportunities across innovative biopharma, things like smart chemotherapy, for example, alongside solutions like integrated diagnostics, effective use of AI and sophisticated telemedicine advances -- all of which are emerging to support healthy longevity and a much more personalized targeted health system.

Michelle Weaver: Devin and Mike, thank you for taking the time to talk, and to our listeners, thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen to the show and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

In the first of a special series, Morgan Stanley’s U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist Michelle Weaver discusses new frontiers in artificial intelligence with Keith Weiss, Head of U.S. Software Research.

----- Transcript -----

Michelle: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist.

Keith: And I'm Keith Weiss, Head of U.S. Software Research.

Michelle: This episode is the first episode of a special series we’re calling “Big Debates” – where we dig deeper into some of the many hot topics of conversation going on right now. Ideas that will shape global markets in 2025. First up in the series: Artificial Intelligence.

It's Friday, January 10th at 10am in New York.

When we look back at 2024, there were three major themes that Morgan Stanley Research followed. And AI and tech diffusion were among them. Throughout last year the market was largely focused on AI enablers – we’re talking semiconductors, data centers, and power companies. The companies that are really building out the infrastructure of AI.

Now though, as we’re looking ahead, that story is starting to change.

Keith, you cover enterprise software. Within your space, how will the AI story morph in 2025?

Keith: I do think 2025 is going to be an exciting year for software [be]cause a lot of these fundamental capabilities that have come out from the training of these models, of putting a lot of compute into the Large Language Models, those capabilities are now being built into software functionality. And that software functionality has been in the market long enough that investors can expect to see more of it come into results. That the product is there for people to actually buy on a go forward basis.

One of the avenues of that product that we're most excited about heading into 2025 is what we're calling agentic computing, where we're moving beyond chatbots to a more automated proactive type of interface into that software functionality that can handle more complex problems, handle it more accurately and really make use of that generative AI capability in a corporate or in an enterprise software setting as we head into 2025.

Michelle: Could you give us an example of what agentic AI is and how might an end user interact with it?

Keith: Sure. So, you and I have been interacting with chatbots a lot to gain access to this generative AI functionality. And if you think about the way you interact with that chatbot, right, you have a prompt, you have a question. You have to come up with the question. going to take that question and it's going to, try to contextually understand the nature of that question, and to the best of its ability it's going to give you back an answer.

In agentic computing, what you're looking for is to add more agency into that chatbot; meaning that it can reason more over the overall question. It's not just one model that it's going to be using to compose the answer. And it's not just the composition of an answer where the functionality of that chatbot is going to end. There's actually an ability to execute what that answer is. So, it can handle more complex problems.

And it could actually automate the execution of the answer to those problems.

Michelle: It sounds like this tech is going to have a massive impact on the workplace. Have you estimated what this could do to productivity?

Keith: Yeah, this is -- really aligns to the work that we did actually back in 2023, where we did our AI index, right. We came up with the conclusion that given the current capabilities of Large Language Models, 25 per cent of U.S. occupations are going to be impacted by these technologies. As the capabilities evolve, we think that could go as high as 45 per cent of U.S. labor touched by these productivity enhancing. Or, sort of, being replaced by these technologies. That equates to, at the high end, $4 trillion of labor that's being augmented or replaced on a go forward basis. The productivity gains still yet to be seen; how much of a productivity gain you could see on average. But the numbers are massive, right, in terms of the potential because it touches so much labor.

Michelle: And finally on agentic, is the market missing anything and how does your view differ from the consensus?

Keith: I think part of what the market is missing is that these agentic computing frameworks is not just one model, right? There's typically a reasoning engine of some sort that's organizing multiple models, multiple components of the system that enable you to -- one, handle more complex queries, more complex problems to be solved, lets you actually execute to the answer. So, there's execution capabilities that come along with that. And equally as important, put more error correction into the system as well. So, you could have agents that are actually ensuring you have a higher accuracy of the answer.

It's the sugar that's going to make the medicine go down, if you will. It's going to make a lot easier to adopt in enterprise environments. I think that's why we're a little bit more optimistic about the pace of adoption and the adoption curves we could see with agentic computing despite the fact it's a relatively early-stage technology.

Michelle: You just mentioned Large Language Models, or LLMs; and one barrier there has been training these models. It requires a ton of computing power, among other constraints. How are companies addressing this, and what's in the cards for next year?

Keith: So, if you think about the demand for that compute in our mind comes from two fundamental sources. And as a software analyst, I break this down into research versus development, right? Research is investment that you make to find core fundamental capabilities.

Development is when you take those capabilities and make the investment to create product out of it. Thus far, again, the primary focus has been on the training side of the equation.

I think that part of the equation looks to be asymptotic to a certain extent. The – what people call the scaling laws, the amount of incremental capability that you're getting from putting more compute at the equation is starting to come down.

What people are overlooking is the amount of improvement that you could see from the development side of the equation. So, whereas the demand for GPUs, the demand for data center for that pure training side of the equation might start to slow down a little bit, I think what we're going to see expand greatly is the demand for inference, the demand to utilize these models more fully to solve real business problems.

In terms of where we're going to source this; there are constraints in terms of data center capacity. The companies that we cover, they've been thinking about these problems for the past decade, right? And they have these decade long planning cycles. They have good visibility in terms of being able to meet that demand in the immediate future. But these questions on how we are going to power these data centers is definitely top of mind for our companies, and they're looking for new sources of power and trying to get more creative there.

The pace with which data centers can be built out is a fundamental constraint in terms of how quickly this demand can be realized. So those supply constraints I don't think are going to be a immediate limiter for any of our names when we're thinking about calendar [20]25. But definitely, part of the planning process and part of the longer-term forecasting for all of these companies in terms of where are they going to find all this fundamental resource – because whether it's training or inference, still a lot of GPUs are going to be needed. A lot of compute is going to be needed.

Michelle: Recently we've been hearing about so called artificial general intelligence or AGI. What is it? And do you think we're going to see it in 2025?

Keith: Yeah, so, AGI is the – it's basically the holy grail of all of these development efforts. Can we come up with models that can reason in the human world as well as we can, right? That can understand the inputs that we give it, understand the domains that we're trying to operate in as well or better than we can, so it can solve problems as effectively and as efficiently as we can.

The easiest way to solve that systems integration problem of like, how can we get the software, how could we get the computers to interact with the world in the way that we do? Or get all the impact that we do is for it to replicate all those functionalities. For it to be able to reason over unstructured text the same way we do. To take visual stimuli the same way that we do. And then we don't have to take data and put into a format that's readable by the system anymore.

2025 is probably too early to be thinking about AGI, to be honest. Most technologists think that there's more breakthroughs needed before the algorithms are going to be that good; before the models are going to be that good.

There's very few people who think Large Language Models and the scaling of Large Language Models in themselves are going to get us to that AGI. You're probably talking 10 to 20 years before we truly see AGI emerge. So, 2025 is probably a little bit too early.

Michelle: Well, great, Keith. Thank you for taking the time to talk and helping us kick off big debates. It looks like 2025 we'll see some major developments in AI.

And to our listeners, thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen to the show and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Our Head of Corporate Credit Research, Andrew Sheets, offers up bull, bear and base cases for credit markets in the year ahead.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, I’m going to revisit our story for 2025 – and what could make things better or worse.

It's Thursday, January 9th at 2pm in London. 

Based on the number of out-of-office replies, I have a sneaking suspicion that many investors took advantage [of] the timing of holidays this year for a well deserved break. With this week marking the first full week back, I thought it would be a good opportunity to refresh listeners on what we expect in 2025, and realistic scenarios where things are better or worse.

Our base case is that credit holds up well this year, doing somewhat better in the first half of 2025 than the second. Credit likes moderation, and while we think the shift in U.S. policy leadership generally means less moderation, and a wider range of economic outcomes, this shift doesn’t arrive immediately. On Morgan Stanley’s forecasts, the bulk of the disruptive impact from any changes to tariffs or immigration policy hits in 2026.

Meanwhile, Credit is entering 2025 with some pretty decent tailwinds. The economy is good. The all-in yield – the total yield – on US investment grade corporate bonds, at above 5.4 per cent, is the highest to start any year since January of 2009 – which we think helps demand. And while we think corporate confidence and aggression will rise this year, normally a bad thing for credit; this is going to be coming off of a low, conservative starting point. 

We think that credit spreads will be modestly tighter by mid-year relative to where they finished 2024, and then start to widen modestly in the second half of the year – as the market attempts to price that greater policy uncertainty in 2026. We think that issuers in the Financial and Utilities sectors outperform, and we think bonds between five- and ten-year maturity will do the best.

The bear case is that we exit the current period of moderation more quickly. At one end, a deregulatory push by a new administration could usher in an even faster rise in corporate confidence and aggression, leading to more borrowing and riskier dealmaking. At the other extreme, the strong current state of the economy and jobs market could make further gains harder to come by. If the rise in unemployment that our economists expect in 2026 is larger or arrives earlier, credit could start to weaken well ahead of this.

So, how could things be better – especially given the relatively low, tight starting point for credit spreads? Well, we’d argue that the current mix of data for credit is border-line ideal: reasonable growth, falling inflation, still-low levels of corporate aggressiveness, and still-high yields that are attracting buyers. Recall that the tightest levels of credit in the modern era, which are still tighter than today, occurred during a period with similar characteristics – the mid-1990s.

When thinking about the mid-90s as a bull case, there’s a further detail that’s relevant and topical, especially this week. At that time, interest rates stayed somewhat high and the Fed only lowered short-term rates modestly because the economy held up. In short, in the best environment that we’ve seen for credit, less action by the Federal Reserve was fine – so long as the economic data was good.

This is a bull-case, rather than our base case, because there are also a number of key differences with the mid 1990s, not the least being a much worse trajectory – today – for the US government's budget. But in a scenario where things change less, and the status quo lasts longer, it could come into play.

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.

With the inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump approaching, our Global Head of Fixed Income and Public Policy Research weighs the impact for investors of his potential policy measures.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Fixed Income and Public Policy Research. Today on the podcast I'll be talking about what investors need to know about recent US policy developments.

It’s Wednesday, Jan 8th, at 2:30pm in New York. 

In less than two weeks, Donald Trump will again become the sitting President of the United States. The economic and market consequences of the policies he might enact, either on his own or in concert with the Congress, continue to be an important debate for investors. Our view has been that the sequencing and severity of policy choices across tariffs, taxes, immigration, and regulation would be very meaningful to the market's outlook. 

So, have we learned anything from news around the policy discussions inside the incoming administration and congressional leaders? Let’s consider it here and level set. 

First, there‘s been news about Republicans debating their approach to legislating some of President Trump’s top policy priorities. That debate centers around whether to create one big bill around taxes, immigration, and a host of other issues or to break it into multiple bills. Leading with immigration reforms, where there may be more consensus within Republicans’ slim Congressional majority; and then following it up with tax cuts and extensions, which may take more time to negotiate given myriad interests. While investors have asked us about this debate quite a bit, the distinction between the approaches may not make much of a difference to investors. 

At the end of the day, what should matter most to markets is the timing and size of the fiscal impact driven by tax changes. Going with one big bill may seem faster, but we’re reminded of the saying ‘Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.’ In other words, that one big bill would probably only pass as fast as Republicans could agree on its toughest negotiating points – so likely not very soon. 

As for the size of fiscal impact, we continue to see consensus around extending most of the tax cuts that expire at the end of 2025, with some new benefits, like a domestic manufacturing tax credit. So, there should be some fiscal expansion in 2026, a few hundred billion dollars in our view; but this is meaningfully different than the trillions of dollars that the media cites when discussing the whole of the tax policy wish list. 

There’s also been some news on the approach to tariffs, but again it seems more noise than signal. Recent media reports are that Trump might adopt a tariff plan focused on specific products as opposed to a blanket approach on all imports. Trump denied the report via social media. But even if he hadn’t, it's unclear that such a plan could be executed quickly through existing executive powers or through legislation, where it's far from clear that tariffs could be enacted given Democrats' opposition and procedural barriers from budget reconciliation. So, our view remains that new tariffs will likely be enacted but through executive authority – which means a phased-in focus on China and Europe in 2025; and any new authorities developed via existing laws might not be enactable until 2026. So said more simply, the impact of tariffs on the economy may be a late 2025 into 2026 story. 

Putting it together for investors: So far, the news flow hasn’t materially changed our view on the US policy path. Yes, important policy changes are coming, but their implementation may be slow. That should mean that, to start 2025, the healthy fundamentals of the US economy should help drive risk markets, namely U.S. equities and corporate credit, to outperform. If we’re wrong and, for example, tariffs are implemented in larger magnitude at a quicker pace, then it may be a year where less risky assets, like government bonds, outperform. 

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter weighs the myriad variables which could impact global markets in 2025, and why this year may be the most uncertain for economies since the start of the pandemic.

----- Transcript -----

Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist, and today I'll be talking about 2025 and what we might expect in the global economy.

It's Tuesday, January 7th at 10am in New York.

Normally, our year ahead outlook is a roadmap for markets. But for 2025, it feels a bit more like a choose your own adventure book.

uncertainty is a key theme that we highlighted in our year ahead outlook. The new U.S. administration, in particular, will choose its own adventure with tariffs, immigration, and fiscal policy.

Some of the uncertainty is already visible in markets with the repricing of the Fed at the December meeting and the strengthening of the dollar. Our baseline has disinflation stalling on the back of tariffs and immigration policy, while growth moderates, but only late in the year as the policies are gradually phased in.

But in reality, the sequencing, the magnitude and the timing of these policies remains unknown for now, but they're going to have big implications for the economies and central banks around the world. The U.S. economy comes into the year on solid footing with healthy payrolls and solid consumption spending.

Disinflation is continuing, and the inflation data for November were in line with our forecast, but softer in terms of PCE than what the Fed expected. While the Fed did lower their policy rate 25 basis points at the December meeting, Chair Powell's tone was very cautious, and the Fed's projections had inflation risks skewed to the upside.

The chair noted that the FOMC was only beginning to build in assumptions about policy changes from the new administration. Now, we have conviction that tariffs and immigration restriction will both slow the economy and boost inflation -- but we've assumed that these policies are phased in gradually over the entirety of the year. And consequently -- that materially Stagflationary impetus? Well, it's reserved for 2026, not this year.

Similarly, we've assumed that effectively the entire year is consumed by the process of tax cut extensions. And so, we've penciled in no meaningful fiscal impetus for this year. And in fact, with the bulk of the process simply extending current tax policy, we have very little net fiscal impact, even in 2026.

Now, in China, the deflationary pressure is set to continue with any policy reaction further complicated by U.S. policy uncertainty. The policymaker meeting in late December that they held provided only a modest upside surprise in terms of fiscal stimulus, so we're going to have to wait for any further details on that spending until March with the National People's Congress.

Meanwhile, during our holiday break, the renminbi broke above 7.3, and that level matches roughly the peaks that we saw in 2022 and 2023. The strong dollar is clearly weighing on the fixing. The framework for policy will have to account for a potentially trade relationship with the U.S. So, again, in China, there's a great deal of uncertainty, a lot of it driven by policy.

The euro area is arguably less exposed to U.S. trade risks than China. A weaker euro may help stabilize inflation that's trending lower there, but our growth forecasts suggest a tepid outlook. Private consumption spending should moderate, and maybe firm a bit, as inflation continues to fall, and continued policy easing from the ECB should support CapEx spending.

Fiscal consolidation, though, is a key risk to growth, especially in France and Italy, and any postponement in investment from potential trade tensions could further weaken growth.

Now, in Japan, the key debate is whether the Bank of Japan will raise rates in January or March. After the last Bank of Japan meeting, Governor Ueda indicated a desire for greater confidence on the inflation outlook.

Nonetheless, we've retained our call that the hike will be in January because we believe the Bank of Japan's regional Branch manager meeting will give sufficient insight about a strong wage trend. And in combination with the currency weakness that we've been watching, we think that's gonna be enough for the BOJ to hike this month. Alternatively, the BOJ might wait until the Rengo negotiation results come out in March to decide if a hike is appropriate. So far, the data remains supportive and Japanese style core CPI inflation has gone to 2.7 per cent in November. The market's going to focus on Deputy Governor Himino's speech on January 14th for clues on the timing – January or March.

Finally, as the Central Bank of Mexico highlighted in their most recent rate cut decision, caution is the word as we enter the new year. As economists, we could not agree more. The year ahead is the most uncertain since the start of the pandemic. Politics and policy are inherently difficult to forecast. We fully expect to revise our forecasts more -- and more often than usual.

Thanks for listening, and if you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson considers the year-end slump in U.S. stocks, and whether more market-friendly policies can change the narrative.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing the weak finish to 2024 and what it means for 2025. 

It's Monday, Jan 6th at 11:30am in New York. 

So let’s get after it.

While 2024 was another solid year for US equity markets, December was not. The weak finish to the year is likely attributable to several factors. First, from September to the end of November, equity markets had one of their better 3-month runs that also capped the historically strong 1- and 2-year advances. This rally was due to a combination of events including a reversal of recession fears this summer, an aggressive 50 basis points start to a new Fed cutting cycle, and an election that resulted in both a Republican sweep and an unchallenged outcome that led to covering of hedges into early December. This also lines up with my view in October that the S&P 500 could run to 6,100 on a decisive election outcome.

Second, long-term interest rates have backed up considerably since the summer when recession fears peaked. Importantly, this 100 basis point back-up in the 10-year US Treasury yield occurred as the Fed cut interest rates by 100 basis points. In my view, the bond market may be calling into question the Fed’s decision to cut rates so aggressively in the context of stabilizing employment data. The fact that the term premium has risen by 77 basis points from the September lows is also significant and may be a by-product of this dynamic and uncertainty around fiscal sustainability. As we suggested two months ago, if the change in the term premium was to materially exceed 50 basis points, the equity market could start to take notice and hurt valuations. Indeed, Equity multiples peaked in early- to mid-December around the time when the term premium crossed this threshold. 

Finally, the rise in rates and the Trump election win has ushered in a stronger dollar which is now reaching a level that could also weigh on equities with significant international exposure. More specifically, the US dollar is quickly approaching the 10 per cent year-over-year rate of change threshold that has historically pressured S&P 500 earnings growth and guidance. 

All of these factors have combined to weigh on market breadth, something that still looks like a warning. The divergence between the S&P 500 Index as a ratio of its 200-day moving average and the percent of stocks trading above their 200-day moving average has rarely been wider. This divergence can close in two ways—either breadth improves or the S&P 500 trades closer to its own 200-day moving average, which is 10 per cent below current prices. The first scenario likely relies on a combination of lower rates, a weaker dollar, clarity on tariff policy and stronger earnings revisions. In the absence of those developments, we think 2025 could be a year of two halves with the first half being more challenged before the more market-friendly policy changes can have their desired effects.

It's also worth pointing out that this gap between index pricing and breadth has been more persistent in recent years, something that we attribute to the generous liquidity provisions provided by the Treasury and the Fed. It's also been aided by interventions from other central banks. While not a perfect measure, we do find that the year-over-year change in global money supply in US Dollars is a good way to monitor key inflection points, and that measure has recently rolled over again. 

The recent moves in rates and US dollar is just another reason to stick with quality equities. Our quality bias is rooted in the notion that we remain in a later cycle environment which is typical of a backdrop that is consistent with outperformance of this cohort and the fact that the relative earnings revisions for this high quality factor are inflecting higher. As long as these dynamics persist, we think it also makes sense to stay selective within cyclicals and focused on areas of the market that are showing clear relative strength in earnings revisions. These groups include Software, Financials, and Media & Entertainment.

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

With the start of the new year, our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets looks back to look ahead at trends for credit and other markets in 2025.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I’ll be discussing the lessons we can learn from 2024 – a remarkable year that also may be easily forgotten. 

It's Friday January 3rd at 2pm in London. 

In 2024 I celebrated my 20th year with Morgan Stanley. Among my regrets over this time was not keeping a better journal. It’s notable how quickly events in the market that seemed large and remarkable at the time can fade in one’s memory as the years merge together. How markets that seem easy or obvious in hindsight were anything but. 

I say this because many years from now, 2024 may end up being one of those relatively forgettable years. Another year where – as usually happens – the stock market went up. Another year where stocks outperformed bonds, the US dollar strengthened, and US stocks beat those abroad. 

Yet what is significant about 2024 is the scale of all these trends. For anyone managing money, the question of “stocks versus bonds”, “US versus rest-of-world”, “large versus small” or “growth versus value” are some of the most fundamental strategic questions one faces. 

These calls don’t always matter. But last year, they did – to a very large degree. Global stocks outperformed bonds by about 20 percent. Growth outperformed Value by practically the same amount. US stocks beat their global peers by 13 per cent. In short, one’s experience in 2024 and relative performance could have varied significantly, based on just a few relatively simple decisions. 

Related to that is the second lesson. 2024 was the reminder that while Valuation is a powerful long-term force, it can be a much more frustrating 12-month guide. All of those relative relationships I just mentioned – stocks versus bonds, growth versus value, US versus International – all worked in favor of the market that was historically richer entering last year. 

For our third lesson from last year, we’ll focus on Credit, where investors earned a premium over safer government bonds by lending to riskier corporate borrowers. Notable for this asset class in 2024 was, for the most part, it did its own thing; showing some encouraging independence from other markets and highlighting the value of digging into a borrower’s details. 

Specifically, I think this independence showed up in a few different ways. Credit showed low correlation to government bonds, for example, delivering good excess returns despite very large swings in yields or central bank expectations. It also, even more impressively, bucked some of 2024’s biggest trends. 

For example, while the outperformance of the US economy and US assets was one of the biggest stories of 2024, that wasn’t the case in Credit – where Europe and Asia credit actually did marginally better. In contrast to the equity market, smaller companies and Credit outperformed, as spreads and higher yielded loans outperformed larger Investment Grade spreads, even after adjusting for risk. 

And this was true even at a more granular level. Rising corporate activity, alongside more aggressive strategies for companies to deal with their own borrowing created very dispersed outcomes driven by bond-level documentation; far removed from the macro machinations of politics and monetary policy. 

This somewhat weaker connection to the broader world is central to how we think about Credit looking ahead. While big economic and political questions certainly loom in 2025, we think that Credit, for now, will be driven more by more micro, company level trends, and show somewhat lower correlation to other assets – at least through the first half of this year. 

From all of us at Thoughts on the Market, we wish you a very Happy New Year, and all the best for 2025. 

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Head of Global Autos & Shared Mobility Adam Jonas discusses why the electric vehicle market may see a small reset in 2025, but ultimately accelerate under a Trump Administration.

----- Transcript -----

Adam Jonas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Adam Jonas, Morgan Stanley's Head of Global Autos and Shared Mobility. Today, I'll be talking about the outlook for U.S. automakers and electric vehicles.

It's Thursday, January 2nd at 1pm in New York.

With Trump's inauguration just around the corner, we've seen a resurgence in many auto stocks tied to Internal Combustion Engines, also known as ICE. While questions swirl around the outlook for electric vehicles. In the near term we do think it'll be a bumpy ride for the U.S. EV market. But looking toward the second half of this year and beyond, we think there's hidden value in the EV sector for a number of reasons.

First, let's look at the big picture. In our 2025 outlook for U.S. auto sales, we anticipate demand of 16.3 million units, a modest increase from the previous year, underpinned by projected U.S. GDP growth of around 1.9 percent and lower policy interest rates for auto loans. Looking specifically at EVs, we think the trajectory will be first a dip, then a rip scenario. That is, we're lowering our 2025 forecasts for U.S. EV penetration to 8.5 percent, down slightly from 9 percent previously. However, our long-term outlook remains unchanged, and we continue to forecast significant growth for EVs by 2040.

Now for the big question. What does a Trump administration mean for EVs? Following the U.S. election, investors hopped on the ‘ICE is Nice’ trade based on the expectation that a Trump administration will bring more relaxed U.S. emission standards, reduced EV incentives, and finally increased tariffs – which would drive up the costs of key EV components, such as batteries and semiconductors, predominantly manufactured in Asia.

But the real story is more nuanced. You can't talk about EVs without talking about Elon Musk, who will be leading Trump's Department of Government Efficiency. And we struggle with the idea that the incoming Trump administration working in close partnership with Musk would structurally impede U.S. participation in two of the most important industrial transitions in over a century: electrification and embodied AI.

If the U.S. wants to be a leader in autonomy, it must ultimately embrace EVs, which are the sockets of autonomous capability, and expand its EV infrastructure. How long will the U.S. cling to the soothing vibrations of its internal combustion fleet, while its rivals in China solidify their dominance in software defined electric mobility? Not for very long, in our opinion.

While a rolling back of incentives under Trump may make 2025 a reset year for EV adoption, we view this mainly as a temporary action to help support a more capable and sustainable crop of domestic champions.

That takes us to a resurgence in U.S. onshoring. Bringing manufacturing back to American soil has gained significant momentum and is another factor influencing the long-term outlook; not just for EV makers, but the entire supply chain. With the U.S. light vehicle market predominantly ICE-based at 92 percent of total sales, the real issue isn't the presence of gas powered combustion engines, but the glaring lack of advanced onshore EV production capabilities.

Again, this puts the U.S. at a disadvantage compared to its global competitors and raises questions the Trump administration will need to address. Just what type of manufacturing does the U.S. want to prioritize? Are we looking to maintain the status quo with ICE, or are we aiming to be at the forefront of EV technology?

No doubt, the U.S. auto industry stands at a crossroads between maintaining traditional technologies and embracing new, potentially disruptive advancements in EV and AV sectors. The decisions made in the next few years will likely dictate the pace and direction of the U.S.'s role in the global automotive landscape; and for investors, this brings new challenges – as well as opportunities.

Thanks for listening. And if you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Original Release Date November 22, 2024: Our US Public Policy Strategist Ariana Salvatore and Chief Latin America Equity Strategist Nikolaj Lippmann discuss what Trump’s victory could mean for new trade relationships.

----- Transcript -----

Andrew Sheets: 2024 was a year of transition for economies and global markets. Central banks began easing interest rates, U.S. elections signaled significant policy change, and Generative AI made a quantum leap in adoption and development.

Thank you for listening throughout 2024, as we navigated the issues and events that shaped financial markets, and society. We hope you'll join us next year as we continue to bring you the most up to date information on the financial world. This week, please enjoy some encores of episodes over the last few months and we'll be back with all new episodes in January. From all of us on Thoughts on the Market, Happy Holidays, and a very Happy New Year. 

Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's US Public Policy Strategist.

Nikolaj Lippmann: And I'm Nik Lippmann, Morgan Stanley's Chief Latin American Equity Strategist.

Ariana Salvatore: Today, we're talking about the impact of the US election on Mexico's economy, financial markets, and its trade relationships with both the US and China.

It's Friday, November 22nd at 10am in New York.

The US election has generated a lot of debate around global trade, and now that Trump has won, all eyes are on tariffs. Nik, how much is this weighing on Mexico investors?

Nikolaj Lippmann: It’s interesting because there's kind of no real consensus here. I'd say international and US investors are generally rather apprehensive about getting in front of the Trump risk in Mexico; while, interestingly enough, most Mexico-based investors and many Latin American investors think Trump is kind of good news for Mexico, and in many cases, even better news than Biden or Harris. Net, net, Mexican peso has sold off. Mexico's now down 25 per cent in dollar terms year to date, while it was flat to up three, four, 5 per cent around May. So, we've already seen a lot being priced then.

Ariana, what are your expectations for Trump's trade policy with regards to Mexico?

Ariana Salvatore: So, Mexico has been a big part of the trade debate, especially as we consider this question of whether or not Mexico represents a bridge or a buffer between the US and China. On the tariff front, we've been clear about our expectations that a wide range of outcomes is possible here, especially because the president can do so much without congressional approval.

Specifically on Mexico, Trump has in the past threatened an increase in exchange for certain policy concessions. For example, back in 2019, he threatened a 5 per cent tariff if the Mexican government didn't send emergency authorities to the southern border. We think given the salience of immigration as a topic this election cycle, we can easily envision a scenario again in which those tariff threats re-emerge.

However, there's really a balance to strike here because the US is Mexico's main trading partner. That means any changes to current policy will have a substantial impact.

So, Nik, how are you thinking about these changes? Are all tariff plans necessarily a negative? Or do you see any potential opportunities for Mexico here?

Nikolaj Lippmann: Look, I think there are clear risks, but here are my thoughts. It would be very hard for the United States to de-risk from China and de-risk from Mexico simultaneously. Here it becomes really important to double-click on the differences in the manufacturing ecosystems in North America versus Southeast Asia and China.

The North American model is really very integrated. US companies are by a mile the biggest investor. In Mexico – and Mexican exports to the US kind of match the Mexican import categories – the products go back and forth. Mexico has evolved from a place of assembly to a manufacturing ecosystem. 25 years ago, it was more about sending products down, paint them blue, put a lid on it. Now there's much more value add.

The link, however, is still alive. It's a play on enhancing US competitiveness. You can kind of, as you did, call it a China buffer; a fender that helps protect US competitiveness. But by the end of the day, I think integration and alignment is going to be the key here.

Ariana Salvatore: But of course, it's not just the direct trade relationship between the US and Mexico. We need to also consider the global geopolitical landscape, and specifically this question of the role of China. What's Mexico's current trade policy like with China?

Nikolaj Lippmann: Another great question, Ariana, and I think this is the key. There is growing evidence that China is trying to use Mexico as a China bridge.

And I think this is an area where we will see the biggest adjustments or need for realignment. This is a debate we've been following. We saw, with interest, that Mexico introduced first a 25 per cent tariff and then a 35 per cent tariff on Chinese imports. And saw this as the initial signs of growing alignment between the two countries.

However, Mexican import from China never really dropped. So, we started looking at like the complicated math saying 35 per cent times $115 billion of import. You know, best case scenario, Mexico should be collecting $40 billion from tariffs; that's huge and almost unrealistic number for Mexico. Even half of that would go a long way to solve fiscal challenges in that country.

However, when we started looking at the actual tax collection from Chinese imports, it was closer to $3 billion, as we highlighted in a note with our Mexico economist just recently. There's just multiple discounts and exemptions to effective tariffs at neither 25 per cent nor 35 per cent, but actually closer to 2.5 [or] 3 per cent. I think there's a problem with Chinese content in Mexican exports, and I think it's likely to be an area that policymakers will examine more closely. Why not drive-up US or North American content?

Ariana Salvatore: So, it sounds like what you're saying is that there is a political, or rhetorical at least, alignment between the US and Mexico when it comes to China. But the reality is that the policy implementation is not yet there.

We know that there's currently nothing in the USMCA treaty that prevents Mexico from importing goods from China. But a lot has changed over the past four years, even since the pandemic. So, looking forward, do you expect Mexico's policy vis-a-vis China to change after Trump takes office?

Nikolaj Lippmann: I think, I certainly think so, and I think this is again; this is going to be the key. As you mentioned, there's nothing in the USMCA treaty that prevents Mexico from buying the stuff from China. And it's not a customs union. Mexican consumers, much like American consumers, like to buy cheap stuff.

However, the geopolitics that you refer to is important. And when I reflect, frankly, on the bilateral relationship between the two countries, I think Mexican policymakers need to perhaps pause and think a little bit about things like the spirit of the treaty and not just the letter of the treaty; and also about how to maintain public opinion support in the United States.

By the end of the day, when we see what has happened with regards to China after the pandemic, it has been a significant change in political consensus and public opinion. When I think Americans are not necessarily interested in just using Mexico as a China bridge for Chinese products.

During the first Trump administration, the NAFTA agreement was renegotiated as the US Mexico Canada agreement, the USMCA, that took effect or took force in mid 2020. This agreement will come under review in 2026.

Ariana, what are the expectations for the future of this agreement under the Trump administration?

Ariana Salvatore: So, I think this USMCA review that's coming up in 2026 is going to be a really critical litmus test of the US-Mexico relationship, and we're going to learn a lot about this China bridge or buffer question that you mentioned. Just for some very brief context, that agreement as you mentioned was signed in 2020, but it includes a clause that lets all parties evaluate the agreement six years into a 16-year time horizon.

So, at that point, they can decide to extend the agreement for another 16 years. Or to conduct a joint review on an annual basis until that original 16 years lapses. So, although the agreement will stay in force until at least 2036, the review period, which is around June of [20]26, provides an opportunity for the signing parties to provide recommendations or propose changes to the agreement short of a full-scale renegotiation.

We do see some overlapping objectives between the two parties. For example, things like updating the foundation for digital trade and AI, ensuring the endurance of labor protections, and addressing Mexico's energy sector. But Trump's approach likely will involve confronting the auto EV disputes and could possibly introduce an element of immigration policy within the revision. We also definitely expect this theme of Chinese investment in Mexico to feature heavily in the USMCA review discussions.

Finally, Nik, keeping in mind everything that we've discussed today, with global supply chains getting rewired post the pandemic, Mexico has been a beneficiary of the nearshoring trend. Do you think this is going to change as we look ahead?

Nikolaj Lippmann: So, look, we [are] still underweight Mexico, but I think risk ultimately biased with the upside over time with regards to trade.

We need evidence to be able to lay it out, these scenarios; Mexico could end up doing quite well with Trump. But much work needs to be done south of the border with regards to all the areas that we just mentioned there, Ariana.

When we reflect on this over the next couple of years, there's a couple of things that really stand out. Number one is that first wave of reshoring or nearshoring, which was really focused on brownfield. It was bringing our manufacturing ecosystems where we already had existing infrastructure.

What is potentially next, and what we're going to be watching in terms of sort of policy maker incentives and so on, will be some of the greenfield manufacturing ecosystems. That could involve things like IT hardware, maybe EV batteries, and a couple of other really important sectors.

Ariana Salvatore: And that's something we might get some insight into when we hear personnel appointments from President-elect Trump over the coming months. Nik, thanks so much for taking the time to talk.

Nikolaj Lippmann: Thank you very much, Arianna.

Ariana Salvatore: And thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen, and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Original Release Date November 26, 2024: Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson joins Andrew Pauker of the U.S. Equity Strategy team to break down the key issues for equity markets ahead of 2025, including the impact of potential deregulation and tariffs.

----- Transcript -----

Andrew Sheets: 2024 was a year of transition for economies and global markets. Central banks began easing interest rates, U.S. elections signaled significant policy change, and Generative AI made a quantum leap in adoption and development.

Thank you for listening throughout 2024, as we navigated the issues and events that shaped financial markets, and society. We hope you'll join us next year as we continue to bring you the most up to date information on the financial world. This week, please enjoy some encores of episodes over the last few months and we'll be back with all new episodes in January. From all of us on Thoughts on the Market, Happy Holidays, and a very Happy New Year. 

Mike Wilson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist.

Andrew Pauker: And I'm Andrew Pauker from our US Equity Strategy Team.

Mike Wilson: Today we'll discuss our 2025 outlook for US equities.

It's Tuesday, November 26th at 5pm.

So let's get after it.

Andrew Pauker: Mike, we're forecasting a year-end 2025 price target of 6,500 for the S&P 500. That's about 9 percent upside from current levels. Walk us through the drivers of that price target from an earnings and valuation standpoint.

Mike Wilson: Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, this is really just rolling forward what we did this summer, which is we started to incorporate our economists’ soft-landing views. And, of course, our rate strategist view for 10-year yields, which, you know, factors into valuation.

We really didn't change any of our earnings forecast. That's where we've been very accurate. What we've been not accurate is on the multiple. And I think a lot of clients have also -- investors -- have been probably a little bit too conservative on their multiple assumption. And so, we went back and looked at, you know, periods when earnings growth is above average, which is what we're expecting. And that's just about 8 percent; anything north of that. Plus, when the Fed is actually cutting rates, which was not the case this past summer, it's just very difficult to see multiples go down. So, we actually do have about 5 percent depreciation in our multiple assumption on a year-over-year basis, but still it's very high relative to history.

But if the base case plays out, but from an economic standpoint and from a rate standpoint, it's unlikely earnings rates are going to come down. So, then we basically can get all of the appreciation from our earnings forecast for about, you know, 10-12 percent; a little bit of a discount from multiples, that gets you your 9 percent upside.

I just want to, you know, make sure listeners understand that the macro-outcomes are still very uncertain. And so just like this year, you know, we maybe pivot back and forth throughout the year … as [it] becomes [clear], you know, what the outcome is actually going to be.

For example, growth could be better; growth could be worse; rates could be higher; the Fed may not cut rates; they may have to raise rates again if inflation comes back. So, I would just, you know, make sure people understand it's not going to be a straight line no matter what happens. And we're going to try to navigate that with, you know, our style sector picks.

Andrew Pauker: There are a number of new policy dynamics to think through post the election that may have a significant impact on markets as we head into 2025, Mike. What are the potential policy changes that you think could be most impactful for equities next year?

Mike Wilson: Yeah, and I think a lot of this started to get discounted into the markets this fall, you know, the prediction polls were kinda leaning towards a Republican win, starting really in June – and it kind of went back and forth and then it really picked up steam in September and October. And the thing that the markets, equity market, are most excited about I would say, is this idea of deregulation. You know, that's something President-elect Trump has talked about. The Republicans seem to be on board with that. That sort of business friendly, if you will, kind of a repeat of his first term.

I would say on the negative side what markets are maybe wary about, of course, is tariffs. But here there’s a lot of uncertainty too. We obviously got a tweet last night from President-elect Trump, and it was, you know, 10 percent additional tariffs on certain things. And there’s just a lot of confusion. Some stocks sold off on that. But remember a lot of stocks rallied yesterday on the news of Scott Bessent being announced as Treasury Secretary because he's maybe not going to be as tough on tariffs.

So, what I view the next two months as is sort of a trial period where we're going to see a lot of announcements going out. And then the people in the cabinet positions who are appointed along with the President-elect are going to look at how the market reacts. And they're going to want to try to, you know, think about that in the context of how they're going to propose policy when they actually take office.

So, a lot of volatility over the next two months as these announcements are kind of floated out there as trial balloons. And then, of course, you also have the enforcement of immigration and the impact there on growth and also labor supply and labor costs. And that could be a net negative in the first half of next year. And so, look, it's going to be about the sequencing. Those are the two easy ones that you can see – tariffs of some form, and of course, immigration enforcement. And those are probably the two biggest potential negatives in the first half of next year.

Andrew Pauker: Mike, the title of our Outlook is “Stay Nimble Amid Changing Market Leadership,” and I think that reflects our mentality when it comes to remaining focused on capturing the leadership changes under the surface of the market. We rotated from a defensive posture over the summer to a more pro-cyclical stance in the fall. Talk about our latest views when it comes to positioning across styles, themes, and sectors here.

Mike Wilson: Yeah, I mean, you know, you have to understand that that pivot was not about the election as much as it was about kind of the economy, moving from the risk of a hard landing, which people were worried about this summer to, soft landing again. And then of course we got the Fed to, you know, aggressively begin a new rate cutting cycle with 50 basis points, which was a bit of a surprise given, you know, the context of a still decent labor markets.

That was the main reason for kind of the cyclical pivot, and then, of course, the election outcome sort of turbocharges some of that. So that's why we're sticking with it for now.

So, to be more specific, what we basically did was we went to quality cyclical rotation. What does that mean? It means, you know, we prefer things like financials, maybe industrials, kind of a close second from a sector standpoint. But this quality feature we think is important for people to consider because interest rates are still pretty high. You know, balance sheets are still a little stretched and, you know, price levels are still high.

So that means that lower quality businesses -- and the stocks of those lower quality businesses -- are probably a higher risk than we want to assume right now. But going into year end first and in 2025, we're going to stick with what we've sort of been recommending. On the defensive side. We didn't abandon all of them – because of , you know, we don't know how it's going to play out. So, we kept Utilities as an overweight because it has some offensive properties as well – most notably lever to kind of this, power deficiency within the United States. And that, of course with deregulation, a new twist on that could be things like natural gas, deployment of, you know, natural gas resources, which would help pipelines, LNG facilities potentially, and also, new ways to drive electricity production.

So, with that, Andrew, why don't you maybe dig in a little bit deeper on our financials column, and why it's not just, you know, about the election and kind of a rotation, but there's actually fundamental drivers here.

Andrew Pauker: Yeah, so Financials remains our top sector pick, following our upgrade in early October. And the drivers of that view are – a rebounding capital markets backdrop, strong earnings revisions, and the potential for an acceleration in buybacks into next year. And then post the election, expectation for deregulation can also continue to drive performance for the sector in addition to those fundamental catalysts. And then finally, even with the outperformance that we've seen for the group, over the last month and a half or so, relative valuation remains on demand – and kind of the 50th percentile of historical levels.

So, Mike, I want to wrap up by spending a minute on investor feedback to our outlook. Which aspects of our view have you gotten the most questions on? Where do investors agree and where do they disagree?

Mike Wilson: Yeah, I mean, it's sort of been ongoing because, as we noted, we really pivoted, more constructively on kind of a pro-cyclical basis a while ago. And the pushback then is the same as it is now, which is that equities are expensive. And I mean, quite frankly, the reason we pivoted to some of these more cyclical areas is because they're not as expensive. But that doesn't take away from the fact that stocks are pricey. And so, people just want to understand this analysis that, you know, we did this time around, which kind of just shows why multiples can stay higher.

They do appreciate that, you know, things can change. So, you know, we need to be, you know, cognizant of that. I would say, there's also debate around small caps. You know, we're neutral on small caps; we upgraded that about the same time after having been underweight for several years.

I think, you know, people really want to get behind that. It's been a; it's been a trade that people have gotten wrong, repeatedly over the last couple years trying to buy small caps. This time it seems like there may be some more behind it. We agree. That's why we went to neutral. And I think, you know, there are people who want to figure out, well, why? Why don't we go overweight now? And what we're really waiting for is for rates to come down a bit more. It's still sort of a late cycle environment. So, you know, typically you want to wait until you kind of see the beginnings of a new acceleration in the economy. And that's not what our economists are forecasting.

And then the other area is just this debate around government efficiency. And this is where I'm actually most excited because this is not priced at all in my view. There's so much skepticism around the ability or, you know, the likelihood of success in shrinking the government. That's not really what we're, you know, hoping for. We're just hoping for kind of a freezing of government spending. And it's so important to just, to think about it that way because that's what the fiscal sustainability question is all about, where then rates can stay contained. But then if you take it a step further, you know, our view for the last several years has been that the government has been essentially crowding out the private economy, and that really has punished small, medium businesses as well as many consumers.

And so, by shrinking or at least freezing the size of the government and redeploying those efforts into the private economy, we could see a very significant increase in productivity, but also see a broadening out in this rally. I mean, one of the reasons the market's been; equity market's been so narrow is because is because scale really matters in this crowded out, sort of environment.

If that changes, that creates opportunity at the stock level and that broadening out, which is a much healthier bull market potential.

So, what are you hearing from investors, Andrew?

Andrew Pauker: Yeah, I mean, I think the debate now, in addition to the factors that you mentioned, is really around the consumer space. A lot of pessimism is in the price already for consumer discretionary goods on the back of – kind of wallet share shift from goods to services, high price levels and sticky interest rates in addition to the tariff risk.

So, what we did in our note this week is we laid out a couple of drivers that could potentially get us more positive on that cohort. And those include a reversion in terms of the wallet share shift actually back towards goods. I think that would be a function of lower price levels. Lower interest rates – our rate strategists expect the 10-year yield to fall to 355 by year end 2025. So that would be a constructive backdrop for some of the more interest rate sensitive and housing areas within consumer discretionary.

Those are all factors that watching closely in order to get more constructive on that space. But that is another area of the market that I have received a good amount of questions on.

Mike Wilson: That's great, Andrew. Thanks a lot. Thanks for taking the time to talk today.

Andrew Pauker: Thanks, Mike. Anytime.

Mike Wilson: 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.

Original Release Date October 25, 2024: After decades of offshoring, the pendulum for US manufacturing is swinging back toward domestic production. Our US Multi-Industry Analyst Chris Snyder looks at what’s behind this trend.

----- Transcript -----

Andrew Sheets: 2024 was a year of transition for economies and global markets. Central banks began easing interest rates, U.S. elections signaled significant policy change, and Generative AI made a quantum leap in adoption and development.

Thank you for listening throughout 2024, as we navigated the issues and events that shaped financial markets, and society. We hope you'll join us next year as we continue to bring you the most up to date information on the financial world. This week, please enjoy some encores of episodes over the last few months and we'll be back with all new episodes in January. From all of us on Thoughts on the Market, Happy Holidays, and a very Happy New Year. 

Chris Snyder: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Chris Snyder, Morgan Stanley’s US Multi-Industry Analyst. Today I’ll discuss the far-reaching implications of shifting industrial production back to the United States. 

It’s Friday, October 25th, at 10am in New York.

Global manufacturing is undergoing a seismic shift, and the United States is at the epicenter of this transformation. After decades of offshoring and relying on international supply chains, the pendulum is swinging back toward domestic production. This movement – known as reshoring – is not just a fleeting trend but a strategic realignment of manufacturing capabilities that is indicative of the “multipolar” theme playing out globally.

In fact, we believe the US is entering the early innings of re-Industrialization – a multi-decade opportunity that we size at $10 trillion and think has the potential to restore growth to the US industrial economy following more than 20 years of stagnation. 

The reshoring of manufacturing to the US is fueled by a combination of factors that are making domestic production both viable and lucrative. While the initial sparks were ignited by policy changes, including tariffs and trade agreements, the COVID-19 pandemic laid bare the risks of elongated supply chains and over-dependence on foreign manufacturing.

Meanwhile, the diffusion of cutting-edge technologies, such as automation, artificial intelligence, and advanced robotics, has diminished the cost advantages of low-wage countries. The US -- with its robust tech sector and innovation ecosystem -- is uniquely positioned to leverage technology to revitalize its manufacturing base. 

Who are the direct beneficiaries? High-tech sectors, such as semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, and advanced manufacturing systems, are likely to be the biggest winners. Traditional industrial sectors, such as automotive and aerospace, are also seeing a resurgence. Finally, companies that invest in more sustainable manufacturing processes stand to gain from both policy-driven incentives and a growing market demand. All told, these businesses should see shorter supply chains, reduced legal and tariff costs, and a more resilient operational structure. 

As for the broader US economy? We think the implications are pretty profound. In altering the US industrial landscape, reshoring promises not only to boost GDP growth, but it could also stabilize and potentially reverse the trade deficits that have plagued the US economy for years.

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.

Original Release Date November 19, 2024: On the second part of a two-part roundtable, our panel gives its 2025 preview for the housing and mortgage landscape, the US Treasury yield curve and currency markets.

----- Transcript -----

Andrew Sheets: 2024 was a year of transition for economies and global markets. Central banks began easing interest rates, U.S. elections signaled significant policy change, and Generative AI made a quantum leap in adoption and development.

Thank you for listening throughout 2024, as we navigated the issues and events that shaped financial markets, and society. We hope you'll join us next year as we continue to bring you the most up to date information on the financial world. This week, please enjoy some encores of episodes over the last few months and we'll be back with all new episodes in January. From all of us on Thoughts on the Market, Happy Holidays, and a very Happy New Year. 

Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. This is part two of our special roundtable discussion on what's ahead for the global economy and markets in 2025.

Today we will cover what is ahead for government bonds, currencies, and housing. I'm joined by Matt Hornbach, our Chief Macro Strategist; James Lord, Global Head of Currency and Emerging Market Strategy; Jay Bacow, our co-head of Securitized Product Strategy; and Jim Egan, the other co-head of Securitized Product Strategy.

It's Tuesday, November 19th, at 10am in New York.

Matt, I'd like to go to you first. 2024 was a fascinating year for government bond yields globally. We started with a deeply inverted US yield curve at the beginning of the year, and we are ending the year with a much steeper curve – with much of that inversion gone. We have seen both meaningful sell offs and rallies over the course of the year as markets negotiated hard landing, soft landing, and no landing scenarios.

With the election behind us and a significant change of policy ahead of us, how do you see the outlook for global government bond yields in 2025?

Matt Hornbach: With the US election outcome known, global rate markets can march to the beat of its consequences. Central banks around the world continue to lower policy rates in our economist baseline projection, with much lower policy rates taking hold in their hard landing scenario versus higher rates in their scenarios for re-acceleration.

This skew towards more dovish outcomes alongside the baseline for lower policy rates than captured in current market prices ultimately leads to lower government bond yields and steeper yield curves across most of the G10 through next year. Summarizing the regions, we expect treasury yields to move lower over the forecast horizon, helped by 75 [basis points] worth of Fed rate cuts, more than markets currently price.

We forecast 10-year Treasury yields reaching 3 and 3.75 per cent by the middle of next year and ending the year just above 3.5 per cent.

Our economists are forecasting a pause in the easing cycle in the second half of the year from the Fed. That would leave the Fed funds rate still above the median longer run dot.

The rationale for the pause involves Fed uncertainty over the ultimate effects of tariffs and immigration reform on growth and inflation.

We also see the treasury curve bull steepening throughout the forecast horizon with most of the steepening in the first half of the year, when most of the fall in yields occur.

Finally, on break even inflation rates, we see five- and 10-year break evens tightening slightly by the middle of 2025 as inflation risks cool. However, as the Trump administration starts implementing tariffs, break evens widen in our forecast with the five- and 10-year maturities reaching 2.55 per cent and 2.4 per cent respectively by the end of next year.

As such, we think real yields will lead the bulk of the decline in nominal yields in our forecasting with the 10-year real yield around 1.45 per cent by the middle of next year; and ending the year at 1.15 per cent.

Vishy Tirupattur: That's very helpful, Matt. James, clearly the incoming administration has policy choices, and their sequencing and severity will have major implications for the strength of the dollar that has rallied substantially in the last few months. Against this backdrop, how do you assess 2025 to be? What differences do you expect to see between DM and EM currency markets?

James Lord: The incoming administration's proposed policies could have far-reaching impacts on currency markets, some of which are already being reflected in the price of the dollar today. We had argued ahead of the election that a Republican sweep was probably the most bullish dollar outcome, and we are now seeing that being reflected.

We do think the dollar rally continues for a little bit longer as markets price in a higher likelihood of tariffs being implemented against trading partners and there being a risk of additional deficit expansion in 2025. However, we don't really see that dollar strength persisting for long throughout 2025.

So, I think that is – compared to the current debate, compared to the current market pricing – a negative dollar catalyst that should get priced into markets.

And to your question, Vishy, that there will be differences with EM and also within EM as well. Probably the most notable one is the renminbi. We have the renminbi as the weakest currency within all of our forecasts for 2025, really reflecting the impact of tariffs.

We expect tariffs against China to be more consequential than against other countries, thus requiring a bigger adjustment on the FX side. We see dollar China, or dollar renminbi ending next year at 7.6. So that represents a very sharp divergence versus dollar yen and the broader DXY moves – and is a consequence of tariffs.

And that does imply that the Fed's broad dollar index only has a pretty modest decline next year, despite the bigger move in the DXY. The rest of Asia will likely follow dollar China more closely than dollar yen, in our view, causing AXJ currencies to generally underperform; versus CMEA and Latin America, which on the whole do a bit better.

Vishy Tirupattur: Jay, in contrast to corporate credit, mortgage spreads are at or about their long-term average levels. How do you expect 2025 to pan out for mortgages? What are the key drivers of your expectations, and which potential policy changes you are most focused on?

Jay Bacow: As you point out, mortgage spreads do look wide to corporate spreads, but there are good reasons for that. We all know that the Fed is reducing their holdings of mortgages, and they're the largest holder of mortgages in the world.

We don't expect Fed balance sheet reduction of mortgages to change, even if they do NQT, as is our forecast in the first quarter of 2025. When they NQT, we expect mortgage runoff to continue to go into treasuries. What we do expect to change next year is that bank demand function will shift. We are working under the assumption that the Basel III endgame either stalls under the next administration or gets released in a way that is capital neutral. And that's going to free up excess capital for banks and reduce regulatory uncertainty for them in how they deploy the cash in their portfolios.

The one thing that we've been waiting for is this clarity around regulations. When that changes, we think that's going to be a positive, but it's not just banks returning to the market.

We think that there's going to be tailwinds from overseas investors that are going to be hedging out their FX risks as the Fed cuts rates, and the Bank of Japan hikes, so we expect more demand from Japanese life insurance companies.

A steeper yield curve is going to be good for REIT demand. And these buyers, banks, overseas REITs, they typically buy CUSIPs, and that's going to help not just from a demand side, but it's going to help funding on mortgages improve as well. And all of those things are going to take mortgage spreads tighter, and that's why we are bullish.

I also want to mention agency CMBS for a moment. The technical pressure there is even better than in single family mortgages. The supply story is still constrained, but there is no Fed QT in multifamily. And then also the capital that's going to be available for banks from the deregulation will allow them – in combination with the portfolio layer hedging – to add agency CMBS in a way that they haven't really been adding in the last few years. So that could take spreads tighter as well.

Now, Vishy, you also mentioned policy changes. We think discussions around GSE reform are likely to become more prevalent under the new administration.

And we think that given that improved capitalization, depending on the path of their earnings and any plans to raise capital, we could see an attempt to exit conservatorship during this administration.

But we will simply state our view that any plan that results in a meaningful change to the capital treatment – or credit risk – to the investors of conventional mortgages is going to be too destabilizing for the housing finance markets to implement. And so, we don't think that path could go forward.

Vishy Tirupattur: Thanks, Jay. Jim, it was a challenging year for the housing market with historically high levels of unaffordability and continued headwinds of limited supply. How do you see 2025 to be for the US housing market? And going beyond housing, what is your outlook for the opportunity set in securitized credit for 2025?

James Egan: For the housing market, the 2025 narrative is going to be one about absolute level versus the direction and rate of change. For instance, Vishy, you mentioned affordability. Mortgage rates have increased significantly since the beginning of September, but it's also true that they're down roughly a hundred basis points from the fourth quarter of 2023 and we're forecasting pretty healthy decreases in the 10-year Treasury throughout 2025. So, we expect affordability to improve over the coming year. Supply? It remains near historic lows, but it's been increasing year to date.

So similar to the affordability narrative, it's more challenged than it's been in decades; but it's also less challenged than it was a year ago.

So, what does all this mean for the housing market as we look through 2025? Despite the improvements in affordability, sales volumes have been pretty stagnant this year. Total volumes – so existing plus new volumes – are actually down about 3 per cent year to date. And look, that isn't unusual. It typically takes about a year for sales volumes to pick up when you see this kind of significant affordability improvement that we've witnessed over the past year, even with the recent backup in mortgage rates.

And that means we think we're kind of entering that sweet spot for increased sales now. We've seen purchase applications turn positive year over year. We've seen pending home sales turn positive year over year. That's the first time both of those things have happened since 2021. But when we think about how much sales 2025, we think it's going to be a little bit more curtailed. There are a whole host of reasons for that – but one of them the lock in effect has been a very popular talking point in the housing market this year. If we look at just the difference between the effective mortgage rate on the outstanding universe and where you can take out a mortgage rate today, the universe is still over 200 basis points out of the money.

To the upside, you're not going to get 10 per cent growth there, but you're going to get more than 5 per cent growth in new home sales. And what I really want to emphasize here is – yes, mortgage rates have increased recently. We expect them to come down in 2025; but even if they don't, we don't think there's a lot of room for downside to existing home sales from here.

There's some level of housing activity that has to happen, regardless of where mortgage rates or affordability are. We think we're there. Turnover measured as the number of transactions – existing transactions – as a share of the outstanding housing market is lower now than it was during the great financial crisis. It's as low as it's been in a little bit over 40 years. We just don't think it can fall that much further from here.

But as we go through 2025, we do think it dips negative. We have a negative 2 per cent HPA call next year, not significantly down. We don't think there's a lot of room to the downside given the healthy foundation, the low supply, the strong credit standards in the housing market. But there is a little bit of negativity next year before home prices reaccelerate.

This leaves us generically constructive on securitized products across the board. Given how much of the capital structure has flattened this year, we think CLO AAAs actually offer the best value amongst the debt tranches there. We think non-QM triple AAAs and agency MBS is going to tighten. They look cheap to IG corporates. Consumer ABS, we also think still looks pretty cheap to IG corporates. Even in the CMBS pace, we think there's opportunities. CMBS has really outperformed this year as rates have come down. Now our bull bear spread differentials are much wider in CMBS than they are elsewhere, but in our base case, conduit BBB minuses still offer attractive value.

That being said, if we're going to go down the capital structure, our favorite expression in the securitized credit space is US CLO equity.

Vishy Tirupattur: Thank you, Jay and Jim, and also Matt and James.

We'll close it out here. As a reminder, 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.

Original Release Date November 18, 2024: On the first part of a two-part roundtable, our panel discusses why the US is likely to see a slowdown and where investors can look for growth.

----- Transcript -----

Andrew Sheets: 2024 was a year of transition for economies and global markets. Central banks began easing interest rates, U.S. elections signaled significant policy change, and Generative AI made a quantum leap in adoption and development.

Thank you for listening throughout 2024, as we navigated the issues and events that shaped financial markets, and society. We hope you'll join us next year as we continue to bring you the most up to date information on the financial world. This week, please enjoy some encores of episodes over the last few months and we'll be back with all new episodes in January. From all of us on Thoughts on the Market, Happy Holidays, and a very Happy New Year. 

Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Today in the podcast, we are hosting a special roundtable discussion on what's ahead for the global economy and markets in 2025.

I'm joined by my colleagues: Seth Carpenter, Global Chief Economist; Mike Wilson, Chief US Equity Strategist and the firm's Chief Investment Officer; and Andrew Sheets, Global Head of [Corporate] Credit Research.

It's Monday, November 18th, at 10am in New York.

Gentlemen. Thank you all for taking the time to talk. We have a lot to cover, and so I'm going to go right into it.

Seth, I want to start with the global economy. As you look ahead to 2025, how do you see the global economy evolving in terms of growth, inflation and monetary policy?

Seth Carpenter: I have to say – it's always difficult to do forecasts. But I think right now the uncertainty is even greater than usual. It's pretty tricky. I think if you do it at a global level, we're not actually looking for all that much of a change, you know, around 3-ish percent growth; but the composition is surely going to change some.

So, let's hit the big economies around the world. For the US, we are looking for a bit of a slowdown. Now, some of that was unsustainable growth this year and last year. There's a bit of waning residual impetus from fiscal policy that's going to come off in growth rate terms. Monetary policy is still restrictive, and there's some lag effects there; so even though the Fed is cutting rates, there's still going to be a little bit of a slowdown coming next year from that.

But I think the really big question, and you alluded to this in your question, is what about other policy changes here? For fiscal policy, we think that's really an issue for 2026. That's when the Tax Cut and Jobs Act (TCJA) tax cuts expire, and so we think there's going to be a fix for that; but that's going to take most of 2025 to address legislatively. And so, the fiscal impetus really is a question for 2026.

But immigration, tariffs; those matter a lot. And here the question really is, do things get front loaded? Is it everything all at once right at the beginning? Is it phased in over time a bit like it was over 2018? I think our baseline assumption is that there will be tariffs; there will be an increase in tariffs, especially on China. But they will get phased in over the course of 2025. And so, as a result, the first thing you see is some increase in inflation and it will build over time as the tariffs build. The slowdown from growth, though, gets backloaded to the end of 2025 and then really spills over into to 2026.

Now, Europe is still in a situation where they've got some sluggish growth. We think things stabilize. We get, you know, 1 percent growth or so. So not a further deterioration there; but not a huge increase that would make you super excited. The ECB should probably keep cutting interest rates. And we actually think there's a really good chance that inflation in the euro area goes below their target. And so, as a result, what do we see? Well, the ECB cutting down below their best guess of neutral. They think 2 percent nominal is neutral and they go below that.

China is another big curveball here for the forecast because they've been in this debt deflation spiral for a while. We don't think the pivot in fiscal policy is anywhere near sufficient to ward things off. And so, we could actually see a further slowing down of growth in China in 2025 as the policy makers do this reactive kind of policy response. And so, it's going to take a while there, and we think there's a downside risk there.

On the upside. I mean, we're still bullish on Japan. We're still very bullish on India and its growth; and across other parts of EM, there's some bright spots. So, it's a real mixed bag. I don't think there's a single trend across the globe that's going to drive the overall growth narrative.

Vishy Tirupattur: Thank you, Seth. Mike, I'd like to go to you next. 2024 has turned out to be a strong year for equity markets globally, particularly for US and Japanese equities. While we did see modest earnings growth, equity returns were mostly about multiple expansion. How do you expect 2025 to turn out for the global equity markets? What are the key challenges and opportunities ahead for the equity markets that you see?

Mike Wilson: Yeah, this year was interesting because we had what I would say was very modest earnings growth in the US in particular; relative to the performance. It was really all multiple expansion, and that's probably not going to repeat this year. We're looking for better earnings growth given our soft landing outcome from an economic standpoint and rates coming down. But we don't think multiples will expand any further. In fact, we think they'll come down by about 5 percent. But that still gets us a decent return in the base case of sort of high single digits.

You know, Japan is the second market we like relative to the rest of the world because of the corporate governance story. So there, too, we're looking for high single digit earnings growth and high single digits or 10 percent return in total. And Europe is when we're sort of down taking a bit because of tariff risk and also pressure from China, where they have a lot of export business.

You know, the challenges I think going forward is that growth continues to be below trend in many regions. The second challenge is that, you know, high quality assets are expensive everywhere. It's not just the US. It's sort of everywhere in the world. So, you get what you pay for. You know, the S&P is extremely expensive, but that's because the ROE is higher, and growth is higher.

So, you know, in other words, these are not well-kept secrets. And so just valuation is a real challenge. And then, of course, the consensus views are generally fairly narrow around the soft landing and that's very priced as well. So, the risks are that the consensus view doesn't play out. And that's why we have two bull and two bear cases in the US – just like we did in the mid-year outlook; and in fact, what happened is one of our bull cases is what played out in the second half of this year.

So, the real opportunity from our standpoint, I think this is a global call as well – which is that we continue to be pretty big rotations around the macro-outlook, which remains uncertain, given the policy changes we're seeing in the US potentially, and also the geopolitical risks that still is out there.

And then the other big opportunity has been stock picking. Dispersion is extremely high. Clients are really being rewarded for taking single stock exposures. And I think that continues into next year. So, we're going to do what we did this year is we're going to try to rotate around from a style and size perspective, depending on the macro-outlook.

Vishy Tirupattur: Thank you, Mike. Andrew, we are ending 2024 in a reasonably good setup for credit markets, with spreads at or near multi-decade tights for many markets. How do you expect the global credit markets to play out in 2025? What are the best places to be within the credit spectrum and across different regions?

Andrew Sheets: I think that's the best way to frame it – to start a little bit about where we are and then talk about where we might be going. I think it's safe to say that this has been an absolutely phenomenal backdrop for corporate credit. Corporate credit likes moderation. And I think you've seen an unusual amount of moderation at both the macro and the micro level.

You've seen kind of moderate growth, moderating inflation, moderating policy rates across DM. And then at the micro level, even though markets have been very strong, corporate aggressiveness has not been. M&A has been well below trend. Corporate balance sheets have been pretty stable.

So, what I think is notable is you've had an economic backdrop that credit has really liked, as you correctly note. We've pushed spreads near 20-year tights based on that backdrop. But it's a backdrop that credit markets liked, but US voters did not like, and they voted for different policy.

And so, when we look ahead – the range of outcomes, I think across both the macro and the micro, is expanding. And I think the policy uncertainty that markets now face is increasing both scenarios to the upside where things are hotter and you see more animal spirits; and risk to the downside, where potentially more aggressive tariffs or action on immigration creates more kind of stagflationary types of risk.

So one element that we're facing is we feel like we're leaving behind a really good environment for corporate credit and we're entering something that's more uncertain. But then balancing that is that you're not going to transition immediately.

You still have a lot of momentum in the US and European economy. I look at the forecasts from Seth's team, the global economic numbers, or at least kind of the DM economic numbers into the first half of next year – still look fine. We still have the Fed cutting. We still have the ECB cutting. We still have inflation moderating.

So, part of our thinking for this year is it could be a little bit of a story of two halves that we titled our section, “On Borrowed Time.” That the credit is still likely to hold in well and perform better in the first half of the year. Yields are still good; the Fed is still cutting; the backdrop hasn't changed that much. And then it's the second half of the year where some of our economic numbers start to show more divergence, where the Fed is no longer cutting rates, where all in yield levels are lower on our interest rate forecasts, which could temper demand. That looks somewhat trickier.

In terms of how we think about what we like within credit, we do think the levered loan market continues to be attractive. That's part of credit where spreads are not particularly tight versus history. That's one area where we still see risk premium. I think this is also an environment where regionally we see Asia underperforming. It's a market that's both very expensive from a spread perspective but also faces potentially kind of outsized economic and tariff uncertainty. And we think that the US might outperform in context to at least initially investors feeling like the US is at less relative risk from tariffs and policy uncertainty than some other markets.

So, Vishy, I'll pause there and pass it back to you.

Vishy Tirupattur: Thanks, Mike, Seth, and Andrew.

Thank you all for listening. We are going to take a pause here and we'll be back tomorrow with our year ahead round table continued, where we'll share our forecast for government bonds, currencies and housing.

As a reminder, if you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research joins our U.S. Public Policy Strategist to give investors their policy expectations for President-elect Trump’s second term, including the potential market and economic consequences of those policies if enacted.

----- Transcript -----

Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's global head of fixed income and thematic research.

Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, U.S. public policy strategist.

Michael: And on this episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll talk about potential policy paths the second Trump administration might pursue.

It's Monday, December 23rd at 10am in New York.

The U.S. presidential election is behind us and we're well into the holiday season, but we're still focusing closely on what U.S. policy might look like in 2025. Ariana, what have we learned in the past couple of weeks regarding Trump's policy plans for next year?

Ariana: So the variables or policy items that we're watching are still the same ones that we were tracking over the past year or so. That's tariffs, taxes, immigration and deregulation. But to your point, the election is now obviously behind us, and we do have some incremental information that's helped us construct a base case across these variables. For example, President elect Trump has made some key personnel appointments that we think are going to play a big role in exactly how these policies are carried out. His pick for Treasury Secretary, Scott Besant, is a good example that gives us conviction in a more gradual, incrementalist approach to tariffs. Translating that principle across all the policy variables, as well as the extremely thin majority the Republicans have in the House of Representatives, has helped us form the foundation of our base case, which we call “fast decisions, slow implementation.”

In short, we think that means you should expect major policy changes will be announced quickly, think first quarter of next year, but achieved more slowly. That, in our view, enables more benign macro conditions to persist into 2025, but does create some more uncertainty, both positive and negative, into 2026. We think that lag is attributable to a variety of logistical, legal, and political constraints, and does vary depending on the policy area and executive authorities. For example, we think Trump might have an easier time unilaterally modifying tariff rates, but other constraints outside of timing might limit implementation nonetheless.

So, Michael, taking this a step beyond just the policy paths, how should investors be thinking about the potential market and economic consequences of our base case? Aside from the specific policy changes, how do you think about our base case in terms of broader market themes?

Michael: I think the key takeaway here is that the policy path we're describing puts pressure on economic growth, but on a lag. So most of these effects are for later in 2025 or into 2026 per economist expectations.  So I think the key takeaway here is that the policy path we're describing exerts pressure on economic growth, albeit on a lag. So in our economist expectations later in 2025 and into 2026. So what that means is as we go into 2025, there's still a pretty good growth backdrop to support risk assets and equities in particular. It's also a pretty good backdrop for bonds because as we get closer to 2026, our bond strategist expectation is that markets will start to reflect expectations of growth pressure. And they'll probably be less concerned about what's a debate right now, which is the size of U.S. deficits. There's been this expectation that policies extending tax cuts would really grow the deficit substantially in the way that might put downward pressure on bond prices.

However, we think when investors take a closer look, they'll see that extending current tax cuts, which is our expectations, basically, they'll be able to extend current tax cuts with a few sweeteners on top, that's mostly an extension of current policy, as opposed to some of the headlines in the news talking about major deficit expansion, that's an expansion relative to if Congress did nothing and just let tax cuts expire. So the year over year difference in deficits is perhaps not as big as some of the headlines would suggest. So that's a good backdrop for bonds and a pretty good backdrop for equities and risk assets, at least to start the year.

Ariana: But of course, there's a lot of uncertainty embedded in these policy paths. Can you talk through how we're thinking about potential risks to our base case, or maybe some key signposts that could indicate that other scenarios are becoming plausible?

Michael: So if there are policies that shift that growth downside sooner, so instead of it manifesting in 2026, it manifests sooner in 2025, that's the type of thing that might make us less constructive on risk assets and equities. So if we got indications, for example, that tariffs were going to be implemented more quickly and to a greater degree, for example, announcements happening quickly, but also showing implementation is happening very quickly, that's the type of thing that might skew risk assets in a more negative direction. Similarly, if Congress were to pledge to appropriate more powers to the executive branch on tariff authority, not necessarily something we think they could get done, but that could be an indication that there could be more powerful tariff potential relative to what the executive branch currently has.

On the more positive side, if Congress indicates that it wants to move much faster and bigger on tax cuts and the executive branch were to flag that tariffs are going to be implemented later or suggest that there's more negotiating room with trade partners to avoid tariffs, then that might be the type of sequencing of policy that enables the market to focus more on the good aspects of policy, the helpful aspects to corporate earnings, to individual consumption, and to GDP growth that might just make for an all around more conducive environment to risk assets.

So there's a lot to keep an eye on between now and inauguration day. In the meantime, enjoy your holiday. Ariana, thanks for taking the time to talk.

Ariana: Great speaking with you, Mike.

Michael: And as a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen, and share our thoughts on the market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Head of Corporate Credit Research lists realistic scenarios for why credit could outperform expectations in 2025, despite some risks posed by policy changes from the incoming administration.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I’ll be discussing realistic scenarios where things could be better than we expect.

It's Friday December 20th at 2pm in London.

Credit is an asset class that always faces more limited upside, and the low starting point for spreads as we enter 2025 further limits potential gains. Nevertheless, there are still a number of ways where this market could do better than expected, with spreads tighter than expected, into next year.

An obvious place to start is U.S. policy. Morgan Stanley’s public policy strategy team thinks the incoming administration will be a story of “fast announcement, slow implementation”, with the growth and inflation impact of tariffs and immigration falling more in 2026 (rather than say earlier). And so if one looks at Morgan Stanley’s forecasts, our growth numbers for 2025 are good, our 2026 numbers are weaker.

The bull case could be that we see more talk but less ultimate action. Scenarios where tariffs are more of a negotiating tool than a sustained policy would likely mean less change to the current (credit friendly) status quo, and also increase the likelihood that the Federal Reserve will be able to lower interest rates even as growth holds up. Rate cuts with good growth is a rare occurrence, but when you do get it, it can be extremely good. If one thinks of the mid-1990s, another time where we had this combination, credit spreads were even tighter than current levels. Another path to the bull case is better funding conditions in the market. Some loosening of bank capital requirements or stronger demand for collateralized loan obligations could both flow through to tighter spreads for the assets that these fund, especially things like leveraged loans. If we think back to periods where credit spreads were tighter than today, easier funding was often a part of the story.

Now, a more aggressive phase of corporate activity could be a risk to credit, but M&A can also be a positive event, especially on a name by name basis. If merger and acquisition activity becomes a story of, say, larger companies buying smaller ones, that could mean that weaker, high yield credits get absorbed by larger, stronger, investment grade balance sheets. And so for those high yield bonds or loans, this can be an outstanding outcome. Another way things could be better than expected for credit is that growth in Europe and China is better than expected. In speaking with investors over the last few weeks, I think it's safe to say that expectations for both regions are pretty low. And so if things are better than these low expectations, spreads, especially in Europe, which are not as tight as those in the U.S., could go tighter.

But the most powerful form of the credit bull case might be the simplest. Morgan Stanley expects the Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, and the European Central Bank to all lower interest rates much more than markets expect next year, even as, for the most part, growth in 2025 holds up. Due in a large part to those expected rate cuts, we also think the yields fall more than expected. If that's right, credit could quietly have an outstanding year for total return, which is boosted as yields fall. Indeed, on our forecast, U.S. investment grade credit, a relatively sleepy asset class, would see a total return of roughly 10%, higher than our expected total return for the mighty S&P 500. Not all credit investors care about total return. But for those that do, that outcome could feel very bullish. 

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. 

Our Global Head of Macro Strategy joins our Chief U.S. Economist to discuss the Fed’s recent rate cut and why persistent inflation is likely to slow the pace of future cuts.

----- 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: Today, we're going to talk about the Federal Open Market Committee meeting and the path for rates from here.

It's Thursday, December 19th at 10a.m. in New York.

The FOMC meeting concluded yesterday with the Federal Reserve cutting rates by a quarter of a percentage point, marking the third rate cut for the year. This move by the Fed was just as the consensus had anticipated. However, in its meeting yesterday, the Fed indicated that 2025 rate cuts would happen at a slower pace than investors were expecting. So Mike, what are committee members projecting in terms of upcoming rate cuts in 2025 and 2026?

Michael: Yeah, Matt, the Fed dialed back its expectations for policy rate easing in both 2025 and 2026. They now only look for two rate cuts of 50 basis points worth of cuts in 2025, which would bring the funds rate to 3.9% and then only another 50 basis points in 2026, bringing the policy rate to 3.4%. So a major dialing back in their expectations of rate cuts over the next two years.

Matthew: What are the factors that are driving what now appears to be a slightly less dovish view of the policy rate?

Michael: Chair Powell mentioned, I think, two things that were really important. One, he said that many committee members saw recent firmness in inflation as a surprise. And so I think some FOMC members extrapolated that strength in inflation going forward and therefore thought fewer rate cuts were appropriate. But Chair Powell also said other FOMC members incorporated expectations about potential changes in policy, which we inferred to mean changes about tariffs, immigration policy, maybe additional fiscal spending. And so whether they bake that in as explicit assumptions or just saw it as risks to the outlook, I think that these were the two main factors. So either just momentum in inflation or views on policy rate changes, which could lead to greater inflation going forward.

Matthew: So Mike, what were your expectations going into this meeting and how did yesterday's outcome change Morgan Stanley's outlook for Federal Reserve policy next year and the year thereafter?

Michael: We are a little more comfortable with inflation than the Fed appears to be. So we previously thought the Fed would be cutting rates three times next year and doing all of that in the first half of the year. But we have to listen to what they're thinking and it appears that the bar for rate cuts is higher. In other words, they may need more evidence to reduce policy rates. One month of inflation isn't going to do it, for example. So what we did is we took one rate cut out of the forecast for 2025. We now only look for two rate cuts in 2025, one in March and one in June.

As we look into 2026, we do think the effect of higher tariffs and restrictions on immigration policy will slow the economy more, so we continue to look for more rate cuts in 2026 than the Fed is projecting but obviously 2026 is a long way away. So in short, Matt, we dialed back our assumptions for policy rate easing to take into account what the Fed appears to be saying about a higher bar for comfort on inflation before they ease again.

So Matt, if I can actually turn it back to you: how, if at all, did yesterday's meeting, and what Chair Powell said, change some of your key forecasts?

Matthew: So we came into this meeting advocating for a neutral stance in the bond market. We had seen a market pricing that ended up being more in line with the outcome of the meetings. We didn't expect yields to fall dramatically in the wake of this meeting, and we didn't expect yields to rise dramatically in the wake of this meeting. But what we ended up seeing in the marketplace was higher yields as a result of a policy projection that I think surprised investors somewhat and now the market is pricing an outlook that is somewhat similar to how the Fed is forecasting or projecting their policy rate into the future.

In terms of our treasury yield forecasts, we didn’t see anything in that meeting that changes the outlook for treasury markets all that much. As you said, Mike, that in 2026, we're expecting much lower policy rates. And that ultimately is going to weigh on treasury yields as we make our way through the course of 2025. When we forecast market rates or prices, we have to think about where we are going to be in the future and how we're going to be thinking about the future from then. And so when we think about where our treasury yield's going to be at the end of 2025, we need to try to invoke the views of investors at the end of 2025, which of course are going to be looking out into 2026.

So when we consider the rate policy path that you're projecting at the moment and the factors that are driving that rate policy projection - a slower growth, for example, a bit more moderate inflation - we do think that investors will be looking towards investing in the government bond market as we make our way through next year, because 2026 should be even more supportive of government bond markets than perhaps the economy and Fed policy might be in 2025.

So that's how we think about the interest rate marketplace. We continue to project a 10 year treasury yield of just about three and a half percent at the end of 2025 that does seem a ways away from where we are today, with the 10 year treasury yield closer to four and a half percent, but a year is a long time. And that's plenty of time, we think, for yields to move lower gradually as policy does as well. On the foreign exchange side. The dollar we are projecting to soften next year, and this would be in line with our view for lower treasury yields. For the time being, the dollar reacted in a very positive way to the FOMC meeting this week but we think in 2025, you will see some softening in the dollar. And that primarily occurs against the Australian dollar, the Euro, as well as the Yen. We are projecting the dollar/yen exchange rate to end next year just below 140, which is going to be quite a move from current levels, but we do think that a year is plenty of time to see the dollar depreciate and that again links up very nicely with our forecast for lower treasury yields.

Mike, with that said, one more question for you, if you would: where do things stand with inflation now? And how does this latest FOMC signal, how does it relate to inflation expectations for the year ahead?

Michael: So right now, inflation has been a little bit stronger than we and I think the Fed had anticipated, and that's coming from two sources. One, hurricane-related effects on car prices. So the need to replace a lot of cars has pushed new and used car prices higher. We think that's a temporary story that's likely to reverse in the coming months. The more longer term concern has been around housing related inflation, or what we would call shelter inflation. The good news in that is in November, it took a marked step lower. So I do think it tells us that that component, which has been holding up inflation, will continue to move down. But as we look ahead to your point about inflation expectations, the real concern here is about potential shifts in policy, maybe the implementation of tariffs, the restriction of immigration.

We as economists would normally say those should have level effects or one-off effects on inflation. And normally I'd have a high confidence in that statement. But we just came out of a very prolonged period of higher than normal inflation, so I think the concern is repetitive, one-off shocks to inflation, lead inflation expectations to move higher. Now, we don't think that will happen. Our outlook is for rate cuts, but this is the concern. So we think inflation moves lower. But we're certainly watching the behavior of inflation expectations to see if our forecast is misguided.

Matthew: Well, great Mike. Thanks so much for taking the time to talk.

Mike: Great speaking with you, Matt.

Matthew: 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.

Of all of the potential policy changes from the incoming U.S. presidential administration, deregulation could have the most significant impact on markets. Our Chief Fixed Income Strategist explains what’s coming.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Today I'll be discussing the policy changes that we have the highest conviction in terms of their market impact.

It's Wednesday, December 18th at 10 a.m. in New York.

As our regular readers are aware, Morgan Stanley strategists and economists around the globe came together to formulate our outlook for 2025 across the wide range of markets and economies we cover. A key aspect of this year's outlook is the potential for policy changes ahead from the incoming administration. The substance, severity, and sequencing of policies will matter and will have an important bearing on how markets perform over the course of 2025. We would put the potential range of policy changes into four broad categories: Tariffs and Trade Policy; Immigration Controls; Tax Cuts and Fiscal Policy; and finally, Deregulation. In terms of sequencing, our central case is for tariffs to go first and tax cuts to be last. As our public policy team sees it, the incoming administration will see fast announcements but a slow implementation of policy, especially in terms of tariffs and immigration. Slower implementation will mean that the changes will also be slow and the impacts on the economy and markets likely to be a lot more gradual.

That said, it is in the area of deregulation that we expect to see the highest impact on markets, even though precise measurement of these impacts in terms of macroeconomic indicators such as growth and inflation is hard to come through. So with deregulation, we expect an environment in support of bank activity. As our bank equity analysts have noted, banks in their coverage area currently are sitting on record levels of excess capital: 177 billion of excess capital and a weighted average CET1 ratio of 12.8 percent, which is 140 basis points higher than pre-COVID levels of 11.4 percent.

If Basel III Endgame is re proposed in a more capital neutral manner, we expect U.S. banks will begin deploying their excess capital into lending, supporting clients in trading and underwriting, increasing their securities purchases, as well as increasing buybacks and dividends. Changes to the existing Basel III Endgame proposal will also make U.S. banks more competitive globally.

We also believe all global banks with significant capital markets businesses will benefit from the return of the M&A. Another by-product of Basel III Endgame being reproposed in a capital neutral way pertains to what banks do in their securities portfolios. In the last few years, in anticipation of higher capital requirements, U.S. banks have not been very active in deploying their capital in securities purchases, particularly Asian CMBS and CLO AAAs. With the deregulation focus, we expect that banks will revert to buying the assets that they have stayed away from, in particular, Asian CMBS and CLO AAAs.

The return of bank demand for CLO AAAs will have a bearing on the underlying broadly syndicated loan market and even more broadly on credit formation and sponsor activity, which will be supportive of a stronger return of M&A than our credit strategists have been expecting. So in fixed income, if you pardon the pun, we are really banking on the impact of deregulation, which supports our view on the range of relative value opportunities and spread products, especially in securitized products.

Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague.

Our Global Chief Economist explains why a predictable end to 2024 for central banks may give way to a tempestuous 2025.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist, and today I'll be talking about how the year end is wrapping up with, surprisingly, a fair amount of certainty about central banks.

It's Tuesday, December 17th at 10 a. m. in New York.

Unlike the rest of this past year, year end seems to have a lot more certainty about the last few central bank meetings. Perhaps it is just the calm before the storm, but for now, let's enjoy a benign central bank week ahead of the holidays. Last Thursday, the ECB cut interest rates 25 basis points, right in line with what we were thinking and what the market was thinking. Similarly, but I have to say, with a pretty different narrative, we expect the Fed to cut 25 basis points this week and the market seems to be all in there as well.

The Bank of England, the Bank of Japan, well, we think they're closed accounts; that is to say, they're going to be on pause until the new year. Last week's 25 basis point cut by the ECB came amidst a debate as to whether or not the ECB should accelerate their pace of rate cuts. With most doubts about disinflation resolved, it’s downside growth risks that have gained prominence in the decision making process there. Restrictive monetary policy is starting to look less and less necessary and President Lagarde’s statement seems to reflect that the council's negotiated stance, that easing will continue until the ECB reaches neutral. The question is what happens next? In our view, the ECB will come to see there's a need to cut through neutral and get all the way down to 1%.

In stark contrast, there's the Fed, where there are very few residual growth concerns, but there have been more and more questions about the pace of disinflation. The recent employment data, for example, clearly suggests that the recession risk is low. Some members on the committee have started to express concerns, however, that inflation data really have proven stickier and that maybe the disinflation process is stalled.

From our perspective, last week's CPI data and all the other inflation data we just got really point to the next PCE print showing continued clear disinflation, leaving very little room for debate for the Fed to cut 25 basis points in December. And indeed, if it's as weak as we think it is, that provides extra fuel for a cut in January.

That said, our baseline view of cuts in March and May are going to get challenged if future data releases show a reversal in this disinflationary trend, if it's from residual seasonality or maybe pass through from newly imposed tariffs, and Chair Powell's remarks at next week's press conference are really going to be critical to see if they really are becoming more cautious about cuts.

Now, we don't expect the Bank of England or the Bank of Japan to move until next year. The recent currency weakness in Japan has raised the prospect of a rate hike as soon as this month, but we've kept the view that a January rate hike is much more likely. The timing would allow the Bank of Japan to get greater insight into the Shunto wage negotiations, and that gives them greater insight into future inflation. And recent communications from the Bank of Japan also aligns with our view and in particular, there is a scheduled speech by Deputy Governor Himino on January 14th, one week before the January 23rd and 24th meeting. All of that says the stars are lined up for a January rate hike. Market pricing over the past couple weeks have moved against a hike in December and towards our call for a hike in January.

Now, the market's also pricing the next Bank of England cut to be next year rather than this year. We expect those cuts to come at alternating meetings. December on pause, a cut in February, and gradual rate cuts thereafter. Now, services inflation, the key focus of the Bank of England so far, has remained elevated through the end of the year, but we expect to see mounting evidence of labor market weakness, and as a result, wage growth deceleration, and that, we think, is what pushes the MPC towards more cuts. All of that said, the recent announcement of fiscal stimulus in the UK starts to raise some inflationary risks at the margin.

All right, well, as the year comes to an end, it has been quite a year to say the least. Elections around the world, not least of which here in the United States, wildly swinging expectations for central banks, and a structural shift in Japan ending decades of nominal stagnation. And I have to say an early glimpse into 2025 suggests that the roller coaster is not over yet. But for now, let's take some respite because there should be limited drama from central banks this week. Happy holidays.

Well, thanks for listening, and if you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist recaps how equity markets have fared in 2024, and why they might look more conservative early in the new year.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing how to position as we head into the new year.

It's Monday, Dec 16th at 11:30am in New York. So let’s get after it.

The big question for most investors trying to beat the S&P 500 is whether returns will continue to be dominated by the Magnificent 7 and a few other high quality large cap stocks or if we're going to will see a sustainable broadening out of performance to new areas. Truth be told, 2024 has been a year during which investors have oscillated between a view of broadening out or continued narrowing. This preference has coincided with the ever-changing macro view about growth and inflation and how the Fed would respond.

To recount this past year, our original framework suggested investors would have to contend with markets reacting to these different macro-outcomes. More specifically, whether the economy would end up in a soft landing, a hard landing or a “no landing” outcome of accelerating growth and inflation. Getting this view right helped us navigate what kinds of stocks, sectors and factors would outperform during the year. The perfect portfolio this year would have been overweight broad cyclicals like energy, industrials and financials in the first quarter, followed by a Magnificent 7 tilt in early 2Q that got more defensive over the summer before shifting back toward high quality cyclicals in late third quarter. Lately, that cyclical tilt has included some lower quality stocks while the Magnificent 7 has had a big resurgence in the past few weeks. We attributed these shifts to the changing perceptions on the macro which have been more uncertain than normal.

Going into next year, I think this pattern continues, and it currently makes sense to have a barbell of large cap high quality cyclicals and growth stocks even though small caps and the biggest losers of the prior year tend to outperform in January as portfolios rebalance. We remain up the quality curve because it appears the seasonal low quality cyclical small cap rally was pulled forward this year due to the decisive election outcome. In addition to the large hedges being removed, there was also a spike in many confidence surveys which further spilled into excitement about this small cap lower quality rotation.

Therefore, it makes sense that the short-term euphoria that's now taking a break with the rotation back toward large cap quality mentioned earlier. The fundamental driver of this rotation is earnings. Both earnings revisions and the expected growth rate of earnings next year remain much better for higher quality stocks and sectors. Given the uncertainty around policy sequencing and implementation on tariffs, immigration and how much the Fed can cut rates next year, we suspect equity markets will tread a bit more conservatively in the first quarter than what we observed this fall.

The biggest risks to the upside would be a more modest implementation of tariffs, a de-emphasis on deportations of working illegal immigrants and perhaps more aggressive de-regulation that is viewed as pro-growth. Other variables worth watching closely include how quickly and aggressively the new department of government efficiency acts with respect to shrinking the size of the Federal agencies. While I'm hopeful this new effort can prove the skeptics wrong, success may prove to be growth negative in the near term given how much the government has been driving overall GDP growth for the past few years. In my view, a true broadening out of the economy and the stock market is contingent on a smaller government both in terms of regulation and absolute size. In my view, this is the most exciting potential change for taxpayers, smaller businesses and markets overall. However, it is also likely to take several years to fully manifest.

In the meantime, I wish you a happy holiday season and a healthy and prosperous New Year.

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

After an up-and-down 2024 for the U.S. airlines industry, our Freight Transportation & Airlines Analyst Ravi Shanker explains why he is bullish about the sector’s trajectory over the next year.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ravi Shanker, Morgan Stanley’s Freight Transportation and Airlines analyst. Today I’ll discuss why we remain bullish on the US Airlines industry for 2025.

It’s Friday, December 13, at 10am in New York.

The Airline industry entered 2024 with good momentum, lost it during the middle of the year with some concerns around the economy and capacity, but then turned it around in the fall to finish the year with the strongest run that the Airlines have had since the pandemic. The coast looks clear for 2025, and we remain bullish on the US Airlines for next year.

While many airline stocks enter 2025 close to post-pandemic if not all-time highs, valuations are still attractive enough across the space to see upside across the industry. The big question right now is: will the focus on premium services continue to pay off, or will there be a resurgence in domestic travel that alters the market dynamics? We think the answer is both.

Premium beneficiaries will continue to shine in 2025. We believe the premiumization trend in the industry is structural and will continue next year. Legacy carriers have successfully capitalized on this trend, enhancing their revenue streams significantly through upgraded service offerings such as premium seating and lounge access. This move isn't just about luxury—it's a calculated play to boost ancillary revenues, which are becoming a more critical component of financial stability in the airline industry. The premium leaders are building annuity-like business models – think razorblades, printers or smartphones – where the sale of a popular gateway product is followed by the bulk of the profitability coming from ancillary revenues generated in the following years, as loyalty and adjacent revenues contribute a steady stream of earnings and free cash flow to the airlines.

On the flip side, the conversation around better margins on domestic travel is gaining momentum as well. 2024 saw a big shift where several domestic carriers made significant changes and even in some cases fundamentally overhauled their business models to fly less, fly differently, bundle fares, and move upmarket. This change brought significant disruption in 2024 but could be set to pay dividends in 2025 and reignite investor interest in these domestic names. This shift toward domestic travel could potentially redistribute market share and redefine competitive dynamics within the entire Airlines industry.

To sum up, the setup for 2025 looks very good. But volatility could remain high due to external factors. The biggest risk into 2025 -- especially the second half of [20]25 -- continues to be the macro backdrop. More specifically, our economists' view of a sharply slowing GDP growth and services spending environment in the second half of [20]25 and into [20]26. While we take comfort from the resilience of travel spending so far, we know that things could change quickly. We will continue to keep you updated throughout the next year.

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our U.S. Retail Analyst Simeon Gutman discusses shoppers’ embrace of a private labels super cycle and how changing consumer behavior could fundamentally change grocery and discount retailers.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Simeon Gutman, Morgan Stanley’s US Hardlines, Broadlines and Food Retail Analyst. Today, we’ll talk about a fascinating shift in the retail landscape: the rise of private label products and what this could mean for the future of grocery and discount retailers.

It’s Thursday, December 12, at 10am in New York.

Think about your recent trip to your favorite grocery store. As you reached towards the shelves for your preferred brand of mayonnaise, frozen pizza, or bread, you may have noticed that more and more shelves are stocked with store-brand products. Products that not only match the quality of national brands but often exceed it. This isn't just a minor trend. We estimate private label sales growth will accelerate by 40 per cent to reach $462 billion by 2030. An expansion that will redefine market dynamics significantly.

In essence, we think the private label grocery market is on the cusp of a super cycle. This super cycle is a by-product of COVID-era shifts in the way that customers shop and how retailers invest into this trend. At the same time, private label groceries reflect the rise of mega platforms, which are taking ever greater consumer wallet share and are innovating more than ever before.

When you look at macro drivers, US consumers have been navigating a difficult post-COVID environment. While inflation is currently moderating, overall food prices remain 30-34 per cent above their 2018 levels. Most consumers are spending more on food at home vs. food away from home, which is a positive catalyst for private label acceleration. Further, consumers are willing to substitute lower priced goods, especially groceries, and these categories present a growth opportunity for private labels. This is the tipping point that we’re talking about. High costs, recent innovation, and innovation like we’ve never seen before – with the rise of these mega platforms, this industry looks like it’s ripe for disruption.

The market views private label penetration as a slow, gradual, and ongoing event. But our work challenges this premise. We believe the rate of change in private label growth will accelerate substantially over the next few years. We think private label products will grow at double the rate of the overall grocery market bringing private label market penetration from about 19 per cent in 2023 to about 23 per cent by 2030.

This growth is not just about stocking up the shelves. It's about changing consumer perceptions and behavior. Consumers increasingly see private labels as viable alternatives to national brands because they often offer better value and innovation. From healthier ingredients, like no more seed oils, to organic products that you had no idea they can produce, to premium products like frozen lobster ravioli to mushroom and truffle pizza. There are a couple of retailers in the US that are all private label and they are among the fastest growing ones, taking away the stigma of what private label products could mean.

So what does this mean for the broader retail and consumer packaged good industries? For grocers and discounters with already strong private label offerings, this shift presents a significant opportunity for growth. It’s also accretive to margins. On the flip side, traditional food companies might face increased competition. These companies have historically relied on brand superiority. But as private label gains market share – particularly in food categories – these national brands could see a hit to their gross profit growth, which could fall from 3 per cent historically to about 2 per cent. And while household and personal care categories have seen some resilience against private label encroachment, the ongoing economic pressures and shifts in consumer spending habits could challenge the status quo.

Looking ahead, the rise of private labels could lead to a reevaluation of what brands mean to consumers. As private label becomes synonymous with quality and value, we may see a new era in which traditional brand loyalty becomes less significant compared to product quality and cost-effectiveness.

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets explains why corporate credit may struggle in 2025, including the risks of aggressive policy shifts in the U.S. along with political and structural challenges in Europe and Asia.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I’ll be discussing realistic scenarios where things are worse than we expect. Next week, I’ll cover what could be better.

It's Wednesday, December 11th at 2pm in London.

Morgan Stanley strategists and economists recently completed our forecasting process for the year ahead, and regular listeners will have now heard our expectations across a wide range of economies and markets. But I’d stress that these forecasts are a central case. The world is uncertain, with a probability distribution around all forecasts. So in the case of credit, what could go wrong?

As a quick reminder, our baseline for credit is reasonably constructive. We think that low credit spreads can remain low, especially in the first half of next year – as policy change is slow to come through, economic data holds up, the Fed and European Central Bank ease rates more than expected, and still-high yields on corporate bonds attract buyers.

So how does all of that go wrong? Well, there are a few specific, realistic factors that could lead us to something worse, i.e., our bear case.

Let me start with US policy. Morgan Stanley’s Public Policy team’s view is that the incoming US administration will see fast announcement, but slow implementation on key issues like tariffs, fiscal policy, and immigration; and that that slower implementation of any of these policies will mean that change comes less quickly to the economy. But that change could happen faster, which would mean weaker growth and higher prices – if, for example, tariffs were to hit earlier and or in larger size. In the case of immigration, we are actually still forecasting positive net immigration over the next several years. But a larger change in policy would raise the odds of a more severe labor shortage.

Even outside any specific change from the new US administration, there’s also a risk that the US economy simply runs out of gas. The recovery since COVID has been extraordinary – one of the fastest on record, especially in the labor market. The risk is that companies have now done all the hiring they need to do, meaning a slower job market going forward. Even in their base-case, Morgan Stanley’s economists see job market growth slowing, adding just 28,000 jobs/month in 2026. And to give you a sense of how low that number is, the average over the last 12 months was 190,000. And so, the bear case is that the labor market slows even more, more quickly, raising the risk of recession and dramatically lowering bond yields, both of which would reduce investor demand for corporate bonds.

At the other extreme, credit could be challenged if conditions are too hot. Because current levels of corporate aggression are still quite low, we think they could rise in 2025 without creating a major problem. But if those corporate animal spirits arrive more rapidly, it could be a negative.

Outside the US, we think the growth in Europe holds up as the European Central Bank cuts rates and Europeans end up saving at a slightly less elevated rate, and that that can keep growth near this year’s levels, around 1 per cent. But you don’t need me to tell you that Europe is riddled with challenges: from the political in France, to major structural questions around Germany’s economy. Meanwhile, China, the world’s second largest economy, continues to struggle with too little inflation. We think that growth in China muddles through, but a larger trade escalation could drive downside risk; one reason we prefer ex-China credit within Asia.

Of course, maybe the most obvious risk to Credit is simply valuation. Credit spreads in the US are near 20-year lows, while the US Equity Price-to-Earnings Multiples for the equity market is near 20-year highs. In our view, valuation is a much better guide to returns over the next six years, rather than say the next six months. And that’s one reason we are currently looking through this. But those valuations do leave a lot less margin for error.

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist says that while equity market activity suggests a measured level of optimism about 2025, the questions around tariffs and inflation have tempered expectations.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I will be discussing how equity markets have traded post the election and how this fits with our thinking.

It's Tuesday, Dec 10 at 11:30am in New York. So let’s get after it. 

Post the election, our focus has been on the potential for a rebound in animal spirits like we observed following the 2016 election. During that historical period, we saw a broad-based surge in corporate, consumer and investor confidence as the sentiment analysis we’ve done shows. So far over the last month, sentiment data has reflected a more measured level of optimism led by small business confidence while services related business outlooks were actually tempered somewhat. 

Our assessment of the details of these surveys and commentary from corporates suggests that consumers and companies are feeling more optimistic heading into 2025. But the uncertainty around tariffs and the still elevated price levels are likely holding back the type of exuberance we saw post the 2016 election.

In 2016, we were also coming out of an industrial/manufacturing downturn, which was then aided by aggressive China stimulus. Due to that downturn, interest rates were much lower globally and sovereign deficits and balance sheets were in much better shape to absorb reflationary type policies like tax cuts and deregulation. As a result, the equity market almost immediately embraced an expansionary fiscal agenda that was interpreted as being pro-growth. Today, that policy agenda appears to be less front-footed in this regard, perhaps due to some of these constraints.

Nevertheless, these dynamics are still supportive of our preference for more cyclical sectors. However, given the stickiness of interest rates, it also makes sense to remain up the quality curve within cyclicals and constructively focused on sectors with clearer de-regulation tailwinds. As a result, Financials remain our preferred over-weight, followed by Software, Utilities and Industrials. 

On the topic of interest rates, we find it interesting that the correlation of S&P 500 returns versus the change in bond yields remains in positive territory. In other words, good macro data is good for equity returns. Furthermore, there is a clear bifurcation in terms of this correlation between cyclical and defensive sectors. Cyclical sectors are showing a positive correlation to rates, with one exception of Materials, while defensive cohorts are showing a negative correlation except for Utilities.

In our view, this is a sign that cyclicals and the market overall still like stronger macro data even if it comes amid higher yields. Having said that, there is a point where this dynamic would likely reverse if interest rates rise due to less dovish monetary policy or an increase in the term premium. In April of this year, that level was 4.5 per cent on the 10-year Treasury yield when growth and inflation drove the term premium higher. For now, rates remain contained well below that threshold and the term premium is close to zero.

On the flipside, a material decline in yields due to weakness in the macro growth data would also hurt cyclical stocks disproportionately leaving 4.00-4.50 per cent on the 10-year treasury yield as the sweet spot for equity valuations. Yields below that range can certainly be tolerated by equities assuming the driver is Fed rate cuts in the absence of a material slowdown in growth. Yields above that range can also be tolerated if the pace of the rate rise is measured, and the driver is stronger nominal growth versus a more hawkish Fed or a rising inflation. 

Finally, as we approach year-end, December seasonality is likely to be a focal point for investors. Over the past 45 years, the S&P 500's median return over the month of December is 1.5 per cent and the index has a positive return 73 per cent of the time. Notably, almost all of that performance comes in the second half of the month. These trends are directionally consistent for the Russell 2000 small cap index except that it’s even stronger at about 2.5 per cent. This performance could be further enhanced by the larger post-election spike in small business confidence mentioned earlier. 

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Morgan Stanley Research and Investment Management analysts discuss how AI can keep costs down for the industry and give patients a more personalized experience.

----- Transcript -----

Craig Hettenbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Craig Hettenbach, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Healthcare Technology and Providers analyst.

Today I'm here with my colleague Steve Rodgers from Morgan Stanley Capital Partners to talk about a growing and underappreciated segment of healthcare – the behind-the-scenes technology that is transforming the sector to keep costs down and improve patient care.

It's Monday, December 9th at 9am in New York.

In 2022, the size of the U.S. healthcare sector was [$]4.5 trillion and is projected to grow to [$]6.8 trillion in 2030, accounting for 20 per cent of overall U.S. GDP. We know that the U.S. population is aging, and we expect to see 71 million U.S. citizens age 65 and over by 2030. That puts ever growing demand on health care systems. 

So, Steve, you and your colleagues in investment management have been looking lately at key macro trends driving change in the healthcare sector.

What are these drivers and how do they work together?

Steve Rodgers: When we look at the health care landscape, we really think about four major macro trends. The first is cost containment. And this is just this simple idea that costs are escalating at an unsustainable rate. The second is demographics; we also know that things like obesity is increasing the prevalence of chronic conditions and increasing the overall utilization of the healthcare system. And so, we're looking at ways to invest behind that macro trend.

We've also identified something called consumerism. And consumerism stems from the reality that today, patients are taking more of a financial responsibility in their healthcare. And with that comes more decision making. So, the old days – where the patient received healthcare services, but the payer paid, and there was really no link between the two – have moved on.

We call it the retailization of health care. Waiting in the office for your appointment for 30 minutes used to be a standard. Today, that's unacceptable because these patients will move to the next provider who's providing them a better retail experience.

The final macro driver we call enabling technology. Health care has lagged many other industry segments in the use of technology as a source of efficiency. I like to give the example of chemotherapy treatments, right? Technology would produce a new chemotherapy treatment, and while that's great for patient care and outcomes. It actually could lead to increased costs to the system because it was an added route that people would go down.

Now there's technology which allows a provider to say, “Start with this one because of your genetic makeup.” And not only will you have a better outcome more quickly, but it will be less cost to the system. We're also seeing that kind of efficiency happen on the administrative side of healthcare as well.

The way we think about these macro trends and how they work together is really thinking about demand versus supply. So, we see demand drivers coming from demographics and consumerism. We see supply drivers coming from cost containment and really enabling technology has impacts on both demand and supply.

Craig Hettenbach: Let's focus more specifically on just how digitization and cost containment dovetail. When people talk about the impact of AI and ML on healthcare, typically the focus is on things like big pharma, medical equipment, and hospitals. But there's actually a whole intricate infrastructure that helps healthcare run.

Can you talk about these behind-the-scenes businesses and why investment managers are so interested in the opportunities they offer?

Steve Rodgers: Yeah, it's really important. We focus on investments that are using technology to enable their businesses. And so that's automation. That's machine learning. It's AI. But all of these technologies are being used behind the scenes to make care more efficient and they're a better use of our dollars.

For example the personalization of communications from health plans. So historically a health plan would send the same communication, you know, to – the same form to every patient.

Well now, technology allows the health plan, at the point of generating that communication, to know that information about the person that's getting it. And having the ability to personalize it in ways that might help them be more likely to interact with it. Maybe they're trying to get them to do something about their health. Well, they can take an administrative communication, you know, called an explanation of benefit, which really just explains how much you owe versus how much the health plan owes. And you can also add important information to that that might help you utilize your benefits better.

Another example that we see is on the hospital side. As people I think have heard, hospitals have been very inefficient, right? They pay bills     the wrong bills, they're duplicative invoices, and there haven't been really good ways to figure that out. Well, we now have technology that can identify those duplicative invoices, that can actually identify that there are multiple contracts that they have with a vendor and direct them to use the cheapest one.

Last one that I would highlight is around the procurement of pharmaceuticals. So, again, if you imagine a hospital system that has 50 different hospitals and one person at each hospital might be buying the pharmaceuticals that fit to the needs they have in that facility. Well, now there's technology that's really helping consolidate those purchases, get the benefits of scale. Also tracking what is a very dynamic pricing market and figuring out today this channels is less costly than that one, so buy it from here; tomorrow it might be different.

We're seeing behind-the-scenes uses of technology in all of those types of areas, which are leading to efficiencies.

Craig Hettenbach: That's really interesting and I agree. Sometimes investors can overlook healthcare infrastructure as an area offering a lot of hidden growth. Let's take a subsector like Revenue Cycle Management or RCM. What is it exactly and what opportunities does it offer when it comes to technology and cost containment?

Steve Rodgers: What it is, it really is the whole process from start to finish of a healthcare episode. So, starting with something as simple as eligibility, or is this patient eligible for this procedure?

Then once that procedure happens, it has to be documented and coded and billed. And then once that bill goes out that needs to be collected and paid on. So, this whole process is really how healthcare works and it's one of the most important business processes for healthcare companies .

And what we've seen with revenue cycle is it's been a very, historically, a very manual process that involved a lot of human effort. So early on, some of the most basic functions of revenue cycle were automated. So, the example I can give there would be the front-end entry of a claim.

So that used to be sent over by fax and a person would have to look at that and type it into a computer and start the processing that way. Well that, for a long time, that's now been automated with either what's called OCR, which is a scanning technology. But even, you know, now, a lot of that's coming in digitally. But a lot of the rest of the process is still manual. And the reason is because the tasks are so complex. So, to resolve a claim, you often need to pull data from multiple sources. There'd be some subjective determinations about what's allowed or not allowed.

You would then need to apply [it] against a multiple complex rules and benefits. And sometimes the sheer dollars involved would make it too risky to just pay that claim without someone actually looking at it. Really we're entering an automation cycle where some of these new technologies are making it possible to reliably automate these more complex functions.

And so it's a combination of machine learning and AI but it's really driving efficiencies that are really exciting from an investment perspective to us right now.

Craig Hettenbach: Got it. In addition to revenue cycle management, are there any other subsectors that look interesting to you right now?

Steve Rodgers: We also, we call it cost cycle management. This is the idea of applying the same principles that we're seeing in revenue cycle to the purchasing of providers. So that can be supply costs, inventory management. Another area that we think is interesting is self insured employer outsourcing. One of the main frustrations that we hear time and time again from self insured employers is that their employees are not utilizing the benefits that they have. With technology, companies that are finding ways to get broader and better adoption; then in turn allowing these employers to see better utilization, which is going to lead to a healthier workforce and hopefully do so also, with some cost containment.

So Craig, it's clear that there's an overlap between what we look at from the investment management side and what you and your colleagues focus on in research. How do you think about analyzing how AI and machine learning are impacting healthcare?

Craig Hettenbach: Yeah, so for research across the department, we came up with a framework to look at and that's the NEXT framework. So number one, new business opportunities to evaluate. Number two, efficiencies. Number three, external productivity. And number four, content creation. So those are four things to help kind of frame what the opportunity set looks like, when leveraging AI and technology.

Steve Rodgers: And how does this framework apply to your space, healthcare services and technology specifically?

Craig Hettenbach: The second point of that next framework, the E for efficiencies, is something that we're already starting to see the tangible benefits. And so, just to give you some context here, the CEO of a leading hospital, at a conference recently said that 25 to 30 per cent of overall healthcare costs are tied to administrative.

So there is a lot of low hanging fruit there. There's other areas within whether you think about things like prior authorizations that are still done manually, either via fax, phone, email. Those are things that some health plans and technology partners are looking to automate. So, I think the efficiencies – we’re still early on, but you're starting to see at least the business case in terms of investments there.

And then there's the longer term look on the clinical side. And I think the understanding there is that's going to take longer. An executive at a recent industry conference I was at, I thought he said it best when he said, ‘You know, AI is going to save time before it saves lives.’

Steve Rodgers: How is this technology changing how physicians or providers do their jobs?

Craig Hettenbach: When we look at what's happened with physicians and nurses and still not too far removed from COVID and just burnout, it's palpable. And I think it's something that technology can certainly be used as an enhancer.

So ambient listening is a new technology. When we think about electronic health records; yes, it's great to get that information into that record, but it's also timely and consuming. And so, I think things like that – that can listen to and populate notes – is going to be a real time saver for both doctors and patients.

And on the patient side as well, when we think about just our experience, right? Healthcare just has a long ways to go in terms of response time. And that's something that I think more automation and technology, whether it's things like scheduling or check-ins and things like that, I think ultimately you'll see more technology deployed.

Okay, Steve, are there any other potentially overlooked near term or longer-term pockets of opportunity within health care that you think investors should focus on?

Steve Rodgers: Yeah, I think a general rule for investors or, you know, a heuristic that they should think about is, really trying to invest behind the things that are providing – really trying to stay on the right side of healthcare. And so, when we look at things like cost containment, you know, we see companies out there where they might be benefiting from inefficiency in the system. Those are things that I'd stay away from.

I'd focus on companies that are providing better quality care at a lower cost and staying on the right side of healthcare. Because I do believe that a lot of these investments – the AI, the technology – are going to drive efficiency and really eradicate some of these business models that are really taking advantage of the inefficiencies in the healthcare system.

Craig Hettenbach: Great, Steve, well that's very helpful and thanks for taking the time to talk today.

Steve Rodgers: Great speaking with you, Craig.

Craig Hettenbach: 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 colleagues today.

Morgan Stanley Research analysts see a strong start following Black Friday but question whether the short shopping season will hurt retailers.

----- Transcript -----

Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist.

Simeon Gutman: I'm Simeon Gutman, U.S. Hardlines, Broadlines, and Food Retail analyst.

Alex Straton: And I'm Alex Straton, North America Softlines, Retail, and Brands analyst.

Michelle Weaver: Thanksgiving and Black Friday are behind us; and now that the holiday shopping season is in full swing, we have some interesting new data we wanted to dig into. We also recently concluded Morgan Stanley's Global Consumer and Retail Conference in New York, and we'll share some key takeaways from that.

It's Friday, December 6th at 10am in New York.

I was recently on the show to talk about our holiday shopping outlook and survey takeaways, and noted that overall, we're expecting stronger spending this holiday season relative to last year. Inflation's cooled, and U.S. consumers are more positive on spending this season versus the past two holiday seasons. Now that we've got Black Friday in the rearview mirror, Simeon, within your space, how's holiday season tracking so far?

Simeon Gutman: Better. And the three key metrics – traffic, physical store sales, digital sales – all seem to be tracking better. The question is the magnitude and the length of ahead that the entire industry is – and what does that give us through the rest of the season? As we all know, the holiday season, shopping season is shorter; with the later fall of Thanksgiving, we're losing a weekend. The tone at our conference affirmed all of this, all the data points we heard were pretty upbeat. And it seems like the weather couldn't have broken at a better time, which is different from the October lead up to holiday.

So, it seems like we're off to a pretty healthy start. I think there's some questions of what do we make up in the last three weeks in this final push. Some companies at our conference sounded good on that. Some were a little bit, call it cautiously optimistic about the rest of the season.

Michelle Weaver: And what are you expecting for the rest of the holiday season?

Simeon Gutman: In theory, and as we do our models what the good start typically portends a pretty good finish. There will be like a frenetic, frantic rush till the end. And because we lose that last weekend, you know, we might just lose some days. That's what history has told us. And those couple of days, it could end up being a couple of points or a couple hundred points of growth. That's understandable. I think the market knows that. And if that were to happen, as long as the underlying tone of business is healthy, I think it's pretty excusable because it's either made up in the subsequent months, and it'll especially be made up in the following year.

Michelle Weaver: Great. And then Alex, in your space with Black Friday now behind us, were there any surprises?

Alex Straton: The headline on Black Friday out of the apparel and footwear space was very positive. That's the message everyone should hear. I think I'll break down how we thought about – and what we observed – into two buckets. One being what we saw on demand, and the other being what we saw on promotional or discounting activity.

Now, starting with demand, I think context is really important here, and we had a pretty lackluster September and October trend line in the space. To us, this was a function of adverse weather; it was much hotter than usual, really deterring apparel spending. We also had high hurricane activity, which deterred overall discretionary spending. And then also we had the election overhang upon consumers, which can, you know, deter spending as well.

So as a result, we had fall apparel spending not necessarily as robust as many retailers would have liked. We've seen that in third quarter earnings reports. And we viewed Black Friday as, almost this very powerful potential catalyst for pent up demand. It was very weather dependent, though, and Simeon mentioned this briefly. We got a cold front across the country, and I think that created this important catalyst to kick off the holiday season. So, demand was strong.

Just to put some numbers around it. Our line counts were up 30 per cent year-over-year. That's a data set that typically grows mid-single digits. So, speaks to, you know, outstanding demand. It doesn't capture conversion, so it's not perfect, but it gives you a sense for our confidence and how strong it was.

The second piece that I wanted to cover is just promotions. And what we saw there was consistent activity year-over-year. That was a positive surprise for me. We were braced for discounting to be higher across the group because we exited both the second quarter and out of the early third quarter reporters with some excess inventory. So, we thought they might look to clear it.

We had seen a recent uptick in promotional activity in October across the group. And then also, we're facing down a pretty competitive fourth quarter set up because of a number of the dynamics that Simeon mentioned. So, the fact that we didn't see retailers, kind of, push the panic button on discounting and promotions to drive that strong sales result, I think further underscores how strong it was; and also tells you retailers are willing to wait later for the consumer, similar to how they behaved last year.

Michelle Weaver: In your outlook for holiday shopping this year, you cautioned about some potential headwinds. What were they and have they been playing out as you expected?

Alex Straton: Yeah. So, since the start of the year, there's been a number of dynamics that we're going to weigh on the fourth quarter, no matter what. The first is that it's companies in my coverage most difficult year-over-year comparison quarter from both the sales and a profitability perspective. The second is that we have a compressed holiday shopping period, five fewer days, one less weekend; that’s very impactful for these retailers. And the last thing is that most retailers are lapping an extra week last year. They have a 53rd week calendar dynamic that reverses out this week. So, think about it as one last less week of sales opportunity.

And so, I could have sat here in January and told you all of that. What we've learned since is that these retailers are now also facing incremental freight headwinds in the back half. Some of which are just repercussions from the Red Sea dynamic. And then second, this inventory build that I mentioned that started to show up in the second quarter and some of these earlier third quarter reporters. So, all of those headwinds, I'm putting them on the table.

I think the good news is that the market seems to now mostly appreciate those. There's not really high bars as we think about fourth quarter results expectations or even sentiment more broadly. So, while it is a very challenging set up, I feel like it's mostly appreciated.

Michelle Weaver: Great. And final question for both of you. What are some of your key takeaways from the fireside chats you hosted at the conference that just closed?

Simeon Gutman: A few thoughts. First on the tone of holiday, I'll reiterate again: companies that are most exposed to holiday, in my coverage – ones that have weather exposure, ones that have seasonal exposure, ones that have large Black Friday promotions and into Cyber Monday – sounded good. There was a sense of relief that we're making up sales, especially on cold weather categories, and there's momentum that's being carried into the rest of the year.

Second, in our chats with some of the largest companies, a discussion around how starting from a retail point of view and leveraging into Omnichannel has actually been beneficial, because now as these companies gain scale and leverage, the economies of scale in Omnichannel are actually more beneficial for profits than they thought; and in some cases that's just getting started. So, an interesting dichotomy, or almost an irony for the way that these businesses were positioned about 10 to 15 years ago.

Third inventories – building; companies acknowledge that, but generally feel good. That reflected underlying optimism on sales trends and buying good inventory they think the customer will respond to. And then lastly, on housing; acknowledgment that the backdrop and the rebuild will be slow and steady, but at the same time that the industry is bottoming.

Alex Straton: Yeah, on my end, I would underscore what Simeon said on demand in the holiday. Clearly a strong start in terms of the weather finally turning around this big initial event with Black Friday.

Secondly, on inventory we're asking our companies the same question is – how do they feel about this build that we're seeing? And they attributed to a little bit of a pull forward of receipts in advance of holiday. Some also pulling forward even further than normal to offset some of the freight expense, or they were worried about some degree of freight disruption that could have impacted the receipts. So they have explanations for why that's the case, but we're monitoring it nonetheless.

And then lastly, the one magic dynamic we didn't mention yet is tariff, of course, and what the outlooks are there. I would say most companies in my space feel that they have a number of levers that they can pull to offset any potential incremental tariff next year. But the reality there is that apparel is a deflationary category. There's no pricing power. So I'll be really interested to see how this plays out next year.

Michelle Weaver: Simeon and Alex, thank you for taking the time to talk. And to our listeners, thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen to the show and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Our Europe MedTech Analyst digs into the transformational impact of AI-driven diagnostic imaging on healthcare systems.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market, I’m Robert Davies, Morgan Stanley’s Head of the Europe MedTech research team. Today I want to take you behind the scenes to show you how AI is revolutionizing our approach to medical diagnostics via Smart Imaging.

It’s Thursday, December 5, at 10 AM in Boston.

When was the last time you needed to get an X-Ray, a CT scan, or an ultrasound? Depending on where you live, your wait time could be as long as a month. 

Medical diagnostics through imaging is facing enormous challenges right now. Population growth, rising longevity, and intensifying chronic disease burdens are driving ever increasing volumes of medical scans. In the U.S. alone, CT scan volumes have quadrupled since 1995. So, what is the impact of this? Imagine a radiologist interpreting a CT or MRI image every 3-4 seconds during an eight-hour workday. This is the current pace needed to meet the soaring demand.

At the same time, the U.S. population is getting older and a growing number of people are signing up for Medicare. Healthcare costs are continually rising, total U.S. healthcare spend is now hitting $4.5 trillion. That's nearly 20% of U.S. GDP. On top of that, patients need fast, accurate diagnosis. But long wait times often mean that patients don’t get the diagnostic done in time or sometimes not at all. All of this indicates that more and more stress is being placed on hospital systems each year in terms of diagnostic imaging.

Smart Imaging uses AI tools to improve imaging processing and workflows to enhance traditional image gathering, processing, and analysis. It sits at the intersection of Longevity and Tech Diffusion, two of Morgan Stanley Research’s big themes for 2024. And it can help solve these acute demand challenges. In fact, AI is already transforming the $45 billion Diagnostic Imaging market.

AI-driven Smart Imaging integrates into the diagnostic imaging workflow at multiple stages—from preparation and planning, all the way to image processing and interpretation. The primary benefits of using AI are twofold. Firstly, it enhances image quality, which ensures more accurate diagnoses. And secondly it improves the speed, efficiency, and overall comfort of the patient journey. At the same time, AI effectively acts as a second set of eyes for the radiologist, often surpassing human accuracy in pattern recognition. That's crucial in reducing diagnostic errors—a problem costing the U.S. healthcare system around $100 billion annually at the moment.

In addition to minimizing misdiagnosis, AI is not only capable of identifying the primary disease, but also registering any potential secondary diseases. Otherwise, this isn’t normally a priority for the radiologist who is only able to spend 3-4 seconds looking at any individual image. But it’s a potentially life-saving benefit for using Smart Imaging applications.

So how does AI fit into the clinical setting? There are multiple stages to the Diagnostic Imaging workflow and AI can play a role across the entire value chain from preparing a patient’s scan, to processing the images, and finally, aiding in the diagnosis, reporting, and treatment planning.

Radiology is currently dominating the FDA list of AI/Machine Learning-Enabled Medical Devices. And when we look at the broader economic implications, it's clear Smart Imaging represents a pivotal development in healthcare technology that has broad implications for healthcare costs, quality of care, and better healthcare outcomes.

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research explains why President-elect Trump’s proposed tariff plans may look different than the policies that are ultimately put in place.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Today on the podcast I'll be talking about what investors need to know about tariffs.

It’s Wednesday, Dec 4, at 2 pm in London.

There’s still over a month before Trump takes office again. But in the meantime he’s started sending messages about his policy plans. Most notably, for investors, he’s started talking about his ideas for tariffs. He’s floated the idea of tariffs on all imports from China, Mexico, and Canada. He’s talked about tariffs on all the BRICs countries unless they publicly dismiss the idea of pursuing an alternative reserve currency to the US dollar. In short, he’s talking about tariffs a lot.

While we certainly don’t dismiss Trump’s sincerity in suggesting these tariffs, nor the ability for a President to execute on tariffs like these – well, mostly anyway – it’s important for investors to know that the ultimate policies enacted to address the concerns driving the tariff threats could look quite different than what a literal interpretation of Trump’s words might suggest. After all, there are plenty of examples of policies enacted on Trump’s watch that address his concerns that were not implemented exactly as he initially suggested.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs act is a good example, where Trump advocated for a 15 percent corporate tax rate but signed a bill with a 21 percent tax rate. Another is the exceptions process for the first round of China tariffs, where some companies got exceptions based on modest onshoring concessions. These examples speak to the idea that procedural, political, and economic considerations can shape policy in a way that’s different from what’s initially proposed.

This is why our base case for the US policy path in 2025 includes higher tariffs announced shortly after Trump takes office; but with a focus on China and some exports from Europe; and implementation of those tariffs would ramp up over time, as has been suggested by key policy advisors. There's broad political consensus on a stronger tariff approach to China, and there’s already executive authority to take that approach. Something similar can be said about Europe, but with a focus more on certain products than across imports broadly. However, we see scope for Mexico to avoid incremental tariffs through negotiation. And a global tariff via executive order risks getting held up in court, and we’re skeptical even a Republican-controlled Congress would authorize this approach.

Of course we could be wrong. For example it's possible the incoming administration might be less concerned about the economic challenges posed by a rapid escalation of tariffs. So if they start quicker and are more severe than we anticipate, then our 2025 economic projections are probably too rosy, as are our expectations for equities and credit to outperform over the next 12 months. The US dollar and US Treasuries might be the outperformer in that scenario.

So stick with us, we’ll be paying attention and trying to tease out the policy path signal from the media noise from the new administration.

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Chief Fixed Income Strategist Vishy Tirupattur and Leveraged Finance Strategist Joyce Jiang discuss how the dynamic between private and public credit markets will evolve in 2025, and how each can find their own niches for success.

----- Transcript -----

Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Today we'll be talking about how private credit has evolved over 2024 and the outlook for 2025. I'm joined by my colleague, Joyce Jiang, from our Leveraged Finance Strategy team.

It's Tuesday, December 3rd at 10am in New York.

A lot has happened over 2024 in private credit. We are credit people. Let's talk about defaults and returns. How has 2024 been thus far for private credit in terms of defaults and returns?

Joyce Jiang: It's always tricky to talk about defaults in private credit because the reported measures tend to vary a lot depending on how defaults are defined and calculated. Using S&P's credit estimate defaults as a proxy for the overall private credit defaults, we see that defaults appear to have peaked, and the peak level was significantly lower than during the COVID cycle.

Since then, defaults have declined and converged to levels seen in public loans. In this cycle, the elevated policy rates have clearly weighed on the credit fundamentals, but direct lenders and sponsors have worked proactively to help companies extending maturities and converting debt into PIK loans. Also, the high level of dry powder enabled both private credit and PE funds to provide liquidity support, keeping default rates relatively contained.

From a returns perspective for credit investors, the appeal of private credit comes from the potential for higher and more stable returns, and also its role as a portfolio diversifier. Data from Lincoln International shows that over the past seven years, direct lending loans have outperformed single B public loans in total return terms by approximately 2.3 percentage point annually, largely driven by the better carry profile. And this year, although the spread premium has narrowed, private credit continues to generate higher returns.

So, Vishy, credit spreads are close to historical tights. And the market conditions have clearly improved compared to last year. With that, the competition between the public and private credit has intensified. How do you see this dynamic playing out between these two markets?

Vishy Tirupattur: The competition between public and private credit has indeed intensified, especially as the broadly syndicated market reopened with some vigor this year.

While the public market has regained some share it lost to private credit, I think it is important to note that the activity has been, especially the financing activity, has been really more two-way. Improved market conditions have lured some of the borrowers back to the public markets from private credit markets due to cheaper funding costs.

At the same time, borrowers with lower rating or complex capital structure seem to continue to favor private credit markets. So, there is really a lot of give and take between the two markets. Also, traditionally, private credit markets have played a major role in financing LBOs or leveraged buyouts. Its importance has really grown during the last Fed's hiking cycle when elevated policy rates and bouts of market turmoil weaken banks’ risk appetite and tighten the public-funding access to many leveraged borrowers.

Then, as the Fed's policy tightening ended, and uncertainty about the future direction of policy rates began to fade, deal activity rebounded in both markets, and more materially in public markets. This really led to a decline in the share of LBOs financed by private credit. Of course, the two markets tend to cater for deals of different sizes. Private credit is playing a bigger role in smaller size deals and a broadly syndicated loan market is relatively much more active in larger sized LBOs. So, overall, public credit is both a complement and competitor to private credit markets.

Joyce Jiang: The decline in spread basis is evident in larger companies, but more recently, the spread basis have even compressed within smaller-sized deals, although they don't have the access to public credit. This is likely due to some private credit funds shifting their focuses to deals down in the site spectrum. So, the growing competition got spilled over to the lower middle-market segment as well. In addition to pricing conversions, we've also seen a gradual erosion in covenant quality in private credit deals. Some data sources noted that covenant packages have increasingly favored borrowers, a reflection of the heightened competition between these two markets.

So Vishy, looking ahead, how do you see this competition between public and private credit evolving in 2025, and what implications might this have for returns?

Vishy Tirupattur:, The competition, I think, will persist in [the ]next year. We have seen strong demand from hold to maturity investors, such as insurance companies and pension funds; and this demand, we think, will continue to sustain, so the appetite for private credit from these investors would be there.

On the supply side, the deal volume has been light over the last couple of years. Next year, acquisition LBO activity, likely to pick up more materially given the solid macro backdrop, lower rates that we expect, and sponsor pressure to return capital to investors. So, in 2025, we could see greater specialization in terms of deal financing. Instead of competing directly for deals, public and private credit markets can find their own niches. For example, public credit might dominate larger deals, while private credit could further strengthen its competitive advantage within smaller size deals or with companies that value its unique advantages, such as the flexible terms and speed of execution.

Regarding returns, while spread premium in private credit has indeed come down, a pickup in deal activity could to some extent be a release valve. But sustained competition may keep the spreads tight. Overall, private credit should continue to offer attractive returns, although with tighter margins compared to historical levels.

Joyce, it was great speaking with you on today's podcast.

Joyce Jiang: Thank you, Vishy, for having me.

Vishy Tirupattur: Thank you all for listening. If you enjoy today's podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets recaps an exceptional year for credit — but explains why 2025 could be a more challenging year for the asset class.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I’ll be discussing the Outlook for global Credit Markets in 2025.

It’s Monday, Dec 2nd at 2 pm in London.

Morgan Stanley Strategists and Economists recently completed our forecasting process for the year ahead. For Credit, 2025 looks like a year of saying goodbye.

2024 has been an exceptionally good environment for credit. As you’ve probably grown tired of hearing, credit is an asset class that loves moderation and hates extremes. And 2024 has been full of moderation. Moderate growth, moderating inflation and gradual rate cuts have defined the economic backdrop. Corporates have also been moderate, with stable balance sheets and still-low levels of corporates buying each other despite the strong stock market.

The result has been an almost continuous narrowing of the extra premium that companies have to pay relative to governments, to some of the lowest, i.e. best spread levels in over 20 years.

We think that changes. The U.S. election and resulting Republican sweep have now ushered in a much wider range of policy outcomes – from tariffs, to taxes, to immigration. These policies are in turn driving a much wider range of economic outcomes than we had previously, to scenarios that include everything from much greater corporate optimism and animal spirits, to much weaker growth and higher inflation, under certain scenarios of tariffs and immigration.

Now, for some asset classes, this wider range of outcomes may simply be a wash, balancing out in the aggregate. But not for credit. This asset class doesn’t stand to return more if corporate activity booms; but it stands to still lose if growth slows more than expected. And given the challenges that tariffs could pose to both Europe and Asia, we think these dynamics are global. We see spreads modestly wider next year, across global regions.

But if 2025 is about saying goodbye to the credit-friendly moderation of 2024, we’d stress this is a long goodbye. A key element of our economic forecasts is that even if major changes are coming to tariffs or taxes or immigration policy, that won’t arrive immediately. Today’s strong, credit-friendly economy should persist – well into next year. Indeed, for most of the first half of 2025, Morgan Stanley’s forecasts look much like today: moderate growth, falling inflation, and falling central bank rates.

In short, when thinking about the year ahead, 2025 may be a turning point for credit – but one that doesn’t arrive immediately. Our best estimate is that we continue to see quite strong and supportive conditions well into the first half of the year, while the second half becomes much more challenging. We think leveraged loans offer the strongest risk-adjusted returns in Corporate Credit, while Agency Mortgages offer an attractive alternative to corporates for those looking for high quality spread.

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.

Original Release Date November 15, 2024: Our head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets explains why a stronger economy, moderate inflation and future rate cuts could prompt deal-making.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I’ll discuss why we remain believers in a large, sustained uptick in corporate activity. 

It's Friday, November 15th at 2pm in London. 

We continue to think that 2024 will mark the start of a significant, multiyear uplift in global merger and acquisition activity – or M&A. In new work out this week, we are reiterating that view. While the 25 percent rise in volumes this year is actually somewhat short of our original expectations from March, the core drivers of a large and sustained increase in activity, in our view, remain intact. 

Those drivers remain multiple. Current levels of global M&A volumes are still unusually low relative to their own historical trend or the broader strength that we see in stock markets. The overall economy, which often matters for M&A activity, has been strong, especially in the US, while inflation continues to moderate and rate cuts have begun. We see motivations for sellers – from ageing private equity portfolios, maturing venture capital pipelines, and higher valuations for the median stock. And we see more factors driving buyers from $4 trillion of private market "dry powder," to around $7.5 trillion of cash that's sitting idly on non-financial balance sheets, to wide-open capital markets that provide the ability to finance deals. 

These high level drivers are also confirmed bottom up by boots on the ground. Our colleagues across Morgan Stanley Equity Research also see a stronger case for activity – and we polled over 60 global equity teams for their views. While the results vary by geography and sector, the Morgan Stanley Equity analysts who cover these sectors in the most depth also see a strong case for more activity. 

The policy backdrop also matters. While activity has risen this year, one reason it might not have risen as much as we initially expected was uncertainty about both when central banks would start cutting rates and the outcome of US elections. 

But both of those uncertainties have now, to some extent, waned. Rate cuts from the Fed, the ECB, and the Bank of England have now started, while the Red Sweep in US elections could, in our view, drive more animal spirits. And Europe is an important part of this story too, as we think the European Union’s new approach to consolidation could be more supportive for activity. For investors, an expectation that corporate activity will continue to rise is, in our view, supportive for Financial equities. 

Where could we be wrong? M&A activity does fundamentally depend on economic and market confidence; and a weaker than expected economy or weaker than expected equity market would drive lower than expected volumes. Policy still matters. And while we view the incoming US administration as more M&A supportive, that could be misguided – if policy changes dent corporate confidence or increase inflation. 

Finally, we think that a more multipolar world could actually support more M&A, as there’s a push to create more regional champions to compete on the global stage. But this could be incorrect, if those same global frictions disrupt activity or confidence more generally. Time will tell. 

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.

Original Release Date November 1, 2024: Our US Fintech and Payments analyst reviews a recent survey that reveals key trends on how Gen Z and Millennials handle their personal finances.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m James Faucette, Morgan Stanley’s Head of US Fintech and Payments. Today I’ll dig into the way young people in the US approach their finances and why it matters.

It’s Friday, November 1st, at 10am in New York. 

You’d think that Millennials – also commonly known as Gen Y – and Gen Z would come up with new ways to think about money. After all, they live most of their lives online, and don’t always rely on their parents for advice – financial or otherwise. But a survey we conducted suggests the opposite may be true. 

To understand how 16 to 43 year-olds – who make up nearly 40 per cent of the US population – view money, we ran an AlphaWise survey of more than 4,000 US consumers. 

In general, our work suggests that both Millennials and Gen Z’s financial goals, banking preferences, and medium-term aspirations are not much different from the priorities of previous generations. Young consumers still believe family is the most important aspect in life, similar to what we found in our 2018 survey. They have a positive outlook on home ownership, college education, employment, and their personal financial situation. 28-to-43-year-olds have the second highest average annual income among all age cohorts, earning more than $100,000. They spend an average of $86,000 per year, of which more than a third goes toward housing. 

Gen Y and Z largely expect to live in owned homes at a greater rate in five to 10 years, and younger Gen Y cohorts' highest priority is starting a family and raising children in the medium term. This should be a tailwind for many consumer-facing real estate property sectors including retail, residential, lodging and self-storage. However, Gen Y and Z are less mobile today than they were pre-pandemic. Compared to their peers in 2018, they intend to keep living in the same area they're currently living in for the next five to 10 years. 

Gen Y and Z consumers reported higher propensity for saving each month relative to older generations, which could be a potential tailwind for discretionary spending. And travel remains a top priority across age cohorts, which sets the stage for ongoing travel strength and favorable cross-border trends for the major credit card providers. 

In addition to all these findings, our analysis suggests several surprising facts. For example, our survey results contradict the widely accepted notion that younger generations are "credit averse." The vast majority of Gen Z consumers have one or more traditional credit cards – at a similar rate to Gen X and Millennials. Although traditional credit card usage is higher among Millennials and Gen Z than it was in 2018, data suggests this is driven by convenience, not financing needs. Younger people’s borrowing is primarily related to auto and home loans from traditional lenders rather than fintechs. 

Another unexpected finding is that while Gen Y and Z are more drawn to online banking than their predecessors, about 75 per cent acknowledge the importance of physical branch locations – and still prefer to bank with their traditional national, regional, and community banks over online-only providers. What’s more, they also believe physical bank branches will be important long-term. 

Overall, our analysis suggests that generations tend to maintain their key priorities as they age. Whether this pattern holds in the future is something we will continue to watch.

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.

Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson joins Andrew Pauker of the U.S. Equity Strategy team to break down the key issues for equity markets ahead of 2025, including the impact of potential deregulation and tariffs.

----- Transcript -----

Mike Wilson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist.

Andrew Pauker: And I'm Andrew Pauker from our US Equity Strategy Team.

Mike Wilson: Today we'll discuss our 2025 outlook for US equities.

It's Tuesday, November 26th at 5pm.

So let's get after it.

Andrew Pauker: Mike, we're forecasting a year-end 2025 price target of 6,500 for the S&P 500. That's about 9 percent upside from current levels. Walk us through the drivers of that price target from an earnings and valuation standpoint.

Mike Wilson: Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, this is really just rolling forward what we did this summer, which is we started to incorporate our economists’ soft-landing views. And, of course, our rate strategist view for 10-year yields, which, you know, factors into valuation.

We really didn't change any of our earnings forecast. That's where we've been very accurate. What we've been not accurate is on the multiple. And I think a lot of clients have also -- investors -- have been probably a little bit too conservative on their multiple assumption. And so, we went back and looked at, you know, periods when earnings growth is above average, which is what we're expecting. And that's just about 8 percent; anything north of that. Plus, when the Fed is actually cutting rates, which was not the case this past summer, it's just very difficult to see multiples go down. So, we actually do have about 5 percent depreciation in our multiple assumption on a year-over-year basis, but still it's very high relative to history.

But if the base case plays out, but from an economic standpoint and from a rate standpoint, it's unlikely earnings rates are going to come down. So, then we basically can get all of the appreciation from our earnings forecast for about, you know, 10-12 percent; a little bit of a discount from multiples, that gets you your 9 percent upside.

I just want to, you know, make sure listeners understand that the macro-outcomes are still very uncertain. And so just like this year, you know, we maybe pivot back and forth throughout the year … as [it] becomes [clear], you know, what the outcome is actually going to be.

For example, growth could be better; growth could be worse; rates could be higher; the Fed may not cut rates; they may have to raise rates again if inflation comes back. So, I would just, you know, make sure people understand it's not going to be a straight line no matter what happens. And we're going to try to navigate that with, you know, our style sector picks.

Andrew Pauker: There are a number of new policy dynamics to think through post the election that may have a significant impact on markets as we head into 2025, Mike. What are the potential policy changes that you think could be most impactful for equities next year?

Mike Wilson: Yeah, and I think a lot of this started to get discounted into the markets this fall, you know, the prediction polls were kinda leaning towards a Republican win, starting really in June – and it kind of went back and forth and then it really picked up steam in September and October. And the thing that the markets, equity market, are most excited about I would say, is this idea of deregulation. You know, that's something President-elect Trump has talked about. The Republicans seem to be on board with that. That sort of business friendly, if you will, kind of a repeat of his first term.

I would say on the negative side what markets are maybe wary about, of course, is tariffs. But here there’s a lot of uncertainty too. We obviously got a tweet last night from President-elect Trump, and it was, you know, 10 percent additional tariffs on certain things. And there’s just a lot of confusion. Some stocks sold off on that. But remember a lot of stocks rallied yesterday on the news of Scott Bessent being announced as Treasury Secretary because he's maybe not going to be as tough on tariffs.

So, what I view the next two months as is sort of a trial period where we're going to see a lot of announcements going out. And then the people in the cabinet positions who are appointed along with the President-elect are going to look at how the market reacts. And they're going to want to try to, you know, think about that in the context of how they're going to propose policy when they actually take office.

So, a lot of volatility over the next two months as these announcements are kind of floated out there as trial balloons. And then, of course, you also have the enforcement of immigration and the impact there on growth and also labor supply and labor costs. And that could be a net negative in the first half of next year. And so, look, it's going to be about the sequencing. Those are the two easy ones that you can see – tariffs of some form, and of course, immigration enforcement. And those are probably the two biggest potential negatives in the first half of next year.

Andrew Pauker: Mike, the title of our Outlook is “Stay Nimble Amid Changing Market Leadership,” and I think that reflects our mentality when it comes to remaining focused on capturing the leadership changes under the surface of the market. We rotated from a defensive posture over the summer to a more pro-cyclical stance in the fall. Talk about our latest views when it comes to positioning across styles, themes, and sectors here.

Mike Wilson: Yeah, I mean, you know, you have to understand that that pivot was not about the election as much as it was about kind of the economy, moving from the risk of a hard landing, which people were worried about this summer to, soft landing again. And then of course we got the Fed to, you know, aggressively begin a new rate cutting cycle with 50 basis points, which was a bit of a surprise given, you know, the context of a still decent labor markets.

That was the main reason for kind of the cyclical pivot, and then, of course, the election outcome sort of turbocharges some of that. So that's why we're sticking with it for now.

So, to be more specific, what we basically did was we went to quality cyclical rotation. What does that mean? It means, you know, we prefer things like financials, maybe industrials, kind of a close second from a sector standpoint. But this quality feature we think is important for people to consider because interest rates are still pretty high. You know, balance sheets are still a little stretched and, you know, price levels are still high.

So that means that lower quality businesses -- and the stocks of those lower quality businesses -- are probably a higher risk than we want to assume right now. But going into year end first and in 2025, we're going to stick with what we've sort of been recommending. On the defensive side. We didn't abandon all of them – because of , you know, we don't know how it's going to play out. So, we kept Utilities as an overweight because it has some offensive properties as well – most notably lever to kind of this, power deficiency within the United States. And that, of course with deregulation, a new twist on that could be things like natural gas, deployment of, you know, natural gas resources, which would help pipelines, LNG facilities potentially, and also, new ways to drive electricity production.

So, with that, Andrew, why don't you maybe dig in a little bit deeper on our financials column, and why it's not just, you know, about the election and kind of a rotation, but there's actually fundamental drivers here.

Andrew Pauker: Yeah, so Financials remains our top sector pick, following our upgrade in early October. And the drivers of that view are – a rebounding capital markets backdrop, strong earnings revisions, and the potential for an acceleration in buybacks into next year. And then post the election, expectation for deregulation can also continue to drive performance for the sector in addition to those fundamental catalysts. And then finally, even with the outperformance that we've seen for the group, over the last month and a half or so, relative valuation remains on demand – and kind of the 50th percentile of historical levels.

So, Mike, I want to wrap up by spending a minute on investor feedback to our outlook. Which aspects of our view have you gotten the most questions on? Where do investors agree and where do they disagree?

Mike Wilson: Yeah, I mean, it's sort of been ongoing because, as we noted, we really pivoted, more constructively on kind of a pro-cyclical basis a while ago. And the pushback then is the same as it is now, which is that equities are expensive. And I mean, quite frankly, the reason we pivoted to some of these more cyclical areas is because they're not as expensive. But that doesn't take away from the fact that stocks are pricey. And so, people just want to understand this analysis that, you know, we did this time around, which kind of just shows why multiples can stay higher.

They do appreciate that, you know, things can change. So, you know, we need to be, you know, cognizant of that. I would say, there's also debate around small caps. You know, we're neutral on small caps; we upgraded that about the same time after having been underweight for several years.

I think, you know, people really want to get behind that. It's been a; it's been a trade that people have gotten wrong, repeatedly over the last couple years trying to buy small caps. This time it seems like there may be some more behind it. We agree. That's why we went to neutral. And I think, you know, there are people who want to figure out, well, why? Why don't we go overweight now? And what we're really waiting for is for rates to come down a bit more. It's still sort of a late cycle environment. So, you know, typically you want to wait until you kind of see the beginnings of a new acceleration in the economy. And that's not what our economists are forecasting.

And then the other area is just this debate around government efficiency. And this is where I'm actually most excited because this is not priced at all in my view. There's so much skepticism around the ability or, you know, the likelihood of success in shrinking the government. That's not really what we're, you know, hoping for. We're just hoping for kind of a freezing of government spending. And it's so important to just, to think about it that way because that's what the fiscal sustainability question is all about, where then rates can stay contained. But then if you take it a step further, you know, our view for the last several years has been that the government has been essentially crowding out the private economy, and that really has punished small, medium businesses as well as many consumers.

And so, by shrinking or at least freezing the size of the government and redeploying those efforts into the private economy, we could see a very significant increase in productivity, but also see a broadening out in this rally. I mean, one of the reasons the market's been; equity market's been so narrow is because is because scale really matters in this crowded out, sort of environment.

If that changes, that creates opportunity at the stock level and that broadening out, which is a much healthier bull market potential.

So, what are you hearing from investors, Andrew?

Andrew Pauker: Yeah, I mean, I think the debate now, in addition to the factors that you mentioned, is really around the consumer space. A lot of pessimism is in the price already for consumer discretionary goods on the back of – kind of wallet share shift from goods to services, high price levels and sticky interest rates in addition to the tariff risk.

So, what we did in our note this week is we laid out a couple of drivers that could potentially get us more positive on that cohort. And those include a reversion in terms of the wallet share shift actually back towards goods. I think that would be a function of lower price levels. Lower interest rates – our rate strategists expect the 10-year yield to fall to 355 by year end 2025. So that would be a constructive backdrop for some of the more interest rate sensitive and housing areas within consumer discretionary.

Those are all factors that watching closely in order to get more constructive on that space. But that is another area of the market that I have received a good amount of questions on.

Mike Wilson: That's great, Andrew. Thanks a lot. Thanks for taking the time to talk today.

Andrew Pauker: Thanks, Mike. Anytime.

Mike Wilson: 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.

As Black Friday approaches, our US Thematic and Equity Strategist Michelle Weaver explains why some US consumers will increase their spending and which industries could benefit.

----- Transcript -----

Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, US Thematic and Equity Strategist. The holiday season is just around the corner, and today I'll be discussing what US consumers are planning for this year's holiday shopping.

It's Monday, November 25th at 10am in New York.

It's that time of year when New York City goes from skyscrapers to sky high trees. So, cue the holiday music, holiday shopping season is here. My colleagues Jim Egan, Arunima Sinha, and Heather Berger recently came on this show to discuss the current state of the US Consumer. Today, I want to expand a little bit on their analysis by looking specifically at how holiday shopping could fare this year.

Overall, consumer spending trends have been robust year to date, which does bode well for holiday spending. We recently ran a proprietary survey of around 2000 US Consumers that showed a more positive outlook for holiday shopping this year versus in 2023 and 2022. Not surprisingly, though, higher income households – who've really been the key drivers of aggregate consumer spending – are likely to drive the spending this holiday season as well.

Overall, we expect to see increased holiday budgets this year. Our survey found that 37 percent of US consumers are planning to keep their holiday budgets roughly the same as last year. Around 35 percent are expecting to spend more and 22 percent are expecting to spend less. So, this yields a net gain of around +13 percent. It's not off to the races, though, and consumers will continue to be selective on where they're planning to allocate their dollars.

Discounts and promotions are going to have an impact on shoppers. And in fact, if retailers don't offer discounts, 44 percent of shoppers say they may pull back or trade down somewhat, and another quarter of purchasers say they'll scale back substantially. Only about a quarter of people would go ahead with all the planned purchases if there were no discounts or promotions.

We also asked questions in our survey looking at the categories shoppers are planning to make purchases in. We looked at the net difference between the percent of consumers expecting to spend more and the percent expecting to spend less. And the lowest net spending intentions are reported for big ticket categories like sports equipment, home and kitchen, and electronics. And then the results were more positive for apparel and toys, which are cheaper items.

Let's dive in now to some of the specifics around consumer facing industries. Within airlines, we're expecting a strong holiday season for air travel based on encouraging TSA data. This lines up with continued strong demand for travel and live experiences.

Within durable goods, which are the kind of things you might find at a big box store or a furniture store, spending has slowed this year, but the backdrop is normalizing, which could create a more favorable setup this holiday season. E-commerce, though, on the other hand, has been pressured recently, and the weakness has impacted discretionary goods, while outsized growth has come from non-discretionary categories like groceries and everyday essentials.

The shorter holiday shopping season may also have an impact on e-commerce. This year, there are only 27 days between Black Friday and Christmas, which is the shortest that range could possibly be. So, this could affect e-commerce players with longer average delivery times. We're cautious on consumer electronic sales this holiday season. Consumer hardware spending intentions remain negative as we near the holiday season. And then finally for toys, leisure products, and services, we're cautiously optimistic that the holiday season could prove better than feared.

So, all in all, the holidays are looking reasonably bright for many businesses, especially those with more exposure to the high-end consumer; but like consumers, we think that the results will vary by industry and by company.

Thank you for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and Share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our US Public Policy Strategist Ariana Salvatore and Chief Latin America Equity Strategist Nikolaj Lippmann discuss what Trump’s victory could mean for new trade relationships.

----- Transcript -----

Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's US Public Policy Strategist.

Nikolaj Lippmann: And I'm Nik Lippmann, Morgan Stanley's Chief Latin American Equity Strategist.

Ariana Salvatore: Today, we're talking about the impact of the US election on Mexico's economy, financial markets, and its trade relationships with both the US and China.

It's Friday, November 22nd at 10am in New York.

The US election has generated a lot of debate around global trade, and now that Trump has won, all eyes are on tariffs. Nik, how much is this weighing on Mexico investors?

Nikolaj Lippmann: It’s interesting because there's kind of no real consensus here. I'd say international and US investors are generally rather apprehensive about getting in front of the Trump risk in Mexico; while, interestingly enough, most Mexico-based investors and many Latin American investors think Trump is kind of good news for Mexico, and in many cases, even better news than Biden or Harris. Net, net, Mexican peso has sold off. Mexico's now down 25 per cent in dollar terms year to date, while it was flat to up three, four, 5 per cent around May. So, we've already seen a lot being priced then.

Ariana, what are your expectations for Trump's trade policy with regards to Mexico?

Ariana Salvatore: So, Mexico has been a big part of the trade debate, especially as we consider this question of whether or not Mexico represents a bridge or a buffer between the US and China. On the tariff front, we've been clear about our expectations that a wide range of outcomes is possible here, especially because the president can do so much without congressional approval.

Specifically on Mexico, Trump has in the past threatened an increase in exchange for certain policy concessions. For example, back in 2019, he threatened a 5 per cent tariff if the Mexican government didn't send emergency authorities to the southern border. We think given the salience of immigration as a topic this election cycle, we can easily envision a scenario again in which those tariff threats re-emerge.

However, there's really a balance to strike here because the US is Mexico's main trading partner. That means any changes to current policy will have a substantial impact.

So, Nik, how are you thinking about these changes? Are all tariff plans necessarily a negative? Or do you see any potential opportunities for Mexico here?

Nikolaj Lippmann: Look, I think there are clear risks, but here are my thoughts. It would be very hard for the United States to de-risk from China and de-risk from Mexico simultaneously. Here it becomes really important to double-click on the differences in the manufacturing ecosystems in North America versus Southeast Asia and China.

The North American model is really very integrated. US companies are by a mile the biggest investor. In Mexico – and Mexican exports to the US kind of match the Mexican import categories – the products go back and forth. Mexico has evolved from a place of assembly to a manufacturing ecosystem. 25 years ago, it was more about sending products down, paint them blue, put a lid on it. Now there's much more value add.

The link, however, is still alive. It's a play on enhancing US competitiveness. You can kind of, as you did, call it a China buffer; a fender that helps protect US competitiveness. But by the end of the day, I think integration and alignment is going to be the key here.

Ariana Salvatore: But of course, it's not just the direct trade relationship between the US and Mexico. We need to also consider the global geopolitical landscape, and specifically this question of the role of China. What's Mexico's current trade policy like with China?

Nikolaj Lippmann: Another great question, Ariana, and I think this is the key. There is growing evidence that China is trying to use Mexico as a China bridge.

And I think this is an area where we will see the biggest adjustments or need for realignment. This is a debate we've been following. We saw, with interest, that Mexico introduced first a 25 per cent tariff and then a 35 per cent tariff on Chinese imports. And saw this as the initial signs of growing alignment between the two countries.

However, Mexican import from China never really dropped. So, we started looking at like the complicated math saying 35 per cent times $115 billion of import. You know, best case scenario, Mexico should be collecting $40 billion from tariffs; that's huge and almost unrealistic number for Mexico. Even half of that would go a long way to solve fiscal challenges in that country.

However, when we started looking at the actual tax collection from Chinese imports, it was closer to $3 billion, as we highlighted in a note with our Mexico economist just recently. There's just multiple discounts and exemptions to effective tariffs at neither 25 per cent nor 35 per cent, but actually closer to 2.5 [or] 3 per cent. I think there's a problem with Chinese content in Mexican exports, and I think it's likely to be an area that policymakers will examine more closely. Why not drive-up US or North American content?

Ariana Salvatore: So, it sounds like what you're saying is that there is a political, or rhetorical at least, alignment between the US and Mexico when it comes to China. But the reality is that the policy implementation is not yet there.

We know that there's currently nothing in the USMCA treaty that prevents Mexico from importing goods from China. But a lot has changed over the past four years, even since the pandemic. So, looking forward, do you expect Mexico's policy vis-a-vis China to change after Trump takes office?

Nikolaj Lippmann: I think, I certainly think so, and I think this is again; this is going to be the key. As you mentioned, there's nothing in the USMCA treaty that prevents Mexico from buying the stuff from China. And it's not a customs union. Mexican consumers, much like American consumers, like to buy cheap stuff.

However, the geopolitics that you refer to is important. And when I reflect, frankly, on the bilateral relationship between the two countries, I think Mexican policymakers need to perhaps pause and think a little bit about things like the spirit of the treaty and not just the letter of the treaty; and also about how to maintain public opinion support in the United States.

By the end of the day, when we see what has happened with regards to China after the pandemic, it has been a significant change in political consensus and public opinion. When I think Americans are not necessarily interested in just using Mexico as a China bridge for Chinese products.

During the first Trump administration, the NAFTA agreement was renegotiated as the US Mexico Canada agreement, the USMCA, that took effect or took force in mid 2020. This agreement will come under review in 2026.

Ariana, what are the expectations for the future of this agreement under the Trump administration?

Ariana Salvatore: So, I think this USMCA review that's coming up in 2026 is going to be a really critical litmus test of the US-Mexico relationship, and we're going to learn a lot about this China bridge or buffer question that you mentioned. Just for some very brief context, that agreement as you mentioned was signed in 2020, but it includes a clause that lets all parties evaluate the agreement six years into a 16-year time horizon.

So, at that point, they can decide to extend the agreement for another 16 years. Or to conduct a joint review on an annual basis until that original 16 years lapses. So, although the agreement will stay in force until at least 2036, the review period, which is around June of [20]26, provides an opportunity for the signing parties to provide recommendations or propose changes to the agreement short of a full-scale renegotiation.

We do see some overlapping objectives between the two parties. For example, things like updating the foundation for digital trade and AI, ensuring the endurance of labor protections, and addressing Mexico's energy sector. But Trump's approach likely will involve confronting the auto EV disputes and could possibly introduce an element of immigration policy within the revision. We also definitely expect this theme of Chinese investment in Mexico to feature heavily in the USMCA review discussions.

Finally, Nik, keeping in mind everything that we've discussed today, with global supply chains getting rewired post the pandemic, Mexico has been a beneficiary of the nearshoring trend. Do you think this is going to change as we look ahead?

Nikolaj Lippmann: So, look, we [are] still underweight Mexico, but I think risk ultimately biased with the upside over time with regards to trade.

We need evidence to be able to lay it out, these scenarios; Mexico could end up doing quite well with Trump. But much work needs to be done south of the border with regards to all the areas that we just mentioned there, Ariana.

When we reflect on this over the next couple of years, there's a couple of things that really stand out. Number one is that first wave of reshoring or nearshoring, which was really focused on brownfield. It was bringing our manufacturing ecosystems where we already had existing infrastructure.

What is potentially next, and what we're going to be watching in terms of sort of policy maker incentives and so on, will be some of the greenfield manufacturing ecosystems. That could involve things like IT hardware, maybe EV batteries, and a couple of other really important sectors.

Ariana Salvatore: And that's something we might get some insight into when we hear personnel appointments from President-elect Trump over the coming months. Nik, thanks so much for taking the time to talk.

Nikolaj Lippmann: Thank you very much, Arianna.

Ariana Salvatore: And thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen, and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Our Sustainability analysts Stephen Byrd and Laura Sanchez discuss the range of impacts that the Republican sweep may have on energy policy and the ESG space.

----- Transcript -----

Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Sustainability Research and Head of Research Product for the Americas.

Laura Sanchez: And I'm Laura Sanchez, Head of Sustainability Equity Research for the Americas.

Stephen Byrd: Today, Laura and I will talk about the potential impact of the next Trump administration on the US energy transition, and on the US ESG Investing landscape.

It's Thursday, November 21st at 8 am in New York.

Now that Donald Trump has been re-elected, all eyes are on potential changes to the Inflation Reduction Act or IRA. So Laura, what are your expectations and on what kind of timeframe?

Laura Sanchez: There has been a lot of dialogue internally between our clean tech and public policy teams exactly on this question, Stephen. Basically, we continue to believe that a full repeal of the IRA is unlikely because a significant amount of investment has gone to Republican states that has in turn driven a good amount of good paying jobs. On the back of this, we have seen a large number of Republican legislators, as well as large oil and gas companies, write letters to high members of Congress supporting portions of the IRA.

Now, unfortunately, that doesn't mean that it won't be noisy. We do think that a partial repeal is likely, potentially a rebranding, and/or a clear phase out of the tax credits, by, let's say, the end of the decade.

It will take some time to get clarity around what's in and what's out to the second part of your question. We believe clarity on final changes is likely by the end of 2025 at the earliest, which is when the TCJA, or the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, is set to expire. And so, a lot of tax related conversations and concessions will happen then.

Lastly, a point that I want to make here is that many technologies received support in the IRA, and even though the next 12 months will be volatile or noisy, as I said before, we do think that some of them are relatively safe. And those include the domestic manufacturing tax credit, the production tax credit for nuclear power, and the tax credits for carbon capture and sequestration technology, as well as for clean hydrogen.

Stephen Byrd: That's really interesting, Laura. So, it really is a bit more nuanced than we often hear from many investors with portion of the IRA that are clearly at risk, others much less so at risk. That's really helpful. And Laura, a related topic that comes up a lot is concern around tariffs. So, do you see any risk to clean technologies from elevated trade tensions?

Laura Sanchez: Yes, I see multi multilayered risks. The first, which is I think well understood by investors, is the potential risk for higher tariffs on goods imported from China. We know that the supply chain for energy storage specifically, and particularly lithium-ion storage batteries, is highly linked to China. And even though solar equipment also tends to come up in conversations with investors, the supply chain there has somewhat decoupled from China.

However, a significant amount of supply is still sourced from China domiciled entities that operate in low-cost countries, such as those in Southeast Asia. But another risk, and I think this one is less understood or discussed by investors, is the potential inflationary pressure that could result from number one, higher tariffs on imported materials that are needed in the manufacturing of clean energy technologies. And number two, the potential risk of China responding to US imposed tariffs with additional export bans on minerals or materials that are key for the energy transition.

We have analyzed a long list and believe that those at the highest risk of disruption include rare earths, graphite, gallium, and cobalt, which are all used in electric vehicles, but also in other clean tech equipment such as wind and solar systems, stationary battery storage, and electrolysers.

Now, Stephen. Along with tariff escalation, President-elect Trump may look to roll back important EPA regulations that were put in place by the current administration to put the country on track to meet Paris aligned goals. What are the most important regulations investors should watch in your view?

Stephen Byrd: Yeah, Laura, I think there are going to be several EPA regulations that are going to be targeted for rollbacks. Let me just start first on the truck side of things, the Clean Trucks Plan that's commonly known as the EPA Tailpipe Emissions Rule – could be rolled back. We could also see the greenhouse gas standards and guidelines for fossil fuel fired power plants get rolled back. And lastly, we could see waste emissions charged for petroleum and natural gas systems get rolled back.

So, I think the overall message is actually; that the stock implications of this are actually relatively modest in most cases. What this does, in my view, is it sends a signal in terms of greater support from the Trump administration for fossil fuel. Usage in a number of areas, transport, infrastructure, et cetera I think we'll see that in power. And this does line up with some of the work we've done around the growth in data centers that we think will be powered by natural gas fire generation. So, this is consistent with that, and we do expect to see multiple layers of rollback at EPA.

Laura Sanchez: And outside of changes to the stick – which are the EPA regulations that you mentioned – and changes to the carrot – which is the IRA – what are other factors or risks that investors with a mandate on sustainability should consider during a second Trump presidency?

Stephen Byrd: Yes, for investors that do focus on sustainability, a few things that are on our mind. We could see additional states restrict the ability of state pension funds to consider ESG factors in their investment decision making process. We also, I think will see a lack of federal regulation that will require corporates to disclose certain ESG information. I think that's quite clear. And then also there could be additional legal and regulatory challenges around corporates and asset managers using sustainability as part of their decision-making process, as part of their fiduciary duties. So those are all the things that are on our mind.

Laura Sanchez: I think it's worth noting that some states, California particularly, are moving forward with their state level decarbonization goals and greenhouse gas emissions rules. But there is one dynamic to consider or track and that is the EPA granting the state of California a waiver that is needed for the state to move forward with heavy duty low NOx rules. So, linking this back to the EPA rules commentary, Stephen, I think that one, the EPA 2027 low NOx rules is one to keep an eye on because it links to the California waiver and the California rules; and is something that could potentially impact some of those stocks.

Stephen Byrd: Well, that's a good point, Laura, and I think that highlights this potential distinction between actions at the state level versus at the federal level, but sometimes those do intersect, such as, with the California heavy duty low NOx rules. So that’s helpful.

Well, Laura, thanks so much for taking the time to talk.

Laura Sanchez: Great speaking with you, Stephen.

Stephen Byrd: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today. 

Our South Asia Energy Analyst Mayank Maheshwari discusses the main drivers behind a shifting electric power landscape in his outlook for Asia energy.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Mayank Maheshwari, Morgan Stanley’s South Asia Energy Analyst. 

There’s been an investment surge in renewable energy – to field the world’s rising demands for energy and power. With a new White House administration, however, there are questions about its future. Today I want to dig into the profound shifts impacting the production and consumption of power in Asia.

It’s Wednesday, November 20, at 9pm in Singapore. 

The world consumed 25 trillion units of power last year and Asia accounted for about half of that. Asia demand is booming like the rest of the world, and power consumption is at a tipping point. We forecast global power consumption will grow 26 per cent faster through 2030 than in the last decade. Somewhat similar to the US, we are actually seeing tightness in Asian power markets in coming years as well. But even today countries like India, Singapore, and increasingly Malaysia are seeing power demand grow at 1.5 to 2x faster than pre-COVID levels. 

So, what’s driving this rapid growth? Outside of the residential power demand, growth is driven by GenAI datacenters, re-shoring of manufacturing facilities, there are new semi-conductor investments that are coming through, and expanding new energy supply chains itself are actually adding to the tightness. 

Importantly though, regional differences in clean power costs and demand are stark. In Asia, power prices have steadily risen. Multiple regulators are acknowledging the tightness by extending the life of coal plants, building new gas and coal facilities, and even restarting nuclear power generation capacity – as clean power alone cannot by itself handle this surge in demand. 

Interestingly though, the cost to produce clean power has declined pretty rapidly in 2024 to below-trend levels after a period of significant inflation we saw post-COVID. On average, solar panel prices in Asia declined 50 per cent, and the cost of onshore wind declined 10 per cent – with energy storage costs deflating by a third to levels not seen in the past five years. 

However, this cost deflation has been a lot more uneven across regions, with the US and Europe seeing much smaller declines due to tariffs and other supply bottlenecks. Asia is hence seeing significant inflection in the economics for power generation companies, especially in South Asia, which had lagged China capacity adds over the last several years. 

Part of the deflation in the clean power supply chain comes from even the capacity overbuilds that we are seeing in geographies that are looking to build their own clean power supply chains. Regions such as India and Southeast Asia, where clean power demand is growing very quickly, are adding to the glut in capacity on clean power supply chains that we have already seen in China.

Amid all the clean power developments in Asia, COP29 announced a[n] updated climate goal. The UN climate conference being held in Azerbaijan this year aims for a 59 per cent to 67 per cent reduction in economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions by 2035. 

That’s the clean energy update from Asia for now. Listen in tomorrow, as my colleagues engage in a conversation about the impact of the US election results on the sector.

Thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or a colleague today.

On the second part of a two-part roundtable, our panel gives its 2025 preview for the housing and mortgage landscape, the US Treasury yield curve and currency markets.

----- Transcript -----

Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. This is part two of our special roundtable discussion on what's ahead for the global economy and markets in 2025.

Today we will cover what is ahead for government bonds, currencies, and housing. I'm joined by Matt Hornbach, our Chief Macro Strategist; James Lord, Global Head of Currency and Emerging Market Strategy; Jay Bacow, our co-head of Securitized Product Strategy; and Jim Egan, the other co-head of Securitized Product Strategy.

It's Tuesday, November 19th, at 10am in New York.

Matt, I'd like to go to you first. 2024 was a fascinating year for government bond yields globally. We started with a deeply inverted US yield curve at the beginning of the year, and we are ending the year with a much steeper curve – with much of that inversion gone. We have seen both meaningful sell offs and rallies over the course of the year as markets negotiated hard landing, soft landing, and no landing scenarios.

With the election behind us and a significant change of policy ahead of us, how do you see the outlook for global government bond yields in 2025?

Matt Hornbach: With the US election outcome known, global rate markets can march to the beat of its consequences. Central banks around the world continue to lower policy rates in our economist baseline projection, with much lower policy rates taking hold in their hard landing scenario versus higher rates in their scenarios for re-acceleration.

This skew towards more dovish outcomes alongside the baseline for lower policy rates than captured in current market prices ultimately leads to lower government bond yields and steeper yield curves across most of the G10 through next year. Summarizing the regions, we expect treasury yields to move lower over the forecast horizon, helped by 75 [basis points] worth of Fed rate cuts, more than markets currently price.

We forecast 10-year Treasury yields reaching 3 and 3.75 per cent by the middle of next year and ending the year just above 3.5 per cent.

Our economists are forecasting a pause in the easing cycle in the second half of the year from the Fed. That would leave the Fed funds rate still above the median longer run dot.

The rationale for the pause involves Fed uncertainty over the ultimate effects of tariffs and immigration reform on growth and inflation.

We also see the treasury curve bull steepening throughout the forecast horizon with most of the steepening in the first half of the year, when most of the fall in yields occur.

Finally, on break even inflation rates, we see five- and 10-year break evens tightening slightly by the middle of 2025 as inflation risks cool. However, as the Trump administration starts implementing tariffs, break evens widen in our forecast with the five- and 10-year maturities reaching 2.55 per cent and 2.4 per cent respectively by the end of next year.

As such, we think real yields will lead the bulk of the decline in nominal yields in our forecasting with the 10-year real yield around 1.45 per cent by the middle of next year; and ending the year at 1.15 per cent.

Vishy Tirupattur: That's very helpful, Matt. James, clearly the incoming administration has policy choices, and their sequencing and severity will have major implications for the strength of the dollar that has rallied substantially in the last few months. Against this backdrop, how do you assess 2025 to be? What differences do you expect to see between DM and EM currency markets?

James Lord: The incoming administration's proposed policies could have far-reaching impacts on currency markets, some of which are already being reflected in the price of the dollar today. We had argued ahead of the election that a Republican sweep was probably the most bullish dollar outcome, and we are now seeing that being reflected.

We do think the dollar rally continues for a little bit longer as markets price in a higher likelihood of tariffs being implemented against trading partners and there being a risk of additional deficit expansion in 2025. However, we don't really see that dollar strength persisting for long throughout 2025.

So, I think that is – compared to the current debate, compared to the current market pricing – a negative dollar catalyst that should get priced into markets.

And to your question, Vishy, that there will be differences with EM and also within EM as well. Probably the most notable one is the renminbi. We have the renminbi as the weakest currency within all of our forecasts for 2025, really reflecting the impact of tariffs.

We expect tariffs against China to be more consequential than against other countries, thus requiring a bigger adjustment on the FX side. We see dollar China, or dollar renminbi ending next year at 7.6. So that represents a very sharp divergence versus dollar yen and the broader DXY moves – and is a consequence of tariffs.

And that does imply that the Fed's broad dollar index only has a pretty modest decline next year, despite the bigger move in the DXY. The rest of Asia will likely follow dollar China more closely than dollar yen, in our view, causing AXJ currencies to generally underperform; versus CMEA and Latin America, which on the whole do a bit better.

Vishy Tirupattur: Jay, in contrast to corporate credit, mortgage spreads are at or about their long-term average levels. How do you expect 2025 to pan out for mortgages? What are the key drivers of your expectations, and which potential policy changes you are most focused on?

Jay Bacow: As you point out, mortgage spreads do look wide to corporate spreads, but there are good reasons for that. We all know that the Fed is reducing their holdings of mortgages, and they're the largest holder of mortgages in the world.

We don't expect Fed balance sheet reduction of mortgages to change, even if they do NQT, as is our forecast in the first quarter of 2025. When they NQT, we expect mortgage runoff to continue to go into treasuries. What we do expect to change next year is that bank demand function will shift. We are working under the assumption that the Basel III endgame either stalls under the next administration or gets released in a way that is capital neutral. And that's going to free up excess capital for banks and reduce regulatory uncertainty for them in how they deploy the cash in their portfolios.

The one thing that we've been waiting for is this clarity around regulations. When that changes, we think that's going to be a positive, but it's not just banks returning to the market.

We think that there's going to be tailwinds from overseas investors that are going to be hedging out their FX risks as the Fed cuts rates, and the Bank of Japan hikes, so we expect more demand from Japanese life insurance companies.

A steeper yield curve is going to be good for REIT demand. And these buyers, banks, overseas REITs, they typically buy CUSIPs, and that's going to help not just from a demand side, but it's going to help funding on mortgages improve as well. And all of those things are going to take mortgage spreads tighter, and that's why we are bullish.

I also want to mention agency CMBS for a moment. The technical pressure there is even better than in single family mortgages. The supply story is still constrained, but there is no Fed QT in multifamily. And then also the capital that's going to be available for banks from the deregulation will allow them – in combination with the portfolio layer hedging – to add agency CMBS in a way that they haven't really been adding in the last few years. So that could take spreads tighter as well.

Now, Vishy, you also mentioned policy changes. We think discussions around GSE reform are likely to become more prevalent under the new administration.

And we think that given that improved capitalization, depending on the path of their earnings and any plans to raise capital, we could see an attempt to exit conservatorship during this administration.

But we will simply state our view that any plan that results in a meaningful change to the capital treatment – or credit risk – to the investors of conventional mortgages is going to be too destabilizing for the housing finance markets to implement. And so, we don't think that path could go forward.

Vishy Tirupattur: Thanks, Jay. Jim, it was a challenging year for the housing market with historically high levels of unaffordability and continued headwinds of limited supply. How do you see 2025 to be for the US housing market? And going beyond housing, what is your outlook for the opportunity set in securitized credit for 2025?

James Egan: For the housing market, the 2025 narrative is going to be one about absolute level versus the direction and rate of change. For instance, Vishy, you mentioned affordability. Mortgage rates have increased significantly since the beginning of September, but it's also true that they're down roughly a hundred basis points from the fourth quarter of 2023 and we're forecasting pretty healthy decreases in the 10-year Treasury throughout 2025. So, we expect affordability to improve over the coming year. Supply? It remains near historic lows, but it's been increasing year to date.

So similar to the affordability narrative, it's more challenged than it's been in decades; but it's also less challenged than it was a year ago.

So, what does all this mean for the housing market as we look through 2025? Despite the improvements in affordability, sales volumes have been pretty stagnant this year. Total volumes – so existing plus new volumes – are actually down about 3 per cent year to date. And look, that isn't unusual. It typically takes about a year for sales volumes to pick up when you see this kind of significant affordability improvement that we've witnessed over the past year, even with the recent backup in mortgage rates.

And that means we think we're kind of entering that sweet spot for increased sales now. We've seen purchase applications turn positive year over year. We've seen pending home sales turn positive year over year. That's the first time both of those things have happened since 2021. But when we think about how much sales 2025, we think it's going to be a little bit more curtailed. There are a whole host of reasons for that – but one of them the lock in effect has been a very popular talking point in the housing market this year. If we look at just the difference between the effective mortgage rate on the outstanding universe and where you can take out a mortgage rate today, the universe is still over 200 basis points out of the money.

To the upside, you're not going to get 10 per cent growth there, but you're going to get more than 5 per cent growth in new home sales. And what I really want to emphasize here is – yes, mortgage rates have increased recently. We expect them to come down in 2025; but even if they don't, we don't think there's a lot of room for downside to existing home sales from here.

There's some level of housing activity that has to happen, regardless of where mortgage rates or affordability are. We think we're there. Turnover measured as the number of transactions – existing transactions – as a share of the outstanding housing market is lower now than it was during the great financial crisis. It's as low as it's been in a little bit over 40 years. We just don't think it can fall that much further from here.

But as we go through 2025, we do think it dips negative. We have a negative 2 per cent HPA call next year, not significantly down. We don't think there's a lot of room to the downside given the healthy foundation, the low supply, the strong credit standards in the housing market. But there is a little bit of negativity next year before home prices reaccelerate.

This leaves us generically constructive on securitized products across the board. Given how much of the capital structure has flattened this year, we think CLO AAAs actually offer the best value amongst the debt tranches there. We think non-QM triple AAAs and agency MBS is going to tighten. They look cheap to IG corporates. Consumer ABS, we also think still looks pretty cheap to IG corporates. Even in the CMBS pace, we think there's opportunities. CMBS has really outperformed this year as rates have come down. Now our bull bear spread differentials are much wider in CMBS than they are elsewhere, but in our base case, conduit BBB minuses still offer attractive value.

That being said, if we're going to go down the capital structure, our favorite expression in the securitized credit space is US CLO equity.

Vishy Tirupattur: Thank you, Jay and Jim, and also Matt and James.

We'll close it out here. As a reminder, 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.

On the first part of a two-part roundtable, our panel discusses why the US is likely to see a slowdown and where investors can look for growth.

----- Transcript -----

Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Today in the podcast, we are hosting a special roundtable discussion on what's ahead for the global economy and markets in 2025.

I'm joined by my colleagues: Seth Carpenter, Global Chief Economist; Mike Wilson, Chief US Equity Strategist and the firm's Chief Investment Officer; and Andrew Sheets, Global Head of [Corporate] Credit Research.

It's Monday, November 18th, at 10am in New York.

Gentlemen. Thank you all for taking the time to talk. We have a lot to cover, and so I'm going to go right into it.

Seth, I want to start with the global economy. As you look ahead to 2025, how do you see the global economy evolving in terms of growth, inflation and monetary policy?

Seth Carpenter: I have to say – it's always difficult to do forecasts. But I think right now the uncertainty is even greater than usual. It's pretty tricky. I think if you do it at a global level, we're not actually looking for all that much of a change, you know, around 3-ish percent growth; but the composition is surely going to change some.

So, let's hit the big economies around the world. For the US, we are looking for a bit of a slowdown. Now, some of that was unsustainable growth this year and last year. There's a bit of waning residual impetus from fiscal policy that's going to come off in growth rate terms. Monetary policy is still restrictive, and there's some lag effects there; so even though the Fed is cutting rates, there's still going to be a little bit of a slowdown coming next year from that.

But I think the really big question, and you alluded to this in your question, is what about other policy changes here? For fiscal policy, we think that's really an issue for 2026. That's when the Tax Cut and Jobs Act (TCJA) tax cuts expire, and so we think there's going to be a fix for that; but that's going to take most of 2025 to address legislatively. And so, the fiscal impetus really is a question for 2026.

But immigration, tariffs; those matter a lot. And here the question really is, do things get front loaded? Is it everything all at once right at the beginning? Is it phased in over time a bit like it was over 2018? I think our baseline assumption is that there will be tariffs; there will be an increase in tariffs, especially on China. But they will get phased in over the course of 2025. And so, as a result, the first thing you see is some increase in inflation and it will build over time as the tariffs build. The slowdown from growth, though, gets backloaded to the end of 2025 and then really spills over into to 2026.

Now, Europe is still in a situation where they've got some sluggish growth. We think things stabilize. We get, you know, 1 percent growth or so. So not a further deterioration there; but not a huge increase that would make you super excited. The ECB should probably keep cutting interest rates. And we actually think there's a really good chance that inflation in the euro area goes below their target. And so, as a result, what do we see? Well, the ECB cutting down below their best guess of neutral. They think 2 percent nominal is neutral and they go below that.

China is another big curveball here for the forecast because they've been in this debt deflation spiral for a while. We don't think the pivot in fiscal policy is anywhere near sufficient to ward things off. And so, we could actually see a further slowing down of growth in China in 2025 as the policy makers do this reactive kind of policy response. And so, it's going to take a while there, and we think there's a downside risk there.

On the upside. I mean, we're still bullish on Japan. We're still very bullish on India and its growth; and across other parts of EM, there's some bright spots. So, it's a real mixed bag. I don't think there's a single trend across the globe that's going to drive the overall growth narrative.

Vishy Tirupattur: Thank you, Seth. Mike, I'd like to go to you next. 2024 has turned out to be a strong year for equity markets globally, particularly for US and Japanese equities. While we did see modest earnings growth, equity returns were mostly about multiple expansion. How do you expect 2025 to turn out for the global equity markets? What are the key challenges and opportunities ahead for the equity markets that you see?

Mike Wilson: Yeah, this year was interesting because we had what I would say was very modest earnings growth in the US in particular; relative to the performance. It was really all multiple expansion, and that's probably not going to repeat this year. We're looking for better earnings growth given our soft landing outcome from an economic standpoint and rates coming down. But we don't think multiples will expand any further. In fact, we think they'll come down by about 5 percent. But that still gets us a decent return in the base case of sort of high single digits.

You know, Japan is the second market we like relative to the rest of the world because of the corporate governance story. So there, too, we're looking for high single digit earnings growth and high single digits or 10 percent return in total. And Europe is when we're sort of down taking a bit because of tariff risk and also pressure from China, where they have a lot of export business.

You know, the challenges I think going forward is that growth continues to be below trend in many regions. The second challenge is that, you know, high quality assets are expensive everywhere. It's not just the US. It's sort of everywhere in the world. So, you get what you pay for. You know, the S&P is extremely expensive, but that's because the ROE is higher, and growth is higher.

So, you know, in other words, these are not well-kept secrets. And so just valuation is a real challenge. And then, of course, the consensus views are generally fairly narrow around the soft landing and that's very priced as well. So, the risks are that the consensus view doesn't play out. And that's why we have two bull and two bear cases in the US – just like we did in the mid-year outlook; and in fact, what happened is one of our bull cases is what played out in the second half of this year.

So, the real opportunity from our standpoint, I think this is a global call as well – which is that we continue to be pretty big rotations around the macro-outlook, which remains uncertain, given the policy changes we're seeing in the US potentially, and also the geopolitical risks that still is out there.

And then the other big opportunity has been stock picking. Dispersion is extremely high. Clients are really being rewarded for taking single stock exposures. And I think that continues into next year. So, we're going to do what we did this year is we're going to try to rotate around from a style and size perspective, depending on the macro-outlook.

Vishy Tirupattur: Thank you, Mike. Andrew, we are ending 2024 in a reasonably good setup for credit markets, with spreads at or near multi-decade tights for many markets. How do you expect the global credit markets to play out in 2025? What are the best places to be within the credit spectrum and across different regions?

Andrew Sheets: I think that's the best way to frame it – to start a little bit about where we are and then talk about where we might be going. I think it's safe to say that this has been an absolutely phenomenal backdrop for corporate credit. Corporate credit likes moderation. And I think you've seen an unusual amount of moderation at both the macro and the micro level.

You've seen kind of moderate growth, moderating inflation, moderating policy rates across DM. And then at the micro level, even though markets have been very strong, corporate aggressiveness has not been. M&A has been well below trend. Corporate balance sheets have been pretty stable.

So, what I think is notable is you've had an economic backdrop that credit has really liked, as you correctly note. We've pushed spreads near 20-year tights based on that backdrop. But it's a backdrop that credit markets liked, but US voters did not like, and they voted for different policy.

And so, when we look ahead – the range of outcomes, I think across both the macro and the micro, is expanding. And I think the policy uncertainty that markets now face is increasing both scenarios to the upside where things are hotter and you see more animal spirits; and risk to the downside, where potentially more aggressive tariffs or action on immigration creates more kind of stagflationary types of risk.

So one element that we're facing is we feel like we're leaving behind a really good environment for corporate credit and we're entering something that's more uncertain. But then balancing that is that you're not going to transition immediately.

You still have a lot of momentum in the US and European economy. I look at the forecasts from Seth's team, the global economic numbers, or at least kind of the DM economic numbers into the first half of next year – still look fine. We still have the Fed cutting. We still have the ECB cutting. We still have inflation moderating.

So, part of our thinking for this year is it could be a little bit of a story of two halves that we titled our section, “On Borrowed Time.” That the credit is still likely to hold in well and perform better in the first half of the year. Yields are still good; the Fed is still cutting; the backdrop hasn't changed that much. And then it's the second half of the year where some of our economic numbers start to show more divergence, where the Fed is no longer cutting rates, where all in yield levels are lower on our interest rate forecasts, which could temper demand. That looks somewhat trickier.

In terms of how we think about what we like within credit, we do think the levered loan market continues to be attractive. That's part of credit where spreads are not particularly tight versus history. That's one area where we still see risk premium. I think this is also an environment where regionally we see Asia underperforming. It's a market that's both very expensive from a spread perspective but also faces potentially kind of outsized economic and tariff uncertainty. And we think that the US might outperform in context to at least initially investors feeling like the US is at less relative risk from tariffs and policy uncertainty than some other markets.

So, Vishy, I'll pause there and pass it back to you.

Vishy Tirupattur: Thanks, Mike, Seth, and Andrew.

Thank you all for listening. We are going to take a pause here and we'll be back tomorrow with our year ahead round table continued, where we'll share our forecast for government bonds, currencies and housing.

As a reminder, if you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets explains why a stronger economy, moderate inflation and future rate cuts could prompt deal-making.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I’ll discuss why we remain believers in a large, sustained uptick in corporate activity. 

It's Friday, November 15th at 2pm in London. 

We continue to think that 2024 will mark the start of a significant, multiyear uplift in global merger and acquisition activity – or M&A. In new work out this week, we are reiterating that view. While the 25 percent rise in volumes this year is actually somewhat short of our original expectations from March, the core drivers of a large and sustained increase in activity, in our view, remain intact. 

Those drivers remain multiple. Current levels of global M&A volumes are still unusually low relative to their own historical trend or the broader strength that we see in stock markets. The overall economy, which often matters for M&A activity, has been strong, especially in the US, while inflation continues to moderate and rate cuts have begun. We see motivations for sellers – from ageing private equity portfolios, maturing venture capital pipelines, and higher valuations for the median stock. And we see more factors driving buyers from $4 trillion of private market "dry powder," to around $7.5 trillion of cash that's sitting idly on non-financial balance sheets, to wide-open capital markets that provide the ability to finance deals. 

These high level drivers are also confirmed bottom up by boots on the ground. Our colleagues across Morgan Stanley Equity Research also see a stronger case for activity – and we polled over 60 global equity teams for their views. While the results vary by geography and sector, the Morgan Stanley Equity analysts who cover these sectors in the most depth also see a strong case for more activity. 

The policy backdrop also matters. While activity has risen this year, one reason it might not have risen as much as we initially expected was uncertainty about both when central banks would start cutting rates and the outcome of US elections. 

But both of those uncertainties have now, to some extent, waned. Rate cuts from the Fed, the ECB, and the Bank of England have now started, while the Red Sweep in US elections could, in our view, drive more animal spirits. And Europe is an important part of this story too, as we think the European Union’s new approach to consolidation could be more supportive for activity. For investors, an expectation that corporate activity will continue to rise is, in our view, supportive for Financial equities. 

Where could we be wrong? M&A activity does fundamentally depend on economic and market confidence; and a weaker than expected economy or weaker than expected equity market would drive lower than expected volumes. Policy still matters. And while we view the incoming US administration as more M&A supportive, that could be misguided – if policy changes dent corporate confidence or increase inflation. 

Finally, we think that a more multipolar world could actually support more M&A, as there’s a push to create more regional champions to compete on the global stage. But this could be incorrect, if those same global frictions disrupt activity or confidence more generally. Time will tell. 

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.

While the market waits for the incoming Trump administration to present its policy agenda, our Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research Michael Zezas maps out some areas of early investor interest, including regulation and the US Treasury market.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Today on the podcast we’ll be talking about key themes coming out of the US election.

It’s Thursday, Nov 14 at 10am in New York.

The US election is over, and now the work begins for President Trump and Republican leaders in Congress. They’ll continue to focus in the coming weeks on staffing key roles in the government and fleshing out the policy agenda. When it comes to the economic and markets outlook for 2025, those details will matter a lot – particularly the sequencing and severity of changes to tariffs, immigration, and tax policy. That means for us the next few weeks will be key to learning what next year will look like. But there are still some areas where there’s already some signal for investors to lean on. 

One is in the financial sector and relates to regulation. A potentially delayed or diluted approach to bank regulation resulting from the policies of the new administration is one reason that our Banks Analyst Betsy Graseck is flagging a more bullish outcome and substantial outperformance potential for the sector. Similarly, our global head of credit research, Andrew Sheets, notes this election outcome should boost M&A activity, where an expected 50 percent pick-up in volumes next year could reach 75 percent or more. 

Another area is industrials, a sector where companies tend to spend a lot on capital. The Republican sweep substantially increases the chances that key tax benefits reducing the cost of capital expenditures are extended in a timely fashion. 

And in the U.S. treasury market, there’s signs that the most volatile part of the increase in yields is behind us. While it's true that extending expiring tax cuts means deficits will be higher next year than they otherwise would have been, it's basically just an extension of current policy – so any incremental impact to growth and inflation expectations being priced into this market is still an open question. This should be helpful to fixed income markets finding their footing into year end. 

But, as we started off with, there’s a lot to be learned in the coming weeks, and we’ll flag here what you need to know and how it may impact the direction of markets. 

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

As President-Elect Trump’s new administration takes shape, all eyes are on fiscal policy that may follow. Our Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter uses the United Kingdom’s recent election as a guide for how markets could react to a policy shift in the US.  

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist, and today I'll be talking about the US election and fiscal policy and what lessons we might be able to draw from the fiscal experience in the UK. 

It's Wednesday, November 13th at 10am in New York.  

In a lot of our recent research, the US election has figured prominently, and we highlighted three key policy dimensions that the US administration is going to have to confront. Immigration, tariffs, and, of course, fiscal policy. We're going to keep elections as a theme, but it might be useful to draw some comparisons to the UK to see what lessons we might have for the US. 

We think the experience in the UK, which recently proposed a new fiscal budget months after an election, is relevant mostly because of the time between taking power and the budget being presented. While markets are in the business of anticipating changes, the process of actually creating policy is a lot more cumbersome and time consuming. 

In this week, where we've seen lots of expectations already being priced in, it's probably useful to try to think about that process of forming policy in the UK and see what lessons it implies for the US.  

Back in May, the UK elected a new government, changing party control after 14 years. A key moment for markets came just over a week ago, though, when the new government's presentation of their budget for the next fiscal year came up. 

Now, we should remember, the trust government had faced a market test when the announcement of their budget proposals led to a big sell off in interest rates. As a result, markets were keenly attuned this time to the new labor government's budget, particularly because the US fiscal position requires a primary balance to stabilize the debt to GDP ratio. And in particular, when their debt costs rise, when interest rates go up, the primary balances that are needed keep increasing if they want to keep the debt stable. 

Now, the new labor government proposed to fill a funding gap through tax increases while simultaneously increasing Government investment spending. To manage some of the communication challenges here, many of these proposals, especially about the tax increases, they were made public in advance. The likelihood of additional government spending was also well known, and UK rates had moved higher for months leading up to the formal presentation of the budget. 

But, markets reacted on the day of the budget reveal, despite all of that prelude. The degree of front loading of the investment spending was seen as a surprise in markets, as was the Office of Budget Responsibility's concurrent assessment that the policy would lead to higher growth, higher inflation, and as a result, a need for higher interest rates. 

Now, conversations with clients have brought up the similarities of the US and the UK. US interest costs are steadily rising as the cost of the debt reprices to the current yield curve. And, over time, the ratio of interest expense on the debt relative to, say, the GDP of the country, well, that's going to continue to rise as well, and it will very soon eclipse its previous all time high. 

So, fiscal consolidation would be needed in the United States if we really want to see a stabilized debt to GDP ratio. Markets will need to assess the credibility of fiscal policy and the scrutiny will increase the higher the interest burden gets. The budget process for the US is much less clear cut than that in the UK and deliberations and debates will likely happen over most of 2025. And there's an additional question of how much revenue tariffs might be able to generate on a sustained basis. History suggests that trade diversion tends to limit those revenue gains. All of these facts taken together suggest that the outlook for US fiscal policy will continue to evolve for quite some time.  

Well, thanks for listening, and if you enjoy this show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share thoughts on the market with a friend or a colleague today.

Our Chief Asia Economist Chetan Ahya discusses the potential impact of tariffs on China and other Asian countries following the US election.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Asia Economist. Today on the podcast – with a Republican White House now in place, tariffs are the key issue that will matter to Asia.

It’s Tuesday, November 12, at 2 PM in Hong Kong. 

With the US election results in, the question now is not if there will be tariff hikes, but when and how much. Will China alone see rising tariffs, or will there be universal tariff imposed on all imports to the US? 

The previous president Trump administration imposed several tariffs on Chinese imports beginning in 2018. And looking back, our learning is that weaker corporate confidence weighed more heavily on Asia’s growth outlook than the direct effect of tariffs on exports. Just to elaborate on the point on direct impact of tariffs: Despite the tariffs imposed on China during that period, what we observed is that China’s market share in global goods exports improved after the US started to impose tariffs on imports from China. 

Looking forward, let’s consider a scenario of 50 per cent tariffs on China alone. The hit to global and China corporate confidence may not be as large as it was in 2018 and 2019. This is in part because US-China trade tensions have persisted for several years now. Companies have invested in diversifying their supply chains since then, and the US share in China's exports has declined since 2017. Given all this, the drag on China’s exports may be less than the 1 percentage point that we saw last time. 

The rest of Asia would also experience a slowdown, but we think the overall drag on growth would be less significant this time. The effects on individual economies would differ based on their exposure to China. We think Australia and Indonesia will be more exposed. Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, and Thailand would be moderately exposed. And India and Japan would be less exposed given a low share of export to China. 

But what happens if the US imposes 50 per cent tariffs on China and a 10 per cent universal tariff on the rest of the world? In this scenario, the damage to corporate confidence and the global capex and trade cycle would be much larger. The drag could be similar or greater than what we saw in 2018 and 2019. Asia excluding China has now become more dependent on the US as a source of end-demand. Global supply chains might have to be rewired yet again. This would cause a significant disruption to the corporate sector and a material impact on Asia’s growth trajectory. 

Of course, the final effect of US tariffs on Asia growth would also depend on the scale of policy support. Asia’s policy makers could allow their currencies to depreciate in response to a strong dollar. Then, against a backdrop of weaker currencies, Asia’s central banks could be constrained in their ability to cut rates immediately – similar to what happened in 2018-[20]19. 

Hence, they would prefer to take a fiscal easing first. Back in 2017-[20]19, Asia's fiscal deficit widened in aggregate by 1.1 percentage point as policymakers sought to provide some cushion to growth downside. Once currencies stabilize, they will take up monetary easing.

Things may move quickly once Trump takes office in January, and we will continue to keep you updated. 

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

With the Republican party poised to clinch control of the White House and Congress, our CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist says markets are readying for a lighter regulatory environment, supportive tax policy and a possible rebound in investor enthusiasm.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I'll be talking about the results of last week’s election and its impact on equity markets.

It's Monday, Nov 11th at 11:30am in New York.

So let’s get after it.

Our work leading up to the election showed that stocks likely to benefit from a Republican sweep did not actually see material outperformance up and through November 5th. In other words, this political outcome was not fully priced. As a result, this allowed for significant outperformance of Financials, Industrials, and other cyclicals last week. We see further follow through to the upside in quality cyclicals as prospects for a lighter regulatory environment, supportive tax policy and a potential rebound in animal spirits should rise following the election outcome. These developments came on the back of a macro backdrop that was already becoming more supportive of cyclical outperformance – and why we upgraded this cohort to overweight in early October. We continue to be sellers though of tariff-exposed consumer stocks and renewable energy stocks. 

Our upgrade to Financials in early October was rooted in our view that expectations were low going into earnings season while positioning remained light. Our work since then showed that the majority of the group's outperformance into the election could be explained by strong earnings revisions as opposed to rising odds of a Trump win in prediction markets. Now that we have the election results in hand, it appears that expectations for de-regulation are also driving performance upside in addition to improving fundamentals.  

While the 2016 playbook would suggest small caps and lower quality equities could see a period  of outperformance following the election, there are a couple of important differences worth considering. First, several of these areas of the market are exhibiting a negative correlation to interest rates today whereas they were showing a positive correlation in 2016. In other words, in today's later cycle environment, these cohorts' adverse sensitivity to rising rates is greater than it was in that period. Should rates see more upside post the election, there is likely less upside this time for small caps and lower quality cyclicals. Furthermore, relative earnings revisions breadth for small cap cyclicals is negative today, whereas it was positive in 2016. Finally, even with the increase in animal spirits following the 2016 election, small caps' relative performance peaked in early December of that year, just one month after the election.

While the momentum remains to the upside for US equity markets led by quality cyclicals, it's  worth considering the potential risks. The first one is a material move higher in interest rates driven by a rising term premium. The 50 basis point rise in term premium so far has not been enough to worry equity investors yet. However, should the term premium accelerate materially from here driven by fiscal sustainability concerns, equity valuations would likely face headwinds. Second, one of the more popular views in the macro community is for a stronger dollar. If such strength continues into year-end, it could provide a headwind to multinationals' Earnings growth for 2024 and 2025.

 A final risk to the positive price momentum is simply price itself. Over the past several months, the price change of the S&P 500 has distanced itself from the fundamentals. More specifically, the year-over-year change in the S&P has rarely been this disconnected from earnings revision breadth and business confidence surveys. However, given the positive reaction to the election so far in markets and from many business leaders, perhaps animal spirits can take earnings guidance higher – which is necessary to maintain the current trajectory in equity markets, especially since that is now expected by stock prices.  

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets provides an overview of uncertainty around policy following the election of a Republican administration.

----- Transcript -----

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 the US election - the implications in the past, present and future. 

It's Friday, November 8th at 2pm in London. 

The US Election is over, and the result was relatively clear. Republicans won control of the Presidency, the Senate, and on current projections, are likely to narrowly take the House of Representatives. The so-called ‘sweep’ will provide significant leeway to enact policy. 

There is going to be lots of time over future weeks and months, and even years, to discuss what all of this is going to mean. But for now, I want to offer a few thoughts on the impact across the past, the present and the future. 

Looking back, the US election has been a very well-known uncertainty that has hung over this market all year. The polling was close between two candidates with very different policy priorities. To the extent the simply not knowing was holding some investors back, or that investors were worried about a contested outcome, or even worse, political unrest – that issue has now passed. The relief from that passing may help explain some of the recent positive market reaction. 

For the present, we now sit in this curious middle-place where the uncertainty of the result is behind us, but any uncertainty from policy changes have not yet arrived. Coupled with still strong US economic data, another interest rate cut from the Federal Reserve yesterday, and the tendency of markets to perform well in November and December, and the path of least resistance in the near term may be for markets to continue to trade well.

The future, however, may have just become less certain. Credit likes moderation and stability, and we think the current economic mix, with US GDP growth and inflation at both around 2.5 per cent, while the unemployment rate sits near historic lows at 4.2 per cent, has been a good one for credit. It’s been a major driver of our optimistic spread forecasts this year. 

Yet based on exit polls, US voters were not happy with this economy, and voted for change. The question, which will now dominate investor conversations, is how much of what the new administration has said they will do, will end up happening – on everything from tariffs, to taxes, to immigration. 

I can assure you that there’s a very wide investor expectations around this. The ambiguity isn’t necessarily a problem now, but we expect these questions to harden as we get into early next year. And given the likely sweep, the odds for larger changes in policy, especially much looser fiscal policy, have risen significantly. Whatever your average expectation for the US economy over the next 24 months now is, we think the bands around that have widened, and that’s also true globally, from Latin America, to Europe, to Asia. 

To be a little more specific about these wider bands: To the downside, there are now scenarios where tariffs and deportations push up inflation and weaken growth. And to the upside, there are scenarios where potentially lower taxes and looser regulation could drive higher stock markets and more corporate animal spirits. 

But for credit, both of these present challenges: tight spreads are absolutely not priced for stagflation, while animal spirits and more corporate aggression aren’t necessarily a great story if you’re a lender. A more benign, middle scenario is, of course, still possible, and we’re keeping an open mind. But the future has now become more uncertain. 

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our panel of analysts discusses the health of the US consumer through the lens of spending, credit use and home ownership. 

----- Transcript -----

James Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm James Egan, Morgan Stanley's co-head of Securitized Product Strategy, and today we're going to take a look at the state of the US consumer from several different perspectives.

Recent economic data suggests that the US economy is strong, and that inflation is on a downward trend. Yet, some of the underlying performance data is a little bit weaker. To understand what's happening, I'm joined by my colleagues Arunima Sinha and Heather Berger from the Global and US Economics teams.

It's Thursday, November 7th, at 10am in New York.

Now, the macro data on the consumer has looked pretty strong. Arunima, can you give a little bit more detail here? And specifically, how has consumer spending in the US been trending relative to where it was last year?

Arunima Sinha: So, a good place to start, Jim, would be just to see where consumption spending was last year. And there it ended on a strong note. And in the first three-quarters of 2023, the average quarterly analyzed growth for consumption was just under 3 per cent. And that's where we are this year. We've seen solid growth rates in all three quarters this year, with the third quarter at 3.7 per cent. A particularly interesting aspect has been that the spending on goods has actually accelerated this year, with the third [quarter] number at a blistering 6.0 per cent on a quarterly basis.

We have chalked this down to labor income growth remaining robust; and we did an analysis which showed that past growth in labor income boosts real consumption spending. Over this year, labor compensation has been growing strongly. So over 6 per cent in the first quarter and about 3.5 per cent in quarters two and three.

And so, we continue to expect that that solid labor income growth is going to continue to boost real consumption spending.

James Egan: All right. So, if I'm hearing you correctly – good spending, holding up; services, holding up. What about discretionary versus non-discretionary spend?

Arunima Sinha: That's a great question, Jim, especially because discretionary spending is 70 per cent of all nominal personal consumption spending in the US. So just for context, what does discretionary include? It's going to be all the spending on durable goods, some non-durables, and then non-essential services such as health and transport, financial services, etc. And what we also saw – that a larger share of labor income is now being spent on discretionary items relative to the pre-COVID phase.

So where are growth rates running? Discretionary spending is running strong on both a nominal and a real basis. So, on a nominal basis, we have about 5.5 to 6 per cent year on year, over this year, and over 3 per cent on a real basis. And these are largely in line with pre-COVID rates, if a little bit stronger now.

For non-discretionary spending – that's the spending on food at home, and clothing, energy, and housing services – nominal spending has been decent. So, 4 per cent year on year on the first three quarters this year, and real spending has been a little bit less than the pre-COVID rate. So, between 0.5 per cent to 1 per cent. And so, this suggests what we expected to see, which is there's likely greater price sensitivity among consumers for these non-discretionary categories.

What do we see going forward? We think that those increases in labor income are going to continue to provide boosts to discretionary spending. And one of the interesting aspects that we found was that lending standards seem to matter for discretionary spending. So, there's been some slowing down and the tightening of lending standards – and that could provide a further tailwind to discretionary spending.

James Egan: Alright, that all sounds pretty positive and makes sense as to why we're getting so many questions about economic data that looks very healthy from a consumer perspective. But then, Heather. Other consumer data is showing a little bit more weakness. Arunima just mentioned credit standards. What are we seeing from the performance perspective on the consumer credit side?

Heather Berger: Well, as you mentioned, the consumer credit data has shown more weakness, as more consumers are missing payments on their loans. We initially saw delinquency rates start to pick up in loans concentrated towards consumers with lower credit scores, such as subprime auto loans and unsecured personal loans, as those consumers were more affected early on by high inflation and then rising rates.

Delinquency rates for those lower credit score loans are near the highest we have on record in some cases. In the past year, though, we have also seen that delinquency rates have picked up in loans aimed at consumers with higher credit scores, such as credit cards and prime auto loans. The weakness in these is not as extreme as in subprime, but the delinquency rates of the loans taken out recently is still relatively high historically. 

James Egan: So, it sounds like what you are describing is that there are pockets of consumers that are feeling more weakness than others.

Heather Berger: Yes, exactly. And so, on the prime consumer side, even if these consumers have higher credit scores or higher incomes, if they took out loans recently, they likely did so at higher rates, and they're really feeling the pressures of higher debt service costs.

We can also see some of the bifurcation between low income and high-income consumers. In some of the more detailed economic data, we have a breakdown of 2023 spending by income group, which is a bit outdated but still useful to see the narrative – and what it shows is that in 2023 higher income consumers made up near the largest share of discretionary spending as they have historically. For lower income consumers, their spending has shifted more towards essentials, with shelter increasing the most as a share of their spending from the prior year.

Now, Jim, we really think that the housing backdrop has played a role here, so can you explain a bit more of what's going on there?

James Egan: Yes, now my co-head of Securitized Product Strategy, Jay Bacow, and I have been on this podcast a few times talking about the role that the housing market is playing in the economy right now. We've really talked about the lock in effect. And when we're thinking about the role that housing plays in the consumer specifically, we're talking about lower income households, more discretionary spending, shelter increasing that's not happening at the higher end, and we think that's the lock in effect.

A majority of homeowners were able to get low fixed rate mortgages for 30 years with 3 or 4 per cent mortgage rates. The effective mortgage rate would be on the outstanding market right now is, average is 4 per cent. Prevailing rates are north of 6 per cent right now. So that has helped that higher end consumer who is more likely to be a homeowner – 65 per cent of the US households are homeowners – maintain that lower level.

But I don't want to gloss over that entirely. Other costs of homeownership are increasing. For instance, property taxes and insurance costs are up. Homeowners have realized swelling home equity amounts amid record home price growth in recent years; perhaps giving them more confidence to spend, but that equity hasn't exactly been easy to access.

Now, second lean and HELOC balances have been increasing; but the amount of equity that's being withdrawn falls well shy of previous highs, which were set back in 2009. And that's despite the fact that the overall equity in the housing market is $20 trillion larger today than it was back then. While the equity itself should provide a buffer for homeowning consumers from ultimately defaulting, these dynamics could be resulting in some of the short-term delinquency increases that we think we're seeing in products like Prime Auto, for example.

But Arunima, can you tie a bow on this for us? What does all of this mean for the consumer moving forward?

Arunima Sinha: Moving forward Jim, we really just see a solid consumer. So, for the end of this year, our forecast is real consumption spending growing at 2.6 per cent; at the end of next year at over 2 per cent. And that really is tied to our view on the labor market – that it's going to continue to decelerate, but not in any sudden ways.

So that's it. We are seeing a strong consumer, and we are going to be watching for pockets of weakness.

James Egan: All right. Arunima, Heather, thanks for taking the time to talk.

Arunima Sinha: Thanks so much for having me on, Jim.

Heather Berger: Great talking to you both.

James Egan: And to our listeners, 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.

With a second Trump term at least partially reflected in the price of global markets, we focus on two key debates for the longer-term: Potential tariffs and fiscal policy. 

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Today on the podcast – some initial thoughts on the market implications of a second term for President Trump.

It’s Wednesday, Nov 6, at 2pm in New York.

As it became clearer on election night that Former President Trump was set to win a second term in the White House, markets began to price in the expected impacts of resulting public policy choices. The US dollar rallied, which makes sense when you consider that President Trump has argued for higher tariffs, something that could hurt rest of world growth more than the US.  

US Treasuries sold off and yield rose, something that makes sense given President Trump supports tax policy choices that could meaningfully expand deficits. And US equity markets rallied led by key sectors that could benefit fundamentally from extended tax breaks and deregulation, including industrials and energy. 

But with a second Trump term now at least partially reflected in the price of markets across assets, it gets harder from here to understand how markets move.  There’s several key debates we’ll be tracking, here’s two that are top of mind. 

First, how will tariffs be implemented? Per the work of our economists, higher tariffs can raise inflation and crimp growth. They estimated that a blanket 10 per cent tariffs and 60 per cent tariffs on China imports would raise inflation by 1 per cent and dampen GDP growth by 1.4 per cent. Some pretty big numbers that would really challenge the soft-landing narrative and positive backdrop for equities and other riskier assets. Other approaches may carry the same risks, but to a lesser degree. Tariffs exercised via executive authority would, in our view, likely have to be targeted to countries and products – as opposed to implemented on a blanket basis. So, the approach to tariffs could represent a substantial difference in the outlook for markets. 

Second, how quickly and to what degree might US deficits expand? Our presumption has been that fiscal policy action, regardless of US election outcome, wouldn’t become clear until late 2025, largely governed by the need to address several provisions from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that expire at the end of that year. But, while not our base case it's of course possible that a Republican Congressional majority could deliver on tax cuts earlier – and perhaps even in larger size. The resolution to this debate could make the difference between yields climbing even higher than they have recently and taking a pause at these levels. 

Bottom line, as the election ends and the Presidential transition begins, there’s a lot about policy implementation that we can learn to guide our market strategy. We’ll be paying attention to all the key policymaker statements and deliberations, and feed through the signal to you.

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Analyst Nathan Feather discusses why the online dating market is slowing down, and whether or not it can get back on track.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Nathan Feather, Morgan Stanley’s Online Dating and US Small- and Mid-Cap eCommerce Analyst. 

Today, people across America are casting their votes. On this podcast, however, we're taking a break from our election coverage. And taking a leap into a different matter on many minds … and hearts. Online dating. Why it fell out of favor and how it might make a comeback.

It’s November 5, at 10am in New York. 

Finding love is a tricky business. Dating has never been easy; but with an epidemic of loneliness and isolation, singles today are finding it harder than ever. 

For those looking for love, online dating seems to offer endless possibilities. Since its inception just three decades ago, the stigma around online dating has faded, leading more and more daters to put their faith – and money – into the algorithm. In the US, three out of four actively dating singles have used it at some point in their journey. 

But after years of consistent double-digit growth, the online dating market is now faltering, with US industry revenue growing just 1 per cent this year.  

Why? Well, we think the issue lies primarily in weakening user trends with the US user bases of major dating apps in decline. Since last spring, we have seen around a 15 per cent decrease in dating app use by singles actively looking for a relationship. To us this indicates that the product is not matching user expectations as some daters have grown tired of the persistent swiping and dead ends. Consequently, daters' intentions to use online dating in the future have consistently declined. 

Now, there are many theories about why this is happening. We think there may be residual impact from the pandemic when singles used online dating at record rates. People who found relationships during that time likely left the apps. And those who didn't find a partner also often left the apps, disappointed and less likely to return. But that’s not all; while Millennials embraced the fun and casual experience of swipe apps, Gen Z isn’t so enamored – instead searching for greater authenticity. 

So, can online dating be fixed or are these issues beyond repair? Well, there are two main schools of thought. The first believes that the issue with online dating is a lack of innovation, and an improved product should lead to improved financials. The second camp argues that daters are fundamentally shifting away from these products to date in person or not at all. 

We sit firmly in the first camp and think this is a product issue. The apps need to do a better job helping people find lasting relationships. Granted, fixing this is far easier said than done. Human relationships are messy and complicated. But we do think there are clear opportunities. Many of the large apps have stayed relatively unchanged over the past five to 10 years and are meeting the demands of users from then – and not now. With improvements to the user experience and better tailoring to the goals of today’s daters, we believe the apps can reaccelerate user growth. In fact, brands that have consistently improved the user experience have recently fared far better. 

With that being said, we do think it will take time to find the product improvements that really work and convince daters to give the apps another shot. But as products evolve, we think daters and investors can rekindle their relationship with online dating.

If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market today, with a friend, colleague, significant other -- even a situationship. Thanks for listening.

On the eve of a competitive US election, our CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist joins our head of Corporate Credit Research and Chief Fixed Income Strategist to asses how investors are preparing for each possible outcome of the race.

----- Transcript -----

Mike Wilson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist.

Andrew Sheets: I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.

Vishy Tirupattur: And I'm Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist.

Mike Wilson: Today on the show, the day before the US election, we're going to do a conversation with my colleagues about what we're watching out for in the markets.

It's Monday, November 4th, at 1130am in New York.

So let's get after it.

Andrew Sheets: Well, Mike, like you said, it's the day before the US election. The campaign is going down to the wire and the polling looks very close. Which means both it could be a while before we know the results and a lot of different potential outcomes are still in play. So it would be great to just start with a high-level overview of how you're thinking about the different outcomes.

So, first Mike, to you, as you think across some of the broad different scenarios that we could see post election, what do you think are some of the most important takeaways for how markets might react?

Mike Wilson: Yeah, thanks, Andrew. I mean, it's hard to, you know, consider oneself as an expert in these types of events, which are extremely hard to predict. And there's a lot of permutations, by the way. There's obviously the presidential election, but then of course there's congressional elections. And it's the combination of all those that then feed into policy, which could be immediate or longer lasting.

So, the other thing to just keep in mind is that, you know, markets tend to pre-trade events like this. I mean, this is a known date, right? A known kind of event. It's not a surprise. And the outcome is a surprise. So people are making investments based on how they think the outcome is going to come. So that's the way we think about it now.

Clearly, you know, treasury markets have sold off. Some of that's better economic data, as our strategists in fixed income have told us. But I think it's also this view that, you know, Trump presidency, particularly Republican sweep, may lead to more spending or bigger budget deficits. And so, term premium has widened out a bit, so that’s been an area; here I think you could get some reversion if Harris were to win.

And that has impact on the equity markets -- whether that's some maybe small cap stocks or financials; some of the, you know, names that are levered to industrial spending that they want to do from a traditional energy standpoint.

And then, of course, on the negative side, you know, a lot of consumer-oriented stocks have suffered because of fears about tariffs increasing along with renewables. Because of the view that, you know, the IRA would be pared back or even repealed.

And I think there's still follow through particularly in financials. So, if Trump were to win, with a Republican Congress, I think, you know, financials could see some follow through. I think you could see some more strength in small caps because of perhaps animal spirits increasing a little further; a bit of a blow off move, perhaps, in the indices.

And then, of course, if Harris wins, I would expect, perhaps, bonds to rally. I think you might see some of these, you know, micro trades like in financials give back some along with small caps. And then you'd see a big rally in the renewables. And some of the tariff losers that have suffered recently. So, there's a lot, there's a lot of opportunity, depending on the outcome tomorrow.

Andrew Sheets: And Vishy, as you think about these outcomes for fixed income, what really stands out to you?

Vishy Tirupattur: I think what is important, Andrew, is really to think about what's happening today in the macro context, related to what was happening in 2016. So, if you look at 2016; and people are too quick to turn to the 2016 playbook and look at, you know, what a potential Trump, win would mean to the rates markets.

I think we should keep in mind that going into the polls in 2016, the market was expecting a 30 basis points of rate hikes over the next 12 months. And that rate hike expectation transitioned into something like a 125 place basis points over the following 12 months. And where we are today is very different.

We are looking at a[n] expectation of a 130-135 basis points of rate cuts over the next 12 months. So what that means to me is underlying macroeconomic conditions in where the economy is, where monetary policy is very, very different. So, we should not expect the same reaction in the markets, whether it's a micro or macro -- similar to what happened in 2016.

So that's the first point. The second thing I want to; I'm really focused on is – if it is a Harris win, it's more of a policy continuity. And if it's a Trump win, there is going to be significant policy changes. But in thinking about those policy changes, you know, before we leap into deficit expansion, et cetera, we need to think in terms of the sequencing of the policy and what is really doable.

You know, we're thinking three buckets. I think in terms of changes to immigration policy, changes to tariff policy, and changes to tax code. Of these things, the thing that requires no congressional approval is the changes to tariff policy, and the tariffs are probably are going to be much more front loaded compared to immigration. Or certainly the tax policy [is] going to take a quite a bit of time for it to work out – even under the Republican sweep scenario.

So, the sequencing of even the tariff policy, the effect of the tariffs really depends upon the sequencing of tariffs itself. Do we get to the 60 per cent China tariffs off the bat? Or will that be built over time? Are we looking at across the board, 10 per cent tariffs? Or are we looking at it in much more sequential terms? So, I would be careful not to jump into any knee-jerk reaction to any outcome.

Andrew Sheets: So, Mike, the next question I wanted to ask you is – you've been obviously having a lot of conversations with investors around this topic. And so, is there a piece of kind of conventional wisdom around the election or how markets will react to the election that you find yourself disagreeing with the most?

Mike Wilson: Well, I don't think there's any standard reaction function because, as Vishy said -- depending on when the election's occurring, it's a very different setup. And I will go back to what he was saying on 2016. I remember in 2016, thinking after Trump won, which was a surprise to the markets, that was a reflationary trade that we were very bullish on because there was so much slack in the economy.

We had borrowing capabilities and we hadn't done any tax cuts yet. So, there was just; there was a lot of running room to kind of push that envelope.

If we start pushing the envelope further on spending or reflationary type policies, all of a sudden the Fed probably can't cut. And that changes the dynamics in the bond market. It changes the dynamics in the stock market from a valuation standpoint, for sure. We've really priced in this like, kind of glide path now on, on Fed policy, which will be kind of turned upside down if we try to reflate things.

Andrew Sheets: So Vishy, that's a great point because, you know, I imagine something that investors do ask a lot about towards the bond market is, you know, we see these yields rising. Are they rising for kind of good reasons because the economy is better? Are they rising for less good reasons, maybe because inflation's higher or the deficit's widening too much? How do you think about that issue of the rise in bond yields? At what point is it rising for kind of less healthy reasons?

Vishy Tirupattur: So Andrew, if you look back to the last 30 days or so, the reaction the Treasury yields is mostly on account of stronger data. Not to say that the expectation changes about the presidential election outcomes haven't played a role. They have. But we've had really strong data. You know, we can ignore the data from last Friday – because the employment data that we got last Friday was affected by hurricanes and strikes, etc. But take that out of the picture. The data has been very strong. So, it's really a reflection of both of them. But we think stronger data have played a bigger role in yield rise than electoral outcome expectation changes.

Andrew Sheets: Mike, maybe to take that question and throw it back to you, as you think about this issue of the rise in yields – and at what point they're a problem for the equity market. How are you thinking about that?

Mike Wilson: Well, I think there's two ways to think about it. Number one, if it really is about the data getting better, then all of a sudden, you know, maybe the multiple expansion we've seen is right. And that, it's sort of foretelling of an earnings growth picture next year that's, you know, much faster than what, the consensus is modeling.

However, I'd push back on that because the consensus already is modeling a pretty good growth trajectory of about 12 per cent earnings growth. And that's, you know, quite healthy. I think, you know, it's probably more mixed. I mean, the term premium has gone up by 50 basis points, so some of this is about fiscal sustainability – no matter who wins, by the way. I wouldn't say either party has done a very good stewardship of, you know, monitoring the fiscal deficits; and I think some of it is definitely part of that. And then, look, I mean, this is what happened last year where, you know, we get financial conditions loosened up so much that inflation comes back. And then the Fed can't cut.

So to me, you know, we're right there and we've written about this extensively. We're right around the 200-day moving average for 10-year yields. The term premium now is up about 50 basis points. There's not a lot of wiggle room now. Stock market did trade poorly last week as we went through those levels. So, I think if rates go up another 10 or 20 basis points post the election, no matter who wins and it's driven at least half by term premium, I think the equity market's not gonna like that.

If rates kind of stay right around in here and we see term premium stabilize, or even come down because people get more excited about growth -- well then, we can probably rally a bit. So it's much a reason of why rates are going up as much as how much they're going up for the impact on equity multiples.

Vishy Tirupattur: Andrew, how are you thinking about credit markets against this background?

Andrew Sheets: Yeah, so I think a few things are important for credit. So first is I do think credit is a[n] asset class that likes moderation. And so, I think outcomes that are likely to deliver much larger changes in economic, domestic, foreign policy are worse for credit. I mean, I think that the current status quo is quite helpful to credit given we're trading at some of the tightest spreads in the last 20 years. So, I think the less that changes around that for the macro backdrop for credit, the better.

I think secondly, you know, if I -- and Mike correct me, if you think I'm phrasing this wrong. But I think kind of some of the upside case that people make, that investors make for equities in the Republican sweep scenario is some version of kind of an animal spirits case; that you'll see lower taxes, less regulation, more corporate risk taking higher corporate confidence. That might be good for the equity market, but usually greater animal spirits are not good for the credit market. That higher level of risk taking is often not as good for the lenders. So, there are scenarios that you could get outcomes that might be, you know, positive for equities that would not be positive for credit.

And then I think conversely, in say the event of a democratic sweep or in the scenarios where Harris wins, I do think the market would probably see those as potentially, you know, the lower vol events – as they're probably most similar to the status quo. And again, I think that vol suppression that might be helpful to credit; that might be helpful for things like mortgages that credit is compared to. And so, I think that's also kind of important for how we're thinking about it.

To both Mike and Vishy, to round out the episode, as we mentioned, the race is close. We might not know the outcome immediately. As you're going to be looking at the news and the markets over Tuesday evening, into Wednesday morning. What's your process? How closely do you follow the events? What are you going to be focused on and what are kind of the pitfalls that you're trying to avoid?

Maybe Vishy, I'll start with you.

Vishy Tirupattur: I think the first thing I'd like to avoid is – do not make any market conclusions based on the first initial set of data. This is going to be a somewhat drawn out; maybe not as drawn out as last time around in 2020. But it is probably unlikely, but we will know the outcome on Tuesday night as we did in 2016.

So, hurry up and wait as my colleague, Michael Zezas puts it.

Mike Wilson: And I'm going to take the view, which I think most clients have taken over the last, you know, really several months, which is -- price is your best analyst, sadly. And I think a lot of people are going to do the same thing, right? So, we're all going to watch price to see kind of, ‘Okay, well, how was the market adjusting to the results that we know and to the results that we don't know?’

Because that's how you trade it, right? I mean, if you get big price swings in certain things that look like they're out of bounds because of positioning, you gotta take advantage of that. And vice versa. If you think that the price movement is kind of correct with it, there's probably maybe more momentum if in fact, the market's getting it right.

So this is what makes this so tricky – is that, you know, markets move not just based on the outcome of events or earnings or whatever it might be; but how positioning is. And so, the first two or three days – you know, it's a clearing event. You know, volatility is probably going to come down as we learn the results, no matter who wins. And then you're going to have to figure out, okay, where are things priced correctly? And where are things priced incorrectly? And then I can look at my analysis as to what I actually want to own, as opposed to trade

Andrew Sheets: That's great. And if I could just maybe add one, one thing for my side, you know, Mike – which you mentioned about volatility coming down. I do think that makes a lot of sense. That's something, you know, we're going to be watching on the credit side. If that does not happen, kind of as expected, that would be notable. And I also think what you mentioned about that interplay between, you know, higher yields and higher equities on some sort of initial move – especially if it was, a Republican sweep scenario where I think kind of the consensus view is that might be a 'stocks up yields up' type of type of environment. I think that will be very interesting to watch in terms of do we start to see a different interaction between stocks and yields as we break through some key levels. And I think for the credit market that interaction could certainly matter.

It's great to catch up. Hopefully we'll know a lot more about how this all turned out pretty soon.

Vishy Tirupattur: It's great chatting with both of you, Mike and Andrew.

Mike Wilson: Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our US Fintech and Payments analyst reviews a recent survey that reveals key trends on how Gen Z and Millennials handle their personal finances.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m James Faucette, Morgan Stanley’s Head of US Fintech and Payments. Today I’ll dig into the way young people in the US approach their finances and why it matters.

It’s Friday, November 1st, at 10am in New York. 

You’d think that Millennials – also commonly known as Gen Y – and Gen Z would come up with new ways to think about money. After all, they live most of their lives online, and don’t always rely on their parents for advice – financial or otherwise. But a survey we conducted suggests the opposite may be true. 

To understand how 16 to 43 year-olds – who make up nearly 40 per cent of the US population – view money, we ran an AlphaWise survey of more than 4,000 US consumers. 

In general, our work suggests that both Millennials and Gen Z’s financial goals, banking preferences, and medium-term aspirations are not much different from the priorities of previous generations. Young consumers still believe family is the most important aspect in life, similar to what we found in our 2018 survey. They have a positive outlook on home ownership, college education, employment, and their personal financial situation. 28-to-43-year-olds have the second highest average annual income among all age cohorts, earning more than $100,000. They spend an average of $86,000 per year, of which more than a third goes toward housing. 

Gen Y and Z largely expect to live in owned homes at a greater rate in five to 10 years, and younger Gen Y cohorts' highest priority is starting a family and raising children in the medium term. This should be a tailwind for many consumer-facing real estate property sectors including retail, residential, lodging and self-storage. However, Gen Y and Z are less mobile today than they were pre-pandemic. Compared to their peers in 2018, they intend to keep living in the same area they're currently living in for the next five to 10 years. 

Gen Y and Z consumers reported higher propensity for saving each month relative to older generations, which could be a potential tailwind for discretionary spending. And travel remains a top priority across age cohorts, which sets the stage for ongoing travel strength and favorable cross-border trends for the major credit card providers. 

In addition to all these findings, our analysis suggests several surprising facts. For example, our survey results contradict the widely accepted notion that younger generations are "credit averse." The vast majority of Gen Z consumers have one or more traditional credit cards – at a similar rate to Gen X and Millennials. Although traditional credit card usage is higher among Millennials and Gen Z than it was in 2018, data suggests this is driven by convenience, not financing needs. Younger people’s borrowing is primarily related to auto and home loans from traditional lenders rather than fintechs. 

Another unexpected finding is that while Gen Y and Z are more drawn to online banking than their predecessors, about 75 per cent acknowledge the importance of physical branch locations – and still prefer to bank with their traditional national, regional, and community banks over online-only providers. What’s more, they also believe physical bank branches will be important long-term. 

Overall, our analysis suggests that generations tend to maintain their key priorities as they age. Whether this pattern holds in the future is something we will continue to watch.

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

With the US election as a backdrop, our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets tells three stories that help encapsulate the state of global credit markets.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll go around the credit world in three short stories. 

It's Thursday, October 31st at 2pm in London.

The US election next Tuesday continues to be a top issue on investor minds, and indeed is a top issue for us here at Thoughts on the Market, where it’s dominating your feed over this week. 

For credit, our positive view this year has been closely tied to the idea that the asset class likes moderation. For example, in data released yesterday the US economy grew a solid 2.8 per cent in the third quarter, while core inflation moderated to just 2.2 per cent, close to the Fed’s target. And Morgan Stanley’s forecasts for the rest of this year and next see that pattern continuing: Solid US Growth, falling inflation, driving steady further rate cuts from the Federal Reserve and all creating a better-than-expected backdrop for credit that should support tighter than average spreads. 

That idea that credit likes moderation is core to how we view the election. Outcomes that could drive larger changes in economic policy, domestic policy or foreign policy, are all larger risks. And outcomes that could drive more moderate outcomes across all of these factors are likely going to be better for credit, in our view. 

But you may also be tired of hearing about the election. And so for you, here is a quick tour of the credit world in three non-election stories. 

In Asia, Korea will be added to the FTSE World Government Bond Index, an important benchmark for global bond investors. This has significant implications across Korean assets, but for Credit, it may be most important for sparking more interest in Corporate Bonds denominated in local Korean Won.

This is a larger market than investors may initially realize, totaling roughly $1 trillion US equivalent in size. And meanwhile, the exposure of foreign investors to this market is historically low. A large market with little global exposure is a potential opportunity. 

Moving to Europe, you could be forgiven for thinking the mood is pretty dour. Growth has been weaker than in the United States, while the US Election is raising questions around everything from disruptions to trans-Atlantic trade, to the future of NATO, to the war in Ukraine. 

But over the last month, flows into European credit have been extremely good. Per work by my colleagues, inflows into European credit have reached record levels over the last several months. The start of rate cuts leading investors to lock in still-attractive all-in yields in Europe is a big part of this story. 

Finally, in the US, we continue to see remarkable shifts in the ease with which investors can trade large volumes of corporate bonds. So-called portfolio trading, where investors buy or sell bonds as a group, continues to grow, with September seeing a new all-time high in activity. Year-to-date, through September, we estimate that roughly $760 billion – with a ‘b’ – has been traded this way. It’s never been easier to trade very large volumes of corporate bonds. 

The US election on November 5th will continue to dominate investor focus over the coming days. As it should. Credit has been an enormous beneficiary of the recent backdrop that’s seen solid growth, moderating inflation, and moderating policy rates. The vote will have an important bearing on whether that moderation continues, or if something new takes its place. 

But away from the election there are other important things happening. Korea’s Local Currency Corporate bond market is a large, underinvested market that may get more attention after index inclusion. European Credit is seeing record flows despite its macro uncertainties, an indicator of underlying investor demand. And in the US, the continued rise of portfolio trading is re-shaping market structure and improving the ability to trade ever larger volumes of corporate bonds. 

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. 

Oh, and Happy Halloween.

Our Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research, Michael Zezas, outlines how investors should navigate the closing days of the presidential campaign -- including a vote-counting period that could extend past Election Day.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Today is going to be a little bit different. We’re exactly six days away from the US election. The race is neck-and-neck, and I want to sketch out what investors should expect in the next couple of weeks. 

It’s Wednesday, October 30, at 10 AM in New York.

This is an historic election, and the outcome remains highly uncertain. What’s more, there’s a good chance we won’t know the winner on election night due to close vote counts. My colleagues and I have spent a lot of time on this show trying to give our listeners a sense of how the election might impact different economies around the word as well as markets, sectors, and specific industries. But today I want to take a step back and highlight a few things that investors should keep in mind right now. 

To sum up what we’ve covered so far: The key policies at stake are taxes, tariffs, and immigration. Congressional composition will be critical in determining the extent of tax cut extensions in either win outcome. Domestic, consumer-oriented sectors are most exposed to tax changes, while clean-tech is the most exposed to potential efforts at a repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act. Macro impacts vary depending on the scope of policies and their sequencing, but we see downside risks to growth in a Republican win outcome. 

As our listeners know, a candidate needs 270 Electoral College votes to win. Former President Trump’s most likely path to victory is through the Sun Belt – Arizona, North Carolina and Georgia; while Vice President Harris’ most likely path to victory is through the so-called Blue Wall – Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. 

In terms of the Senate, polling and prediction markets have consistently implied higher likelihood of Republicans winning control. Democrats are defending more seats in states that Trump won in 2020, as well as more seats in states Biden won by a small margin. As far as the House of Representatives, Republicans need 11 of the 25 toss-up seats to maintain control of the House, and Democrats need 15. The generic ballot is the most reliable House indicator, in our view. It’s a political poll which asks not which candidate you plan to vote for to represent you in Congress, but rather which political party – Democrat, Republican or Independent – that you would support. The generic ballot historically correlates with the House winner, and it currently favors Democrats. 

All this leaves us with two key takeaways: 

First, don’t expect conclusive results on election night. Early vote data from key states reflects our view that vote-by-mail levels are lower than in 2020 but still elevated versus historical levels. And it may take days to get all the mail-in votes counted. 

Second, full election results may differ from early returns. Why is that? A candidate may have a deficit in election night vote counts but still come back to win the race once all ballots are counted. This depends on two key variables: The share of the electorate who vote by mail; and the skew among those ballots toward Democrats – a blue shift – or Republicans – a red shift. 

So again, we need to be patient and wait for the final results. And when that happens, we will start digging deep into the post-election outlook for the economy and markets. 

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our U.S. Public Policy and Valuation, Accounting & Tax strategists assess the possible scenarios in the upcoming elections, and what they could mean for both taxpayers and the market.

----- Transcript -----

Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's US public policy strategist.

Todd Castagno: And I'm Todd Costagno, Head of Global Valuation, Accounting, and Tax Research at Morgan Stanley.

Ariana Salvatore: With less than a week to go until the US election, the race is still neck and neck. Today, we dig into a key issue voters care about: Taxes.

Todd Castagno: It's Tuesday, October 29th at 10am in New York.

So, Ariana. Taxes are an issue that impact both businesses and individuals. It's a key component of both candidates plans and proposals. How have they evolved over the campaign?

Ariana Salvatore: I'd say in general we do tend to see a lot of overlap between Harris' proposals and the ones that the Democrats were campaigning on before she took over the mantle from President Biden in July. That being said, in some instances, her plans go beyond what was requested in the president's fiscal year [20]25 budget request.

For example, that $6,000 credit for newborns and the $25,000 homebuyer tax credit. These are areas where we've seen her campaign go beyond the scope of what Biden was campaigning on while he was still in the race. Of course, it's important to remember that any of these proposals would have to pass muster in a Democrat controlled or a split Congress – meaning that there will be some tempering of these plans at the margin.

Todd Castagno: So former President Trump campaigned in his first election on tax policy. He's campaigning on tax policy in his current campaign. What are his plans and views?

Ariana Salvatore: We've been talking about the Republican sweep outcome as the most deficit expansionary from tax policy changes because Republicans understandably have more fealty to the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

That law is set to expire by the end of next year. So, in a Trump win scenario plus Republican Congress, we think you can get most of that 2017 law extended. While in a Trump win scenario with divided government, it's probably a little bit narrower. In general, as I said, deficits skew larger in Republican win outcomes for that reason, with an asymmetry across the other election scenarios. That being said, we do still expect to see deficit expansion in 2026, regardless of who's in power, because these tax cuts will be extended one way or another.

But Todd, you've done a lot of work in this area and there are some substantial impacts from a potential corporate rate increase to think through. Can you give us a little bit of detail on what that kind of increase would mean for stocks and bonds?

Todd Castagno: Yeah. So, investors have been very focused on the rate and where it matters and where it does not matter. So, if you really think about it, most companies that are exposed to a rate increase or decrease are domestic oriented, consumer companies, retail companies, you know, hospital facilities, industrials; those are the most exposed to a rate increase.

Multinationals this time around are less exposed. So, if we go back to 2017, we think about it; that was a different story. We had $2 trillion of trapped cash on the sidelines that did come back – buybacks, dividends, corporate hiring. You know, this time around, that's a different story. So there is exposure but it's mainly consumer-oriented companies.

Ariana Salvatore: That makes sense. And you mentioned the 2017 almost as a blueprint for what we saw last time. You mentioned dividends and buybacks.

Do you have any sense of how this time around could be different? What do we think companies would likely spend these tax cuts on?

Todd Castagno: Well, there are tax cuts. I do think it's going to be different. I do think the $2 trillion does not exist. That's not going to happen. So, you're going to have fewer buybacks, fewer dividends. But you could see some changes in employment. You could see some changes in investment. Things like upfront expensing could help boost the economy, higher jobs, et cetera.

One thing, Ariana. You know, tax cuts are expensive. I think that's what we've all contemplated for almost 10 years now. How are we going to pay for these in this new world?

Ariana Salvatore: Well Republicans have proposed a few different pay forwards. But to your point, we're not in the same environment as 2017, and we don't expect to see the same ones that were part of the original Tax Cuts and Jobs Act negotiations this time around. Specifically, former President Trump has talked about not extending the SALT cap, which was a revenue raiser that capped the amount of deductions some individuals could take between state and federal taxes. That provision raised about $900 billion over 10 years.

Republicans in general are mainly focused on peeling back some parts of the IRA – or the Inflation Reduction Act – as a cost saving measure, as well as letting some of the tax cuts from the 2017 law roll off.

We contrast that with the Democrat sweep outcome, where we could see a corporate rate increase to 25 per cent in our view, in spite of Harris’ pledge to bring it up to 28 per cent from the current 21 per cent.

Todd Castagno: So, we could talk about the Inflation Reduction Act for a second. You know, that was a bill that was designed to bring energy, clean energy manufacturing back to the United States.

It was a very large bill; it was partisan. But what do we think about in this next election outcome of actually repealing some of those items?

Ariana Salvatore: It's a great question. And Republicans on the campaign trail have been talking a lot about peeling back the IRA. Importantly, in our view, we don't think a full-scale repeal is likely even in a Republican sweep outcome. There are a few reasons for that, but mainly because if you look at where these projects are being located, it's in Republican held states and districts. And Republicans in the house currently have said that they're not interested in rolling back the law. That being said, there are ways to potentially cap the amount of outstanding money that has not yet been allocated.

And the president could work with the treasury or other federal agencies to tighten up some of the criteria or the guidance around accessing some of the tax credits that will limit the overall deployment.

Todd Castagno: I think the recent Supreme Court decision also plays into that.

With candidates’ tax plans – I’ve run a lot of numbers from a company perspective. You've run a lot of numbers top down from a deficit perspective. What did you come to view?

Ariana Salvatore: We do see deficits expanding in 2026 and beyond. That's because, in our view, it's not really in lawmakers’ interest to allow all of the tax cuts – both individual and corporate – from 2017 to expire. We think the largest extension, as I mentioned before, comes in a Republican sweep. But in general, in some form or another, we think that at least a portion of these lower tax rates are going to stay around.

That adds $2.8 trillion to the deficit over 10 years on the high end per our estimates; and $700 billion over 10 years in our smallest expansion scenario, a Democrat sweep.

So finally, Todd, in either win outcome, what's the timeline of key tax-related events that investors should be paying attention to?

Todd Castagno: So, this is the trillion-dollar question. So, most of the individual side of the tax cuts and jobs act expires at the end of 2025. There are certain business provisions that have already started to phase out. There are certain provisions that are permanent, like the corporate rate.

When will Congress get to this? They will get to it at some point, but we just don't know when that is. Could it be early 2025? Could it be 2026? And I think investors should pay attention to that because Congress doesn't always act on time; and we also don't know what the extensions will look like. Some things could be extended three years, five years, 10 years. Some things could be permanent.

So that's the jigsaw puzzle that we'll have to put together after the election.

Ariana Salvatore: Great. Well, I guess three things in life are certain – death, taxes, and the fact that we will be following this issue very closely.

Todd, thanks so much for taking the time to talk.

Todd Castagno: Great to speak with you.

Ariana Salvatore: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

As the U.S. presidential race continues to be neck and neck according to opinion polls, our Chief Fixed Income Strategist considers the possible market implications if some policies proposed during this campaign are implemented.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about understanding market dynamics against the backdrop of U.S. elections. 

It's Monday, Oct 28th at 1 pm in New York.

The outcome of the U.S. elections, now just over a week away, has been at the center of every discussion I have had in the last several days. There have been significant moves, not so much in the opinion polls – but in prediction markets. In the opinion polls, the presidential race remains tight and neck-to-neck in key swing states with poll numbers well within the margin of error. But some prediction markets have shifted meaningfully toward Republicans in the contests for both the presidency and control of Congress. 

Financial markets have also moved a lot. Stocks exposed to a Republican win outcome have risen a fair bit. 

To understand the potential policy changes that can have an impact on markets, I think it is crucial to understand the sequencing of those policy changes. 

Given the moves in the prediction markets, let us first frame a Trump win scenario. It seems reasonable to bucket the possible shifts into three categories – fiscal policy, immigration controls, and tariffs. 

Meaningful changes in fiscal policy require control of both houses of Congress; and even in a Republican sweep, scenario legislation would still be time-consuming and likely come last. We don’t really have many details on how changes to immigration policy would be implemented and so their timing remains very unclear. On the other hand, given broad presidential discretion on trade policy, Trump’s expressed intentions in his campaign messaging, and the precedent of his first term, tariff changes would likely come first.

Our economists have looked at the potential impact of tariffs on the economy. They concluded that broad tariffs imply downside risks to growth through declines in consumption, investment spending, payrolls, and labor income, and upside risks to inflation. Their estimates suggest that imposing all the tariffs currently under discussion could result in a delayed drag of -1.4 per cent on real GDP growth and a more rapid boost of 0.9 per cent to inflation. 

How do we reconcile the equity market’s reaction to the increasing odds of a Trump win in some prediction markets with the idea that there will be a drag on GDP growth and boost to inflation that our economists assess? 

Two explanations. Markets could be counting on the prospect that all tariffs would not be imposed. Or at least would be sequenced over an extended period, with some coming much later than others. Also, markets could be putting greater emphasis on the revival of “animal spirits” driven by expectations of regulatory easing, which is hard to define or quantify.

Let us look at other markets. 

In the bond markets, treasury yields have risen notably in the last month. Many investors see the Republican sweep outcome as most bearish for US Treasuries, based on the experience of the 2016 election. As Matt Hornbach, our global head of macro strategy has noted, there are meaningful differences between the Fed’s monetary policy today and the pre-election period in 2016, suggesting that any rise in Treasury yields would be more contained this time, even in a Republican sweep outcome. 

In 2016, markets were pricing in about 30 basis points of rate hikes over the next 12 months. Contrast that to the current market expectation of about 135 basis points in rate cuts over the next 12 months. Also, in the year after the 2016 election, expectations for the Fed Funds Rate rose nearly 125 basis points. A similar rise in expectations for Fed policy now would require market participants to expect the Fed to stop cutting immediately; and refrain from further cuts through 2025. This seems like a remote possibility – even under a Republican sweep elections scenario. 

Given the recent moves across markets and the expectations they are pricing in, markets may now be somewhat offside should Harris win, as they would have to reverse the course. 

Elections are a known unknown. Based on opinion polls, this race remains extremely tight, and multiple combinations of presidential and congressional outcomes are very much in play. We must also contend with the prospect that determining the outcome may take much longer this time.

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

After decades of offshoring, the pendulum for US manufacturing is swinging back toward domestic production. Our US Multi-Industry Analyst Chris Snyder looks at what’s behind this trend.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Chris Snyder, Morgan Stanley’s US Multi-Industry Analyst. Today I’ll discuss the far-reaching implications of shifting industrial production back to the United States. 

It’s Friday, October 25th, at 10am in New York.

Global manufacturing is undergoing a seismic shift, and the United States is at the epicenter of this transformation. After decades of offshoring and relying on international supply chains, the pendulum is swinging back toward domestic production. This movement – known as reshoring – is not just a fleeting trend but a strategic realignment of manufacturing capabilities that is indicative of the “multipolar” theme playing out globally.

In fact, we believe the US is entering the early innings of re-Industrialization – a multi-decade opportunity that we size at $10 trillion and think has the potential to restore growth to the US industrial economy following more than 20 years of stagnation. 

The reshoring of manufacturing to the US is fueled by a combination of factors that are making domestic production both viable and lucrative. While the initial sparks were ignited by policy changes, including tariffs and trade agreements, the COVID-19 pandemic laid bare the risks of elongated supply chains and over-dependence on foreign manufacturing.

Meanwhile, the diffusion of cutting-edge technologies, such as automation, artificial intelligence, and advanced robotics, has diminished the cost advantages of low-wage countries. The US -- with its robust tech sector and innovation ecosystem -- is uniquely positioned to leverage technology to revitalize its manufacturing base. 

Who are the direct beneficiaries? High-tech sectors, such as semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, and advanced manufacturing systems, are likely to be the biggest winners. Traditional industrial sectors, such as automotive and aerospace, are also seeing a resurgence. Finally, companies that invest in more sustainable manufacturing processes stand to gain from both policy-driven incentives and a growing market demand. All told, these businesses should see shorter supply chains, reduced legal and tariff costs, and a more resilient operational structure. 

As for the broader US economy? We think the implications are pretty profound. In altering the US industrial landscape, reshoring promises not only to boost GDP growth, but it could also stabilize and potentially reverse the trade deficits that have plagued the US economy for years.

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.

Morgan Stanley’s European Head of Research Product Paul Walsh speaks to Betsy Graseck, Global Head of Banks and Diversified Finance, and Bruce Hamilton, European Asset Managers Diversified Financials Analyst, about the implications of increasing life expectancy for the financial industry.

----- Transcript -----

Paul Walsh: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's European Head of Research Product, and today we dig into a topic that really affects us all. Retirement.

Life cycles are extending as people are living longer, healthier lives. Coupled with government pension funds that are increasingly under pressure, this means that consumers will need to build much more robust investment plans to substitute for salaries to carry them through a longer retirement.

And to understand more about the changing financial needs and challenges of an aging population, I'm delighted to be joined by my colleagues, Betsy Graseck, Global Head of Banks and Diversified Finance, and Bruce Hamilton, our European Asset Managers Diversified Financials Analyst.

It's Thursday, October the 24th at 3pm in London.

Betsy Graseck: And it's 10 am in New York.

Paul Walsh: Now Bruce, let's start with you. As people live longer, they will likely spend more time in retirement. Managing and ensuring retirement income over a longer duration could have a significant impact on asset management. What are the broad trends you're seeing in the industry right now?

Bruce Hamilton: So, the asset management industry in large part has focused on the accumulation phase of investors journey. Whilst this remains critical as people build assets for retirement – and we see growing allocations from affluent investors to private markets as a trend which is likely to be reinforced by the aging theme – there's a significant need for decumulation products and solutions that can offer returns and income over a prolonged retirement.

We see a lot of innovation as asset managers look to develop products to meet this need.

Paul Walsh: So Betsy, people are living longer. How ready are consumers for retirement? Are most retirement plans or similar financial services ready to handle this challenge?

Betsy Graseck: Some are ready. But given how rapidly the global population is aging, there is an increasing need to provide solutions to individuals. Just to put a number on it, the global population that is 65 years old or older in the year 2000 was only 7 per cent. This is set to hit 10 per cent next year in 2025 and 16 per cent in 2050. All groups need service and advice – with the affluent group needing the most increase in services especially if government pension funds come under more pressure.

Paul Walsh: So, I think you set the scene really well there, Betsy, and I guess the obvious question is, how can wealth and financial planners best respond, do you think? Is it by creating new products? Or do we need a much deeper transformation?

Betsy Graseck: We see individuals today having a wide range of retirement choices. What we feel they really need here is personalized, customized advice, delivering solutions that can address their unique needs. These span from affluent individuals needing salary replacement strategies to high-net-worth individuals looking for philanthropic and wealth transfer strategies. A focus on integrated, personalized advice, innovative products, and high-quality service that meets clients as they wish to connect effectively will be critical.

Paul Walsh: It seems to me that it is – but is this a positive for the financial services sector? And if so, what do you think is the size of this revenue opportunity and over what time period do you think?

Betsy Graseck: Well, the way we've looked at this is across the global asset manager and global wealth manager industry, as they will be the ones called upon to address these needs. And we do see a roughly 30 per cent uplift in global revenues by 2028, which equates to [$]400 billion in incremental revenues across the global industry.

And that is driven by the expansion of individuals looking for advice, in particular from the affluent group, as well as an increase in fee-based products to address the income needs.

Paul Walsh: And there's some big numbers that you've quoted there, Betsy. So let's dig into the financial subsector and industries. What are the biggest untapped opportunities there?

Betsy Graseck: Well, the number one is the affluent customer base that we do see having the biggest need for advice, relative to advice seeking today. And as that group, reaches out and receives advice from wealth channels, that is one major driver here. The second driver is the increase in fee-based products to service the income replacement needs.

Paul Walsh: And what are the biggest challenges do you think? Obviously, we've talked about the opportunity there, but the biggest challenges to financial services that you see along the way.

Betsy Graseck: Well, the way I think about this is what is required to be a winner, and the winners need to be able to integrate their entire organizations to deliver for clients. And also leverage technology efficiently and effectively to be able not only to deliver the highest quality service in the way the client wants to be serviced; but also to optimize cost structures, which then can get reinvested – you know, higher pretext getting reinvested into the business.

The challenges are the opposite of institutions that remain siloed and institutions that have, you know, maybe a tech strategy that is not set to respond to the needs of this client set.

Paul Walsh: Thanks for that, Betsy; and Bruce, I just want to pivot back to you. Some asset managers are partnering with insurance companies to offer guaranteed income streams and wealth transfer solutions. What are some of the successful models that you've seen so far?

Bruce Hamilton: So, asset managers are adopting a range of approaches. Some have acquired insurance subsidiaries, some have taken significant minority stakes, while others have looked to deepen partnerships with insurance. Trade offs include the degree of control versus the capital intensity that ownership of insurance brings. So, we see more than one route, but a continued push towards greater collaboration between asset managers and insurers.

Given the potential for the asset managers to access stable, permanent capital, that can then be deployed in a range of investment strategies to offer diversified sources of income via private or structured credit to support returns for the end insurance clients.

Theoretically, the best place models to deliver retirement solutions will have elements of wealth advice, plus a hybrid asset management insurance product approach. Given the importance of providing investors with regular and variable income, a guaranteed minimum level of income, plus an ability to generate a return to offer potential for legacy to pass to heirs.

Paul Walsh: And of course, Bruce, it's very difficult to talk about product innovation, without bringing in the topic of AI. As asset managers are working to create ever more personalized retirement solutions as we've heard, how and to what extent do you think they are leveraging AI?

Bruce Hamilton: So, our interviews with a range of management players confirmed that many of the potential use cases being worked on 12 months ago have now been put into production. It's still early days, and so far, most use cases are focused on areas that can drive efficiencies.

So, for example, in RFP report writing, synthesis of research, and some of the middle and back-office processes for asset managers. But over time, AI can clearly feed more bespoke client service by wealth and asset managers with areas such as customized investment proposals and financial planning offering potential.

Paul Walsh: Fascinating topic. Betsy and Bruce, thank you so much for taking the time to talk.

It's clear that increasing lifespans are reshaping the financials sector by driving product innovation, influencing asset allocation strategies, and, of course, creating new market opportunities.

And to our listeners, thanks as always for taking the time to listen in. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please do leave us a review wherever you listen to the show and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today. 

Our Chief Europe Economist Jens Eisenschmidt and Europe Equity Strategist Regiane Yamanari discuss the strain of an aging population on the future of Europe’s economy and markets.

----- Transcript -----

Jens Eisenschmidt: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jens Eisenschmidt, Morgan Stanley's Chief Europe Economist.

Regiane Yamanari: And I’m Regiane Yamanari from the European Equity Strategy Team.

Jens Eisenschmidt: Today we are discussing one of the most urgent challenges Europe is facing right now, a declining working age population – and its implication for Europe's economy and potential solutions.

It’s Wednesday, October 23rd, at 3 pm in Frankfurt.

Regiane Yamanari: And 2 pm in London.

So Jens, people are getting older around the world, living longer. Although the rate of change is different from country to country, can you tell us what's the situation in Europe right now?

Jens Eisenschmidt: Yes, Europe faces a declining working age population, so much is sure. We have just put out a big report, where we come up with numbers around this issue. We think for the large four Euro area countries – Germany, France, Italy, and Spain – we see a decline in Euro area working population by 2040 by 6.4 per cent. People also get older, so that doesn't necessarily mean the overall population is declining by as much. It simply means that working age population, as a sort of most direct, relevant measure for the economy, is declining.

Regiane Yamanari: Why does an aging population hamper economic growth?

Jens Eisenschmidt: So, think about the economy producing, in a very stylized sense, with two factors. One is capital and the other one is labor. And typically, these two factors are connected. So, you can't really produce just with one factor. Typically, you need at least some labor to produce something or at least some machinery to produce something with labor.

So we just; I mean, it's a very simple way of looking at the economy, but typically very powerful in explaining what's going on. So, if we take this approach and look at our economy through the lens of these two factors and we have one factor declining significantly, this will affect the amount the economy can produce.

So, we are talking here about so-called potential growth or potential output. And we think the declining working age population will lead to a decline in potential output. For the Euro area economies I was just mentioning, we think it could be around 4 per cent over the period 2000, from now to 2040. And that amounts to on an annual basis around 25 basis points lower growth potential.

Regiane Yamanari: Suppose policy makers want to boost Europe's working age population, which they do. What options do they have? Which European countries most benefit from these policies or options?

Jens Eisenschmidt: Yeah, the oldest policy measure, or if you want the most discussed one, typically has been birth rates.

Now, many of the policies being implemented here – and they have been implemented for decades already – have been found to be not really changing [the] situation in a profound way. So, birth rates have either stopped increasing again or actually continued dropping. So, policy makers’ attention probably for this reason has turned to other measures.

Other measures we think of here mostly in the current debate is increasing net migration, so you're basically getting your working age population replenished to some extent from the outside. Changing participation pattern in your own domestic labor market – typically, it's framed around the question, how much or how high is the share of one cohort versus the other.

For instance, males versus females. We have countries where there is a large gap between these two groups, just to name an example here. And you know, closing that gap could help you increasing or offset; some of the projected decline in working age population.

Another measure that's often discussed is increasing, retirement age. So essentially working age population is defined by those age between 15 and 64. And of course, if you work for longer, so you increase retirement age, that will also help, to stem against some of the projected decline in working age population.

Now, if you look around for the countries that we are discussing in the report, um, then there are different ways these policies affect these countries.

So, for instance, in Italy, closing the gap between male and female labor force participation would offset a large part of the projected fall in its working age population because that gap is so large. In France, in terms of our numbers, the most effective measure would be increasing the retirement age. And again, in Germany and Spain, it would probably be migration policies that are most effective.

Okay now let's consider the alternative, Regiane. Suppose nothing changes. There are fewer and fewer working age people in Europe. How would this affect companies earning growth?

Regiane Yamanari: So, if there are no policy action, and here assuming all else equal, I mean, no change in productivity, for example. Due to a lower GDP growth, we estimate the headwinds of European demographics could lower companies long term earnings growth by 90 basis points. So, from 5.1 to 4.2 per cent by the end of the decade. And this compares to an average growth of 6.4 per cent that we had in the past 10 years.

Jens Eisenschmidt: And how would this be reflected in the stock market?

Regiane Yamanari: Yeah, so potential lower earnings growth is negative for European equities, right? But it's worth highlighting two points here. First, is that European companies have been diversifying their activities and revenues across the globe in the recent decades. And the revenue exposure of European companies to develop Europe, including the UK has reached a 30-year low. So, we estimate that just 38 per cent of European companies’ revenues are generated in develop Europe, on a free flow market cap weighted basis.

And second, I think we see this impact being more idiosyncratic at sector at stock level. Just to give an example, so we have this factor analysis that we have done. We found that companies reducing headcount in Europe have been outperforming companies increasing. So in our view, this impact, it will be idiosyncratic, and it will depend by sector and the the stock.

Jens Eisenschmidt: What sectors and industries then do you expect to be most affected by an aging population and the declining labor force?

Regiane Yamanari: Yeah, so first of all, I think one thing to mention is that it's very clear that the theme of, aging population is gaining traction in European C-suite commentary. So we found using AlphaSense Large Language Model, when we analyze companies transcripts, a notable rise in mentions of aging population – and in particular, if we compare to the US, to the US companies, we know that labor intensive industries like kept goods, construction and materials, business services are among those at the top of the list.

And those mentions have been increasing in most cases when we compare to the average of the last five years.

Jens Eisenschmidt: So how are companies adjusting their business models to account for these challenging demographic trends? 

Regiane Yamanari: So we see, for example, industrial automation, robotics, and software adoption accelerating in the face of declining working age population across Europe, which might surprise some people as some people is relatively under-penetrated by technology.

Regiane Yamanari: For example, if we look at industrial robot density in Germany, that is less than half of South Korea. And there are some sectors, for example, like hospitality that our analyst has flagged that the companies have been changing and adopting initiatives related to recruitment, technology adoption, portfolio rationalization – just a few examples here – and adjusting their business models as well to navigate a scenario of reduced labor availability and higher costs. And well, not to mention AI, which we have seen a rapid development and pace of adoption as well.

Jens Eisenschmidt: I'm glad you mentioned AI. It was on my mind. I was about to ask you. So, what do you think, uh, the role of AI could be in helping with the demographic challenge?

Regiane Yamanari: Our view is mainly on productivity gains. So, we them to start materializing, but they are likely to be small and grow consistently over time. An important portion of AI adopter companies cost base are related to R&D, marketing, distribution costs – and these areas we still are to see broad based application of AI, if this is really to be meaningful at the corporate level or even a national level.

So the way we see is that the productivity gains being reflected on margins, but still to be small at this level.

Jens Eisenschmidt: So, this one remains to be seen. We will surely be watching closely whether AI can deliver what it seems to be promising to generate productivity gains to offset the demographic challenge.

Regiane, thanks a lot for taking the time to talk.

Regiane Yamanari: Great speaking with you, Jens.

Jens Eisenschmidt: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Our Medical Technology expert analyzes the medical potential and market opportunity in technology that allows direct communication between the human brain and an external device.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Kallum Titchmarsh, from Morgan Stanley’s U.S. Medical Technology Team. On today’s episode – a dive into a topic that sounds like it’s straight out of science fiction. Brain Computer Interfaces, or BCIs.

It’s Tuesday, October 22, at 10 AM in New York.

The latest version of Tony Stark – better known as his alter ego Iron Man – is a good example of a brain computer interface. When the billionaire businessman-inventor is critically wounded, he builds an armor suit that gives him superhuman abilities. Flying through air. Clearing out obstacles with repulsor blasts. Shooting enemies with guided missiles. All controlled by his brain. 

This, of course, is the stuff of science fiction. Real world examples of brain computer interfaces – or BCIs – aren’t fantastical. But they are fascinating. Translating thoughts into actions like generating text on a screen or moving a robotic limb.

BCIs have been in development for more than a century, but recent advances have brought them much closer to becoming a reality. We expect to see BCIs in commercial medical use in about five years, at which point they can help treat a wide range of health disorders, from motor neuron disease – such as ALS – to depression. 

The market opportunity for BCIs looks enormous – $400 billion of total addressable market – or TAM – in the US alone. This figure includes two types of BCIs: enabling BCIs, which facilitate behaviors like moving a cursor on a screen, and preventive BCIs, which can prevent adverse events like depressive states or epileptic seizures. 

We divide the BCI healthcare opportunity into two segments: early TAM and intermediate TAM. The early TAM includes individuals with critical upper limb impairment and select variants of neurological conditions like epilepsy and depression. These patients will likely be the first to receive a BCI. The intermediate TAM includes patients with moderate upper limb impairment and severe lower limb impairment. As BCI technology develops, these patients will eventually become eligible for treatment. 

There are at least 2.8 million patients in the US forming the early TAM and an additional 6.8 million within the intermediate TAM. Together, these groups represent the $400 billion of potential revenue I already mentioned based on a single implant procedure. 

The opportunity may be significantly larger when factoring for potential replacement cycles and recurring revenues from software upgrades. But while the estimated TAM is indeed vast, we think penetration will remain limited through the first 20 years of launch. By 2035, we expect just under $1.5 billion of revenue to be generated from BCI implant procedures, hitting north of a $500 million annual run rate in 2036, and reaching the $1 billion annual run rate by 2041. 

It’s exciting to think BCIs will begin their healthcare application in the coming years, but we anticipate a number of regulatory hurdles on the way to widespread adoption in healthcare and beyond. Will BCIs push into fields like neurogaming, warfare, and even biological optimization of humans? 

The potential is certainly there, and with it the burden of the safe and responsible use of this cutting-edge technology. 

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist explains his preference for cyclical stocks amid a rise in global money supply and current US election dynamics.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about our recent upgrade of quality cyclicals and how it will be affected by the US election and liquidity.

It's Monday, Oct 21st at 11:30am in New York. 

So let’s get after it. 

We continue to have conviction in our recent cyclical shift and Financials upgrade. Indeed, cyclicals traded well last week as most economic data came in stronger than expected. It’s worth noting we recommend investors stay up the quality curve within the cyclical space, however. While Financials have been the best performing sector in the S&P 500 since our upgrade, institutional investors remain under-exposed to Financials based on our data suggesting the sector can run further. 

In addition to better economic data, there are other factors affecting pro-cyclical stocks. We are focused on two, in particular. The election and global liquidity. 

We believe a Trump win with a split Congress would provide a pro-cyclical bias with small caps keeping pace with large caps. The markets seem to agree, with the recent cyclicals outperformance led by financials. Meanwhile, consumer stocks negatively exposed to tariff risks under a Trump win have underperformed. Interestingly, there is some overlap between this recent leadership and the post Biden debate period in early July as well as the months surrounding the 2016 election. Finally, we've also witnessed higher interest rates and a stronger US Dollar more recently, which is something to watch closely as a possible headwind for liquidity post election and into 2025. 

While some argue a Trump win would be a headwind for growth and equity markets, due to tariff risks and slower immigration, we think there's an additional element from the 2016 experience that’s worth considering—rising animal spirits. More specifically, in 2016 Trump's pro-business approach led to the largest three-month positive impact on small business confidence in the past 40 years. It also translated into a spike in individual investor sentiment. It appears to me that markets may be trying to front-run a repeat of this outcome as Trump's win in 2016 came as a surprise to pundits and markets alike.

This also means a Harris win could lead to some reversion in terms of overall equity market performance and leadership. Most notably, bonds could potentially rally with defensive and quality growth stocks doing better like earlier this year. Secondarily, even with a Trump win, certain areas of the market may be vulnerable to a ‘sell the news’ phenomena if the upside is already priced amid bullish positioning. 

On this front, we would also point out that the economic set-up today is very different than the 2016 period when the economy had much more slack and could absorb additional pro-cyclical policies like tax cuts or other forms of fiscal stimulus.

Turning to liquidity, we note that global money supply in US dollars has surged at an 18 per cent annualized rate since the end of June. I believe this has also had a positive effect on equity prices, not to mention credit spreads, precious metals, cryptocurrencies and real estate. 

Bottom line, in the absence of a major swing in election probabilities or global liquidity between now and the election, equity markets are likely to trade with a bullish tilt both at the index level and from a style, sector, factor standpoint. 

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets discusses why uncertainty around the election’s outcome could be detrimental for credit investors.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss the US Election, and how it might matter for Credit. 

It's Friday, October 18th, at 4pm in London. 

Morgan Stanley’s positive view on credit this year has been anchored on a simplistic thesis. Credit is an asset class that hates extremes, as it faces losses if a company fails, but doesn’t earn extra if that company’s profits double or even triple. Credit, to an unusual degree, is an asset class that loves moderation. 

And here at Morgan Stanley, we’ve been forecasting … a lot of moderation. Moderate growth for the U.S. and Europe. Moderating inflation, that continues to fall into next year. And a moderation of central bank interest rates, rather than the type of sharp declines that you tend to see around recessions; as we think Fed funds will settle in a little bit below three-and-a-half per cent by the middle of next year. This moderate economy, coupled with moderate levels of corporate aggressiveness should be music to a credit investor’s ears, and support richer-than-average valuations, in our view. 

So how does the upcoming U.S. election on November 5th fit into this otherwise benign picture? 

Who runs a government matters, especially when it’s the government of the world’s largest and strongest economy. This election is also notable for the differences between the two candidates, who are presenting sharply contrasting visions of economic, domestic and foreign policy. Against this backdrop, we suggest credit investors try to keep a few things top of mind. 

First, and most broadly, the idea that “credit likes moderation” remains our north star. Outcomes that could drive larger changes of economic policy, or larger uncertainty in policy in general, are probably going to be a larger risk for credit.

Second, of all the various policies under discussion, tariffs feel especially important as they can be largely implemented without congressional approval, and are thus far easier to see go into effect. Tariff proposals could create significant dispersion at the single-name level in credit, and pose significant risks for sectors like retail, which import a large share of their ultimate goods. For time-limited investors, tariffs are the policy area where we’d spend the most time – and where much of our Credit Research around the election has been focused. 

Third, it’s notable that as we head into this election, expected volatility, in equities or credit, is elevated even as the stock market sits near all time highs, and credit spreads are historically low. So this begs the question. Do these options markets know something that the rest of the market does not? We’re skeptical. Historically, when you’ve seen high volatility alongside all-time-highs in the market – and it’s not all that common – it’s tended to be a positive short-term indicator, rather than a negative one. And one way we could perhaps explain this is that it suggests that investors are still a little bit nervous, and not as positive as they otherwise could be. 

The U.S. election is close in time, uncertain in outcome, and has stakes for future policy. That high implied volatility we see at the moment, in our view, could reflect known unknowns, rather than some hidden factor. Tariff policy, being largely independent of congress and thus easier to implement, is probably the most relevant for single-name credit exposures. And most broadly, credit likes moderation, and should do best in outcomes that are more likely to achieve that.  

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our expert panel explains whether the US election will impact energy policy, including how the Inflation Reduction Act’s possible fate and increased tariffs could transform the sector.

----- Transcript -----

Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research.

David Arcaro: I'm Dave Arcaro, Morgan Stanley's US Power and Utilities Analyst.

Andrew Percoco: And I'm Andrew Percoco, the North American Clean Tech Analyst here at Morgan Stanley.

Michael Zezas: And today we're discussing another key election related topic that generates a lot of political and market debate: Energy policy.

It's Thursday, October 17th at 10am in New York.

The outcome of the 2024 election will likely determine the direction of U.S. climate policy for years to come. David, what are the key focus areas for investors as they evaluate the various election outcomes on the utilities and clean energy industries?

David Arcaro: Yeah, Mike, investors are highly focused on the Inflation Reduction Act, the IRA, especially as it pertains to the election and the clean energy space. This was a law that was passed in 2022, and it really has supportive policies across the entire clean energy spectrum. It's got tax credits and incentives for solar, wind, offshore wind, green, hydrogen, nuclear, you name it. Battery storage. And some of those tax credits go all the way to 2032 and beyond in some cases.

So, it's a very supportive policy when it comes to the clean energy industry and the growth outlook. So, the big question is what's going to happen to the Inflation Reduction Act – depending on which administration is in place following the election.

Our core view is that the IRA stays in place; that the core wind, solar storage and nuclear tax credits all remain, regardless of the outcome of the election. And then separately, investors are focused on tariff policy as it pertains to clean energy. It is a global industry. A lot of the equipment and materials are imported around the world. And so, any changes to the tariff approach could have an impact on the space as well.

Michael Zezas: Got it. And so how does the outlook for renewables change under different election outcomes?

David Arcaro: Yeah, really, the outlook for renewables growth is not very different in our view, regardless of the outcome of the election.

We think it's a strong growth outlook either way. And part of that is because we've got policies that we expect to stay in place that will be supportive regardless of the outcome, as I mentioned with the Inflation Reduction Act. And then we've also got demand. It's a very strong demand backdrop for the renewable space – and that's because in the electric industry, we're seeing an inflection in electricity usage across the US.

It's been stagnant for years and years, but now with data center growth, with industrial production accelerating, and manufacturing and onshoring, we're seeing a big change in the growth outlook for electricity usage. And that means we need more power plants. We need more to be built, and renewables are going to be the predominant new resource for producing electricity in the US.

Some of these companies like data centers, they want renewables to power their operations. And most utilities, electric companies that are building power plants, they're going to be using renewables more than anything else. There are impediments to building fossil plants, it's challenging to permit and there's supply chain delays and issues.

So, we think there's a very strong growth outlook for renewables based on that demand and the policy support going forward, regardless of the outcome.

Michael Zezas: And Andrew, how about corporate tax policy, including renewable energy tax credits?

Andrew Percoco: I mean, as Dave mentioned, we think IRA repeal risk is very low, and I think the only scenario where IRA repeal is a relevant conversation is in a Republican sweep scenario. But even under this scenario, we would expect any repeal measures to be targeted in nature and not a wholesale repeal of the bill. So, the question then becomes, you know, what is safe and what's at risk of getting cut.

So, to start off with what's safe; maybe three items that I'll highlight. One would be domestic manufacturing tax credits. There's been a lot of bipartisan support for the onshoring of manufacturing. So, the clean energy manufacturing tax credits within the IRA look like they are on solid footing, regardless of the election outcome.

Now, why do domestic manufacturing tax credits have bipartisan support? One, there's a general view that we need to reduce our reliance on China for our energy infrastructure and, two, the job creation angle. The IRA has created over 150, 000 new jobs, and a lot of those jobs are in states where there is a large representation of Republican voters. So, the local pushback would be pretty severe if IRA was repealed in full.

Number two, area of IRA that we think is safe would be nuclear tax credits. There's a general understanding across both sides of the aisle that nuclear is an important and reliable form of clean energy, and that we need to support the existing fleet of assets.

And then third again, as Dave mentioned, solar storage and wind investment tax credits. These have been around for a while, well before the IRA was in place and they've had bipartisan support. They've been extended multiple times, even under past Republican administrations. So, we would not expect any changes to those core tax credits in a Republican sweep.

On the flip side, you know what's potentially at risk in a Republican sweep? Number one would be consumer facing tax credits like the EV tax credits. This is something that the Republicans have definitely taken aim at on the campaign trail.

Number two would be offshore wind. Former President Trump has definitely had [a] very candid view of offshore wind, and the issues that it poses on local communities. So, this could be another area where, they look for some targeted repeal. And then the third would just be delayed implementation of any unfinalized rules, by the time they take office.

Michael Zezas: Makes sense. And finally, what other key election implications should investors focus on at this point when it comes to clean energy?

Andrew Percoco: Yeah, I think the biggest would be around tariffs. It's frankly the hardest to predict but could have some pretty meaningful near-term implications for clean energy.

Just to zoom out for a second, the clean energy supply chain is global with a heavy concentration in China and Southeast Asia. So, if there is higher tariffs put in place against these regions, it could create some disruption in supply chains and impact the pace at which we deploy renewables in the US. But frankly, at the same time, it should just accelerate a trend that we're already seeing in the US, which is the onshoring of manufacturing, thanks in part due to the IRA.

So ultimately could create some near-term disruption but doesn't change the secular growth for the renewable space since developers in the US have already started to make the shift towards domestic supply.

Michael Zezas: Yeah, that makes sense, Andrew. And obviously tariffs have been top of mind for investors as we've talked about here. Well, David, Andrew, thanks for taking the time to talk.

And as a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Mortgage rates aren’t directly influenced by Federal Reserve policy. However, the Fed’s recent cut likely will have a domino effect on the US housing market, say our Co-Heads of Securitized Products Research Jay Bacow and James Egan.

----- Transcript -----

Jay Bacow: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jay Bacow, Co-Head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley.

James Egan: And I'm Jim Egan, the other Co-Head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley. And on this episode of the podcast, we're going to discuss the impacts of a 50-basis point cut from the Fed on the US housing and mortgage markets.

It's Wednesday, October 16th at 1 pm in New York.

Now, Jay, the Fed cut 50 basis points at its last meeting. What are your views on the mortgage market in the aftermath of that cut?

Jay Bacow: We think that is constructive for mortgages and we recommended a long mortgage basis versus rates. The healthy economy and a Fed that doesn't want to fall behind the curve should be good for risk assets in general. We think there's a likelihood of vol possibly falling and that is constructive for agency mortgages in particular.

Now it's a positive narrative. But, the valuations matter, and we have to admit that the valuations are not that compelling with spreads on agency mortgages trading near the tights since the regional bank crisis. However, if you look further back, mortgages start to look attractive, particularly relative to other high quality fixed-income assets.

For instance, agency mortgages are basically trading at the average spread they've traded at since the GFC. Corporate credit, on the other hand, is trading within a few basis points of the tights since the GFC. If risk assets are going to do well, and we're certainly seeing that in corporate credit and in the stock market, we think mortgages are particularly priced attractively relative to most of them.

James Egan: Alright, so relative value for mortgages makes sense, but can you talk a little bit about the technicals here?

Jay Bacow: The technicals are where we feel more confident. One of the reasons why mortgage spreads have been wide for the past two years – it's an environment where the Fed and the domestic banks, the two largest holders of mortgages, have been reducing their holdings.

Now, we still expect the Fed to reduce their holdings of mortgages, but we think the bank demand is going to turn positive. That's due to not just clarity around the Basel III Endgame that should be coming soon, but more directly related to this conversation – as the Fed cuts rates that directly impacts the amount of yield that banks earn of the cash sitting at the Fed.

Now, that is projected to continue to go down as the Fed cuts rates. What's not projected to continually go down very much is the yield on the securities that they can be buying in mortgages. So, the incentive for them to move out of cash and into securities, and those securities likely to be mortgages, is picking up as the Fed cuts rates. And it's not just the banks that are going to be more active. It's also overseas investors. As the Fed cuts rates and the Bank of Japan hikes, the FX (foreign exchange) hedging costs, which is basically a function of the interest rate differential between the two banks is likely to decrease, which means that overseas investors will be more active.

A steeper curve is going to be positive for REIT demand. And then over time, as the Fed cuts rates and money market yields go down, those retail investors are likely to be incentivized to move out of money market funds into core funds with higher yields, which will be supportive of money manager demand – although that's likely a 2025 story.

James Egan: All right, Jay, thank you for that. But one of the questions that you and I have received a lot since the Fed's cut is: Okay, the Fed cut 50 basis points. Why haven't mortgage rates come down by 50 basis points on the follow?

Jay Bacow: Well, so, mortgage rates, obviously in the US, the vast majority of them are 30-year fixed rate mortgages. And so, if you have one, the Fed actions don't impact that. If you have an adjustable-rate mortgage, it will reset – but typically those resets happen every six months. Although you're probably getting asked about the prevailing mortgage rate; and the prevailing mortgage rate – because it's the 30-year fixed rate, it's not a function of Fed funds – but it's more of a function of the yields further out the curve. Although maybe Jim, you can do a better job explaining this.

James Egan: So, when it comes to interest rates and mortgages, Jay, as you mentioned, we're going to be more focused on the five- and 10-year part of the curve than we are on Fed funds.

To provide a little bit of an example there, from the fourth quarter of 2023 until the Wednesday morning that the Fed cut, 30-year mortgage rates had decreased by 180 basis points. The Fed had yet to cut a single basis point. But, just taking a step back from that cut specifically, mortgage rates have come down significantly from the fourth quarter of 2023.

Jay Bacow: Right, and those mortgage rates coming down significantly has improved affordability. But what's maybe a little surprising is that hasn't really led to a pickup in sales volumes. How should we think about that moving forward?

James Egan: So as mortgage rates have come down, we have seen an increase in mortgage applications, but that's been driven almost entirely by refinance applications.

Purchase applications, and that's going to be what's behind home sales, those have been more or less treading water for the past 12 months. This relationship makes sense, in our view. As mortgage rates have come down, housing remains unaffordable. It's just more affordable than it was in the second half of 2023.

But, if you were one of the people who bought a home over the past 24 months, and, to put that into context, that was the lowest number of home sales over a 24-month period since the second quarter of 2013. But if you were one of those people, there's a good chance that you're in the money to refinance right now.

Jay Bacow: And that's something that we're seeing in the data. We've talked about the truly refinance indicators on this podcast in the past, and it measures the share of mortgages that have at least 25 basis points of incentive to refinance after accounting for closing costs.

Right now, only about one in six of the outstanding borrowers have incentive to refinance. Now, that's up from pretty close to zero at the end of 2023, but if you just look at borrowers that have taken out their mortgage in the past two years, almost two-thirds of them have incentive to refinance.

Now, Jim, does that mean that purchase volumes are doomed to languish around these levels?

James Egan: No, but the reaction might not be as strong as some people are hoping for. While affordability has improved, it remains challenged. And the lock in effect has become a very popular phrase in the US housing and mortgage markets. And that's still in play. 75 per cent of the conventional mortgage universe still has a mortgage rate below 5 per cent.

Even with the prevailing rate at 6 per cent today, the effective mortgage rate on the outstanding universe is 200 basis points out of the money. That's better than 350 [basis points] out of the money like we saw last year. But that would still be the worst that it's been in 40 years.

Jay Bacow: And presumably, that is why we have this continually tight inventory.

James Egan: Exactly. Now, as rates come down, we are starting to see listings increase, but it's barely made a dent in the historically low nature of the existing housing supply. The existing home sales typically grow in the 12 to 24 months following affordability improvement, but not necessarily in that initial period while affordability is improving.

So relative to history, we're actually not underperforming that much from a sales perspective. And we should be beginning that 12 to 24 months sweet spot in the fourth quarter of [20]24. We just started that two to three weeks ago. While we expect existing home sales to increase, we think the growth is going to be modest relative to history and we're calling for 5 per cent growth in the coming 12 months.

On the home price side, a lot of this is in line with our current view. So, we think you're going to continue to see the pace of growth slow. It's already started to slow. We think we get from about 5 per cent today to 2 percent by the end.

Jay Bacow: All right, so the Fed cutting rates is not likely to cause mortgage rates to drop materially. We expect a modest pickup in housing activity. We expect home price growth to slow, but still end the year positive; and it should be supportive for mortgage spreads versus treasuries.

Jim, always a pleasure talking to you.

James Egan: Pleasure talking to you too, Jay.

Jay Bacow: Thanks for listening. And if you enjoy this podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Chief Korea and Taiwan Economist discusses the reforms needed to overcome Korea’s urgent demographic crisis.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Kathleen Oh, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Korea and Taiwan Economist. Today I’ll discuss what’s needed to overcome Korea’s aging population crisis.

It’s Tuesday, Oct 15th, at 4 PM in Hong Kong. 

South Korea faces some of the world's most challenging demographics and will officially become a super-aged society next year – that’s more than 20 percent of the population 65 or older. The implications of this are so significant that the Korean government recently declared a national emergency, and we don’t think this is overstating the case. 

Korea’s low fertility rate is the primary culprit. In 2023 it plummeted to the lowest level globally and currently sits at 0.72. For reference, the total fertility rate of 2.1 children per woman is what’s necessary to maintain a stable population in general. By next year, Korea’s population will start declining and is projected to shrink by a third over the next 40 years as the working population halves. At this pace, the Bank of Korea forecasts that Korea’s potential growth could enter negative territory by 2040, down from 2 per cent in [20]24-25. 

So why does Korea have such a record-low fertility rate? In the short term, there are two key drivers: First, the declining number of marriages during the pandemic drove a rapid drop in births; having children out of wedlock is taboo in Korea. Once weddings resumed in 2022, Korea saw a slight but insufficient rebound in births. 

Second, housing prices have gone up 80 per cent in the past decade, which has discouraged young couples from having families. Families with first children feeling extra financial burdens to have [a] second child. Beyond the short term, structural factors have also played a role. After a compressed period of rapid economic growth, Koreans feel uncertain about the employment conditions and housing outlook. 

Tackling the low fertility rate has been on Korean policymakers’ agenda for the past 20 years. The government has invested more than $320 billion into solving the demographic challenge. And while these efforts have certainly raised awareness, they have yet to overcome the crisis. And why? Because Korea has not addressed the root causes of the problem -- income uncertainty, high childcare and education costs. 

It’s clear what’s needed here are structural reforms and Korea is clearly taking important steps towards overcoming the issue by tackling the fundamental problems now. Policymakers are working to reshape the pension system for the first time in 15 years. They are focusing on measures around improving work-life balance, reducing the gender wage gap, and increasing support for working parents. They are also considering lowering barriers to immigration, which could help alleviate talent shortages. They are also working on reducing the cost of private education. And finally, the government is also focused on improving the country’s capital market infrastructure. They are aiming to attract foreign investment, as well as to help households secure [a] source of asset accumulation, and lower borrowing costs for domestic players. 

Of course, it’s impossible to quickly reverse the downtrend and positive change will require multiple years - even decades. Korea’s government has set a medium-term goal of returning the fertility rate to 1.0 by 2030, which would delay working population decline by five years. And if the fertility rate reaches 2.1, that would delay the decline in the workforce by 20 years. Conversely, if Korea’s fertility rate remains at the current rate of 0.72, the population will halve by 2065 and the economy will start contracting in 2040, a worst-case scenario that the government is determined to avoid.

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

A slump in tech stocks may explain the market rotation – but it’s the earnings season that investors need to watch, says CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist Mike Wilson.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the recent rotation toward more cyclical parts of the equity market.

It's Monday, Oct 14th at 11:30am in New York.

So let’s get after it.

Last Monday, we upgraded cyclicals relative to defensives after taking profits in our defensive  overweight two weeks prior. These calls come on the back of September's strong jobs report and our economists' expectation for the Fed to still cut interest rates into next year. The resilient labor report effectively reverses the softness we saw in labor markets over the summer which had re-introduced hard landing risks into the markets, driving big outperformance in bonds and defensive stocks. In short, it was a good time to lock in profits after an historically good run. 

Indeed, cyclical stocks have delivered better performance with these improved macro data.  Importantly, the rates market is confirming this move. Oftentimes, the rates market tends to hold  onto growth risks longer than the equity market. Thus, the recent move higher in yields following resilient data suggests the bond market pricing is shedding some of its growth concerns, and giving us more confidence in our cyclicals upgrade. 

Furthermore, our cyclical overweights at the sector level in Industrials, Financials and Energy are all exhibiting a positive correlation to rates. Conversely, defensives are exhibiting a negative correlation to yields. In other words, good macro data is still good for many large cap cyclical stocks, while it's bad for defensives. Thus, further stabilization in the economic surprise index should continue to  support quality cyclicals' relative performance even if it comes amid higher yields.

Meanwhile, positioning in cyclicals remains light amongst our institutional client base. This is  particularly true for Financials. In our view, this creates opportunity in a sector that we upgraded to overweight last week. This upgrade was based on rebounding capital markets activity, a better loan growth environment in 2025, an acceleration in buybacks post Basel Endgame re-proposal, and attractive relative valuation. Finally, we also factored in the notion that several large cap bank stocks had de-risked in mid-September with lowered guidance ahead of earnings season. Initial results from earnings season last week indicate that large cap banks are clearing that lowered hurdle. On the other side of the coin, positioning in defensives and quality growth remains extended. This is consistent with our conversations with clients who generally remain positioned for a soft macro growth regime.

Given the significant influence of the Magnificent 7 stocks on the overall direction of the S&P 500, investors remain focused on how this group of stocks will trade into year-end. It's notable this cohort has underperformed since the second quarter earnings season, and relative performance just took another leg lower.  The breadth among this group has been somewhat narrow with only one of the seven making new highs since the summer in both absolute and relative terms. In our view, this may be one of the reasons for the better performance in other areas of the market and is a potential driver of further broadening into cyclicals. Of course, if the market reverts back to these stocks, it’s a risk to our  cyclical upgrade.

Earnings season will be an important factor in terms of these rotations. The fundamental reason for the underperformance of the Magnificent 7 could simply be the deceleration in earnings growth from the very strong pace last year. If this underperformance continues, it could provide further fuel for the quality cyclicals to continue to do better as we expect. Conversely, if earnings revisions show relative strength for the Mag 7, these stocks will likely outperform once again and market leadership may narrow—like it did during [the] second quarter and all of 2023.

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Head of Corporate Credit Research and Global Chief Economist explain why they’re watching the consumer savings rate, tariffs and capital expenditures.

----- Transcript -----

Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.

Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist.

Andrew Sheets: And today on this special episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing what could cause our optimistic view on the economy and credit to go wrong.

Andrew Sheets: It’s Friday, Oct 11th at 4pm in London.

Seth Carpenter: And as it turns out, I'm in London with Andrew.

Andrew Sheets: So, Seth you and your global economics team have been pretty optimistic on the economy this year. And have been firmly in the soft-landing camp. And I think we’ve seen some oscillation in the market's view around the economy over the course of the year, but more recently, we've started to see some better data and increasing confidence in that view.

So, this is actually maybe the perfect opportunity to talk about – well, what could go wrong? And so, what are some of the factors that worry you most that could derail the story?

Seth Carpenter: We have been pretty constructive all along the whole hiking cycle. In fact, we've been calling for a soft- landing. And if anything, where we were wrong with our forecast so far is that things have turned out even better than we dare hoped. But it's worth remembering part of the soft-landing call for us, especially for the US is that coming out of COVID; the economy rebounded employment rebounded, but not proportionally. And so, for a long time, up until basically now, US firms had been operating shorthanded. And so, we were pretty optimistic that even if there was something that caused a slowdown, you were not going to see a wave of layoffs. And that's usually what contributes to a recession. A slowdown, then people get laid off, laid off people spend less, the economy slows down more, and it snowballs.

So, I have to say, there is gotta be just a little bit more risk because businesses basically backfilled most of their vacancies. And so, if we do get a big slowdown for some reason, maybe there's more risk than there was, say, a year ago. So, what could that something be is a real question. I think the first one is just -- there's just uncertainty.

And maybe, just maybe, the restraint that monetary policy has imparted -- takes a little bit longer than we realized. It's a little bit bigger than we realized, and things are slowing down. We just haven't seen the full force of it, and we just slowed down a lot more.

Not a whole lot I can do about that. I feel pretty good. Spending data is good. The last jobs report was good. So, I see that as a risk that just hangs over my head, like the sword of Damocles, at all times.

Andrew Sheets: And, Seth, another thing I want to talk to you about is this analysis of the economy that we do with the data that's available. And yet we recently got some pretty major revisions to the US economic picture that have changed, you know, kind of our basic understanding of what the savings rate was, you know, what some of these indicators are.

How have those revisions changed what you think the picture is?

Seth Carpenter: So those benchmark revisions were important. But I will say it's not as though it was just a wholesale change in what we thought we understood. Instead, the key change that happened is we had information on GDP -- gross domestic product -- which comes from a lot of spending data. There's another bit of data that's gross domestic income that in some idealized economic model version of the world, those two things are the same -- but they had been really different. And the measured income had been much lower than the measured gross domestic product, the spending data. And so, it looked like the saving rate was very, very low.

But it also raised a bit of a red flag, because if the savings rate is, is really low, and all of a sudden households go back to saving the normal amount, that necessarily means they'd slow their spending a lot, and that's what causes a downturn.

So, it didn't change our view, baseline view, about where the economy was, but it helped resolve a sniggling, intellectual tension in the back of the head, and it did take away at least one of the downside risks, i.e. that the savings rate was overdone, and consumers might have to pull back.

But I have to say, Andrew, another thing that could go wrong, could come from policy decisions that we don't know the answer to just yet. Let you in on a little secret. Don't tell anybody I told you this; but later this year, in fact, next month, there's an election in the United States.

Andrew Sheets: Oh my goodness.

Seth Carpenter: One of the policies that we have tried to model is tariffs. Tariffs are a tax. And so, the normal way I think a lot of people think about what tariffs might do is if you put a tax on consumer goods coming into the country, it could make them more expensive, could make people buy less, and so you'd get a little bit less activity, a little bit higher prices.

In addition to consumer goods, though, we also import a lot of intermediate goods for production, so physical goods that are used in manufacturing in the United States to produce a final output. And so, if you're putting a tax on that, you'll get less manufacturing in the United States.

We also import capital goods. So, things that go into business CapEx spending in the United States. And if you put a tax on that, well, businesses will do less investment spending. So, there's a disruption to actual US production, not just US consumption that goes on. And we actually think that could be material. And we've tried to model some of the policy proposals that are out there. 60 per cent tariff on China, 10 per cent tariff on the rest of the world.

None of these answers are going to be exact, none of these are going to be precise, but you get something on the order of an extra nine-tenths of a percentage point of inflation, so a pretty big reversion in inflation. But maybe closing in on one and a half percentage points of a drag on GDP – if they were all implemented at the same time in full force.

So that's another place where I think we could be wrong. It could be a big hit to the economy; but that's one place where there's just lots of uncertainty, so we have to flag it as a risk to our clients. But it's not in our baseline view.

Seth Carpenter: But I have to say, you've been forcing me to question my optimism, which is entirely unfair. You, sir, have been pretty bullish on the credit market. Credit spreads are, dare I say it, really tight by historical standards.

And yet, that doesn't cause you to want to call for mortgage spreads to widen appreciably. It doesn't call for you to want to go really short on credit. Why are you so optimistic? Isn't there really only one direction to go?

Andrew Sheets: So, there are kind of a few factors the way that we're thinking about that. So, one is we do think that the fundamental backdrop, the economic forecast that you and your team have laid out are better than average for credit -- are almost kind of ideal for what a credit investor would like.

Credit likes moderation. We're forecasting a lot of moderation. And, also kind of the supply and demand dynamics of the market. What we call the technicals are better than average. There's a lot of demand for bonds. And companies, while they're getting a little bit more optimistic, and a little bit more aggressive, they're not borrowing in the kind of hand over fist type of way that usually causes more problems. And so, you should have richer than average valuations.

Now, in terms of, I think, what disrupts that story, it could be, well, what if the technicals or the fundamentals are no longer good? And, you know, I think you've highlighted some scenarios where the economic forecasts could change. And if those forecasts do change, we're probably going to need to think about changing our view. And that's also true bottom up. I think if we started to see Corporates get a lot more optimistic, a lot more aggressive. You know, hubris is often the enemy of the bond investor, the credit investor.

I don't think we're there yet, but I think if we started to see that, that could present a larger problem. And both, you know, fundamentally it causes companies to take on more debt, but also kind of technically, because it means a lot more supply relative to demand.

Seth Carpenter: I see. I see. But I wonder, you said, if our outlook, sort of, doesn't materialize, that's a clear path to a worse outcome for your market. And I think that makes sense.

But the market hasn't always agreed with us. If we think back not that long ago to August, the market had real turmoil going on because we got a very weak Non Farm Payrolls print in the United States. And people started asking again. ‘Are you sure, Seth? Doesn't this mean we're heading for a recession?’ And asset markets responded.

What happened to credit markets then, and what does it tell you about how credit markets might evolve going forward, even if, at the end of the day, we're still right?

Andrew Sheets: Well, so I think there have been some good indications that there were parts of the market where maybe investors were pretty vulnerably positioned. Where there was more leverage, more kind of aggressiveness in how investors were leaning, and the fact that credit, yes, credit weakened, but it didn't weaken nearly as much -- I think does suggest that investors are going to this market eyes wide open. They're aware that spreads are tight. So, I think that's important.

The other I think really fundamental tension that I think credit investors are dealing with -- but also I think equity investors are -- is there are certain indicators that suggest a recession is more likely than normal. Things like the yield curve being inverted or purchasing manager indices, these PMIs being below 50.

But that also doesn't mean that a recession is assured by any means. And so, I do think what can challenge the market is a starting point where people see indicators that they think mean a recession is more likely, some set of weak data that would seem to confirm that thesis, and a feeling that, well, the writing's on the wall.

But I think it's also meant, and I think we've seen this since September, that this is a real, in very simple terms, kind of good is good market. You know, I got asked a lot in the aftermath of some of the September numbers, internally at Morgan Stanley, 'Is it, is it too good? Was the jobs number too good for credit?'

And, and my view is, because I think the market is so firmly shifted to ‘we're worried about growth,’ that it's going to take a lot more good data for that fear to really recede in the market to worry about something else.

Seth Carpenter: Yeah, it's funny. Some people just won't take yes for an answer. Alright, let me, let me end up with one more question for you.

So when we think about the cycle, I hear as I'm sure you do from lots of clients -- aren't we, late cycle, aren't things coming to an end? Have we ever seen a cycle before where the Fed hiked this much and it didn't end in tears? And the answer is actually yes. And so, I have often been pointing people to the 1990s.

1994, there was a pretty substantial rate hiking cycle that doesn't look that different from what we just lived through. The Fed stopped hiking, held out at the peak for a while, and then the economy wobbled a little bit. It did slow down, and they cut rates. And some of the wobbles, for a while at least, looked pretty serious. The Fed, as it turns out, only cut 75 basis points and then held rates steady. The economy stabilized and we had another half decade of expansion.

So, I'm not saying history is going to repeat itself exactly. But I think it should be, at least from my perspective, a good example for people to have another cycle to look at where things might turn out well with the soft landing.

Looking back to that period, what happened in credit markets?

Andrew Sheets: So, that mid-90s soft-landing was in the modern history of credit -- call it the last 40 years -- the tightest credit spreads have ever been. That was in 1997. And they were still kind of materially tighter from today's levels.

So we do have historical evidence that it can mean the market can trade tighter than here. It's also really fascinating because the 1990s were kind of two bull markets. There was a first stage that, that stage you were suggesting where, you know, the Fed started cutting; but the market wasn't really sure if it was going to stick that landing, if the economy was going to be okay. And so, you saw this period where, as the data did turn out to be okay, credit went tighter, equities went up, the two markets moved in the same direction.

But then it shifted. Then, as the cycle had been extending for a while, kind of optimism returned, and even too much optimism maybe returned, and so from '97, mid-97 onwards, equities kept going up, the stock market kept rallying, credit spreads went wider, expected volatility went higher. And so, you saw that relationship diverge.

And so, I do think that if we do get the '90s, if we're that lucky, and hopefully we do get that sort of scenario, it was good in a lot of ways. But I think we need to be on the watch for those two stages. We still think we're in stage one. We still think they're that stage that's more benign, but eventually benign conditions can lead to more aggressiveness.

Seth Carpenter: I think that's really fair. So, we started off talking about optimism and I would like to keep it that you pointed out that the '90s required a bit of good luck and I would wholeheartedly agree with that.

So, I still remain constructive, but I don't remain naive. I think there are ways for things to go wrong. And there is a ton of uncertainty ahead, so it might be a rocky ride. It's always great to get to talk to you, Andrew.

Andrew Sheets: Great to talk to you as well, Seth.

And thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Mike Canfield, Morgan Stanley’s Head of Europe Sustainability Research, discusses why ensuring safe and responsible artificial intelligence is essential to the AI revolution.

----- Transcript -----

Mike Canfield: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Canfield, Morgan Stanley's Europe, Middle East and Africa Head of Sustainability Research.

Today I'll discuss a critical issue on a hot topic: How safe is AI?

It's Thursday 10th of October at 2pm in London.

AI is transforming the way that we live, work, and connect. It's really got the potential at every level and aspect of society, from personal decisions to global security. But as these systems become ever more integrated into our critical functions – whether that's healthcare, transportation, finance, or even defense – we do need to develop and deploy safe AI that keeps pace with the velocity of technological advances.

Market leaders, academic think tanks, NGOs, industry bodies, intergovernmental organizations have all attempted to codify what safe or responsible AI should look like. But at the most fundamental level, the guidelines and standards we've seen so far share a number of clear similarities. Typically, they focus on fostering innovation in practical terms, as well as supporting economic prosperity – but also asserting the need for AI systems to respect fundamental human rights and values and to demonstrate trustworthiness.

So where are we now in terms of regulations around the world?

The EU's AI Act leads the way with its detailed risk-based approach. It really focuses on transparency as well as risks to people and fundamental rights. In the USA, while there's no comprehensive federal regulation or legislation, there are some federal laws that offer some sector specific guidance on AI applications. Things like the National Defense Authorization Act of 2019 and the National AI Initiative Act of 2020. Alongside those, President Biden's published an executive order on AI, promoting safety, responsible innovation, and supporting Americans and their rights, including things like privacy. In Asia Pacific, meanwhile, countries are working to establish their own guidelines on consumer protection, privacy, and transparency and accountability.

In general, it’s very clear that policymakers and regulators increasingly expect AI systems developers to adopt what we'd call the socio-technical approach, focused on the interaction between people and technology. Having examined numerous existing regulations and foundational standards from around the world, we think a successful policymaking approach requires the combination of four core conceptual pillars.

We've called them STEP. That's Safety, Transparency, and Ethics and Privacy. With these core considerations, AI can take a step – pun intended – in the right direction. Within safety, the focus is on reliability of systems, avoiding harm to people and society, and preventing misuse or subversion. Transparency includes a component of explainability and accountability; so, systems allowing for future feedback and audits of outcomes. Ethically, the avoidance of bias, preventing discrimination, inclusion, and the respect for the rule of law are key components. Then finally, privacy considerations include elements like data protection, safeguards during operation, and allowing users consent in data used for training.

Of course, policymakers contend with a variety of challenges in developing AI regulations. Issues like bias, like discrimination, implementing guardrails without stifling innovation, the sheer speed at which AI is evolving, legal responsibility, and much more beyond. At its most basic, though, arguably the most critical challenge of regulating AI systems is that the logic behind outcomes is often unknown, even to the creators of AI models, because these systems are intrinsically designed to learn.

Ultimately, ensuring safety and responsibility in the use of AI is an essential step before we can really tap into ways AI could positively impact society. Some of these exciting opportunities include things like improving education outcomes, smart electric grid management, enhanced medical diagnostics, precision agriculture, and biodiversity monitoring and protection efforts. AI clearly has enormous potential to accelerate drug development, to advance material science research, to boost manufacturing efficiency, improve weather forecasting, and even deliver better natural disaster predictions.

In many ways, we need guardrails around AI to maximize its potential growth.

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please do leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research Michael Zezas and Chief Asia Economist Chetan Ahya discuss how the upcoming US elections might impact economic policies in Asia.

----- Transcript -----

Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research.

Chetan Ahya: And I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia Economist.

Michael Zezas: Today, we'll talk about what the US election means for Asia's economy.

It's Wednesday, October 9th at 10am in New York.

Chetan, we're less than a month now from the US election, and when I think about what it means for Asia, perhaps the most immediate and direct impact would be via tariffs.

Now, our colleagues have already addressed some of this on the podcast, but I'm eager to hear your thoughts. And in the case of a Trump win and a significant tariff increase on China, how big of an impact do you think this policy would have on China's economy, and what particular areas of the economy might be most affected?

Chetan Ahya: Well, Mike, I think firstly the tariff numbers being floated, i.e. that if it is 60 per cent, it would mean an increase in tariff of about 35 percentage points over an existing number, which is at 25 per cent. So, the amount of tariffs that we're talking about this time are larger than what we saw in 2018-19. And in terms of implications, of course, it will depend upon exactly what is the magnitude of tariff that is being imposed, but we definitely think there will be a significant downside to China's growth; and we expect an increase in deflationary pressures.

Just to give you a bit of perspective of what happened in 2018-19, tariff resulted into China's growth slowing by a full percentage point from 6.9 per cent to 5.9 per cent; and at the same time, we saw that there was downward pressure on China's inflation dynamic. And the timing of tariffs this time does not seem to be great. China is going through an existing challenge of debt deflation loop. And we've seen that China's GDP deflator, which is a broader measure of prices, has been in deflation already for about seven quarters now. And so, in this context, tariffs will further add to its deflationary pressures and make that macro situation much more complicated.

Michael Zezas: Got it. And so, how do you think China might respond if it becomes the target of higher tariffs?

Chetan Ahya: So, we think China's policy makers could take up three sets of measures to mitigate the impact of tariffs.

Number one, there will be, of course, depreciation in its exchange rate, which will be offsetting some part of the tariff increase effect. And so, for example, the weighted average tariff increase was about 18 percentage points during 2018-19, and the RMB depreciation was about 11 per cent. So, there was a significant offset of that tariff increase by currency depreciation.

Number two, China could continue to take its effort to rewire trade flows and supply chain. So, for example, in 2018-19, we've seen a significant rewiring of exports from China to the US via Vietnam and Mexico, and we think this time that could be expanded to some more economies.

And number three, China also resorted to focusing on new markets, i.e. some of the other emerging markets other than US. And at the same time, they focused on introducing new export products; like in the last cycle, they focused on solar panels, lithium batteries, EVs, and old generation chips. So, in effect, they will try to expand their market base from US into other emerging markets. And at the same time, they will be focusing on new products to ensure that their market share in global goods exports is maintained.

So, Mike, we've been discussing the potential impact of a Trump win. But how would a Harris White House shape trade policy, vis-à-vis China and rest of Asia?

Michael Zezas: Yeah, I think a Harris White House would represent a lot of continuity with the Biden White House's approach toward Asia and China, specifically when it comes to trade. That is to say, there's a lot of support for continued use and expansion of non-tariff barriers – things like export controls, and inbound and outbound investment restrictions. And there's less interest in using higher tariffs than what we already have as a tool.

So, you can expect that. And I think you could also expect there to be kind of a broader reach out to develop economic relationships with Pan Asia as a means of enabling some of the transition that multinational companies would need to rewire their supply chains.

But if we take as a given that that might be Harris's approach to trade policy, Chetan, what's your outlook for Asia if she wins in November?

Chetan Ahya: Well, if Harris wins, that would eliminate the key risk to region's outlook in form of significant tariff implementation. And in this case, we expect status quo to our Asia forecast. And we would maintain our constructive outlook for the large economies in the region. And within the group, we think India and Japan are best positioned from a structural standpoint. While China, we were concerned about the debt deflation loop, but with the recent set of policy measures, we think that the risks are now more balanced as far as China macro-outlook is concerned.

Michael Zezas: Got it. Well, Chetan, thanks for taking the time to talk. This is obviously a very important topic as we get closer to the US election.

Chetan Ahya: Great speaking with you, Mike.

Michael Zezas: And as a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen; and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

The rhetoric around the US elections is heating up, and tariffs have become a central theme – to rally for or against. In Part II of our roundtable discussion, our chief economists break down national and global implications of this policy lever.

----- Transcript -----

Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist.

On this special episode of the podcast, we're going to continue our third roundtable discussion with Morgan Stanley's economists from around the world as we enter the fourth quarter of 2024.

It's Tuesday, October 8th at 10am in New York.

Jens Eisenschmidt: And 3pm in London.

Seth Carpenter: All right, so yesterday we covered topics about central banks, inflation, reflation, deflation, China's stimulus policies – a whole set of things. But today I really want to focus on the upcoming US elections and some of the possible implications around the world.

As of this recording, the race between Vice President Harris and former President Trump is essentially in a dead heat and it has left policymakers and market participants with few clear signals about what policy is going to be going forward.

One key policy lever is tariffs; and so Diego, I’m going to come to you. What has the US team said about tariffs and what it might mean for the economy?

Diego Anzoategui: Yes, I think the three key policy levers to consider are tariffs, as you mentioned Seth, immigration policy, and fiscal policy. Tariffs, in particular, are basically a presidential authority, so the outcome of the election is going to be very important there.

Fiscal policy will depend not only on the White House, but also on the Congress, which most polls suggest that it will be split between the two parties. So, we don't expect much there. And immigration policy is tricky because if you take a look at the data, immigration flows have been decreasing. And the key question here is whether the new policy is going to affect that already decreasing path

Seth Carpenter: For tariffs, I know that we've published -- that there's both a boost to inflation that can come, but also a hit to economic growth. And that boost to inflation likely comes first.

The logic is tariffs are taxes, and so they should be seen as a tax on consumption spending -- but also, on domestic CapEx spending and domestic manufacturing because a lot of the imports that are under tariff are either capital goods or intermediate goods that go into manufacturing here in the US.

Diego Anzoategui: Yeah, that's right. Of course, the details will matter a lot. So, suffice it to say, there's a lot of uncertainty.

Seth Carpenter: Okay, that's fair. Chetan, let me come back to you on this. This topic is particularly important for China's economy since the Trump campaign has pledged tariffs of up to 60 per cent on China, and then 10 per cent globally -- something that our public policy team believes could be a driver of a broader decoupling.

You've written a lot about tariffs, tariff structure, what it means for China, the deflationary path. Could you just elaborate a little bit for us?

Chetan Ahya: Yeah, absolutely. I think the timing of this tariff, if they do come up in November or sometime in 2025, couldn't have been coming at a worse time for China. As we've been discussing, China has already been going through this challenge of deflation, and tariffs essentially will mean additional deflationary pressures on China.

So that is one source of impact that we would be watching. The other would be what is the impact on global corporate confidence and China's corporate confidence. That can have additional negative impact in form of slowdown in investment. And one other thing to keep in mind is that in 2018-2019, China could respond, in terms of fiscal and monetary easing and offset some of the downside that came from tariffs. But in this cycle, considering the state of the property market, it would be very difficult for China to reflate that property market demand and offset the downside from tariff.

So essentially, we think the tariffs, if they come in this time, could be far more challenging for China, particularly for deflation management.

Seth Carpenter: Of course, tariffs are global and the Trump campaign has talked about not just tariffs on China. So, Jens, let me come to you. Maybe there are some implications here for Europe as well.

During former President Trump's administration, there were targeted tariffs that, met challenges of the WTO and retaliatory tariffs on American exports to Europe. Looking back on what happened in 2018 and 2019, what do you think could be ahead in the event that former President Trump wins the election again?

Jens Eisenschmidt: So, the episode in 2018 could be actually a template, even though it's probably limited in scopes because tariffs were much more limited that were applied back then. We've talked about around 1 per cent of total American-EU imports that back then were targeted; while now we are really talking about, at least in terms of proposals, everything.

So first to notice that when back then the impact was limited, it will be a little bit bigger now simply because more is targeted. And we think it could be around 30 basis points, shaping around 30 basis points, of European GDP.

Again, that's a very crude measure that depends on many things in particular on also the retaliation. And here for instance, we think EU would, of course, like last time, file a complaint with the World Trade Organization, you know, as a basis for then following negotiations around these tariffs.

Then, the EU would, of course, be looking into what type of tariffs it could put in terms of retaliation on US products entering the EU. And here we would observe first that a lot of that is actually oil, and it's unlikely that you would want to put tariffs on oil -- or more broadly energy goods. So also, natural gas.

Then that means we would look for the next product categories. But here, I think it's not so clear; no single product category stands out. But what stands out is that the US has a surplus in services exports to the EU. And here the EU could, in theory at least, come up with a strategy to retaliate through services regulation. Again, that would need to be seen, once we see these tariffs being implemented. But that certainly would be a road for the EU to take.

Seth Carpenter: Thanks Jens. It makes a lot of sense. And gentlemen, I want to thank you all for a terrific discussion today.

And thanks to our listeners. If you like Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.

Morgan Stanley’s chief economists take stock of a resilient global economy that has weathered a recent period of market volatility, in Part I of our two-part roundtable.

----- Transcript -----

Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. And on this special episode of the podcast, we'll hold our third roundtable discussion focusing on Morgan Stanley's global economic outlook as we enter the final quarter of 2024.

I am joined today by our economics team from three regions.

Chetan Ahya: I’m Chetan Ahya, Chief Asia Economist.

Jens Eisenschmidt: I’m Jens Eisenschmidt, Chief Europe Economist.

Diego Anzoategui: I’m Diego Anzoategui from the US Economics team.

It's Monday, October 7th at 10 am in New York.

Jens Eisenschmidt: And 3 pm in London.

Seth Carpenter: I have to say, a lot has happened since the last time we held this roundtable. To say the very least, we've had volatility in financial markets. But on balance, I kind of have to say the global economy has more or less performed the way we expected.

The US economy is cruising towards a soft landing. The labor market maybe is a touch softer than we expected, but consumer spending has remained resilient. In Asia, Japan's reflation story is largely intact, while China is still confronting that debt deflation cycle that we've talked about. And in Europe, the tepid growth we had envisioned -- well, it's continuing. Inflation is falling, but the ECB seems to be accelerating its rate cuts. So, let's get into the details.

Diego, I'm going to start with you and the US. The Fed cut interest rates in September for the first time this cycle, and they cut by 50 basis points instead of the 25 basis points that some people -- including us -- were expecting. So, the big question for you is, where does the Fed go from here?

Diego Anzoategui: So, we are looking for a string of 25 basis point cuts from the Fed as long as labor markets hold up. Inflation has come down notably and we expect a normalization of interest rates ahead. But, of course, we might be wrong again. Labor markets might cool too much, and in that case, one or two additional 50 basis point cuts might happen again.

Seth Carpenter: So, either the Fed glides into the soft landing or they pick up the pace and they cut faster.

So, Jens, let me turn to you and pivot to Europe. You recently changed your forecast for the ECB, and you're now looking for a rate cut in October. And that's following two cuts already that the ECB has done. So, what prompted your change? Is it like what Diego said about a softer outcome prompting a faster pace of cuts. What's likely to happen next for the ECB?

Jens Eisenschmidt: That's right. We changed our ECB call. And to understand why we have to go back to September. So already at the September meeting the ECB president, Lagarde, made clear in the press conference that the bank was a little bit less concerned about structurally high services inflation that is forecast to be persistently high still for some time to come -- mainly because there was more conviction that wages would come down eventually.

And so, they could really focus a little bit more, give a bit more attention to the growth side of things. Just as a reminder, the Fed has a dual mandate. So, it's growth and inflation. The ECB only has inflation. So basically, if the ECB wants to act on growth, it needs to be sure that inflation is under control. And then since September what happened is that literally every single indicator, leading indicator, for inflation was negative. We had lower oil prices, we had a stronger euro, and of course, also weaker activity in terms of the PMIs pointing to a cooling of the ongoing recovery.

So, all of that led us to revise our inflation forecast, and that means that ECB will very likely already be a target mid next year. That should lead to an acceleration of the rate cut cycle. And then it's only a question, will it be already in October or in December? And here comes the September inflation print in, which was softer in particular on the core or on the services component than expected. And we think that has tilted the balance; or will tilt the balance in favor of an October rate cut.

So, what we see now is October, December, January, March -- 25 basis points rate cuts by the ECB leading to a rate of 250. Then this being close to neutral, they will slow down again, quarterly rate cut pace. So, June, September, December, 25 basis points each -- leading to a final rate end of next year at 175.

Seth Carpenter: Okay, got it. So, inflation has come down in most developed market economies. Central banks are starting to cut. For the Fed, there's an open question about how much strength the labor market still has and whether or not they need to do 50 basis points or 25.

But I have to say, Chetan -- and I'm going to come to you because -- in Asia, we saw a lot of market turmoil in August, and that was partly prompted by the rate hike of the BoJ. So, here's a developed market economy central bank that's not cutting. In fact, they're starting to raise interest rates. So, what happened there? And what do you think happens with the BoJ going forward?

Chetan Ahya: Well, Seth, in our base case, we do expect BoJ to hike by another 25 basis points in January next year. And as regards to your question on what happened in terms of the volatility that we saw in the month of August? Essentially, as the BoJ took up its first rate hike, there was a lot of concern that BoJ will go in a consecutive manner, taking up successive rate hikes. But at the end of the day, what we saw was, BoJ realizing that there is a clear endogeneity between financial conditions and their reaction function. And as that communication was clearly laid out, we saw markets calming down. And now going forward, what we think BoJ will be watching will be the data on inflation and wages.

We think they would be waiting to see what happens to the inflation data in the month of November and October, i.e., whether there is a clear, rise in services inflation, which has been running at around 1.3 per cent. And they would want to see that wage pass through to services inflation is continuing.

And then secondly, they will want to see what is happening to the wage expectations from the workers in the next round of spring wage negotiations. The demand from workers will be clear by the end of this year, so sometime in December. And therefore, we think BoJ will look at that information and then take up a rate hike in the month of January next year.

Seth Carpenter: Okay, so if I step back for a second, even if there are a few parts of the puzzle that still need to fall into place, it sounds to me like you're saying the Japan reflation story is still intact. Is that fair?

Chetan Ahya: That's right. We think that, you know, the comment from the prime minister that came out a few days back; he's very clear that he wants to see a situation where Japan gets rid of deflation. So, we think that the policymakers are fully lined up to ensure that the reflation story remains intact.

Seth Carpenter: That's super helpful and it just absolutely contrasts with what we've been saying about China, where they have sort of the opposite story. There's been a debt deflation cycle that you and the Chinese team have really been highlighting for a long time now, talking about the challenges for policy.

We did get some news out of Beijing in terms of policy stimulus. Could you and break down for us what happened there and whether or not you think that's enough to really shift China's trajectory away from this debt deflation cycle?

Chetan Ahya: Yes, Seth, so essentially, we got three things from Chinese policy makers. Number one, they took up big monetary policy easing. Number two, they announced a package to support the equity markets. And number three, they announced some measures to support the property market.

Now we think that these measures are a positive and particularly the property market measures will be helpful. But in terms of real impediment for China's reflation story, we think that the key need of the hour is to take up aggressive fiscal easing to boost consumption. Monetary policy easing is helpful, but it's not really the key impediment to the reflation path.

Seth Carpenter: All right, so if I wanted to see the glass as half full, I would say, look at this! Beijing policymakers have turned the corners. They're acknowledging that there's some policy impetus that needs to be put into place. But if I wanted to see the glass as half empty, I could take away from what you just said, that there just needs to be more, maybe fiscal stimulus to directly promote household spending.

Is that that fair?

Chetan Ahya: That's absolutely right. What's happening in China is that there has been a big structural adjustment in the property sector because now the total population is declining. And so therefore there is a big demand hole that is being left by the weakness in housing sector.

Ideally, what they should be doing, as I was mentioning earlier, [is] that they should be taking a big fiscal easing to support consumption spending. But so far what we've been seeing is that they've been trying to fill that demand hole with more supply in form of investment in manufacturing and infrastructure sector.

And unfortunately, that's been actually making the deflation challenge more complex. So going forward, we think that, you know, we should be watching out what they do in terms of fiscal stimulus. There was a comment in the Politburo statement that they will take up fiscal easing. We suspect that the timing of that fiscal policy announcement could be by end of this month alongside National People's Congress meeting. And so, what will be the size of fiscal stimulus will be important to watch as well.

Currently, we think it could be one to two trillion RMB. But in our work that we did in terms of what is the scale of fiscal stimulus that is needed to boost consumption, we estimate that it should be somewhere around a 10 trillion RMB spread over two years.

Seth Carpenter: Got it. Thanks, Chetan. Super helpful.

Gentlemen, I have to say, we might have to stop here for the day. But tomorrow, I want to get [to] another topic, which is to say, the upcoming US election. It's got huge implications for the macroeconomy in the US and around the world. And I think we’re going to have to touch on it. But for now, we'll end the conversation here.

And thank you, the listeners, for listening. If you enjoy this show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to the podcast and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Following the US Federal Reserve’s September rate cut, labor data may have more impact on markets than further cuts. Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research, explains why.

----- Transcript -----

Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss why what the Fed does next might not matter all that much. 

It’s Friday, October 4th, at 2 pm in London. 

Over recent months the Federal Reserve has been at the center of the global market debate. After keeping policy rates unchanged at the end of July, a decision the markets initially cheered, a string of weak data in early August drove concerns that Fed policy was behind schedule. The Fed then responded with a larger-than-expected half-percent interest rate cut in September. And so, given these swings, a common question for investors is, understandably: What will the Fed do next? 

But what if the Fed’s next move doesn’t matter all that much? 

Monetary policy is both powerful and weak. Powerful, because interest rates impact so many decisions across the economy, from buying a home, to financing equipment, to acquiring a competitor. And it’s also weak, because how interest rates impact these decisions can have a long and variable lag. It can be six to twelve months before the full impact of an interest rate cut is felt in the economy. And so that half percentage point cut by the Fed last month might not be fully felt in the US economy until June of 2025. 

That lag is one reason why the Fed’s next move may matter less. The second reason is what we think the market is worried about. We think a lot of the market’s volatility over the last two months has been driven by concerns that the US economy, particularly the labor market, is weakening right now. 

If interest rates are too high and the labor market is weakening, then cutting more rapidly in the coming months might not make a difference. Because of that lag, the help from lower rates simply wouldn’t arrive in time.

Meanwhile, there’s also a view that interest rates might need to fall quite a long ways to have the sort of impact that would be needed if the economy is really slowing down rapidly: by the Fed’s own Summary of Economic Projections (SEP), the policy rate that neither helps or hinders the economy could still be about 2 per cent lower than the current rate – even after that half a percentage point cut in September. Interest rates are well above what could be neutral. 

In short, if the data weaken materially over the coming months, more Fed cuts may not necessarily help in time. And if the data remain solid, Fed policy will have lots of time to adjust. It’s the data, not the Fed’s next action, that are most important at the moment. 

We also see support for this idea in history. It’s notable that some of the most aggressive US interest rate-cutting cycles – 2001, 2008, February of 2020 – overlapped with weak equity and credit markets. And it was smaller rate cutting cycles – in 1995-96, 1998 or 2019 – that overlapped with much better markets. And that makes sense; if one assumes that it’s the data rather than exactly how much the Fed is cutting rates that matter most to the market. 

All of this especially feels topical today. Today’s better than expected report on the US jobs market should support the case that Fed policy is on schedule, and larger adjustments aren’t needed. It’s good news. 

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Chief China Economist Robin Xing and Chief China Equity Strategist Laura Wang discuss how markets have responded to rate cuts and commitments to government spending, and what they could mean over the long term.

----- Transcript -----

Laura Wang: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Laura Wang, Morgan Stanley's Chief China Equity Strategist. 

Robin Xing: And I'm Robin Xing, Morgan Stanley's Chief China Economist.

Laura Wang: All eyes have been on China this past week, and today we'll discuss why recent news from China's policymakers have commanded the attention of global markets.

It's Thursday, October the 3rd, at 4pm in Hong Kong.

So, Robin, China has been wrestling with the triple macro challenge of debt deflation and demographics -- what we call the three Ds -- for some time now. Last week, China's central bank, PBOC, announced a stimulus package that exceeded market expectations. And then later in the week, top China Communist Party officials, known as the Politburo, focused their monthly meeting on economics, which is not their usual practice.

This meeting was a positive surprise to both us and the market. Let's start with the PBOCs easing package. For listeners who haven't been following China's economy closely, what's our current view on China's economy and can you walk us through the policy measures that the central bank introduced?

Robin Xing: China's economy has been struggling lately and that's pushed the Beijing to pivot approach. Over the last 18 months, they have tried smaller, reactive measures. But now, they are doing something much bigger. On September 24, the People's Bank of China, PBOC, made a bold move, cutting interest rates and introducing new tools to support the stock market.

Now, these cuts might sound small, just 20 basis points, but they are pretty rare in China. They also cut the reserve requirement ratio, which is a fancy way of saying banks can lend more money by 50 basis points. And for the first time, the central bank gave forward guidance, signaling even more cuts could come by year end.

On top of that, the PBOC launched two big programs, a 500 billion yuan fund to help investors buy stocks, and a 300 billion yuan program to help companies buy back their own shares. These moves gave a much-needed boost to both the markets and consumer confidence.

Laura Wang: And how about the Politburo meeting that came on the heels of the PBOC announcement? What exactly did it focus on?

Robin Xing: The Politburo meeting was a rather critical moment. Normally, they don't even talk about the economy in September. But this year was different. It really signaled how urgent things have become.

They made it clear they are ready to spend more. The government is pledging to increase public spending because other parts of the economy, like corporates and consumers, are holding back. There is also a big focus on the housing market, which has been in decline since 2021. They are promising to stop that slide, and it's the strongest commitment we have seen so far.

Laura Wang: So, given everything we've seen from the PBOC and the Politburo, do you think this is a ‘whatever it takes moment’ to address the macro challenges facing China's economy?

Robin Xing: Not quite, but it's close. We are seeing the start of what's going to be a bumpy recovery. The deflation problem, where prices are falling and people are not spending, is complicated.

Beijing seems open to trying different approaches, but fixing the deeper issues -- like the struggling housing market and the local government debt -- it’s going to take a lot. In fact, we think China might need to spend about 1-1.5 trillion dollars over the next two years to really turn things around.

Right now, the measures they have announced are smaller than that. That's because these are new policies. And they still need to build consensus and work out the details. So, while this isn't a ‘whatever it takes moment’ yet the mindset has definitely shifted in that direction.

Laura Wang: In this case, what are the next steps you are monitoring for China's policymaker and how long will the various measures take to implement?

Robin Xing: We expect to see a supplementary budget of 1-2 trillion yuan announced at the upcoming NPC Standing Committee meeting in late October. This budget should focus on boosting consumer spending, increasing social welfare, and helping local governments managing their debt. We will likely see more monetary easing too.

As well as tweaks to the Housing Inventory Buy Back program. These steps should help the economy grow slightly faster, possibly hitting a 5 per cent quarter on quarter growth over the next two quarters, compared to the 3 per cent we have seen recently.

Looking ahead, we will get more clues at the December Central Economic Work Conference. That's when we might see the first signs of plans to use central government funds to tackle housing and local government debt issues. The full details could come in March 2025. If things don't improve quickly, and especially if social unrest starts to rise, Beijing may have to act even more aggressively.

We are keeping an eye on our social dynamics indicator, which tracks how people feel about jobs, welfare and income. If that dips further, it could push the government to ramp up stimulus measures.

Laura, turning it over to you. How are stock markets reacting to all this policy signaling from China?

Laura Wang: I would say to say that the market has responded very enthusiastically is an understatement. I'll give you some numbers.

On the first day of the PBOC announcement, the Shanghai Composite Index, as well as the Hong Kong Market Hang Seng Index, were both up by more than 4 per cent in one single day. Then with the further boost from the surprise Politburo meeting -- by now, both the Shanghai Composite Index and the Hang Seng Index have already been up by more than 21 per cent in just one week's time.

Robin Xing: Within the China stock market, which sectors and industries do you think will most benefit from the shift in policy?

Laura Wang: There are a few ways to position to benefit from this major market condition change. We have a list of companies that we believe will directly benefit from the PBOC market stabilization funding, given the funding's low cost compared to these companies implied re-rating opportunity, just by tapping into the funding and enhancing their shareholder returns.

For the potential reflationary fiscal efforts suggested by the Politburo meeting, as more details come out, I think sectors with good exposure to reflation, particularly the private consumption, will benefit the most -- given their still relatively low valuation, large market cap and high liquidity.

Robin Xing: Finally, Laura, what are your expectations for the markets in China and outside of China for the next few weeks and months?

Laura Wang: Clearly this rally so far is reflecting significant sentiment improvement and capitals that are willing to take a leap of faith and preposition for physical reflationary efforts ramp up. If the government can deliver these measures in a timely fashion, and more importantly, on top of that, communicate their commitment to winning this uphill battle against deflation, I think further valuation re-rating is quite possible for both the Asia market and the Hong Kong market by another 10 to 20 per cent.

To go beyond that level, we need to see clear signs of a corporate earnings growth reacceleration, which would require incrementally more easing to come along in the next few months. We should also monitor the housing market inventory level very closely because any earlier completion of this inventory digestion could suggest less drag on demand investment.

Obviously, there are still a lot of moving parts and it's still a very much evolving story from here. Robin, thanks for taking the time to talk.

Robin Xing: Great speaking with you, Laura.

Laura Wang: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Thousands of U.S. dockworkers have gone on strike along the East Coast and Gulf Coast. Our Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research Michael Zezas joins U.S. economist Diego Anzoategui to discuss the potential consequences of a drawn-out work stoppage.

----- Transcript -----

Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley.

Diego Anzoategui: And I'm Diego Anzoategui from the US Economics team.

Michael Zezas: And today, we'll be talking about the implications of this week's US dockworker strike on the US economy.

It's Wednesday, October 2nd, at 11am in New York.

Diego, as most of our listeners likely know, yesterday roughly 45,000 US dockworkers went on strike for the first time in perhaps decades at 36 US ports from Maine to Texas. And so, I wanted to get your initial read on the situation because we're obviously getting a lot of questions from clients concerned about what this could mean for growth and inflation.

Diego Anzoategui: Yeah, of course, there's a lot of uncertainty about this situation because we don't know how long the strike is going to last. But the strike can in principle hit economic growth and boost inflation -- but only if it is long lasting, right. Local producers and retailers, they typically have inventories of final and intermediate goods, so the disruption needs to be long enough so that those inventories go down to critical levels in order to see a meaningful macroeconomic impact.

But if the strike is long enough, we might see an important impact on economic activity and inflation. If we look at trade flows data, roughly 30 per cent of all goods imports and exports are handled by the East and Gulf ports.

Michael Zezas: So then let's drill down on that a bit. If the strike continues long enough and inventories decline, what are the shocks to economic growth that you're considering?

Diego Anzoategui: Yeah, I would think that there are two main channels through which the strike might hit economic activity. The first one is a hit to local production because of disruptions in the supply of capital goods and intermediate goods used for domestic production. We not only use the ports to bring final goods, but also intermediate and capital goods like machinery, basic metals, plastic, to name a few.

And the second channel is directly through exports. The East Coast and Gulf ports channel 84 per cent of exports by water. Industries producing energy, chemicals, machinery, cars, might be affected by these bottlenecks.

Michael Zezas: Right, so fewer potential imports of goods, and fewer potential productive capacity as a consequence. Does that have an impact on inflation from your perspective?

Diego Anzoategui: Yes, it can have an impact on inflation. Again, assuming that the strike is long lasting, right? I would expect acceleration in goods prices, in particular key inputs coming from the Eastern Gulf ports. And these are cars, electronics, clothes, furniture and apparel. All these categories roughly represent 13 per cent of the core PCE basket, the price index.

Also, you know, a meaningful share of food and beverages imports come through water. So, I would also expect an impact there in those prices. And in terms of what prices might react faster, I think the main candidate is food and beverages -- and especially perishable food that typically have lower inventory to sales ratios.

And if we start seeing an increase in those prices, I think that would be a good early signal that the disruptions are starting to bite.

Michael Zezas: That makes sense. And last question, what about the impact to the US workforce? What would be the impact, if any, on payroll data and unemployment data, reflecting workforce impact -- the types of data that investors really pay close attention to.

Diego Anzoategui: Yeah. So, we will likely see an impact on nonfarm payrolls, NFP, and the unemployment rate if the strike is long lasting. But even if there are not important disruptions, the strike itself can mechanically affect October's nonfarm payrolls print. They want to be released in November. Remember that strikers don't get paid, and they are not on the payroll; so they are not be[ing] counted by the establishment survey.

But a necessary condition to see this downward bias in the NFP reading is that the strike needs to continue next week, that is the second week of October, right. But know that The Fed tends to look through these short run fluctuations in NFP due to strikes -- because any drag we see in the October sprint will likely be followed by payback in November if the strike is short lived.

Michael Zezas: Got it. That makes a lot of sense. Diego, thanks for making the time to talk with us as this unfolds. Let's hope for a quick resolution here.

Diego Anzoategui: Thanks, Michael. Great speaking with you.

Michael Zezas: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please be sure to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show. 

Our US public policy and global economics experts discuss how an escalation of US tariffs could have major domestic and international economic implications.

----- Transcript -----

Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's US Public Policy Strategist.

Arunima Sinha: And I’m Arunima Sinha, from the Global Economics team.

Ariana Salvatore: Today we're talking tariffs, a major policy issue at stake in the US presidential election. We'll dig into the domestic and international implications of these proposed policies.

It's Tuesday, October 1st at 10am in New York.

In a little over four weeks, Americans will be going to the polls. And as we've noted on this podcast, it's still a close race between the two presidential candidates. Former president Donald Trump's main pitch to voters has to do with the economy. And tariffs and tax cuts are central to many of his campaign speeches.

Arunima Sinha: You're right, Ariana. In fact, I would say that tariffs have been the key theme he keeps on coming back to. You've recently written a note about why we should take the Republicans proposed policies on tariffs seriously. What's your broad outlook in a Trump win scenario?

Ariana Salvatore: Well, first and foremost, I think it's important to note that the President has quite a bit of discretion when it comes to trade policy. That's why we recommend that investors should take seriously a number of these proposals. Many of the authorities are already in place and could be easily leveraged if Trump were to win in November and follow through on those campaign promises. He did it with China in 2018 to 2019, leveraging Section 301 Authority, and many of that could be done easily if he were to win again.

Arunima Sinha: And could you just walk us through some of the specifics of Trump's tariff proposals? What are the options at the President's disposal?

Ariana Salvatore: Sure. So, he's floated a number of tariff proposals -- whether it be 10 per cent tariffs across the board on all of our imports, 60 per cent specifically on China or targeted tariffs on certain goods coming from partners like Mexico, for example. Targeted tariffs are likely the easiest place to start, especially if we see an incrementalist approach like we saw during the first Trump term over the course of 2018 to 2019.

Arunima Sinha: And how quickly would these tariffs be implemented if Trump were to win?

Ariana Salvatore: The answer to that really depends on the type of authorities being leveraged here. There are a few different procedures associated with each of the tariffs that I mentioned just now. For example, if the president is using Section 301 authorities, that usually requires a period of investigation by the USTR -- or the US Trade Representative --before the formal recommendation for tariffs.

However, given that many of these authorities are already in place, to the extent that the former president wants to levy tariffs on China, for example, it can be done pretty seamlessly. Conversely, if you were to ask his cabinet to initiate a new tariff investigation, depending on the authority used, that could take anywhere from weeks to months. Section 232 investigations have a maximum timeline of 270 days.

There's also a chance that he uses something called IEEPA, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, to justify quicker tariff imposition, though the legality of that authority hasn't been fully tested yet. Back in 2019, when Trump said he would use IEEPA to impose 5 per cent tariffs on all Mexican imports, he called off those plans before the tariffs actually came into effect.

Arunima Sinha: And could you give us a little more specific[s] about which countries would be impacted in this potential next round of tariffs -- and to what extent?

Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, in our analysis, which you'll get into in a moment, we focus on the potential for a 10 per cent across the board tariff that I mentioned, in conjunction with the 60 per cent tariff on Chinese goods. Obviously, when you map that to who our largest trading partners are, it's clear that Mexico and China would be impacted most directly, followed by Canada and the EU.

Specifically on the EU, we have those section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs coming up for review in early 2025, and the US-MCA or the agreement that replaced NAFTA is set for review later in 2026. So, we see plenty of trade catalysts on the horizon. We also see an underappreciated risk of tariffs on Mexico using precedent from Trump's first term, especially if immigration continues to be such a politically salient issue for voters.

Given all of this, it seems that tariffs will create a lot of friction in global trade. What's your outlook, Arunima?

Arunima Sinha: Well, Arianna, we do expect a hit to growth, and a near term rise in inflation in the US. In the EU, our economists also expect a negative impact on growth. And in other economies, there are several considerations. How would tariffs impact the ongoing supply chain diversification? The extent of foreign exchange moves? Are bilateral negotiations being pursued by the other countries? And so on.

Ariana Salvatore: So, a natural follow up question here is not only the impact to the countries that would be affected by US tariffs, but how they might respond. What do you see happening there?

Arunima Sinha: In the note, we talked with our China economists, and they expect that if the US were to impose 60 per cent tariffs on Chinese goods, Beijing may impose retaliatory tariffs and some non-tariff measures like it did back in 2018-19. But they don't expect meaningful sanctions or restrictions on US enterprises that are already well embedded in China's supply chain.

On the policy side, Beijing would likely resort less to Chinese currency depreciation but focus more on supply chain diversifications to mitigate the tariff shock this time round. Our economists think that the risk of more entrenched deflationary pressures from potential tariff disruptions may increase the urgency for Beijing to shift its policy framework towards economic rebalancing to consumption.

In Europe, our economists expect that targeted tariffs will be met with challenges at the WTO and retaliatory tariffs on American exports to Europe, following the pattern from 2018-19, along with bilateral trade negotiations. In Mexico, our economists think that there could be a response with tariffs on agricultural products, mainly corn and soybeans.

Ariana Salvatore: So, bringing it back to the US, what do you see the macro impact from tariffs being in terms of economic growth or inflation?

Arunima Sinha: We did a fairly extensive analysis where we both looked at the aggregate impacts on the US as well as sectoral impacts that we'll get into. We think that a pretty reasonable estimate of the effect of both a 60 per cent tariff on China and a 10 per cent blanket tariff on the rest of the world is an increase of 0.9 per cent in the headline PCE prices that takes into effect over 2025, and a decline of 1.4 percentage points in real GDP growth that plays out over a longer period going into 2026.

Ariana Salvatore: So, your team is expecting two more Fed cuts this year and four by the first half of 2025. Thinking about how tariffs might play into that dynamic, do you see them influencing Fed policy at all?

Arunima Sinha: Well, under the tariff scenario, we think that it's possible that the Fed decides to delay cuts first and then speed up the pace of easing. So, in theory, the effect of a tariff shock is really just a level shift in prices. And in other words, it's a transitory boost to inflation that should fade over time.

Because it's a temporary shock. The Fed can, in principle look through it as long as inflation expectations remain anchored. And this is what we saw in the FOMC minutes from the 2018 meetings. In a scenario of increased tariffs, we think that the uncertainty about the length of the inflationary push may slow down the pace of cuts in the first half of 2025. And then once GDP deceleration becomes more pronounced, the Fed might then cut faster in the second half of [20]25 to avoid that big, outsized deceleration and economic activity.

Ariana Salvatore: And what about second order effects on things like business investment or employment? We talked about agriculture as a potential target for retaliatory tariffs, but what other US sectors and industries would be most affected by these type of plans?

Arunima Sinha: That's something that we have leaned in on, and we do expect some important second round effects. So, if you have lower economic activity, that would lower employment, that lowers income, that lowers consumption further -- so that standard multiplier effect.

So overall, in that scenario, with the 60 per cent tariffs on China, 10 per cent on the rest of the world that are imposed fully and swiftly, we model that real consumption would decline by 3 per cent, business investment would fall by 3.1 per cent, and monthly job gains would fall by between 50- and 70, 000.

At the sectoral level, this combination of tariffs have potential to increase average tariffs to the 25 to 35 per cent range for almost 50 per cent of the NAICS industries in the United States when first put into place. And we expect the biggest impacts on computers and electronics, apparel, and the furniture sectors; but this does not take into account any potential exclusion lists that might be put into place.

Ariana Salvatore: Finally, what does all this boil down to in terms of a direct impact to the US consumer wallet?

Arunima Sinha: So, the impact of higher tariffs on consumer spending would depend on many factors, and one of the most important ones is the price elasticity of demand. So how willing would consumers be to take on those higher prices from tariffs, or do we see a pullback in real demand? What we think will happen is that higher prices could reduce real consumption by as much as 2. 5 per cent. The impact on goods consumption is much more meaningful because imported goods are directly affected by tariffs, and we would expect to see a drag on real goods consumption of 5 per cent. But then you have lower labor income and higher production costs and services prices that is also going to bring down services consumption by 1.3 per cent.

Ariana Salvatore: So, it's important to keep in mind here that US tariff policy would undoubtedly have far reaching consequences. That means it's something that we're going to continue to follow very closely. Arunima, thanks so much for taking the time to talk.

Arunima Sinha: Great speaking with you, Ariana. Thank you,

Ariana Salvatore: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.  

Our CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist Mike Wilson takes a closer look at the potential ramifications of the sharp central bank policy shifts in the U.S., Japan and China.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about what to expect from the sharp pivot in global monetary and fiscal policy.  

It's Monday, Sept 30th at 11:30am in New York. 

So let’s get after it. 

Over the past few months, Fed policy has taken on a more dovish turn. To be fair, bond markets have been telling the Fed that they are too tight and in many respects this pivot was simply the Fed getting more in line with market pricing. However, in addition to the 50 basis point cut from the Fed, budget deficits are providing heavy support; with August’s deficit nearly $90b higher than expected. Meanwhile, financial conditions continue to loosen and are now at some of the most stimulative levels seen over the past 25 years. 

Other central banks are also cutting interest rates and even the Bank of Japan, which recently raised rates for the first time in years, has backed off that stance – and indicated they are in no hurry to raise rates again. Finally, this past week the People’s Bank of China announced new programs specifically targeting equity and housing prices. After a muted response from markets and commentators, the Chinese government then followed up with an aggressive fiscal policy stimulus. Why now?  

Like the US, China is highly indebted but it has entered full blown deflation with both credit and equity markets trading terribly for the past several years. There is an old adage that markets stop panicking when policy makers start panicking. On that score, it makes perfect sense why China equity and credit markets have responded the most favorably to the changes made last week. European equity markets were also stronger than the US given European economies and companies have greater exposure to China demand. On the other hand, Japan and India traded poorly which also makes sense in my view since they were the two largest beneficiaries of investor outflows from China over the past several years. Such trends are likely to continue in the near term.  

For US equity investors, the real question is whether China’s pivot on policy will have a material impact on US growth. We think it’s fairly limited to areas like Industrial spending and Materials pricing and it’s unlikely to have any impact on US consumers or corporate investment demand. In fact, if commodities rally due to greater China demand, it may hurt US consumer spending. 

As usual, oil prices will be the most important commodity to watch in this regard. The good news is that oil prices were down last week due to an unrelated move by Saudi Arabia to no longer cap production in its efforts to get oil prices back to its $100 target. If prices reverse higher again and move toward $80/bbl due to either China stimulus or the escalation of tensions in the Middle East, it would be viewed as a net negative in my view for US equities.  

As discussed last week the most important variables for the direction of US equities is the upcoming labor market data and third quarter earnings season. Weaker than expected data is likely to be viewed negatively by stocks at this point and good news will be taken positively. In other words, investors should not be hoping for worse news so the Fed can cut more aggressively. 

At this point, steady 25 basis point cuts for the next several quarters in the context of growth holding up is the best outcome for stocks broadly. Meanwhile individual stocks will likely trade as much on idiosyncratic earnings and company news rather than macro data in the absence of either a hard landing or a large growth acceleration; both of which look unlikely in the near term. In such a scenario, we think large cap quality growth is likely to perform the best while there could be some pockets of cyclical strength in companies that can benefit from greater China demand. The best areas for cyclical outperformance in that regard remain in the Industrial and materials sectors.  

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. 

Credit likes moderation, and the Fed’s rate cut indicates its belief that the economy is heading for a soft landing. Our Chief Fixed Income Strategist warns that markets still need to keep an eye on incoming data.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the implications of the Fed’s 50 basis points interest rate cut for corporate credit markets. 

It's Friday, Sep 27th at 10 am in New York. 

For credit markets, understanding why the Fed is cutting is actually very critical. Unlike typical rate cutting cycles, these cuts are coming when the economic growth is still decelerating but not falling off the cliff. Typically, rate cuts have come in when the economy is already in a recession or approaching recession. Neither is the case this time. So the US expanded by 3 per cent in the second quarter; and the third quarter, it is tracking well over 2 per cent. 

So, these cuts do not aim to stimulate the economy but really to acknowledge that there’s been significant progress on inflation, and move the policy towards a much more normalized policy stance. In some way, this really reflects the Fed’s confidence in the inflation path. So that means, not cutting now would mean restraining the economy further through high real interest rates. So, this cut really reflects a growing faith by the Fed in achieving a soft landing. Also, the size of the cut, the 50 basis point cut as opposed to 25 basis points, shows the Fed’s willingness to go big in response to weaker data, especially in labor markets. 

So since the beginning of the year, we have been pretty constructive on spread products across the board, particularly corporate credit and securitized credit, even though valuations have been tightening. Our stance is based on the idea that credit fundamentals will stay reasonably healthy even if economic growth decelerates, as long as it doesn’t fall off the cliff. Further, we also believe that credit fundamentals will improve with rate cuts because stress in this cycle has mainly come from higher interest expenses weighing on both corporations and households. This is in stark contrast to other recent periods of stress in credit markets – such as 2008/09 when we had the financial crisis, 2015/16 we had the challenges in the energy sector and then 2020, of course, we faced COVID. 

So the best point of illustrating this would be through leveraged loans, which are floating-rate instruments. As the Fed started tightening in 2022, we saw increasing pressures on interest coverage ratios for leveraged loan borrowers. That led to a pick-up in downgrades and defaults in loans. As rate hikes ended, we started seeing stabilization of these coverage ratios, and the pace of downgrades and defaults slowed. And now, with rate cutting ahead of us and the dot plot implying 150 basis points more of cuts for the rest of this year and the next year to come, the pressure on interest coverage ratios are going to be easing, especially if the economy stays in soft landing mode. 

This suggests that while spreads are today tight, the fundamentals could even improve with rate cuts – that means the spreads could remain around these levels, or even tighten a bit further. After all, if you remember the mid-1990s, which was the the last time that the Fed achieved a soft landing, investment grade corporate credit spreads were about 30 basis points tighter relative to where we are today. 

That 'if' is a big if. If we are wrong on the soft landing thesis, our conviction about the spread products being valuable will prove to have been misplaced. Really the challenge with any landing is that we can’t be certain of the prospect until we actually land. Till then, we are really looking at incoming data and hypothesizing: are we heading into a soft or hard landing? 

So this means incoming data pose two-sided risks to the path ahead for credit spreads. If incoming data are weak – particularly employment data are weak – it is likely that faith in this soft landing construct will dim and spreads could widen. But if they are robust, we can see spreads tightening even further from the current tight levels. 

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our US Consumer Economist Sarah Wolfe lays out the impact of the Federal Reserve’s rate cut on labor market and consumers, including which goods could see a rise in spending over the next year.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Sarah Wolfe, from the Morgan Stanley US Economics Team. 

Today, a look at what the Fed cut means for US consumers. 

It’s Thursday, September 26, at 2 PM in Slovenia. 

Earlier this week, you heard Mike Wilson and Seth Carpenter talk about the Fed cut and its impact on markets and central banks around the world. But what does it actually mean for US consumers and their wallets? Will it make it easier to pay off credit card debt and secure mortgages? We explore these questions in this episode. 

Looking back to last week, the FOMC cut rates by a larger chunk than many anticipated as risks from inflation have come down significantly while labor market risks have risen. Now, with inflation wrangled in, it’s time to start reducing the restrictiveness of policy to prevent a rise in the unemployment rate and a slump in economic growth. In fact, my colleague Mike Wilson believes the US labor data will be the most important factor driving US equities for the next three to six months. 

Despite potential risks, the current state of the U.S. labor market is still solid and that’s where the Fed wants it to stay. The health of the labor market, in my opinion, is best reflected in the health of consumer spending. If we look at this quarter, we’re tracking over 3 per cent growth in real consumption, which is a strong run rate for consumption by all measures. And if we look at how the whole year has been tracking, we’ve only seen a very modest slowdown in real consumer spending from 2.7 per cent last year to 2.5 per cent today. 

For a bit of perspective, if we go back to 2018 and 2019, when rates were much lower than they are today, and we had a tight labor market, consumption was running closer to 2 to 2.3 per cent. So we can definitively say, consumption is pretty solid today. 

What is most notable, however, is the slowdown in nominal consumption which takes into account unit growth and pricing. This has slowed much more notably this year from 5.6 per cent last year to 4.9 per cent today. It’s reflected by the significant progress we’ve seen in inflation this year across goods and services, despite solid unit growth – as reflected by stronger real consumer spending. 

Our US Economics team has been stressing that the fundamentals that drive consumption – which are labor income, wealth, and credit – would be cooler this year but still support healthy spending. When it comes to consumption, in my opinion, I think what matters most is labor income. A slowdown in job growth has stoked fears of slower consumer spending, but if you look at aggregate labor income growth and household wealth, across both equities and real estate, those factors remain solid. So, then we ask ourselves, what has driven more of the slowdown in consumer spending this past year?

And with that, let’s go back to interest rates. 

Rates have been high, and credit conditions have been tight – undeniably restraining consumer spending. Elevated interest rates have pushed banks to pull back on lending and have curbed household demand for credit. As a result, if you look at consumer loan growth from banks, it’s fallen from about 12 per cent in 2022 to 7 per cent last year, and just 3 per cent in the first half of this year. 

Tight credit is dampening consumption. When interest rates are high, people buy less -- especially on credit. And this is a key principle of monetary policy and it's used to lower inflation. But it can have adverse effects. The brunt of the pain has been borne by the lowest-income households which rely heavily on revolving credit for basic spending needs and more easily max out on their credit limits and fall delinquent. 

As such, as the Fed begins to lower interest rates, the rates charged on consumer loan products have started to moderate. And with a lag, we expect credit conditions to ease up as well, allowing households across the income distribution to begin to access more credit. We should first see a rebound in durable goods spending – like home furnishing, electronics, appliances, and autos. And then that should all be further supported by more activity in the housing market.  

While interest rates are on their way down, they are still relatively elevated, which means the rebound in consumption will take time. The good news, however, is that we do think we are moving through the bottom for durable goods consumption – with pricing for goods likely to stabilize next year and unit growth to pick back up.

Thank you for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

With the US presidential race being as closely contested as it is, Michael Zezas explains why patience may be a virtue for investors following Election Day. 

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. 

Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about why investors should prepare to wait to get clarity on the US election result. 

It's Wednesday, September 25th at 10:30am in New York. 

As we all know, markets dislike uncertainty; and one of the biggest potential catalysts between now and the end of the year is the results of the US presidential election. So it’s important for investors to know that the timing of knowing the outcome may not be what you expect. 

On most U.S. presidential election days, the outcome is known within hours of polls closing in the evening. That’s because while all votes may not yet have been counted, enough have to make a reasonable projection about the winner. 

But that’s not what happened in 2020. Vote counts were tight across many states. A condition that was compounded by the slowness of counting mail in ballots, which was a style of voting more widely adopted during the pandemic. As a result, news networks didn’t make a formal outcome projection until about four days after election day.

Rather than a reversion to the norm of quickly knowing the result for the 2024 election, we expect an outcome similar to 2020. It could be days before we reliably know a result.

The same dynamics as 2020 are in play. Polls show a very close race. And while more voters are likely to show up in person this year, voting by mail is still expected to represent a substantial chunk of ballots cast this cycle. That’s because many states' rules automatically send mail-in ballots to those who voted by that method in the last election. And some recent news out of Georgia underscores the potential for a slower result. The state just adopted a rule requiring all its votes to be hand-counted.

Now, this may not matter if either candidate has enough votes without Georgia to win the electoral college. But if Georgia is the deciding or tipping point state then a longer wait becomes possible. Per the 538 election forecast model, there’s about an 11 per cent chance that Georgia plays this role.

So, bottom line, investors may have to be patient this November. It could take days, or weeks, to reliably project an election outcome, and therefore start seeing its market effects.

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

From stock price fluctuations to concerns about deflation, the reactions to the Fed rate cut have been varied. But we still need to keep an eye on labor data, says Mike Wilson, our CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the Fed’s 50 basis point rate cut last week, and the impact on markets.

It's Tuesday, Sept 24th at 11:30am in New York.

So let’s get after it. 

As discussed last week, I thought that the best short-term case for equities was that the Fed could deliver a 50 basis point cut without prompting growth concerns. Chair Powell was able to thread the needle in this respect, and equities ultimately responded favorably. 

However, I also believe the labor data will be the most important factor in terms of how equities trade over the next three to six months. 

On that score, the next round of data will be forthcoming at the end of next week. In my view, that data will need to surprise on the upside to keep equity valuations at their currently elevated level. More specifically, the unemployment rate will need to decline and the payrolls above 140,000 with no negative revisions to prior months.  

Meanwhile, I am also watching several other variables closely to determine the trajectory of growth. Earnings revision breadth, the best proxy for company guidance, continues to trend sideways for the overall S&P 500 and negatively for the Russell 2000 small cap index. Due to seasonal patterns, this variable is likely to face negative headwinds over the next month.

Second, the ISM Purchasing Managers Index has yet to reaccelerate after almost two years of languishing. And finally, the Conference Board Leading Economic Indicator and Employment Trends remain in downward trends; this is typical of a later cycle environment.

Bottom line, the Fed's larger than expected rate cut can buy more time for high quality stocks to remain expensive and even help lower quality cyclical stocks to find some support. The labor and other data now need to improve in order to justify these conditions though, through year end.

It's also important to point out that the August budget deficit came in nearly $90 billion above forecasts, bringing the year-to-date deficit above $1.8 trillion. We think this fiscal policy has been positive for growth but has resulted in a crowding out within the private economy and financial markets.

This is another reason why a recession is the worst-case scenario even though some argue a recession is better than high price levels or inflation for 80-90 per cent of Americans. A recession will undoubtedly bring debt deflation concerns to light, and once those begin, they are hard to reverse. The Fed understands this dynamic better than anyone as first illustrated in Ben Bernanke's famous speech in 2002 entitled “Deflation, Making Sure It Doesn’t Happen Here.” In that speech, he highlighted the tools the Fed could use to avoid deflation including coordinated monetary and fiscal policy.

We note that gold continues to outperform most stocks including the high-quality S&P 500. Specifically, gold has rallied from just $300 at the time of Bernanke’s speech in 2002 to $2600 today. The purchasing power of US dollars has fallen much more than what conventional measures of inflation would suggest.

As a result, gold, high-quality real estate, stocks and other inflation hedges have done very well. In fact, the newest fiat currency hedge, crypto, has done the best over the past decade. Meanwhile, lower quality cyclical assets like commodities, small cap stocks and commercial real estate have done poorly in both absolute and relative terms; and are losing serious value when adjusted for purchasing power.

The bottom line, we expect this to continue in the short term until something happens to change investors' view about the sustainability of these policies. In order to reverse these trends, either organic growth in the private economy needs to reaccelerate and we’ll see a rotation back to the lower quality cyclical assets; or recession arrives, and we finish the cycle and reset all asset prices to levels from which a true broadening out can occur.

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Chief Economist, Seth Carpenter, explains why, despite last week’s big Fed move, there’s still plenty of uncertainty in global markets and questions about how other central banks will respond. 

----- Transcript -----

Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist.

Today, I'll be talking about the Fed meeting, where they cut rates for the first time in this cycle, and what it means for the economy around the world.

It's Monday, September 23rd at 10am in New York.

The Fed cut rates by 50 basis points; but we did not see a huge shift in its reaction function. Rather, the 50 basis points was to show a commitment to not falling behind the curve -- to use Chair Powell's words. From here, the most likely path, from my perspective, is a string of 25 basis point cuts. Powell has again demonstrated that the Fed can move gradually, or quickly, depending on perceptions of risk.

But for now, judging from Powell, or other policy makers comments, the Fed still sees the economy as healthy in the labor market; as solid. But another payroll print of 100, 000 or softening in consumer spending, well, that would tip the balance. So, the market debate will continue to focus on the pace of rate cuts and the ultimate landing zone.

Our baseline is a touch more front loaded than the dot plot would imply; with us expecting the funds rate to reach just below 3.5 per cent in the middle of next year, rather than the end of next year. The Fed's projections have declines in the target rate into 2026 and beyond, but I have to say the dispersion in the dots that they put up shows just how much consensus is yet to be built within the committee. And, as a result, the phrase data dependency, well, that's not a term that we want to drop from the lexicon anytime soon.

The magnitudes of the changes differ, but a comparison that we have made often here is to the 1990s, and that cutting cycle eventually it paused as the economy stabilized and continued to grow. So, there are lots of options for where we go next.

Globally, central banks will be adapting and reacting both to global financial conditions like this Fed rate cut, as well as their domestic outlook. Among emerging market economies, Brazil and Indonesia make for useful case studies. With an eye on defending its policy credibility and on market expectations, the central bank in Brazil hiked rates to 10-and-three-quarters per cent this week after a cutting cycle and then a long pause. A weaker currency is the external push, but strong domestic growth is the internal consideration and both of those imply some inflation risks.

The Bank of Indonesia cut rates after a strong appreciation in the currency, which lowered the risk from inflations, and it really enabled them to change their footing.

Now, for DM central banks, the 50 basis point cut really doesn't materially shift our expectations for what's going to happen. If we are right, and ultimately we get a string of 25 basis point cuts, there's little reason for other developed market central banks to really adjust what they're doing. In Europe, we're waiting for inflation data to confirm the slowdown after the softening of wages that we've seen. So, we have high conviction that there's a cut in September, and we expect another cut in December.

Now, more cutting by the Fed might lead to a stronger Euro, which would reinforce that inflation trend, but I don't think it would be enough to really change the path and prompt more aggressive cutting from the ECB. After skipping a rate move in September, given all the question marks they still see about inflation in the UK, we think the Bank of England restarts their cuts in November.

The split decision at this most recent meeting shows that the MPC is not making frequent adjustments to its plan based on small tweaks to the incoming data. And finally, for the Bank of Japan, we expect them to stay on hold until January. The meeting for the Bank of Japan was primarily about communication, and indeed, Governor Ueda's comments did not prompt the type of reaction that we saw at the July meeting. So, if we're right, and the Fed's path is mostly, like we think it will be, these other developed market central banks don't have to make big changes.

So, the Fed didn't really fully recalibrate its outlook. Instead, what it did was signal a willingness, but just a willingness, to make large shifts; with no clear indication that the fundamental strategy has changed.

The market implications seem like they could be clear. With the Fed easing, amid economic conditions that remain resilient, that should be positive for risk assets. But the Fed is also trying to prevent complacency, and I have to say, uncertainty is plentiful. If for no other reason, we've got an election coming up, and that makes forecasting what happens in 2025 very difficult.

Thanks for listening. And if you enjoy this show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Chief Latin American Equity Strategist explains how potential changes in Mexico’s regulatory approach could have implications for the country’s equity markets.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Nikolaj Lippmann, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Latin American Equity Strategist. Today I’ll talk about Mexico’s recent judicial reform and its potential impact on equities market.

It’s Friday, September 20, at 10am in Mexico City.

Mexico has made significant changes to its judicial system. After winning two-thirds majority in both houses – enough to allow for constitutional changes – Mexico policymakers have embarked on a robust reform agenda. Their first stop is a comprehensive reform of the judicial branch, which aims at replacing roughly 2,000 senior judges including the entire Supreme Court. 

New judges will no longer be appointed but will now be elected by popular vote. This is practically unprecedented in a global context, and while the executive branch might still try to filter future candidates, this new system will likely create a real risk to checks and balances on the judicial branch as well as to expertise and procedure. Additional reforms, including the elimination of independent regulatory bodies, would likely compound these risks. 

The judicial reform could have a material impact on Mexican equities. So much so, that we think Mexico goes from being an investor favorite to a ‘show me’ story where investors are less likely to give the market the benefit of the doubt. This is likely to result in a derailing or lower set of multiples being paid by investors in Mexican equities or higher risk premium required to invest. 

Essentially, the judicial reforms could add fiscal, labor and concession/regulatory risk for Mexican companies, even though Mexico has deep manufacturing ecosystems, and has been well-positioned from the transition to [a] multipolar world. Just to give you a sense. Mexico has already sailed past China in terms of manufacturing exports to the United States, and are now approaching the levels of the entire European Union in terms of manufacturing export to the US. 

These new reforms will raise significant investor concerns, so much so that we’ve downgraded Mexican equities to underweight, a second downgrade since June. Mexican equities have sold off roughly 20 per cent in the past three months, in dollar terms. And we think the judicial reform may contribute to further decline. All in, we see significantly greater potential for negative outcomes than positive outcomes going forward.

Looking ahead, we see three key challenges for Mexico: 

First, the new judicial structure would raise concerns about the independence of the judicial branch. 

Second, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, the USMCA, is up for review in 2026, and Mexico's judicial reform could mean a much deeper revision. Mexico has committed to maintaining independent regulatory bodies for a number of areas, such as telecom, electricity, in competition. The judicial reform could complicate this commitment. 

Electricity is a key challenge for Mexico, and it requires immediate investments. Our nearshoring investment thesis stands, but the electricity-related challenges are becoming more pronounced, and they won’t be helped by investor concerns around the judicial reform. 

So all in, some businesses will be at greater risk from these developments. We expect technology, digitalization, real estate companies to be at the least level of risk, or the lowest level of risk. Domestic concessions could be at more risk. 

We will continue to bring you relevant updates as Mexico reforms unfold. 

Thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen. It helps more people find the show.

Investors came away from Morgan Stanley’s recent Industrials Conference with a more optimistic outlook than they expected, based on perspectives including freight transportation’s momentum and AI’s impact on the growth of data centers.

----- Transcript -----

Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley Research's U.S. Thematic Strategist.

Ravi Shanker: I'm Ravi Shanker, Morgan Stanley's Freight Transportation and Airlines Analyst.

Chris Snyder: And I'm Chris Snyder, the U.S. Industrial Analyst.

Michelle Weaver: Today, we'll talk about key themes for Morgan Stanley's recently concluded industrials conference in Laguna Beach.

It's Thursday, September 19th at 10am in New York.

Last week, we were all out in Laguna Beach at the industrials conference. There were about 500 different industrials investors, along with 156 corporates, which gave us a pretty comprehensive read on what's going on in the industrial sector.Investor sentiment around industrials was pretty poor heading into the conference, and the overall tone of management, though, seemed better than feared in presentations.

Chris, your coverage includes companies with exposure to a wide range of end markets. What did you learn about the cycle from your discussions with company management?

Chris Snyder: Yeah, I think you categorized it well: consistent, largely unchanged, but better than feared. Morgan Stanley did a poll ahead of the conference. And only 5 percent of investors thought that the conference would be bullish for industrial risk sentiment. Coming out of the conference, 60 percent of industrial investors are bullish on risk sentiment into the end of the year. So, I think it kind of shows that sentiment was in a very bad place and ‘better than feared’ is the right way to categorize it.

We've generally been surprised at the lack of optimism around the industrial cycle in the market. The industrial economy has been in contraction for almost two years now, and it seems like we're on the verge of a rate cut cycle, which has historically been a tailwind for the cycle.

You know, in our coverage, business is driven by a combination of investments and then production of goods; and the companies we’re seeing real bifurcation on that. On the investment side -- and that's things like data center, new manufacturing facilities with all the US reshoring momentum -- that business remains strong. And on the production side of the house, that business remains soft. And that's generally in line with our call. We prefer CapEx exposure, particularly those that are tied into energy efficiency.

Michelle Weaver: Great. That's really positive to hear that the investment side is still doing well. Ravi, your freight coverage is very macro as well -- in that the freight companies move all the stuff that other companies are making. How does demand from shippers look? And what are freight companies saying about the cycle?

Ravi Shanker: Yeah, from a freight transportation perspective, I guess, no news was good news out in Laguna; largely because we have already started to see an improvement in the freight cycle, at the end of 1Q going into 2Q. And I think the market was just waiting to see if that would sustain through 3Q. The data has been supportive so far, and the good news was most of the trucking companies did validate the fact that we have seen a continuation of seasonality from 2Q into 3Q.

And looking forward, they're also anticipating a fairly decent peak season, probably the most robust peak season we have had in two or three years. And I use the word robust on a relative basis because it's not going to be the greatest peak season ever. But certainly, better than we've had the last couple of years. But that momentum should continue into 2025.

So, nobody really was high fiving out there. But certainly, noted the fact that we are seeing a continued improvement in the cycle; and that momentum should continue into next year.

Michelle Weaver: One of Morgan Stanley Research's three key themes for the year is technology, diffusion and AI; and this theme came up repeatedly throughout the conference.

Chris, some of your companies have significant exposure to data centers, which have seen a huge boost in demand from AI. What does the growth opportunity look like for Multi's names with exposure to data centers?

Chris Snyder: Yeah, data center is a growth opportunity for my industrials’ coverage. And they primarily are driven by the investment side. How much data centers are we building? And they sell a lot of the equipment that goes into the data centers. And what we're seeing now is that there's a huge focus on energy efficiency within the data center. You know, obviously it helps improve their cost profile, but also as there's growing concerns around load growth and electricity allotment.

And what that's doing is it's driving demand towards the high end of the spectrum, which is where our big public companies compete. You know, they're the ones that are always spending R&D and innovating and driving energy efficiency for the customer. So, we think there's a mix up opportunity behind it.

In terms of growth rates, you know, most of the companies are talking to about 15 percent kind of plus as the growth rate going forward or where they are exposed. And the conference brought, you know, really positive updates. There was no talk of slowdown. And generally, it sounds like momentum remains firm and growth will continue.

Michelle, what were some of the other ways companies discussed AI or how they're leveraging the technology?

Michelle Weaver: Yeah. So, when I think about how companies have been adopting AI so far, not just within industrials, but within the broader market, it's largely been about things that are plug and play solutions; something like taking a chat bot, putting that on your website, and then you don't need as many customer service representatives.

So, when I'm at these kind of events, I always like to listen for more unique or differentiated ways of adopting AI. And I heard about a really interesting case from a company that holds about half of the global market for luxury seating. Processing leather is a super important part of manufacturing seats and has typically been really labor intensive and skilled labor at that. But this company is using AI to scan cow hides to determine what the optimal use for them is, and then inventory them.

Before that, a worker had to individually mark the leather for imperfections and then determine how to cut around that. So, I thought that was a pretty interesting use of AI.

But now I want to turn over to the consumer exposed pockets of industrials. Discretionary spending has been slowing as multiple years of high prices have been weighing on consumers. But overall, I thought the commentary around the consumer at the conference seemed pretty mixed, and we saw a big divide between the high-end and low-end consumers.

Ravi, what did you hear from the airlines around travel demand?

Ravi Shanker: Unlike the transportation side where what we heard was fairly consistent with expectations, I think things were much better than expected on the airline side largely because the airlines came out and validated the fact that demand continues to remain very robust -- pretty much across the board. But as you mentioned, definitely at the high end, the premium traveler continues to travel.

International is rebounding post Olympics. Corporate is normalizing as well, and some of the low-cost carriers did mention that they were seeing some weakness on the low-end consumer side. Although it was unclear to them if that was actual demand weakness or a function of too much capacity in the marketplace.

But they did come out and validate that demand continues to remain very robust; and with capacity continuing to come out of the marketplace and be more balanced with demand, you have seen pricing inflect positive for all the airlines for the first time in several quarters. So definitely, a pretty supportive backdrop for airline demand. And that is going to show up in airline numbers in the third and fourth quarters as well, we think.

Michelle Weaver: As someone who's been in the airports a lot recently, I can definitely feel that demand has held up well. Chris, some of your companies also sell consumer products. What does consumer demand look like in your space?

Chris Snyder: I would say stable, but at soft levels. And I think a lot of the tailwinds that Ravi is seeing on the service side of the house in airlines is actually coming at the expense of my companies who sell consumer goods. You know, if you look at the consumer wallet share, service mix has not gotten back to the levels that we saw in 2019 and we think that will remain a headwind for goods purchasing going forward.

Michelle Weaver: Ravi, Chris, thank you for taking the time to talk.

Ravi Shanker: Thanks so much for having me.

Chris Snyder: Thank you.

Michelle Weaver: And to our listeners, thanks for tuning in. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

While the electoral impact of last week’s US presidential debate is unclear, our Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research offers two guiding principles to navigate the markets during the election cycle.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about takeaways from the US presidential campaign debate. 

It's Wednesday, September 18th at 10:30am in New York. 

Last week, Vice President Harris and Former President Trump met in Philadelphia for debate. Investor interest was high, and understandably so. As our Chief Economist Seth Carpenter has previously highlighted in his research, visibility remains low when it comes to the outlook for the US in 2025. 

That’s because the election could put the country on policy paths that take economic growth in different directions. And of course, the last presidential debate in June led to President Biden’s withdrawal, changing the race dramatically. So, any election-related event that could provide new information about the probability of different outcomes and the resulting policies is worth watching. 

But, as investors well know from tracking data releases, earnings, Fedspeak, and more, potential catalysts often remain just that – potential. For the moment, we’re putting last week’s debate in that category. 

Take its impact on outcome probabilities. It could move polls, but perhaps not enough for investors to view one candidate as the clear favorite. For weeks, the polls have been signaling an extremely tight race, with only a small pool of undecided voters. While debates in past campaigns have modestly strengthened a candidate’s standing in the polls, in this race any lead would likely remain within the margin of error. 

On policy, again we don’t think the debate taught us anything new. Candidates typically use these widely watched events to influence voters’ perceptions. The details of policies and their impact tend to take a back seat to assertions of principles and critiques of their opponents. This is what we saw last week. 

So if the debate provided little new information about the impact of the election on markets, what guidance can we offer? Here again we repeat two of our guiding principles for this election cycle. 

First, between now and Election Day, expect the economic cycle to drive markets. The high level of uncertainty and the lack of precedent for market behavior in the run-up to past elections suggest sticking to the cross-asset playbook in our mid-year outlook. In general, we prefer bonds to equities. While our economists continue to expect the US to avoid a recession, growth is slowing. That bodes better for bonds, where yields may track lower as the Fed eases, as opposed to equities, where earnings may be challenged as growth slows. 

Second, lean into market moves that election outcomes could accelerate. For several months, Matt Hornbach and our interest rate strategy team have been calling for a steeper yield curve, driven by lower yields in shorter-maturity bonds. They have been guided by our economists’ steadfast view that the Fed would start cutting rates this year as inflation eases. We doubt that policies in Democratic win scenarios would change this trend, and a Republican win could accelerate it in the near term, as higher tariffs would imply pressure on growth and possibly further Fed dovishness. Pricing that path could steepen the yield curve further. 

And of course, there’s still several weeks before the election to get smart on the economic and market impacts of a range of election outcomes. We’ll keep you updated here. 

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our US Public Policy Strategist explains the potential impact of the upcoming presidential election on the healthcare sector, including whether the outcome is likely to drive a major policy shift.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley’s US Public Policy Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll focus on what the US election means for healthcare. 

It’s Tuesday, September 17th at 10am in New York. 

Around elections what we tend to see is voters rank healthcare pretty high among their priority list. And for that reason it’s not surprising that it generates significant debate as well as investor concern – about everything from drug pricing to potential sweeping reforms. We think that the 2024 election is unlikely to transform the US healthcare system. But there are still policies to watch that could change depending on the outcome. We outlined these in a recent note led by our equity research colleagues Erin Wright and Terence Flynn. 

To start, we think bipartisan policies should continue uninterrupted, regardless of the election outcome. Certain regulations requiring drug price and procedural transparency, for example, which affect hospitals and health plans, are unlikely to change if there is a shift of power next year. We’ve seen some regulations from the Trump era kept in place by the Biden administration; and similarly during the former president’s term there were attempts at bipartisan legislation to modify the Pharmacy Benefit Management model. 

There are some healthcare policies that could be changed through the tax code, including the extension of the COVID-era ACA subsidies. In President Biden’s fiscal year [20]25 budget request, he called for an extension of those enhanced subsidies; and Vice President Kamala Harris has proposed a similar measure. As we’ve said before on this podcast, we think tax policy will feature heavily in the next Congress as lawmakers contend with the expiring Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. So many of these policies could come into the fold in negotiations. 

Aside from these smaller potential policy changes, we think material differences to the healthcare system as we know it right now are a lower probability outcome. That’s because the creation of a new system - like Medicare for All or a Public Option - would require unified Democratic control of Congress, as well as party unanimity on these topics. Right now we see a dispersion among Democrats in terms of their views on this topic, and the presence of other more motivating issues for voters; mean[ing] that an overhaul of the current system is probably less likely. Similarly, in a Republican sweep scenario, we don't expect a successful repeal of the Affordable Care Act as was attempted in Trump’s first administration. 

The makeup of Congress certainly is important, but there are some actions that the President can leverage unilaterally to affect policy here. For example, former President Trump issued several executive orders addressing transparency and the PBM model. 

If we look at some key industries within Healthcare, our equity colleagues think Managed Care is well positioned heading into this relatively more benign election cycle. Businesses and investors are focusing on candidates' approaches to the Medicare Advantage program and the ACA Exchange, which has subsidies set to expire at the end of 2025. 

Relative to prior elections, Biopharma should see a lower level of uncertainty from a policy perspective given that the Inflation Reduction Act, or the IRA, in 2022 included meaningful drug pricing provisions. We also think a full-scale repeal of the IRA is unlikely, even in a Republican sweep scenario. So, expect some policy continuity there. 

Within Biotech, the path to rate cuts is likely a more significant driver of near-term Small and Mid-Cap sentiment rather than the 2024 election cycle. Our colleagues think that investors should keep an eye on two election-related factors that could possibly impact Biotech including potential changes to the IRA that may impact the sector and changes at the FTC, or the Federal Trade Commission, that could make the M&A environment more challenging. 

As always, we will continue to keep you abreast of new developments as the election gets closer. 

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

With the Federal Reserve poised to make its long-awaited rate cut this week, our CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist tells us why investors have pivoted their concerns from high inflation to slowing growth. 

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about what to expect as the Fed likely begins its long-awaited rate cutting cycle this week.  

It's Monday, Sept 16th at 10:30am in New York.

So let’s get after it.

After nearly 12 months of great anticipation, the Fed is very likely to start its rate  cutting cycle this week. The old adage that it is often easier to travel than arrive may apply as markets appear to have priced an aggressive Fed cutting cycle into the  middle of next year while assuming a soft-landing outcome for the economy.

More specifically, the two-year US Treasury yield is now 180 basis points below the Fed Funds Rate which is in line with the widest spread in 40 years, a level associated with a hard landing. This is the bond market's way of messaging to the Fed that they are late in getting started with rate cuts. This doesn't mean the Fed can't get ahead of it, but they may need to move faster to keep investors' hopes alive.

As a result, the odds of a 50 basis point cut have increased over the past week but it’s still well below a certainty. This is unusual going into an FOMC meeting and is setting markets up for a greater surprise either way. How the markets react to what the Fed does this week will have an even greater influence on investor sentiment than usual, in my view. Ideally, rates should rise at both the front and back end if the bond market likes the Fed’s actions because it signals they aren’t as far behind in trying to orchestrate a soft landing. Conversely, a fall in rates will be a vote of lower confidence. 

On the other side of the ledger, we have the equity market which appears to be highly convicted that the Fed has already secured the soft landing, at least at the index level. Today, the S&P 500 trades at 21x forward earnings, which also assumes a healthy path of 10 percent earnings growth in 2024 and 15 percent growth in 2025.  

Under the surface, the market has skewed much more defensively as it worries more about growth and less about high inflation. I have commented extensively in this podcast about this shift that started in April and why we have been persistently recommending defensive quality for months. With the significant outperformance of defensive sectors since April, the internals of the equity market may not be betting on a soft landing and reacceleration in growth as the S&P 500 index suggests.

Keep in mind that the S&P 500 is a defensive, high-quality index of stocks and so it typically  holds up better than most stocks as growth slows in a late cycle environment like  today. These growth concerns will likely persist unless the data turn around, irrespective of what the Fed does this week.

In the 11 Fed rate cutting cycles since 1973, eight were associated with recessions while only three were not. The performance over the following year was very mixed with half negative and half positive with a very wide but equal skew. Specifically, the average performance over the 12 months following the start of a Fed rate cutting cycle is 3.5 percent – or about half of the longer-term average returns. The best 12-month returns were 33 percent, while the worst was a negative 31 percent.  

Bottom line, it’s generally a toss-up at the index level. The analysis around style and sectors is clearer. Value tends to outperform growth into the first cut and underperform growth thereafter. Defensives tend to outperform cyclicals both before and after the cut. Large caps also tend to outperform small caps both before and after the first rate cut. These last two factor dynamics are supportive of our defensive and large cap bias as Fed cuts often come in a later cycle environment. It’s also why we are sticking with it. 

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

After sending global markets in a brief tailspin in early August, the Bank of Japan is once again the center of attention. Our Global Chief Economist and Chief Asia Economist discuss the central bank’s next steps to help ease volatility and inflation.

----- Transcript -----

Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist.

Chetan Ahya: And I'm Chetan Ahya, Chief Asia Economist.

Seth Carpenter: And on today's episode, Chetan and I are going to be discussing the Bank of Japan and the role it has been playing in recent market turmoil.

It's Friday, September 13th at 12.30pm in New York.

Chetan Ahya: And it's 5.30pm in London.

Seth Carpenter: Financial markets have been going back and forth for the past month or so, and a lot of what's been driving the market movements have been evolving expectations of what's going on at central banks. And right at the center of it has been the Bank of Japan, especially going back to their meeting at the very end of July.

So, Chetan, maybe you can just level set us about where things stand with the Bank of Japan right now? And how they've been communicating with markets?

Chetan Ahya: Well, I think what happened, Seth, is that Bank of Japan (BoJ) saw that there was a significant progress in inflation and wage growth dynamic. And with that they went out and told the markets that they wanted to start now increasing rate hikes. And at the same time, the end was weakening.

And to ensure that they kind of convey to the markets that they want to be now taking rates higher, the governor of the central bank came out and indicated that they are far away from neutral.

Now while that was having the desired effect of bringing the yen down, i.e. appreciated. But at the same time, it caused a significant volatility in the equity markets and make it more challenging for the BoJ.

Seth Carpenter: Okay, so I get that. But I would say the market knew for a long time that the Bank of Japan would be hiking. We've had that in our forecast for a while. So, do you think that Governor Ueda really meant to be quite so aggressive? That meeting and his comments subsequently really were part of the contribution to all of this market turmoil that we saw in August. So, do you think he meant to be so aggressive?

Chetan Ahya: Well, not really. I think that's the reason why what we saw is that a few days later, when the deputy governor Uchida was supposed to speak, he tried to walk back that hawkishness of the governor. And what was very interesting is that the deputy governor came out and indicated that they do care for financial conditions. And if the financial conditions move a lot, it will have an impact on growth and inflation; and therefore, conduct of monetary policy.

In that sense, they conveyed the endogeneity of financial conditions and their reaction function. So, I think since that point of time, the markets have had a little bit of reprieve that BoJ will not take up successive rate hikes, ignoring what happens to the financial conditions.

Seth Carpenter: But this does feel a little bit like some back and forth, and we've seen in the market that the yen is getting a little bit whipsawed; so the Bank of Japan wants to hike, and markets react strongly. And then the Bank of Japan comes out and says, ‘No, no, no, we're not going to hike that much,’ and markets relax a little bit. But maybe that relaxation allows them to hike more.

It kind of reminds me, I have to say, of the 2014 to 2015 period when the Federal Reserve was getting ready to raise interest rates for the first time off of the zero lower bound after the financial crisis. And, you know, markets reacted strongly -- when then chair Yellen started talking about hiking and because of the tightening of financial conditions, the Fed backed down.

But then because markets relaxed, the Fed started talking about hiking again. Do you think that's an apt comparison for what's going on now?

Chetan Ahya: Absolutely, Seth. I think it is exactly something similar that is going on with Bank of Japan.

Seth Carpenter: So, I guess the question then becomes, what happens next? We know with the Fed, they eventually did hike rates at the end of 2015. What do you think we're in line for with the Bank of Japan, and is it likely to be a bumpy ride in the future like it has been over the past couple months?

Chetan Ahya: Well, so I think as far as the market’s volatility is concerned, we do think that the fact that the BoJ has come out and indicated that their reaction function is such that they do care about financial conditions. Hopefully we should not see the same kind of volatility that we saw at the start of the month of August.

But as far as the next steps are concerned, we do see BoJ taking up one more rate hike in January 2025. And there is a risk that they might take up that rate hike in December.

But the reason why we think that they will be able to take up one more rate hike is the fact that there is continued progress on wage growth and inflation; and wage growth is the most important variable that BoJ is tracking.

We just got the last month's wage growth number. It has risen up to 3 percent. And going forward, we think that as the BoJ gets comfort that next year's wage negotiations are also heading in the right direction, they will be able to take one more rate hike in January 2025.

Well, Seth, I think, you know, when we are talking about this volatility that we saw in the financial markets and particularly yen, the other side of this story is what the Fed has to do, and what is Fed indicating in terms of its policy path. And we saw that, after the nonfarm payrolls data, Governor Waller was indicating that the Fed could consider front-loading its rate cuts. What are your thoughts on that?

Seth Carpenter: So, we do think the Fed's getting ready to start cutting rates. Our baseline is that they move at 25 increments per meeting, from now through the middle of next year. I would take Governor Waller's comments though about front-loading cuts -- which I took to mean, you know, the possibility of 50 basis point rate moves -- very much in context, and with a grain of salt.

When he gave that speech, I think what he was trying to do, and I think the last paragraph of that speech really bears it out. He was saying there's a lot of uncertainty here. He said, if the data suggests that they need to front load rates, then he would advocate for it. But he also said that, if the data implied that they need to cut at consecutive meetings, he'd be in favor of that as well. So, he was saying that the data are going to be the thing that drives the policy decisions.

But thanks for asking that question. And thanks to the listeners. If you enjoy this podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.

Our Head of Corporate Credit Research looks at the Fed’s approach to rate cuts, seasonal trends and the US election to explain why the next month represents a crucial window for credit’s future. 

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss why the next month is a critical window for credit.

It's Thursday, September 12th at 9am in New York. 

We’ve liked corporate credit as an asset class this year and think the outlook over the next 6-12 months remains promising. At a high level, credit likes moderation, and that continues to be exactly what Morgan Stanley’s economists are forecasting; with moderate growth, moderate inflation, and moderating policy in the US and Europe. Meanwhile, at the ground level, corporate balance sheets are in good shape, and demand for fixed income remains strong, dynamics that we think are unlikely to shift quickly. 

But this good credit story is now facing a critical window. As we’ve discussed recently on this program, the Fed has taken a risk with monetary policy, continuing to keep interest rates elevated despite increasing indications that they should be lower. U.S. inflation has been coming down rapidly, to the point where the market now thinks the rate of inflation over the next two years will be below what the Fed is targeting. The labor market is slowing, and government bond markets are now assuming that the Fed will have to make much more significant adjustments to policy. 

And so, this becomes a race. If the economic data can hold up for the next few months, while the Fed does make those first gradual rate cuts, it will help reassure markets that monetary policy is reasonable and in-line with the underlying economy. But if the data weakens more now, the market is vulnerable. Monetary policy works with a lag, meaning rate cuts are not going to help anytime soon. And so, it becomes easier for the market to worry that growth is slowing too much, and that the cavalry of rate cuts will be too late to arrive. 

The second immediate challenge is so-called seasonality. Over almost a century, September has seen significantly weaker performance relative to any other month. Seasonality always has an element of mysticism to it, but in terms of specific reasons why markets tend to struggle around this time of year, we’d point to two factors. First, after a summer lull, you tend to see a lot of issuance, including corporate bonds issuance. And for Equities, September often sees more negative earnings revisions, as companies aim to bring full-year estimates in line with reality. Lots of supply and weaker earnings revisions are often a tough combination. 

A final element of this critical window is the approaching US election. This appears to be an extremely close race between candidates with very different policy priorities. If investors get more nervous that monetary policy is mis-calibrated, or seasonality is unhelpful, the approaching election provides yet another reason for investors to hold back. 

All of this is why we think the next month is a critical window for credit, and why we’d exercise a little bit more caution than we have so far this year. But we also think any weakness is going to be temporary. By early November, the US election will be over, and we think growth will be holding up, inflation will keep coming down, and interest rate cuts will be well underway. And while September is historically a bad month for stocks and credit, late-October onward is a different and much better story. Any near-term softness could still give way to a stronger finish to the year. 

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Office buildings continue to struggle in the post-pandemic era, but our Chief Fixed Income Strategist notes that other properties have turned a corner. 

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about how the challenges facing the US commercial real estate markets have evolved and talk about where they are headed next.

It's Wednesday, Sep 11th at 10 am in New York.

Over the last year and half, the challenges of commercial real estate, or CRE in short, have been periodically in the spotlight. The last time we discussed this issue here was in the first quarter of this year. That was in the aftermath of loan losses announced by a regional bank that primarily focused on rent-stabilized multifamily and CRE lending in the New York metropolitan area. At the same time, lenders and investors in Japan, Germany and Canada also reported sizable credit losses and write-down related to US commercial real estate.

At that time, we had said that CRE issues should be scrutinized through the lenses of lenders and property types; and that saw meaningful challenges in both – in particular, regional banks as lenders and office as a property type.

Rolling the calendar forward, where do things stand now?

Focusing on the lenders first, there is some good news. While regional bank challenges from their CRE exposures have not gone away, they are not getting any worse. That means incremental reserves for CRE losses have been below what we had feared. Our economists’ expectations of Fed’s rate cuts on the back of their soft-landing thesis, gives us the conviction that lower rates should be an incremental benefit from a credit quality perspective for banks because it alleviates pressure on debt service coverage ratios for borrowers. Lower rates also give banks more room to work with their borrowers for longer by providing extensions. For banks, this means while CRE net charge-offs could rise in the near term, they are likely to stabilize in 2025.

In other words, even though the fundamental deterioration in terms of the level of delinquencies and losses may be ahead, the rate of change seems to have clearly turned. In that sense, as long as the rate cuts that we anticipate materialize, the worst of the CRE issues for regional banks may now be behind us.

From the lens of property types, it is important not to paint all property types with the same brushstroke of negativity. Office lots remain the pain point. Looking at the payoff rates in CMBS pools gives us a granular look at the performance across different property types.

Overall, 76 per cent of the CRE loans that matured over the past 12 months paid off, which is a pretty healthy rate. However, in office loans, the payoff rate was just 43 per cent. Other property types were clearly much better. For example, 100 per cent of industrial property loans, 96 per cent of multi-family loans, 89 per cent of hotel loans that matured in the last 12 months paid off. The payoff rates in retail property loans were a bit lower but still pretty healthy at 76 per cent, in clear contrast to office properties. Delinquency rates across property types also show a similar trend with office loans driving the lion’s share of the overall increase in delinquencies.

In short, the secular headwinds facing the office market have not dissipated. Office property valuations, leasing arrangements and financing structures must adjust to the post-pandemic realities of office work. While this shift has begun, more is needed. So, there is really no quick resolution for these challenges which we think are likely to persist. This is especially true in central business district offices that require significant capex for upgrades or repurposing for use as residential housing.

Overall, we stick to our contention that commercial real estate risks present a persistent challenge but are unlikely to become systemic for the economy. 

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen to this and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

With the generational shift in the US housing market underway, our analysts discuss the impact this trend will have on residential real estate investing.

----- Transcript -----

Ron Kamdem: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ron Kamdem, head of Commercial Real Estate Research and the US Real Estate Investment Trust team within Morgan Stanley Research.

Lauren Hochfelder: And I'm Lauren Hochfelder, Co-Chief Executive Officer of Morgan Stanley Real Estate Investing, the global private real estate investment arm of the firm.

Ron Kamdem: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we’ll discuss the tangible impact of shifting demographics on the residential real estate investing space.

It's Tuesday, September 10th at 10 am in New York.

So, Lauren, for several years now, we've been hearing about millennials overtaking the baby boomers. As a reminder, millennials are people between the age of 28 and 43. So someone like me. And there’s about 72 million millennials right now. Baby boomers are around 59 to 78; and there's about 69 million at the moment. This demographic shift will have a profound impact on all sectors of the economy, including residential housing. So, let's lay the foundation first. What are the current needs of baby boomers and millennials when it comes to their homes?

Lauren Hochfelder: Yeah, this is such an interesting moment, Ron, because as you say, their needs are shifting. Over the last 15 years, what have millennials wanted? They have wanted multifamily. They have wanted rental apartment units. And by the way, they've wanted, generally speaking, small ones in cities.

Ron Kamdem: Yup.

Boomers? They have been disproportionately residing in single family homes that they own, and that they've owned for a long time. But here we are, as millennials reach peak household formation years and boomers approach their 80-year-old mark. There's a real shift.

We have millennials growing up and growing out, and boomers growing older. And that means millennials need more space; boomers need more services. Housing with increased care options. And that really leads to three things.

One, pockets of oversupply of multifamily. Developers develop to the rearview mirror; and we have way too much of what they wanted yesterday and too little of what they wanted to what they want tomorrow. The second is increased demand for single family rental in more suburban locations to meet the needs of those millennials. And the third is increased demand for senior housing for the boomers.

Ron Kamdem: Excellent. So, when we look at the next five to ten years, let's consider each of these generations. Demand for senior housing is increasing significantly. Where are we in this process, and what's your expectation for the next decade?

Lauren Hochfelder: Look, we think this is the golden age for senior housing. The demand wave is upon us, supply is way down. And by the way, labor costs, which have been a real headwind, are finally abating. New construction of senior housing has basically fallen off a cliff. It is down 75 per cent from its peak; if you look at the first quarter of this year, it's basically at GFC levels. And third, the senior wealth effect. Not only do seniors need this product, they can afford it.

They have been in those homes, they've owned those homes for a very long time, and over that period, home prices have appreciated. So, seniors are in a position where they can really afford to move into these senior living facilities.

Ron Kamdem: And what about millennials? As they get older, how are their housing needs evolving?

Lauren Hochfelder: I'd say three things. It's they need more space. So single family rental versus multifamily. The second is migratory shifts, right? It's no longer -- I have to live in San Francisco or New York. You're seeing real growth in the southeast and Texas. And the third is this preference to rent. Now, a lot of that's affordability driven.

Ron Kamdem: Right.

Lauren Hochfelder: But I think there's also mobility. There's just general preference. I mean, this is a generation that doesn't own a landline, right? So, they want to rent. They don't want to buy.

Ron Kamdem: So, given these trends as an actual real estate investor, how do you view the supply and demand dynamics within residential investing? And where do you see the biggest opportunities?

Lauren Hochfelder: Look, I think housing in general is attractive to invest in. There's simply too little of it. But you really can't paint a broad brush. You need to invest in the type of housing with the best outlook. And you and I can sit here and debate what's going to happen with interest rates. But what is not debatable is that these two large age groups are going to drive demand disproportionately.

And so rather than speculating on interest rates, let's calculate the number of people in these generations. And so that means that we want to invest in single family. We want to invest in seniors housing, and we want to invest in the markets where these groups want to live.

So, let's turn it around. We've been talking about this growing senior population and, you know, we and my side of the business. We've been investing in a lot of senior housing communities. But how does this affect your world? You cover the entire US public real estate investment trust universe. How are you thinking about these things?

Ron Kamdem: So, our investors are really focused on secular trends that they can invest over a long period of time. And there's really two that I would like to call out. So, the first is the rise of senior housing communities.

As you mentioned earlier, if you think about the US population, the population that's 65 and over is really the addressable market. And we do expect that number to rise to about 21 per cent of the population or 71 million people.

Lauren Hochfelder: So, think about one in four people being eligible or appropriate for senior housing. It's amazing.

Ron Kamdem: That’s an incredible demand function.

Now, the second piece of it is historically these seniors have actually shied away from senior housing. So, the first sort of trend and inflection point that I want to call out is we do think there's an opportunity for penetration race -- not only to flatten out, but to start increasing. And that's driven exactly by your earlier comment, which is affordability. Remember, about 75 per cent of seniors actually own their own homes, and they've seen a significant amount of price appreciation. Since 2010, their home prices have gone up 80 per cent, which is about two times the rate of inflation.

Second investable trend is the move of outpatient services outside of the hospital setting. So, if you go back to the eighties, only about 16 per cent of services were being done outside of the hospital. In 2020, that number was close to 68 per cent and we think that's going to keep rising. The reason being because of surgical advances, there's a lot of projects that can be done outside of the hospital. Whether it's, you know, knee replacements, trigger finger surgery, cataract surgeries, and so forth. In addition to that, the expansion of Medicare coverage has allowed for reimbursement of these services, again, outside of the hospital.

So, we think these are trends that are in place that should continue over the next sort of decade and drive more demand to the healthcare real estate space.

Lauren Hochfelder: So, what should we be nervous about? What concerns you?

Ron Kamdem: Look, I think on the senior housing side, there's always two factors that we focus on. So, the first is labor. This remains a very labor-intensive industry. But in the US, historically, people coming out of college, they're not necessarily going into the health care space. So, there's been moments of labor shortages. This happened exactly after the pandemic. Luckily, today, the labor situation has abated and you're seeing sort of labor costs back to inflationary type levels.

The second piece of it is just the age of the facilities. Now, keep in mind, there's still a lot of facilities with the average age of about 41, right. And everybody has in the back of their mind, these older facilities with older carpets and so forth. So, when we're thinking about investing in the space, we're always focused on the newer assets, the better quality that are going to provide a better experience for the tenant.

Lauren Hochfelder: So, given these shifts, what segments of your world are poised to benefit the most?

Ron Kamdem: The real estate public market, there's about 160 REITs across 16 different subsectors; and the senior housing subsector is by far the most compelling in our minds. If you think about the REIT market, the average sort of earnings growth is 3 to 4 per cent. However, the senior housing sector, we think you can get 10 per cent or more growth over the next three to five years. The reason being when the pandemic hit, this was an industry that saw occupancy go from 90 per cent to 75 per cent.

There was a moment in time where people thought you'd never put any seniors in the facility again. Well, the exact opposite has happened, and now we're seeing occupancy gains of about 300 basis points of about 3 per cent every year. On top of some pricing power, call it 5, 6 or 7 per cent. So, we're looking at a sector where we think organically you can grow sort of high single digits. With a little bit of operating leverage, you can get to a total earning growth of double digits, which is very compelling relative to the rest of the REIT market.

Lauren Hochfelder: Let's go back to your generation, as you said. Let's go back to the millennials. How do those shifting needs affect which part of the universe you would invest in?

Ron Kamdem: One of the things that I think every real estate owner’s thinking about is how to integrate their platform so that they're more millennial friendly. They're going online. They're using their phones, and I think we're seeing a much bigger investment in marketing dollars on a web presence, on a web platform, and on a mobile friendly app, certainly to be able to interface with that millennial and help with customer acquisitions.

So, I would say that's probably the biggest difference -- is how you target that population in a different way than you did historically.

Lauren Hochfelder: Yeah, I mean we all shop online, shouldn't we get our homes online, right?

Ron Kamdem: That's right. All right, Lauren. Well, thanks for taking the time to talk.

Lauren Hochfelder: Yeah, this been great, Ron. I always enjoy us catching up.

Ron Kamdem: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen. It helps more people to find the show.

*****

Lauren Hochfelder is not a member of Morgan Stanley’s Research department. Unless otherwise indicated, her views are her own and may differ from the views of the Morgan Stanley Research department and from the views of others within Morgan Stanley.

Following weaker-than-expected August jobs data, our CIO and Chief U.S Equity Strategist lays out how the Federal Reserve can ease concerns about a possible hard landing.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the labor market’s impact on equity markets.

It's Monday, Sept 9th at 11:30am in New York. So let’s get after it.

Last week, I wrote a detailed note discussing the importance of the labor data for equity markets. Importantly, I pointed out that since the materially weaker than expected July labor report, the S&P 500 has bounced more than other "macro" markets like rates, currencies and commodities. In the absence of a reacceleration in the labor data, we concluded the S&P 500 was trading out of sync with the fundamentals. 

Over the past week, we received several labor market data points, which were weaker than expected. First, the Job Openings data for July was softer than expected coming in at 7.7mm versus the consensus expectation of 8.1mm. In addition, June's initial result was revised lower by 274k. This essentially supported the view that the weak payrolls data in July may, in fact, not be related to weather or other temporary issues. 

Second, the job openings rate fell to 4.6%, which is very close to the 4.5% level Fed Governor Waller has cited as a threshold below which the unemployment rate could rise much faster. Third, the Fed's Beige Book came out last week. It indicated that activity remains sluggish with 9 of the 12 Federal Reserve districts reporting flat or declining activity in August, though commentary on labor markets was more neutral, rather than negative. These data sync nicely with the Conference Board’s Employment Trends Index, which I find to be a very objective aggregate measure of the labor market's direction. This morning, we received the latest release for August Conference Board labor market trends and the trend remains down, but not necessarily recessionary. 

Of course, the main event last week was Friday's monthly jobs and unemployment reports, where the payroll survey number came in below consensus at 142k. In addition, last month's result was revised lower from 114k to 89k. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate fell by only a couple of basis points leaving investors unconvinced that July’s labor weakness was overstated. 

Given much of these labor and other growth data have continued to skew to the downside, the macro markets (like rates, currencies, and Commodities) have been trading with more concern about potential hard landing risks. Perhaps nowhere is this more obvious than with 2-year US Treasuries. As of Friday, the spread between the 2-year Treasury yields and the Fed Funds Rate matched the widest levels in the past 40 years. This pricing suggests the bond market believes the Fed is behind the curve from an easing standpoint. On Friday, the equity market started to get in sync with this view and questioned whether a 25bp cut in September would be an adequate policy response to the labor data. In the context of an equity market that is still quite rich and based on well above average earnings growth assumptions, the correction on Friday seems quite appropriate. 

In my view, until the bond market starts to believe the Fed is no longer behind the curve, labor data reverses course and improves materially or additional policy stimulus is introduced, it will be difficult for equity markets to trade with a more risk on tone. This means valuations are likely to remain challenged for the overall index, while the leadership remains more defensive and in line with our sector and stock recommendations. We see two ways in which the Fed can get ahead of the curve—either faster cutting than expected which is unlikely in the absence of recessionary data; or the labor data starts to improve in a convincing manner and 2-year yields rise. Given the Fed is in the blackout period until next week’s FOMC meeting, and there are not any major labor data reports due for almost a month, volatility will likely remain elevated and valuations under pressure overall. This all brings our previously discussed fair value range for the S&P 500 of 5000-5400 back into view.

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Head of Corporate Credit Research, Andrew Sheets, expects a sticky but shallow cycle for defaults on loans, with solid quality overall in high-grade credit.

----- Transcript -----

Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss some longer-term thoughts on the credit market and the economic cycle.

It's Friday, September 6th at 2pm in London.

Concerns around US growth have risen, an issue that will probably persist even after today’s US Payrolls report came roughly inline with expectations. At Morgan Stanley, we continue to expect moderate slowing in growth, not a slump. By the middle of next year, our economists see growth slowing to a still respectable 2% growth rate, and a total of seven rate cuts.

While growth is set to slow, we think corporate balance sheet metrics are unusually good in the face of this slowing. Indeed, the credit quality of the US investment grade and BB credit markets, which represent the vast majority of corporate credit outstanding, have actually improved since the Fed started hiking rates.

Now, looking ahead, there's understandable concern that these currently good credit metrics won't be sustainable as companies will have to refinance the very cheap borrowing that they received immediately after COVID, with the more expensive costs of today's currently higher yields. But we actually think balance sheets will be reasonably robust in light of this reset, and so their ultimate rate sensitivity could be relatively low.

One reason is that a wave of refinancing means companies have already tackled a significant portion of their upcoming debt, reducing the so-called rollover or refinancing risk. Interest coverage for floating rate borrowers has stabilized and should actually improve as the Fed starts to lower rates.

The debt service costs for higher rated companies will increase as cheaper debt matures and has to be replaced with more expensive borrowing; but we stressed this is a pretty slow process given the long-term nature of a lot of this borrowing. And so, overall, we think the headwinds from higher debt costs are going to be manageable, with the problems largely confined to a smaller cohort of the lowest quality issuers.

We think all of that will drive a so-called sticky but shallow default cycle, with defaults driven by higher borrowing costs at select issuers rather than a single problem sector or particularly poor corporate earnings. And there are also some important offsets. Morgan Stanley's forecast suggests that the Fed will be cutting rates, which will reduce overall borrowing costs over the medium term. And another notable theme over the last two years is that more defaults have been becoming so-called restructurings rather than bankruptcies. These restructurings are more likely to leave a company operating -- just under new ownership -- and create less negative feedback into the real economy.

Now, against all this, we're mindful that credit spreads are tight, i.e. lower than average. But importantly, we don't think this reflects some sort of euphoria from either the lenders or the borrowers.

All-in borrowing costs for corporates remain high, and that's made corporates less likely to be aggressive or increase their leverage. Indeed, since COVID, the overall high yield bond and loan markets have actually shrunk. Leverage buyout activity has been muted and corporate leverage has gone sideways.

These are not the types of things you see when corporates are being particularly aggressive and credit unfriendly. Credit markets love moderation and that's very much what Morgan Stanley's economic forecasts over the medium term expect. Spreads may be tight. But we think they're currently supported by strong fundamentals, modest supply, and improving technicals.

Today's roughly inline payroll number won’t resolve the uncertainty around growth, but longer term, we think the picture remains encouraging.

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our US Public Policy and Global Commodities strategists discuss how the outcome of the election could affect energy markets in the US and around the world.

----- Transcript -----

Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's US public policy strategist.

Martijn Rats: And I'm Martijn Rats, Global Commodity Strategist.

Ariana Salvatore: Today we'll be talking about a topic that's coming into sharper focus this fall. How will the US presidential election shape energy policy and global energy markets?

It's Thursday, September 5th at 10am in New York.

Martijn Rats: And 3pm in London.

Ariana Salvatore: As we enter the final leg of the US presidential campaign, Harris and Trump are getting ready to go head-to-head on a number of key topics. Healthcare, housing, the state of the economy, foreign policy; and also high on the agenda -- energy policy.

So, Martijn, let's set the stage here. Prices at the gas pump in the US have been falling over recent weeks, which is atypical in the summer. What's happening in energy markets right now? And what's your expectation for the rest of the year?

Martijn Rats: Yeah, it's a relevant question. Oil prices have been quite volatile recently. I would say that objectively, if you look at the market for crude oil, the crude oil market is tight right now. We can see that in inventories, for example, they are buying large drawing, which tell[s] you, the demand is outstripping supply.

But there are two things to say about the tightness in the crude oil market. First of all, we're not quite seeing that tightness merit in the markets for refined products. So, get the market for gasoline, the market for diesel, et cetera. At the moment, the global refining system is running quite hard.

But they're also producing a lot of refined product. A lot of gasoline, a lot of diesel. They're pushing that to their customers. Demand is absorbing that, but not quite in a convincing manner. And you can see that in refining margins. They have been steadily trending down all summer.

The second thing to say about the tightness and crude is that it's largely driven by a set of factors that will likely to be somewhat temporary. Seasonally demand is at its strongest -- that helps. The OPEC deal is still in place. And as far as we can see in high frequency data, OPEC is still constraining production.

And then thirdly, production has been growing in a number of non-OPEC countries. But that absent flows and the last couple of months have seen somewhat of a flat spot in non-OPEC supply growth.

Now, those factors have created the tightness that we're seeing currently in the third quarter. But if you start to think about the oil market rolling into the fourth quarter and eventually 2025, a lot of these things going to reverse. The seasonal demand tailwinds that we are currently enjoying; they turn into seasonal demand headwinds in four q[uarter]and one q[uarter] -- seasonally weaker quarters of the year. Non-OPEC production will likely resume its upward trajectory based on the modeling of projects that we've done. That seems likely. And then OPEC has also said that they will start growing production again with the start of the fourth quarter.

Now, when you put that all together, the market is in deficit now. It will return to a broadly balanced state in the fourth quarter, but then into a surplus in 2025. Prices look a little into the future. They discount the future a little bit

Now, as the US election approaches, investors are increasingly concerned how a Trump versus Harris win would affect energy policy and markets going forward. Ariana, how much and what kind of authority does the US president actually have in terms of energy policy? Can you run us through that?

Ariana Salvatore: Presidential authorities with respect to energy policy are actually relatively limited. But they can be impactful at the margin over time. What we tend to see actually is that production and investment levels are reasonably insulated from federal politics.

Only about 25 per cent of oil and 10 per cent of natural gas is produced on federal land and waters in the US. You also have this timing factor. So, a lot of these changes are really only incremental; and while they can affect levels at the margin, there's a lag between when that policy is announced and when it could actually flow through in terms of actual changes to supply levels. For example, when we think of things like permitting reform, deregulation and environmental review periods and leasing of federal lands, these are all policy options that do not have immediate impacts; and many times will span across different presidential administrations.

So, you might expect that if a new president comes into office, he or she could reverse many of the executive actions taken by his or her predecessor with respect to this policy area.

Martijn Rats: And what have Trump and Harris each said so far about energy policy?

Ariana Salvatore: So, I would say this topic has been less prevalent in Harris's campaign, unless we're talking about it in the context of the energy transition overall. She hasn't laid out yet specific policy plans when it comes to energy; but we think it's safe to assume that you could see her maintain a lot of the Biden administration's clean energy goals and the continued rollout of bills like the Inflation Reduction Act, which contained a whole host of energy tax credits toward those ends.

Now, conversely, Trump has focused on this a lot because he's been tying energy supply to inflation, making the case that we can lower inflation and everyday costs by drilling more. His policy platform, and that of the GOP has been to increase energy production across the board. Mainly done by streamlining, permitting and loosening restrictions on oil, natural gas, and coal.

Now, to what I said before, some of that can be accomplished unilaterally through the executive branch. But other times it might require the consent of Congress, and consent from states -- because sometimes these permitting lines cross state borders.

So, Martijn, from your side, how quickly can US policy, whether it's driven by Trump or Harris, affect energy markets and change production levels and therefore supply?

Martijn Rats: Yeah, like you just outlined, the answer to that question is only gradually. Regulation is important, but economics are more important. If you roll the clock back to, say, early 2021, when President Biden has just took office; on day one, he famously canceled the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline.

But if you now look back, at the last four years, start to finish; American oil production, grew more under Biden, than any other president in the history of the United States. With the exception of Obama, who, of course, enjoyed the start of the shale revolution.

Production is close, to record levels, which were set just before COVID, of course. So, in the end, the measures that President Biden put in place, have had only a very limited impact on oil production. The impact that the American president can have is only -- it's only gradual.

Ariana Salvatore: So, as we've mentioned, expanding energy development has been a massive plank of Trump's campaign platform. And listeners will also remember that during his term in office, he supported energy development on federal land. If Trump wins in November, what would it mean for oil supply and demand both in the US and globally?

Martijn Rats: Admittedly, it's somewhat of a confusing picture. So, if you look at oil supply, you have to split it in perhaps a domestic impact and an international impact. Domestically, Donald Trump has famously said recently that he would return the oil industry to “Drill baby drill,” which is this, this shorthand metaphor for, abundant drilling in an effort to significantly accelerate oil production.

But as just mentioned, there is little to be unleashed because during President Biden, the American oil industry hasn't really been constrained in the first place.

A lot of American EMP companies are focused on capital discipline. They're focused on returns on free cashflow on shareholder distributions. With that come constraints to capital expenditure budgets that probably were not in place several years ago with those CapEx constraints, production can only grow so fast.

That is a matter of shareholder preference. That is a matter of returns. And regulation can change that a little bit, but not so much.

If you look at the perspective outside the United States, it is also worth mentioning that in the first Trump presidency, President Trump famously put secondary sanctions on the export of crude oil from Iran. At the time that significantly constrained crude oil supply from Iran, which in 2018 played a key role in driving oil prices higher.

Now, it's an open question, whether that policy can be repeated. The flow of oil around the world has changed since then. Iranian oil isn't quite going to the same customers as it did back then. So, whether that policy can be replicated, remains to be seen. But whilst the domestic perspective -- i.e. an attempt to grow production -- could be interpreted as a potential bearish factor for the price of oil, the risk of sanctions outside the United States could be interpreted as a potential bullish risk for oil.

And this is, I think, also why the oil market struggles to incorporate the risks around the presidential election so much. At the moment, we're simply confronted with a set of factors. Some of them bearish, some of them bullish, but it remains hard to see exactly which one of them played out. And, at the moment they don't have a particular skew in one direction.

So, we're just confronted with options, but little direction.

Ariana Salvatore: Makes sense. So, I think that makes this definitely a policy area that we'll be paying very close attention to this fall. I suppose we'll also both be tuning into the upcoming debate, where we might get a better sense of both sides policy plans. If we do learn anything that changes our views, we'll be sure to let you know.

Martijn, thanks for taking the time to talk

Martijn Rats: Great speaking with you, Ariana.

Ariana Salvatore: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Despite a flurry of election news, little may have changed for investors weighing the possible outcomes. Our Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research, Michael Zezas, explains why this is the case as we move closer to Election Day.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about recent developments in the US election.

It's Wednesday, September 4th at 10:30am in New York. 

While news headlines might make it seem a lot has changed in recent weeks around the US election, in our view not much has changed at all. And that’s important for investors to understand as they navigate markets between now and Election Day on November 5th. Let me explain. 

In recent weeks, we've had the Democratic convention, fresh polls, and a third party candidate withdraw from the race and endorse former President Trump. But all appear to reflect only marginal impacts on the probabilities of different electoral outcomes. 

Take the withdrawal of independent candidate Robert F Kennedy Junior, which does not appear to be a game changer. Historical precedent is that third party candidates rarely have a path to even winning one state's electoral votes. Further, in polls voters tend to overstate their willingness to support third parties ahead of election day. And it's also not clear that Kennedy withdrawing clearly benefits Democrats or Republicans.  

Kennedy originally ran for President as a Democrat, and so was thought to be pulling from likely Democratic voters. However, polls suggest his supporter’s next most likely choice was nearly split between Trump and Harris.  

So while it’s possible that Kennedy’s decision to endorse Trump upon dropping out could be meaningful, given how close the race is, we’re unlikely to be able to observe that potentially marginal but meaningful effect until after the election has passed. And such effects could easily be offset by small shifts favoring Democrats, who are showing some polling resiliency in states where just a couple months ago the election was not assumed by experts to be close.  

For example, Cook Political Report, a site providing non-partisan election analysis, shifted its assessment of the Presidential election outcome in North Carolina from “lean Republican” to a “toss-up.” Similarly, in recent weeks the site has shifted states like Arizona, Nevada, and Georgia into that same category from “lean Republican.” These shifts are mirrored in several other polls released last week showing a close race in the battleground states. 

So, for all the changes and developments in the last week, we think we’re left with a Presidential race that’s difficult to view as anything other than a tossup. To borrow a term from the world of sport – it’s a game of inches. Small improvements for either side can be decisive, but as observers we may not be able to see them ahead of time.  

And so that brings us back to our guidance for investors navigating the run up to the election. Let the democratic process unfold and don’t make any major portfolio shifts until more is known about the outcome. That means the economic cycle will drive markets more than the election cycle in the next couple months. 

In our view, that favors bonds over stocks. Lower inflation enables easier monetary policy and lower interest rates, good for bond prices; but growth concerns should weigh on equities.  

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

While venture capital is taking a more cautionary approach with crypto startups, the buzz around GenAI is only increasing.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ed Stanley, Morgan Stanley’s Head of Thematic Research in Europe. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I’ll discuss what private markets can tell us about the viability and investability of disruptive technologies. 

It’s Tuesday, the 3rd of September, at 2pm in London. 

For the past three years we have been tracking venture capital funding to help stay one step ahead of emerging technologies and the companies that are aiming to disrupt incumbent public leaders. Private growth equity markets are -- by their very definition – long-duration, and therefore highly susceptible to interest rate cycles. 

The easy-money bubble of 2021 and [20]22 saw venture funding reach nearly $1.2trillion dollars – more than the previous decade of funding combined. However, what goes up often comes down; and since their peak, venture growth equity capital deployment has fallen by over 60 percent, as interest rates have ratcheted ever higher beyond 5 percent. 

So as interest rates fall back towards 3.5 percent, which our economists expect to happen over the coming 12 months, we expect M&A and IPO exit bottlenecks to ease. And so too the capital deployment and fundraising environment to improve. 

However, the current funding market and its recovery over the coming months and years looks more imbalanced, in our view, than at any point since the Internet era. Having seen tens- and hundreds of billions of dollars poured into CleanTech and health innovations and battery start-ups when capital was free; that has all but turned to a trickle now. On the other end of the spectrum, AI start-ups are now receiving nearly half of all venture capital funding in 2024 year-to-date. 

Nowhere is that shift in investment priorities more pronounced than in the divergence between AI and crypto startups. Over the last decade, $79billion has been spent by venture capitalists trying to find the killer app in crypto – from NFTs to gaming; decentralized finance. As little as three years ago, start-ups building blockchain applications could depend on a near 1-for-1 correlation of funding for their projects with crypto prices. Now though, despite leading crypto prices only around 10 percent below their 2021 peak, funding for blockchain start-ups has fallen by 75 percent. 

Blockchain has a product-market-fit and a repeat-user problem. GenerativeAI, on the other hand, does not. Both consumer and enterprise adoption levels are high and rising. Generative AI has leap-frogged crypto in all user metrics we track and in a fraction of the time. And capital providers are responding accordingly. Investors have pivoted en-masse towards funding AI start-ups – and we see no reason why that would stop. 

The same effect is also happening in physical assets and in the publicly traded space. Our colleague Stephen Byrd, for example, has been advocating for some time that it makes increasing financial sense for crypto miners to repurpose their infrastructure into AI training facilities. Many of the publicly listed crypto miners are doing similar maths and coming to the same outcome. 

For now though, just as questions are being asked of the listed companies, and what the return on invested capital is for all this AI infrastructure spend; so too in private markets, one must ask the difficult question of whether this unprecedented concentration around finding and funding AI killer apps will be money well spent or simply a replay of recent crypto euphoria. It is still not clear where most value is likely to accrue to – across the 3000 odd GenerativeAI start-ups vying for funding. 

But history tells us the application layer should be the winner. For now though, from our work, we see three likely power-law candidates. The first is breakthroughs in semiconductors and data centre efficiency technologies. The second is in funding foundational model builders. And the third, specifically in that application layer, we think the greatest chance is in the healthcare application space. 

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

*****

Digital assets, sometimes known as cryptocurrency, are a digital representation of a value that function as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, or a store of value, but generally do not have legal tender status. Digital assets have no intrinsic value and there is no investment underlying digital assets. The value of digital assets is derived by market forces of supply and demand, and is therefore more volatile than traditional currencies’ value. Investing in digital assets is risky, and transacting in digital assets carries various risks, including but not limited to fraud, theft, market volatility, market manipulation, and cybersecurity failures—such as the risk of hacking, theft, programming bugs, and accidental loss. Additionally, there is no guarantee that any entity that currently accepts digital assets as payment will do so in the future. The volatility and unpredictability of the price of digital assets may lead to significant and immediate losses. It may not be possible to liquidate a digital assets position in a timely manner at a reasonable price.

Regulation of digital assets continues to develop globally and, as such, federal, state, or foreign governments may restrict the use and exchange of any or all digital assets, further contributing to their volatility. Digital assets stored online are not insured and do not have the same protections or safeguards of bank deposits in the US or other jurisdictions. Digital assets can be exchanged for US dollars or other currencies, but are not generally backed nor supported by any government or central bank.

Before purchasing, investors should note that risks applicable to one digital asset may not be the same risks applicable to other forms of digital assets. Markets and exchanges for digital assets are not currently regulated in the same manner and do not provide the customer protections available in equities, fixed income, options, futures, commodities or foreign exchange markets. 

Morgan Stanley and its affiliates do business that may relate to some of the digital assets or other related products discussed in Morgan Stanley Research. These could include market making, providing liquidity, fund management, commercial banking, extension of credit, investment services and investment banking.

Original Release Date August 8, 2024: Our Head of Europe Sustainability Research discusses how rising longevity is revolutionizing our fundamental approach from reactive to proactive treatment.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Mike Canfield, Morgan Stanley’s European Head of Sustainability Research. Along with my colleagues, we’re bringing you a variety of perspectives; and today we’re focusing on a topic that affects everyone – how much does poor health cost us? And how are ageing populations and longer life expectancy driving a fundamental shift in healthcare? 

It’s Thursday, August the 8th, at 4pm in London.   

As populations age across the developed world, health systems need to help people live both longer and healthier. The current system is typically built around to focus on acute conditions and it’s more reactive; so it introduces clinical care or drugs to respond to a condition after it’s already arisen, rather than keeping people healthy in the first instance. So increasingly, with the burden of chronic disease becoming by far the greatest health and economic challenge we face, we need to change the structure of the healthcare system. 

Essentially, the key question is how much is poor health amongst the ageing population really costing society? To get a true sense of that, we need to keep in mind that workers over 50 already earn one out of every three dollars across the G20 regions. By 2035, they're projected to generate nearly 40 per cent of all household income. So with that in mind, preventable conditions amongst those people aged 50-64 at the moment, are already costing G20 economies over $1 trillion annually in productivity loss. And there’s one more key number: 19 per cent. That's how much age-diverse workforces can raise GDP per capita over the next thirty years, according to estimates from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD. So clearly, keeping workers healthier for longer underpins a more productive, more efficient, and a profitable global economy. So it’s clear that [if] the current healthcare system were to shift from sick from care to prevention, the global gains would be substantial.

The BioPharma sector is already contributing some targeted novel treatments in areas like smart chemotherapy and in CRISPR – which is a technology that allows for selective DNA modification. While we can credit BioPharma and MedTech for really powerful innovations in diagnostics, in AI deployment for areas like data science and material science, and in sophisticated telemedicine – all these breakthroughs together give a more personalized, targeted health system; which is a big step in the right direction, but honestly they alone can’t solve this much broader longevity challenge we face. 

Focus on health and prevention, ultimately, could address those underlying causes of ill-health, so that problems don’t arise even in the first instance. Governments around the world are obviously realizing the value of preventive care over sick care. And as a strategy, disease prevention fundamentally aims to promote wellness across the board, whether that’s in things like mental state, nutrition or even in things like sleep and stress. While it might be easy to kind of conflate that with wellness trends – things like green smoothies or meditation – the underlying benefits of boosting health at the cellular level have much broader and deeper implications. Things like Type 2 diabetes and heart disease, supporting better health across populations can significantly reduce the incidence of a wide range of chronic conditions. It can lower the burden on health systems overall, and actually increase healthy lifespan at the end of the day. 

BioPharma advances are significant, but addressing longevity will require a much broader alignment across a myriad of elements; everything really from the food system to sanitation to training healthcare professionals. And of course, all of that will require consistent policy support. Regulators and policymakers are paying very close attention to their ageing population – and so are we. We’ll continue to bring you updates on this topic, which is so important to all of us.

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please do leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.