Podd: Thoughts on the Market

The Eye of a Market Storm

9 maj 2025 | 4 min

The initial shock of the U.S. administration’s tariff announcements is over, but Andrew Sheets, our Head of Corporate Credit Research, suggests the current calm could still give way to headwinds for the markets.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today we're going to discuss whether the worst is over for markets – or whether it's just the eye of the storm.

It's Friday, May 9th at 2pm in London.

After extreme recent volatility, markets have bounced back, generally unwinding their losses since April 2nd. So was that it? The shock of tariff announcements and positioning adjustments may have now passed through, but the impact on the real economy is still to come. In meteorological terms, we think this may be just the eye of the storm.

There are several specific bouts of potentially bad weather that we're looking at, driven by tariffs that may be about to pass through.

First is the Federal Reserve. Our economists still see no cuts from the Fed this year as tariffs keep inflation elevated on our forecast. The markets in contrast are expecting more action. A scenario where credit markets face both weaker growth and a lack of central bank support remains one of our top concerns.

Second is the data. So far in 2025, measures of consumer and company expectations have generally been weak, while readings of activity have tended to be stronger. Now, we think there's a good historical case that it's the expectations that tend to leave and are thus concerned that actual activity could start to soften – as it starts to be measured in a post tariff period.

To this end, we're keenly watching measures like shipping and trucking activity, which could give us a better picture of the real impact. Again, a core driver of our concern, despite the economic data holding up so far, is that the impact of tariffs usually takes more time. As our economists note, tariffs historically have pushed up prices after a couple of months and pushed down growth after a couple of quarters. In short, the full storm of that impact may be yet to pass through.

That thinking also lies behind our inflation views. Those more optimistic on inflation, and thus expecting more interest rate cuts from the Fed, note that the latest core inflation readings were generally fine. But in contrast, our economists remain more concerned that tariff price impacts simply haven't yet arrived in the official data, noting little change in the core inflation readings for things like goods that in theory should see the largest tariff impact. This, in our view, suggests that the impact on the underlying numbers that the Fed is looking at is still to come.

The initial surprise of the U.S. tariff announcements is behind us. Things feel calmer. And the recent economic data has been relatively resilient. One scenario is this simply speaks to how resilient the U.S. economy is. But another explanation is that there's a gap between the surprise of those tariffs and their ultimate economic impact. And our concern remains that those impacts are real, driving forecast at Morgan Stanley for weaker growth, higher inflation, and later interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve than the market consensus.

With credit spreads below average, we'd recommend patience. Those forecasts at these spreads could still drive turbulence.

Thank you, as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts in the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen; and also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

Why is the Taiwanese Dollar Suddenly Surging?

8 maj 2025 | 11 min

Investors were caught off guard last week when the Taiwanese dollar surged to a multi-year high. Our strategists Michael Zezas and James Lord look at what was behind this unexpected rally.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

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

James Lord: And I'm James Lord Morgan Stanley's, Global Head of FX and EM Strategy.

Michael Zezas: Today, we'll focus on some extreme moves in the currency markets and give you a sense of what's driving them, and why investors should pay close attention.

It's Thursday, May 8th at 10am in New York.

James Lord: And 3pm in London.

Michael Zezas: So, James, coming into the year, the consensus was that the U.S. dollar might strengthen quite a bit because the U.S. was going to institute tariffs amongst other things. That's actually not what's happened. So, can you explain why the dollar's been weakening and why you expect this trend to continue?

James Lord: I think a big factor for the weakening in the dollar, at least in the initial part of the year before the April tariff announcements came through, was a concern that the U.S. economy was going to be slowing down this year. I mean, this was against some of the consensus expectations at the beginning of the year.

In our year ahead outlook, we made this call that the dollar would be weakening because of the potential weakness in the U.S. economy, driven by slow down in immigration, limited action on fiscal policy. And whatever tariffs did come through would be kind of damaging for the U.S. economy.

And this would all sort of lead to a big slowdown and a kind of end to the U.S. exceptionalism trade that people now talk about all the time. And I think since April 1st or April 2nd tariff announcements came, the tariffs were so large that it raised real concerns about the damage that was potentially going to happen to the U.S. economy.

The sort of methodology in which the tariff formulas were created raised a bit of concern about the credibility of the announcements. And then we had this constant on again, off again, on again, off again tariffs. That just created a lot of uncertainty. And in the context of a 15-year bull market of the dollar where it had sucked enormous amounts of capital inflows into the U.S. economy. You know, investors just felt that maybe it was worth taking a few chips off the table and unwinding a little bit of that dollar risk. And we've seen that play out quite notably over the last month. So, I think it's been, yeah, really that those concerns about growth but also this sort of uncertainty about policy in general in the context of, you know, a big bull run for the dollar; and fairly heavy valuations and positioning. Those have been the main issues, I think.

Michael Zezas: Right, so we've got here this dynamic where there are economic fundamental reasons the dollar could keep weakening. But also concerns from investors overseas, whether they're ultimately founded or not, that they just might have less demand for owning U.S. dollar denominated assets because of the U.S. trade dynamic. Now it seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that there was a major market move in the past week around the Taiwanese dollar, which reflected these concerns and created an unusually large move in that currency. Can you explain that dynamic?

James Lord: Yeah, so we've seen really significant moves in the Taiwan dollar. In fact, on May 2nd, the currency saw its largest one-day rally since the 1980s, and over two days gained over 6.5 percent, which for a Taiwan dollar, which is pretty low volatility currency usually, these are really big moves. So in our view, the rally in the Taiwan dollar, and it was remarkably big. We think it's been mostly driven by Taiwanese exporters selling some of their dollar assets with a little bit of foreign equity inflow helping as well. And this is linked back to the sort of trade negotiations as well.

I mean, as you know, like one of the things that the U.S. administration has been focused on currency valuations. Historically, many people in the U.S. administration believe the dollar is very strong. And so there has been this sort of issue of currency valuations hanging over the trade negotiations between the U.S. and various Asian countries. And local media in Taiwan have been talking about the possibility that as part of a trade negotiation or trade deal, there could be a currency aspect to that – where the U.S. government would ask the Taiwanese authorities to try to push Taiwan dollar stronger.

And you know, I think this sort of media reporting created a little bit of a -- well, not just a little, a significant shift from Taiwanese exporters where they suddenly rush to sell their dollar deposits in to get ahead of any possible effort from the Taiwanese authorities to strengthen their currency. The central bank is being very clear on this.

We should have to point this out that the currency has not been part of the trade deal. And yet this hasn't prevented market participants from acting on the perceived risk of it being part of the trade talks. So, you know, Taiwanese exporters own a lot of dollars. Corporates and individuals in Taiwan hold about $275 billion worth of FX deposits and for an $800 billion or so economy, that's pretty sizable. So we think that is that dynamic, which has been the biggest factor in pushing Taiwan dollar stronger.

Michael Zezas: Right, so the Taiwan dollar is this interesting case study then in how U.S. public policy choices might be creating the perception of changes in demand for the dollar changes in policy around how foreign governments are supposed to value their currency and investors might be getting ahead of that.

Are there any other parts of the world where you're looking at foreign exchange globally, where you see things mispriced in a way relative to some of these expectations that investors need to talk about?

James Lord: We do think that the dollar has further to go. I mean, it's on the downside. It's not necessarily linked to expectations that currency agreements will be part of any trade agreement. But, we think the Fed will need to cut rates quite a bit on the back of the slow down in the U.S. economy. Not so much this year. But Mike Gapen and Seth Carpenter, and the U.S. economics team are expecting to see the Fed cut to around 2.5 per cent or so next year. And that's absolutely not priced. And, And so I think as this slowdown – and, this is more of a sort of traditional currency driver compared to some of these other policy issues that we've been talking about. But if the Fed does indeed cut that far, I do think that that's going to put some meaningful pressure on the dollar. And on a sort of interest rate differential perspective, and when we look at what is mispriced and correctly priced, we see the Fed as being mispriced, but the ECB is being quite well priced at the moment.

So as that weakening downward pressure comes through on the dollar, it should be reflected on the euro leg. And we see it heading up to 1.2. But just on the trade issue, Mike, what's your view on how those trade negotiations are going? Are we going to get lots of deals being announced soon?

Michael Zezas: Yeah, so the news flow here suggests that the U.S. is engaged in multiple negotiations across the globe and are looking to establish agreements relatively quickly, which would at least give us some information about what happens next with regard to the tariffs that are scheduled to increase after that 90 day pause that was announced in earlier in April. We don't know much beyond that.

I'd say our expectation is that because the U.S. has enough in common in terms of interests and how it manages its own economy and how most of its trading partners manage their own economies – that there are trade agreements, at least in concept. Perhaps memorandums of understanding that the U.S. can establish with more traditional allies, call it Japan, Europe, for example, that can ultimately put another pause on tariff escalation with those countries.

We think it'll be harder with China where there are more fundamental disagreements about how the two countries should interact with each other economically. And while tariffs could come down from these very, very high levels with China, we still see them kind of settling out at still meaningful substantial headline numbers; call it the 50 to 60 per cent range. And while that might enable more trade than we're seeing right now with China because of these 145 per cent tariff levels, it'll still be substantially less than where we started the year where tariff levels were, you know, sub 20 per cent for the most part with China.

So, there is a variety of different things happening. I would expect the general dynamic to be – we are going to see more agreements with more counterparties. However, those will mostly result in more pauses and ongoing negotiation, and so the uncertainty will not be completely eliminated. And so, to that point, James, I think I hear you saying that there is potentially a difference between sometimes currencies move based on general policy uncertainty and anxieties created around that.

James Lord: Yeah, that's right. I think that's safer ground, I think for us as currency strategists to be anchoring our view to because it’s something that we deal with day in, day out for all economies. The impact of this uncertainty variable. It could be like, I think directionally supports a weaker dollar, but sort of quantifying it, understanding like how much of that is in the price; could it get worse, could it get better? That's something that's a little bit more difficult to sort of anchor the view to. So, at the moment we feel that it's pushing in the same direction as the core view. But the core view, as you say, is based around those growth and monetary policy drivers.

So, best practice here is let's keep continuing to anchor to the fundamentals in our investment view, but sort of recognize that there are substantial bands of uncertainty that are driven by U.S. policy choices and by investors' perceptions of what those policy choices could mean.

Michael Zezas: So, James conversations like this are extremely helpful to our audience. We'll keep tracking this carefully. And so, I just want to say thank you for taking the time to talk with us today.

James Lord: I really enjoyed it. Looking forward to the next one.

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

Are Investors Searching for New ‘Safe Havens’?

7 maj 2025 | 6 min

The traditional correlations between some asset classes went haywire in April. Our analysts Serena Tang and Vishy Tirupattur discuss whether, in this environment, investors still consider U.S. Treasuries and the U.S. dollar to be reliable ports in a storm.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Serena Tang: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's Chief Cross Asset Strategist.

Vishy Tirupattur: And I'm Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist.

Serena Tang: Today's topic, how investors' perceptions of safe havens are evolving, the impact on correlation between asset classes, and what all this means for your portfolio.

It's Wednesday, May 7th at 10am in New York.

April was a really challenging month, and some market moves were highly unusual. There was also a lot of investor concern whether U.S. Treasuries would continue to be a safe haven. In fact, this became one of the biggest market debates over the last few weeks.

Vishy, let's start here. Prior to this recent sell off, foreign investors looked at U.S. assets as a safe haven. Why is that? And is it still the case now after this turbulent month?

Vishy Tirupattur: So, Serena, if you just step back and look at it, U.S. enjoyed positive growth differentials and positive yield differentials with developed markets in the rest of the world. On top of that, there was a consistent policy – not necessarily infallible policy – but there's a consistent policy with a clear sense of demarcation between the executive and the central bank.

All of this meant U.S. was a very attractive destination for foreign investor flows. Not only during periods of normalcy where U.S. equities really attracted inflows and performed really well, but also during the periods of economic stress; where even periods where the stress was coming from the U.S. itself, such as the Global Financial Crisis. This correlation between bonds and stocks held and U.S. Treasuries were the safe haven asset as the single largest and most liquid, and highly negatively correlated asset with risk assets. So that really worked.

What we are now seeing is that growth differential I talked about may no longer be holding. You know, for these [20]25 and [20]26 U.S. and euro area growth basically will converge – and if our economists’ expectations are right, in 2026, euro area will be growing at a faster pace than the U.S.

So, growth differential argument is fading. And there are some questions about the continued Fed independence. So put all these things together. Some investors are beginning to question whether U.S. assets will continue to be safe haven assets.

So let me come back to you Serena. There've been some recent market moves that have been extremely unusual. That's what created all this debate. In some of – a few days in April, during the periods of sell off, we had both stocks and bonds selling off. And it felt like cross-asset correlations have gone totally haywire.

So, can you talk a little bit about which correlations have changed? Which correlations have held up in these sell off?

Serena Tang: What was highly unusual, and I think reflects part of the debate on U.S. as a safe haven, is the correlation between U.S. equities and the dollar. It is very high at the moment, about sort of two standard deviation above the five-year average. While it's not unheard of for FX stocks correlation to be high, it is usually more associated with EM or emerging markets rather than DM or developed markets. As a means, investors now require higher risk premium for holding the equities, which is a risk asset; but also holding the dollar, which again, traditionally is not thought of as a risk asset.

Vishy Tirupattur: So, Serena, how did the correlation between bonds and stocks hold up in this period?

Serena Tang: Surprisingly, the correlation have really, really held up. Stocks and bond return correlation turned very negative during the sell off that we saw, which means that equity losses were actually offset by bond returns. Now, this isn't entirely true across the curve. You saw 2 Year Treasuries being a much effective diversifier than say the 30 Year Treasury. But all in all, I think it means bonds still work as a diversifier.

Now on this point Vishy, how do you think policy will impact asset correlations we've been talking about, as well as the perception of U.S. assets as a safe haven.

Vishy Tirupattur: So, as I said before, positive growth differentials fade, and we have negative growth differential. And if there are continued questions about the Fed's independence, so some of the attraction of U.S. assets, particularly U.S. Treasuries as a safe haven asset, will be challenged. But that challenge hits the practical reality of the size and the scale of the safe haven assets.

So, if you look around, if you add the comparably rated European government bond market and compare that to the U.S. government bond market, the U.S. market is about 10 times as larger. So, more scale, more liquidity, and the ability to deploy capital during the periods of stress is clearly more in the U.S.

So, this is what I would say. The status of U.S. dollar as the global reserve currency and U.S. Treasuries as the global safe haven asset have taken a bit of a ding, but not gone away.

Serena Tang: Vishy, thanks so much for taking the time to talk.

Vishy Tirupattur: Great speaking with you, Serena, as always.

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

U.S. Economy: Solid Footing For Now, Uncertainty Ahead

6 maj 2025 | 11 min

With the May FOMC meeting in progress, our analysts Matt Hornbach and Michael Gapen offer perspective on U.S. economic projections and whether markets are aligned.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

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

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

Matthew Hornbach: Today we're talking about the Federal Open Market Committee Meeting underway, and the path for rates from here.

It's Tuesday, May 6th at 10am in New York.

Mike, before we talk about your expectations for the FOMC meeting itself, I wanted to get your take on the U.S. economy heading into the meeting. How are you seeing things today? And in particular, how do you think what happened on April 2nd, so-called Liberation Day, affects the outlook?

Michael Gapen: Yeah, I think right now, Matt, I would say the economy's still on relatively solid footing, and by that I mean the economy had been moderating. Yes, the first quarter GDP print was negative. But that was mainly because firms were frontloading a lot of inventories through imports. So imports were up over 40 percent at an annualized pace in the quarter. A lot of that went into inventories and into business spending. That was just a mechanical drag on activity.

And the April employment report, I think, showed the same thing. We're now averaging about 145,000 jobs per month this year. That's down from about 170,000 per month in the second half of last year. So the hiring rate is slowing down, but no signs of a sudden stop. No signs in layoffs picking up. So I'd say the economy is on fairly solid footing, and the labor market is also on fairly solid footing – as we enter the period now when we think tariffs will have a greater effect on the outlook.

So you asked, you know, Liberation Day. How does that affect the outlook? Right now we'd say it puts a lot of uncertainty in front of us. on pretty solid footing now. But Matt, looking forward, we have a lot of concerns about where things may go and we expect activity to slow and inflation to rise.

Matthew Hornbach: That's great background, Mike, for what I want to ask you about next, which is of course the FOMC meeting this week. We won't get a new set of economic projections from the committee. But if we did, what do you think they would do with them and how would you assess the reaction function one might be able to tease out of those economic projections?

Michael Gapen: You're right, we don't get a new set of projections, but New York Fed President John Williams did provide some indication about how he adjusted his forecast, and John tends to be one of the – kind of a median participant.

He tends to be centrist in his thinking and his projection. So I do think that that gives us an indication of what the Fed is thinking; and he said he expects GDP growth to slow to somewhat below 1 percent in 2025. He expects inflation to rise to 3.5 to 4 percent this year, and he said the unemployment rates likely to move between 4.5 and 5 percent over the next year. And those phrases are really key. That's the same thing, Matt, as you know, we are expecting for the U.S. economy and I do think the Fed is thinking of it the same way.

Matthew Hornbach: So one final question for you, Mike. In terms of this meeting itself, what are you expecting the Fed to deliver this week? And what are the risks you see being around that expectation; you know, that might catch investors off guard?

Michael Gapen:

I think the Fed's main message this week will be that they're prepared to wait, that they think policy's in a good spot right now. They think inflation will be rising sharply, that the tariff shock is a lot larger than they had anticipated earlier this year. And they will need time to assess whether that inflation impulse is transitory, or whether it creates more persistent inflation. So I think what they will say is we're in a good position to wait and we need clarity on the outlook before we can act.

In this case, we think acting means doing nothing. But acting could also mean cutting if the labor market weakens. So I think there'll be worried about inflation today, a weak labor market tomorrow. And so I think risks around this meeting really are tilted in the direction of a more hawkish message than markets are expecting at least vis-a-vis current pricing. I think the market wants to hear the Fed will be ready to support the economy. Of course, we think they will, but I think the Fed's also going to be worried about inflation pressures in the near term. So that, I think, might catch investors off guard.

So Matt, what I think might catch investors off guard may be a little misplaced. I'm an economist after all. You're the strategist, you're the expert on the treasury market and how investors may be perceiving events at the moment. So the treasury market had quite the month since April 2nd. For a moment U.S. treasuries didn't act like the safe haven asset many have come to expect. What do you think happened?

Matthew Hornbach: So, Mike, you're absolutely right. Treasury yields initially fell, but then spent a healthy portion of the last month rising and investors were caught off guard by what they saw happening in the treasury market. I've seen this type of behavior in the treasury market, which I've been watching now for 25 years. I've seen this happen twice before in my career. The first time was during the Great Financial Crisis, and the second time I saw it was in March of 2020. So, this being the third time you know, I don't know if it was the charm or if it was something else, but treasury yields went up quite a bit.

I think what investors were witnessing in the treasury market is really a reflection of the degree of uncertainty and the breadth with which that uncertainty, traversed the world. Both the Great Financial Crisis and the initial stage of the pandemic in March of 2020 were events that were global in nature. They were in many ways systemic in nature, and they were events that most investors hadn't contemplated or seen in their lifetimes. And when this happens, I think investors tend to reduce risk in all of its forms until the dust settles. And one of those very important forms of risk in the fixed income markets is duration risk.

So, I think investors were paring back duration risk, which helped the U.S. Treasury market perform pretty poorly at one moment over the past month.

Michael Gapen: So Matt, one aspect of market pricing that stands out to me is how rates markets are pricing 75 basis points of rate cuts this year. And just after April 2nd, the market had priced in about 100 basis points of cuts.

How are you thinking about the market pricing today? Matt, as you know, it differs quite a bit from what we think will happen.

Matthew Hornbach: Yeah. This is where, you know, understanding that market prices in the interest rate complex reflect the average outcome of a wide variety of scenarios; really every scenario that is conceivable in the minds of investors. And, of course, as you mentioned, Mike depending on exactly how this year ends up playing out there, there could be a scenario in which the Federal Reserve has to lower rates much more aggressively than perhaps even markets are pricing today.

So, the market being an average of a wide variety of outcome will find it really challenging to take out all of the rate cuts that are priced in today. Or said differently, the market will find it challenging to price in your baseline scenario. And ultimately, I think the way in which the market ends up truing up to your projections, Mike, is just with time.

I think as we make our way through this year and the economic data come in, in-line with your baseline projections, the market will eventually price out those rate cuts that you see in there today. But that's going to take time. It's going to take investors growing increasingly comfortable that we can avoid a recession at least in perception this year before, you know, on your projections, we have a bit of a slower economy in 2026.

Michael Gapen: Well, it definitely does feel like a bimodal world, where investor conviction is low. Matt, where do you have conviction in the rates market today?

Matthew Hornbach: So, the way we've been thinking about this environment where we can avoid a recession this year, but maybe 2026 the risks rise a bit more. We think that that's the type of environment where the yield curve in the United States can steepen, and what that means practically is that yields on longer maturity bonds will go up relative to yields on shorter maturity bonds. So, you get this steepening of the yield curve. And that is where we have the highest conviction; in terms of, what happens with the Treasury market this year is we have a steeper yield curve by the time we get to December.

Now part of that steepening we think comes because as we approach 2026 where Mike, you have the Fed beginning to lower rates in your baseline, the market will have to increasingly price with more conviction a lower policy rate from the Fed. But then at the same time, you know, we probably will have an environment where treasury supply will have to increase.

As a result of the fiscal policies that the government is discussing at the moment. And so you have this environment where yields on longer maturity securities are pressured higher relative to yields on shorter maturity treasuries.

So, with that, Mike, we'll wrap our conversation. Thanks so much for taking the time to talk.

Michael Gapen: It's been great speaking with you, Matt.

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

Munis: Tax-Free Income in Times of Stress

5 maj 2025 | 9 min

Morgan Stanley Research analyst Mark Schmidt and Investment Management’s Craig Brandon discuss the heightened uncertainty in the U.S. municipal bonds market.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

For a full list of episode disclosures click here.

----- Transcript -----

Mark Schmidt: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mark Schmidt, Morgan Stanley's Head of Municipal Strategy.

Craig Brandon: I'm Craig Brandon, Co-Director of Municipal Investments at Morgan Stanley Investment Management.

Mark Schmidt: Today, let's talk about the biggest market you hardly ever hear about – municipal bonds, a $4 trillion asset class.

It's Monday, May 5th at 10am in Boston.

Mark Schmidt: If you've driven, flown, gone to school or turned on a tap, chances are munis made it happen. Although munis are late cycle haven, they were not immune to the latest bout of market volatility. Craig, why was April so tough?

Craig Brandon: So, what we say in April, it was sort of the trifecta of things that happened that were a little different than other asset classes. The first thing that happened is we saw a significant increase in treasury rates – and munis are generally correlated to treasuries. We're a very high-quality asset class, that's viewed as a duration asset class. So, one thing we saw were rates going up. When we see rates going up, you generally see money coming out of the market, right? So, I think investors were a little bit impacted by the higher rates, the correlation to treasuries, the duration, and saw some flows out of the market.

Secondly, what we saw is conversation about the tax exemption in Washington D.C. What that did is it caused muni issuers to pull their issuance forward. So, if you're an infrastructure issuer, you are issuing bonds in the next year to year and a half; you're going to pull that forward because if there's any risk of loss of the tax exemption, you want to get these bonds issued today. So that's basically what drives technicals. It's supply and demand. So, what we saw was a decrease in demand because of higher rates; an increase in supply because of issuance being pulled forward.

And the third part of the trifecta we refer to is the conversations about the economy. So, I would put that, it's sort of a distant third, but there's still conversations about maybe credit weakness driven by a slowing economy.

Mark Schmidt: Craig, your team has been through a lot of tough market cycles. Given your experience, how did the most recent selloff compare? And why was it not like 2008?

Craig Brandon: I started my career back in 1998 during the long-term capital management crisis. I lived through 2008. I lived through the COVID crisis, and you know, really when I look at the crisis in 2008 – no banks went out of business three weeks ago, right? In 2008 we were really sitting on a trading desk wondering where this was going to end.

You know, we had a number of meetings with our staff, over the last couple weeks explaining to them why it was different and how. Yes, there was some volatility here, but you could see that there was going to be an end to this, and this was not going to be a permanent restructuring of the market. So, I think we felt comfortable. It was very different than 2008 and it really felt different than COVID.

Mark Schmidt: That's reassuring. But with economic growth set to slow sharply, how does your credit team think the fiscal health of America's state and local governments will hold up?

Craig Brandon: Well, remember state and local governments, and when we're talking about munis, we're also talking about other infrastructure asset classes like water and sewer bonds. Like, you know, transportation, bonds, airports. We're talking about toll roads.

They went into this with a very strong balance sheet, right? Remember, there was a lot of infrastructure money spent by the federal government during COVID to give issuers money to make it through COVID. There's still a lot of money on balance sheets. So, what we do is we're going into this crisis with a lot of cash on balance sheets, allowing issuers to be able to withstand some weakness in the economy and get through to the other side of this.

Mark Schmidt: Not only do state and local governments have a lot of cash, but they're just not that impacted by tariffs, right? So why did muni yields perform worse than U.S. treasuries over the past couple of weeks?

Craig Brandon: Right. It really… We're technically driven, right? The U.S. muni market is more retail driven than some other asset classes. Remember – investment grade corporates, treasury bonds, there's a lot of institutional buyers in those markets. In the municipal market, it's primarily retail driven.

So, when you know, individual retail investors get nervous, they tend to pull money out of the market. So, what we saw was money coming out of the market. At the same time, we saw an individual increase in more bonds, which just led to very weak technicals, which when we see that it eventually reverses itself.

Mark Schmidt: Now I almost buried the lede, right? Why invest in munis? Well, they're great credit quality, but they're also tax free. In fact, muni bonds have been exempt from federal taxes for over a century. You have a lot of experience putting together tax bills, and right now people are worried about tax reform. Do you think investors should be concerned?

Craig Brandon: Listen. I'm not really losing a lot of sleep at night over the tax exemption. And I think there's other, you know, issues to worry about. Why do I say that?

As you mentioned Mark, I spent the early years of my career working for the New York State Assembly Ways and Means Committee. I spent seven years negotiating budgets and what that did is it gave me a window – into how, you know, not only state budgets, but the federal budget gets put together.

So, what it also showed me was the relationship between state and local elected officials and your representatives in Congress and your representatives in the Senate. So, I know firsthand that members of Congress and members of the Senate in Washington have very close relationships with members of the state legislatures, with governors, with mayors, with city council members, with school board members – who are all delivering the message that significantly higher financing costs that could potentially happen from the loss of the exemption, could be meaningful to them.

And I think members of Congress and members of the Senate and Washington get it. They understand it because they were all there when it happened. The last time the muni exemption came under fire was back in 2012; and in 2012, a lot of members of Congress were in the state legislature back then, so they understand it.

Mark Schmidt: That's reassuring because right now, tax equivalent yields in the muni market are 7 to 8 per cent. That's equal to or greater than the long run rate of return on the stock market. So, whether to invest in the muni market seems pretty straightforward. How to invest in the muni market? Well, with 50,000 issuers, that's a little complicated. How do you recommend investors get exposure to tax-free munis right now?

Craig Brandon: Well, and that is a very common question. The muni market can be very confusing because there are just so many bonds out there. You know, over 50,000 issuers, there's over a million individual CUSIPs in the muni market.

So as an individual investor, where do you start? There's different coupon structures, different call structures, different maturity structures, ratings. There's so many different variables that go into a decision in investing in muni bonds.

I can make an argument that you could probably mimic the S&P 500 with 500 different stocks. But most muni indices are over 50,000 constituents. It's very difficult to replicate the muni market by yourself, which is why a lot of people, you know, they let professional money managers, do the investing for them. Whether you're looking at mutual funds, whether you're looking at separately managed accounts, whether you're looking at exchange traded fund ETFs, there's a lot of different ways to get exposure to the muni market. But with the huge amount of choices you have to make, I think a lot of individual investors would just let a professional with the experience do it.

Mark Schmidt: And active managers let you customize portfolios to your unique tax situation and risk tolerance. So, Craig, a final question for you. How do munis fit into a diversified portfolio?

Craig Brandon: Munis are generally the stable part of most people's portfolios. Remember, you don't have a choice of whether you're going to pay your taxes or not. You have to pay your taxes, you have to pay your water bill, you have to pay your power bill. You have to pay tolls on highways. You have to pay airport fees when you buy an airline ticket, right?

It's not an option. So, because the revenue streams are so stable, you see most muni bonds rated AA or AAA. The default rate for rated munis is significantly below 1 per cent. It's something in the ballpark of about 0.2 per cent*. So, with such a low default rate – listen, we're technically driven, as I said. You see ups and downs in the market. But over a longer period of time, munis can give you generally stable returns, tax exempt income over the long term, and they're one of the more stable asset classes that you see in your overall portfolio.

Mark Schmidt: That sounds boring, and I mean that in the best possible way. Craig, thanks so much for your time today.

Craig Brandon: Thanks, Mark, happy to be here

Mark Schmidt: 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.

*“US Municipal Bond Defaults and Recoveries, 1970-2021” – Moody’s Investor Services

Disclosure:

Past performance is no guarantee of future results. The returns referred to in the commentary are those of representative indices and are not meant to depict the performance of a specific investment.

Risk Considerations

Diversification does not eliminate the risk of loss.

There is no assurance that a portfolio will achieve its investment objective. Portfolios are subject to market risk, which is the possibility that the market values of securities owned by the portfolio will decline and that the value of portfolio shares may therefore be less than what you paid for them. Market values can change daily due to economic and other events (e.g., natural disasters, health crises, terrorism, conflicts, and social unrest) that affect markets, countries, companies or governments. It is difficult to predict the timing, duration, and potential adverse effects (e.g., portfolio liquidity) of events. Accordingly, you can lose money investing in a portfolio. Fixed-income securities are subject to the ability of an issuer to make timely principal and interest payments (credit risk), changes in interest rates (interest rate risk), the creditworthiness of the issuer and general market liquidity (market risk). In a rising interest-rate environment, bond prices may fall and may result in periods of volatility and increased portfolio redemptions. In a declining interest-rate environment, the portfolio may generate less income. Longer-term securities may be more sensitive to interest rate changes. An imbalance in supply and demand in the municipal market may result in valuation uncertainties and greater volatility, less liquidity, widening credit spreads and a lack of price transparency in the market. There generally is limited public information about municipal issuers. Income from tax-exempt municipal obligations could be declared taxable because of changes in tax laws, adverse interpretations by the relevant taxing authority or the non-compliant conduct of the issuer of an obligation and may subject to the federal alternative minimum tax.

There is no guarantee that any investment strategy will work under all market conditions, and each investor should evaluate their ability to invest for the long-term, especially during periods of downturn in the market.

A separately managed account may not be appropriate for all investors. Separate accounts managed according to the particular strategy may include securities that may not necessarily track the performance of a particular index. Please consider the investment objectives, risks and fees of the Strategy carefully before investing. A minimum asset level is required. For important information about the investment managers, please refer to Form ADV Part 2.

The views and opinions and/or analysis expressed are those of the author or the investment team as of the date of preparation of this material and are subject to change at any time without notice due to market or economic conditions and may not necessarily come to pass.

This material has been prepared on the basis of publicly available information, internally developed data and other third-party sources believed to be reliable. However, no assurances are provided regarding the reliability of such information and the Firm has not sought to independently verify information taken from public and third-party sources.

This material is a general communication, which is not impartial and all information provided has been prepared solely for informational and educational purposes and does not constitute an offer or a recommendation to buy or sell any particular security or to adopt any specific investment strategy. The information herein has not been based on a consideration of any individual investor circumstances and is not investment advice, nor should it be construed in any way as tax, accounting, legal or regulatory advice. To that end, investors should seek independent legal and financial advice, including advice as to tax consequences, before making any investment decision.

The Firm has not authorised financial intermediaries to use and to distribute this material, unless such use and distribution is made in accordance with applicable law and regulation. Additionally, financial intermediaries are required to satisfy themselves that the information in this material is appropriate for any person to whom they provide this material in view of that person’s circumstances and purpose. The Firm shall not be liable for, and accepts no liability for, the use or misuse of this material by any such financial intermediary.

This material may be translated into other languages. Where such a translation is made this English version remains definitive. If there are any discrepancies between the English version and any version of this material in another language, the English version shall prevail.

The whole or any part of this material may not be directly or indirectly reproduced, copied, modified, used to create a derivative work, performed, displayed, published, posted, licensed, framed, distributed or transmitted or any of its contents disclosed to third parties without the Firm’s express written consent. This material may not be linked to unless such hyperlink is for personal and non-commercial use. All information contained herein is proprietary and is protected under copyright and other applicable law.

Eaton Vance is part of Morgan Stanley Investment Management. Morgan Stanley Investment Management is the asset management division of Morgan Stanley.

DISTRIBUTION

This material is only intended for and will only be distributed to persons resident in jurisdictions where such distribution or availability would not be contrary to local laws or regulations.

MSIM, the asset management division of Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS), and its affiliates have arrangements in place to market each other’s products and services. Each MSIM affiliate is regulated as appropriate in the jurisdiction it operates. MSIM’s affiliates are: Eaton Vance Management (International) Limited, Eaton Vance Advisers International Ltd, Calvert Research and Management, Eaton Vance Management, Parametric Portfolio Associates LLC and Atlanta Capital Management LLC.

This material has been issued by any one or more of the following entities:

EMEA:

This material is for Professional Clients/Accredited Investors only.

In the EU, MSIM and Eaton Vance materials are issued by MSIM Fund Management (Ireland) Limited (“FMIL”). FMIL is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland and is incorporated in Ireland as a private company limited by shares with company registration number 616661 and has its registered address at 24-26 City Quay, Dublin 2, D02 NY 19, Ireland. Outside the EU, MSIM materials are issued by Morgan Stanley Investment Management Limited (MSIM Ltd) is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Registered in England. Registered No. 1981121. Registered Ofﬁce: 25 Cabot Square, Canary Wharf, London E14 4QA.

In Switzerland, MSIM materials are issued by Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc, London (Zurich Branch) Authorised and regulated by the Eidgenössische Finanzmarktaufsicht ("FINMA"). Registered Office: Beethovenstrasse 33, 8002 Zurich, Switzerland.

Outside the US and EU, Eaton Vance materials are issued by Eaton Vance Management (International) Limited (“EVMI”) 125 Old Broad Street, London, EC2N 1AR, UK, which is authorised and regulated in the United Kingdom by the Financial Conduct Authority.

Italy: MSIM FMIL (Milan Branch), (Sede Secondaria di Milano) Palazzo Serbelloni Corso Venezia, 16 20121 Milano, Italy. The Netherlands: MSIM FMIL (Amsterdam Branch), Rembrandt Tower, 11th Floor Amstelplein 1 1096HA, Netherlands. France: MSIM FMIL (Paris Branch), 61 rue de Monceau 75008 Paris, France. Spain: MSIM FMIL (Madrid Branch), Calle Serrano 55, 28006, Madrid, Spain. Germany: Germany: MSIM FMIL (Frankfurt Branch), Grosse Gallusstrasse 18, 60312 Frankfurt am Main, Germany (Gattung: Zweigniederlassung (FDI) gem. § 53b KWG). Denmark: MSIM FMIL (Copenhagen Branch), Gorrissen Federspiel, Axel Towers, Axeltorv2, 1609 Copenhagen V, Denmark.

MIDDLE EAST

Dubai: MSIM Ltd (Representative Office, Unit Precinct 3-7th Floor-Unit 701 and 702, Level 7, Gate Precinct Building 3, Dubai International Financial Centre, Dubai, 506501, United Arab Emirates. Telephone: +97 (0)14 709 7158). This document is distributed in the Dubai International Financial Centre by Morgan Stanley Investment Management Limited (Representative Office), an entity regulated by the Dubai Financial Services Authority (“DFSA”). It is intended for use by professional clients and market counterparties only. This document is not intended for distribution to retail clients, and retail clients should not act upon the information contained in this document.

This document relates to a financial product which is not subject to any form of regulation or approval by the DFSA. The DFSA has no responsibility for reviewing or verifying any documents in connection with this financial product. Accordingly, the DFSA has not approved this document or any other associated documents nor taken any steps to verify the information set out in this document, and has no responsibility for it. The financial product to which this document relates may be illiquid and/or subject to restrictions on its resale or transfer. Prospective purchasers should conduct their own due diligence on the financial product. If you do not understand the contents of this document, you should consult an authorised financial adviser.

US

NOT FDIC INSURED | OFFER NO BANK GUARANTEE | MAY LOSE VALUE | NOT INSURED BY ANY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY | NOT A DEPOSIT

Latin America (Brazil, Chile Colombia, Mexico, Peru, and Uruguay)

This material is for use with an institutional investor or a qualified investor only. All information contained herein is confidential and is for the exclusive use and review of the intended addressee, and may not be passed on to any third party. This material is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute a public offering, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell for any product, service, security and/or strategy. A decision to invest should only be made after reading the strategy documentation and conducting in-depth and independent due diligence.

ASIA PACIFIC

Hong Kong: This material is disseminated by Morgan Stanley Asia Limited for use in Hong Kong and shall only be made available to “professional investors” as defined under the Securities and Futures Ordinance of Hong Kong (Cap 571). The contents of this material have not been reviewed nor approved by any regulatory authority including the Securities and Futures Commission in Hong Kong. Accordingly, save where an exemption is available under the relevant law, this material shall not be issued, circulated, distributed, directed at, or made available to, the public in Hong Kong. Singapore: This material is disseminated by Morgan Stanley Investment Management Company and may not be circulated or distributed, whether directly or indirectly, to persons in Singapore other than to (i) an accredited investor (ii) an expert investor or (iii) an institutional investor as defined in Section 4A of the Securities and Futures Act, Chapter 289 of Singapore (“SFA”); or (iv) otherwise pursuant to, and in accordance with the conditions of, any other applicable provision of the SFA. This publication has not been reviewed by the Monetary Authority of Singapore. Australia: This material is provided by Morgan Stanley Investment Management (Australia) Pty Ltd ABN 22122040037, AFSL No. 314182 and its affiliates and does not constitute an offer of interests. Morgan Stanley Investment Management (Australia) Pty Limited arranges for MSIM affiliates to provide financial services to Australian wholesale clients. Interests will only be offered in circumstances under which no disclosure is required under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the “Corporations Act”). Any offer of interests will not purport to be an offer of interests in circumstances under which disclosure is required under the Corporations Act and will only be made to persons who qualify as a “wholesale client” (as defined in the Corporations Act). This material will not be lodged with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.

Japan:

For professional investors, this document is circulated or distributed for informational purposes only. For those who are not professional investors, this document is provided in relation to Morgan Stanley Investment Management (Japan) Co., Ltd. (“MSIMJ”)’s business with respect to discretionary investment management agreements (“IMA”) and investment advisory agreements (“IAA”). This is not for the purpose of a recommendation or solicitation of transactions or offers any particular financial instruments. Under an IMA, with respect to management of assets of a client, the client prescribes basic management policies in advance and commissions MSIMJ to make all investment decisions based on an analysis of the value, etc. of the securities, and MSIMJ accepts such commission. The client shall delegate to MSIMJ the authorities necessary for making investment. MSIMJ exercises the delegated authorities based on investment decisions of MSIMJ, and the client shall not make individual instructions. All investment profits and losses belong to the clients; principal is not guaranteed. Please consider the investment objectives and nature of risks before investing. As an investment advisory fee for an IAA or an IMA, the amount of assets subject to the contract multiplied by a certain rate (the upper limit is 2.20% per annum (including tax)) shall be incurred in proportion to the contract period. For some strategies, a contingency fee may be incurred in addition to the fee mentioned above. Indirect charges also may be incurred, such as brokerage commissions for incorporated securities. Since these charges and expenses are different depending on a contract and other factors, MSIMJ cannot present the rates, upper limits, etc. in advance. All clients should read the Documents Provided Prior to the Conclusion of a Contract carefully before executing an agreement. This document is disseminated in Japan by MSIMJ, Registered No. 410 (Director of Kanto Local Finance Bureau (Financial Instruments Firms)), Membership: The Japan Securities Dealers Association, the Investment Trusts Association, Japan, the Japan Investment Advisers Association and the Type II Financial Instruments Firms Association.

Why the UK May Be Poised for a Surprising Rebound

2 maj 2025 | 8 min

Despite news that the UK economy is set to slow due to uncertainty around US trade policy, our analysts Andrew Sheets and Bruna Skarica explain why they have a more optimistic outlook.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

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

Bruna Skarica: And I'm Bruna Skarica, Chief UK Economist at Morgan Stanley.

Andrew Sheets: Today we're going to talk about the United Kingdom and why, despite a downbeat outlook by many in the market, we remain more optimistic.

It's Friday, May 2nd at 2pm in London.

Bruna, it's great to talk to you again about the UK and not just because this is an unusual day in London where it's sunny and warm, and at the moment warmer than Los Angeles. You know, when discussing the UK, I do think you kind of need to take a step back. This is a country and an economy that's had a tough number of years where growth has been sub-trend, inflation's been higher, and a lot of assets have traded at a discount.

So maybe just to give some context, talk to us a little bit about the last couple of years in the UK and the challenges the economy has faced.

Bruna Skarica: Indeed, Andrew, I do think it's important to take a step back to appreciate just the amount of supply side shocks the UK has seen in recent years. First, between 2016 and 2020, of course, the country had to navigate Brexit negotiations. The elevated uncertainty kept a lid on business CapEx. In 2020, of course, as the rest of the world, we saw the lockdown and the pandemic. What followed were supply chain disruptions, and then, the European energy shock in 2022. I do want to zoom in on this final point because in its scale, the natural gas price surge in the UK was twice more of a hit to growth compared to the 1970s oil price shock.

We've also seen a fair share of volatile market moves, most notably around the mini budget in the autumn of 2022. On top of all of this, the Bank of England into these supply side shocks had to hike interest rates to cap the inflation surge. And they went to above 5 per cent and have recently been relatively slower in reducing policy restrictiveness than most of its peers.

So, when you tally all these factors up, it's really no surprise that the UK has seen an exceptionally weak post COVID recovery.

Andrew Sheets: And that's continued right into this year. You know, I remember a lot of conversations with global investors heading into 2025, and again, the sentiment around the UK was kind of downbeat. Growth was pretty soft. Inflation was still high. Because inflation was high, interest rates here were still quite high. And so, you really had this, you know, unattractive mix of weak growth, high inflation, tight monetary policy. And then you could throw onto that, this uncertainty around the U.S. and trade. And you had a Trump administration that was adopting a more adversarial policy towards trade and towards Europe, which the UK was getting caught up in.

So, you know – again, did I miss any of the challenges that the UK was facing, entering this year?

Bruna Skarica: No, I think that's a great summary. First, at the end of last year, of course, the government faced some pretty tough decisions in the October budget, and they hiked a tax – a payroll tax really – in order to balance the books, which created somewhat subdued sentiment around the labor market this year.

Now the labor market has been soft in the UK at the start of this year, but it did hold up a little bit better perhaps than the expectations from the end of last year. At the start of the year, we also saw the energy inflation forecast rise. So, that led to a more cautious tone by the Bank of England in February and March, as you mentioned. And now on the trade front, although we have a small manufacturing sector, we are a small open economy, we're a big beta to global growth dynamics.

I would just like to mention here that one of the real bright spots of the UK economy in recent years have been services exports to the U.S., the kind of high-value-added white-collar services exports, which rose between 2019 and 2023 by 50 per cent. Now with the growth in the U.S. slowing and obviously the Euro area as well, UK growth will be affected too this year. We actually took our growth forecast down by around 30 basis points in our latest GDP revisions.

Andrew Sheets: But Bruna, we're here to talk about the future and you know, I do think it's fair to say that going forward we think this picture is starting to look better. So, let's jump right into that. Across a number of specific points. Why do we think the UK story could look better as you look ahead?

Bruna Skarica: Absolutely. I mean, the last point that I mentioned, I do think I want to put it in context. The trade related revisions in the UK are still less than what our colleagues in the euro area and the U.S. had undertaken in recent months on the back of the U.S. trade policy shifts. So, the UK does look a little bit like a relative winner there.

Second, we now think that inflation can come down faster than both the Bank of England and the market expected at the beginning of the year. Commodities prices will do a fair bit of heavy lifting this year, but we do think that next year in particular, domestically generated inflation could slow fairly sharply as wage growth sticks around 3 to 3.5 per cent, which we think is fairly inflation target consistent.

This all means the Bank of England should be able to cut more than the markets expect. We anticipate 125 basis point worth of cuts between May and November, and we think the terminal rate could fall to as low as 2 ¾. So, we think the neutral rate in the UK is between 2.5 to 3.5 per cent, and we do think the market still has a bit of adjustment to do in the sense of the pricing of the terminal rate one and two years ahead.

The third point around fiscal policy I think is quite interesting. Fiscal policy has been in great focus in the UK in recent years. We had a big fiscal event in October. We had another fiscal event just now in March. The borrowing increase was less than what the market expected. Deficit projections are such that we are expecting deficit to fall from around 4.8 per cent this year to 3 per cent over the course of the next three years, and for debt to GDP ratio to remain at around 100 per cent of GDP. I would perhaps contrast that with France where our economist is expecting the deficit to remain north of 5 per cent over the course of the next two years.

Finally, an important point to make is that the UK government amid trade shifts in the U.S. is looking for a closer relationship with the EU, or rather a trade reset with the EU. EU remains our closest trading partner and in the aftermath of Brexit, the current government has an ambition to improve trading in food and goods; and also to ensure that the UK is part of the European Defense Program, which would allow UK defense companies to partake in the defense and security path that the European Union presented in recent weeks. There is a summit being held on May 19th, and obviously the trade and corporation agreement is coming up for revision in 2026.

So, we do think those relations between UK and the EU could become somewhat closer over the course of this year and next.

But now a question from me, which is, what does all this mean on the strategy side? UK assets have obviously been quite unloved in recent years. Do you think that's about to change?

Andrew Sheets: So again, I think it's pretty interesting that markets are anticipatory, and I think markets are pretty smart here. So, you've already seen the British pound, the currency do quite well. This year it's up against the dollar. You've seen the UK stock market do quite well. It's up about 5 per cent this year, despite the S&P 500 being down quite significantly.

So, you're already seeing, I think, some signs that investors are warming up to the UK and you know, I do think that if our expectations play out, that could continue. You know, UK stocks do tend to be concentrated and slower growing, less exciting sectors. But their valuations are also less demanding. You know, the U.S. Stock Index trades at about 21 times next year's earnings. The UK stock market trades a little bit under 13 times next year's earnings.

And I also think it's really important that if the Bank of England does cut interest rates more than the market expects, which again, as you discussed, is one of our expectations here at Morgan Stanley, that could be pretty supportive for the UK bond market, which continues to offer pretty high yields.

Bruna, thanks for joining me for this conversation. It's always great to catch up with you.

Bruna Skarica: My pleasure, Andrew. Thank you for the invite.

Andrew Sheets: 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.

Can South Korea Afford To Grow Old?

2 maj 2025 | 5 min

Our Chief Korea and Taiwan Economist Kathleen Oh discusses Korea's recent pension reform and its implications for the country's rapidly aging population.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Kathleen Oh, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Korea and Taiwan Economist. Today I’ll revisit Korea's demographic emergency and how the recent pension reform is trying to address it.

It's Thursday, May 1st, at 4pm in Hong Kong.

Some of you may remember that I came on the show last fall to talk about the crisis-level demographic challenges in Korea. Korea officially became a super-aged society at the end of 2024. This means that more than 20 per cent of the population is 65 or older.

In the face of its rapidly aging population and a fertility rate that has hit rock bottom, Korea is taking decisive action finally. The national assembly recently passed a landmark pension reform bill to amend the National Pension Act. This measure marks the first major change to its pension system in 18 years. And it’s supposed to improve the pension fund's financial sustainability to prepare for a rapidly aging population that will only accelerate from here.

The amendments include raising pension contribution rates and adjusting the income replacement ratio to 43 per cent. These changes aim to delay the depletion of the fund to 2064 to 2071, in an upside scenario. Without this reform, the fund would have been depleted by 2055, just 30 years later.

This reform avoids having to sell the fund's financial assets by delaying depletion. It also assures pension-holders of the stability of future pension assets. And, last but not least, it increases the pension fund's capacity for financial investments, which could lead to higher returns.

This is the first step towards making legislative, and therefore more structural changes to respond to the reality of a super-aged society. Moreover, it kicks off a sweeping reform agenda that includes the pension program, labor market, education system, and capital markets.

It’s also notable because the center-left Democratic Party of Korea and the conservative People Power Party were able to show bipartisan support and a public consensus to reach a deal, especially during the recent tumultuous political events that took place in Korea.

That said, the reform also has some potentially negative economic impacts. Higher pension contributions could squeeze households' disposable income, putting mild but additional downward pressure on aggregate consumption and savings. Especially considering that as people age, they tend to consume less – and this can lead to a structural slowdown in private consumption.

Despite Korea's challenges with an aging population, we're cautiously optimistic about its future – especially because [of] the recent rebound in the country's fertility rate. After marking a drop every year since 2015, it rebounded to 0.75 in 2024. While still far below the ideal replacement ratio of 2.1, this rebound is a small but certainly a positive sign.

Looking ahead, Korea's working population is expected to decrease by 50 per cent in the next 40 years unless the country ensures a dramatic rebound in the fertility rate to 1.0 or higher by 2030. In the meantime, we expect further adjustments to the pension reform bill, we expect further discussions around lifting of retirement age, along with the labor market reform next in line on the economic front. The Korean government will continue to execute on its demographic policy agenda.

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 Possible Roadmap for U.S. Tariff Policy

30 april 2025 | 11 min

Our analysts Michael Zezas and Rajeev Sibal unpack the significance of a little-discussed clause in the Trump administration’s tariff policy, which suggests investors should think less about countries and more about products.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

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

Rajeev Sibal: And I am Rajeev Sibal, Senior Global Economist.

Michael Zezas: Today we look through the potential escalation and de-escalation of tariff rates and discuss what the lasting impact of higher tariffs will be for companies and the economy.

It's Wednesday, April 30th at 11am in New York.

Rajeev Sibal: And 4pm in London.

Michael Zezas: Last week during a White House News conference, President Trump announced that tariffs on goods from China will come down substantially, but it won't be zero. And this was after U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent made comments about high tariffs against China being unsustainable, according to some news reports.

Now, some of this has been walked back, and there's further discussion of challenging negotiations with China and potential escalations if those negotiations don't go well. Meanwhile, Canadian voters elected a Liberal government, led by Mark Carney yesterday. That federal election played out against the backdrop of the U.S. proposing higher tariffs on its northern neighbors.

So, Rajeev, amidst all this noise, what seems clear is that tariff levels will end up higher than where we started before President Trump took office. Though we don't exactly know how high they will be. What is it that investors need to understand about the economic impacts of higher tariffs just generically?

Rajeev Sibal: So yeah, we do view that tariffs are going to structurally be higher than they were before the Trump administration. This has been a baseline of our outlook since last year. Now I think the challenge is figuring out where they're going to settle as you've highlighted. We do think that peak tariff was probably a couple weeks ago, when we were at the max pain threshold, vis-a-vis China and the rest of the world. We've since seen the reciprocal tariffs move to 10 per cent for everyone but China.

China's clearly higher than 60 per cent today, but we do think that over time the implied rate to China will start to graduate and come down. If you look at the electronics exemption for example, that's a big step in getting the average tariff rate out of China lower. So, we think we're on a journey. We think we were past peak tariff pain in terms of level. But over the next few months, it's going to take some time and negotiation to figure out where we settle. And we are still looking to kind of our baseline outlook, that had been defined some time ago of a 10 per cent baseline with an elevated level on China, if you will.

Michael Zezas: So, I think this is an important point, that there's a lot of back and forth about tariff levels, which countries are going to be levied on, to what degree, and to what products. But at the end of the day, we think there'll be more tariffs than where we started.

Rajeev, you have a view on where investors should focus, in terms of what tariffs are durable. And maybe at the end of the day it'll be less about countries and more about products. Can you talk us through that?

Rajeev Sibal: You know, on April 2nd when the Trump administration released the fact sheet about tariffs and reciprocal tariffs, there was a small clause in there that I think the market did not pay enough attention to, and which is becoming front and center now.

And in that clause, they identified that a number of tariffs related to Section 232 would be exempted from reciprocal tariffs. And the notion is that country tariffs would evolve or shift into sector tariffs over time. And in the note that we recently published, we highlighted some of the legal mechanisms that may be at play here. There's still a lot of uncertainty as to how things will settle down, but what we do know is that legally speaking, country tariffs are coming through IEEPA, which is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act; whereas section and sector tariffs are coming through Section 232; and some of the other section structures that exist in U.S. trade law.

And so, the experience of 2018 leaned a lot more to these sections than it did to IEEPA. And that was a guiding, I guess, mechanism for us, as we thought about what was happening in the current tariff structure. And the fact that the White House included this carve out, if you will, for Section 232 tariffs in their April 2nd fact sheet was a big lead indicator for us that, over time, there would be an increased shift towards sectors.

And, so for us, we think the market should be focusing more in that direction. As we think about how this evolves over time, now that we've not completely de-escalated, but brought a materially lower tariff level and everywhere in the world except for China. The big variability is probably going to be in the sector tariffs now going forward.

Michael Zezas: So, what sectors do you think are particularly in focus here?

Rajeev Sibal: So, on the April 2nd fact sheet that the White House provided to countries and to the market, they specifically identified steel, aluminum, autos and auto parts as already having Section 232 tariffs. And we know that's true because those investigations had started in a prior Trump administration. And so, kind of the framework was already in place for them to execute those tariffs.

The guidance then suggested that copper, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and lumber would also potentially fall under Section 232 tariffs in the future. And then there's been a range of indications as to what might be in play, so to speak, for Section 232.

I know pharmaceuticals is at the top of the list of many investors, as are semiconductors. So, this is our kind of sample list, but we're pretty certain that this will evolve over time. But that's where we're starting.

Michael Zezas: Okay, so pharmaceutical, semiconductors, automobile, steel, aluminum. It's a pretty substantial list. So, if that's the sort of end game landscape here – relatively elevated China tariffs, and then all of these products specific tariffs – what does an investor need to know about a company's options in this world? Can companies just rewire their supply chains around all of this? And you know, ultimately there's some temporary price pain. But once things are rewired around this, that should dissipate. Or are the decisions more difficult than that and that there has to be some cost passed through to the consumer or to the companies themselves – because this is just too many tariffs in too many places?

Rajeev Sibal: Yeah, so I think the latter of your question – the difficulty – is really where we need to be thinking about what's happening here. If you think about the bigger picture, and you go back to the note that we collaborated on earlier in the year called Supply Chain Strain, we highlighted the complexity of moving factors of production and the extreme levels of investment that have required to shift factors of production.

So, companies, if they're going to move a factory from country A to country B, have to make sure that country B has the institutional framework, that it has the capital, it has the labor input, and this is a big, big decision. So, as a company you're not going to make that decision to shift your investment or reconstruct productive facilities in a new country – until you understand the cost benefit analysis. And in order to understand the cost benefit analysis, you really need to know what the sector-based Section 232 tariff looks like in the end.

If we remember back in 2018, the government tried to implement a wide range of tariffs. On average, it took about 250 days for each investigation to be completed. And that's a long timeframe. And so, I think what we're going through now, apart from automobiles and steel and aluminum where that process has kind of already been done, and we kind of have the framework of the tariffs and the new sectors, companies are going to have to wait for this investigation to take place so that they understand what the tariff level is. Because the tariff level is going determine the risk of actually shifting productive facilities. Or if you just kind of absorb the cost because the tariff isn't at a high enough level that it incentivizes the shift.

And so, these are the changes that I think remain an open question and will be the focus of companies over the next few months as their sectors are exposed to tariffs.

Michael Zezas: Right. So, what I think I'm hearing then, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that some of the focus on the China tariffs or the country level specific tariffs in the headlines – about they're moving up, they're moving down – might mask that at the end of the day, we're still dealing with considerably higher tariffs on a broad enough array of products; that it will mean difficult choices for companies and/or higher costs. And so therefore markets are still going to have to price some of the economic challenges around that.

Rajeev Sibal: Yeah, I think that's absolutely right. And we've seen the market try to price some of this stuff at a country level context. But it's been hard. And, you know, even the headline tariff rate in the U.S. is really hard to pin down for the simple reason that we don't know if the Mexican and Canadian trade into the U.S. is compliant or non-compliant, and how that gets counted in the current structure of the tariff regime. And so, as these questions remain outstanding, markets are going to be volatile, trying to figure out where the tariff level is. I think that uncertainty at a country level then shifts to the sector level as we go through these investigations that we've been highlighting.

Autos is a great example. We finished the investigation. We've implemented a Section 232 tariff, and we still don't know what the implied auto tariff rate is because we don't know how many parts in a car are compliant within existing free trade agreements of the United States; and if they're compliant or not really determines what the implied tariff level is for the U.S. And until companies can decide and give forward guidance and understand what their margins look like, I think markets are going to be in this guessing game.

Michael Zezas: Yeah, and that certainly syncs up with our fixed income strategy views. The idea that yield curves will continue to steepen to deal with the uncertainty about U.S. trade policy and demand for dollars, as a consequence. That equity markets might be moving sideways as perhaps we priced in some of the first order effects of tariffs, but not necessarily the second order, potentially non-linear effects on the broader global economy. And unfortunately, the lingering uncertainties that you talk about implementation, they're going to be with us for awhile.

Rajeev Sibal: Yeah, I think that's really fair. And our economics outlook mirrors that as well.

Michael Zezas: Well, Rajeev, thanks for joining us today to help us sort through all of this

Rajeev Sibal: Mike, thanks for having me on the podcast.

Michael Zezas: And to all of you, thanks for listening. If you found this podcast helpful, let us know and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Is the Oil Market Flashing a Potential Recession Warning?

29 april 2025 | 5 min

Our Global Commodities Strategist Martijn Rats discusses the ongoing volatility in the oil market and potential macroeconomic scenarios for the rest of this year.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley’s Global Commodities Strategist. Today on the podcast – the uncertainty in the oil market and how it can play out for the rest of the year.

It’s Tuesday, April 29th, at 3pm in London.

Now, notwithstanding the energy transition, the cornerstone of the world’s energy system is still the oil market; and in that market, the most important price is the one for Brent crude oil. Therefore, fluctuations in oil prices can have powerful ripple effects on various industries and sectors, as well as on the average consumer who, of course, pays attention to gasoline prices at the pump. Now with that in mind, we are asking the question: what's been happening in the global oil market recently?

Earlier this month, Brent crude oil prices dropped sharply, falling 12.5 per cent over just two trading sessions, from around 75 dollars a barrel to close to 65 dollar a barrel. That was primarily driven by two factors: first, worries about the impact of trade wars on the global economy and therefore on oil demand, after the Trump administration’s announcement of reciprocal tariffs.

Secondly, was OPEC’s announcement that, notwithstanding all the demand uncertainty that this created, it would still accelerate supply growth, progressing not only with the planned production increases for May; but bring forward the planned production increases for June and July as well. Now you can imagine, when OPEC releases extra production whilst the GDP outlook is weakening, understandably, this weighs on the price of oil.

Now to put things into context, two-day declines of 12.5 per cent are rare. The Brent futures market was created in 1988, and since then this has only happened 24 times, and 22 of those instances coincided with recessions. So therefore, some commentators have taken the recent drop as a potential sign of an impending recession.

Now while Brent prices have recovered slightly from the recent lows, they’re still very volatile as they continue to reflect the ongoing trade concerns, the economic outlook, and also a strong outlook for supply growth from OPEC and non-OPEC countries alike. The last few weeks have already seen unusually large speculator selling. So with that in mind, we suspect that oil prices will hold up in the near-term. However, we still see potential for further headwinds later in the year.

In our base case scenario, we expect that demand growth will slow down to approximately 0.5 million barrels a day year-on-year by the second half of 2025, and that is down from an an initial estimate earlier in the year when were still forecasting about a million barrel a day growth over the same period. Now this slowdown – coupled with an increase in non-OPEC and OPEC supply – could result in an oversupply of the market of about a million barrels a day over the remainder of 2025. Now with that outlook, we believe that Brent prices could eventually drop further down into the low-$60s.

That said, let's also consider a more bearish scenario. Oil demand has never grown continuously during recessions. So if tariffs and counter-tariffs tip the economy into recession, oil demand growth could also fall to zero. In such a situation, the surplus we're currently modeling could be substantially larger, possibly north of 1.5 million barrels a day. Now that would require non-OPEC production to slow down more severely to balance the market. In that scenario, we estimate that Brent prices may need to fall into the mid-$50s to create the necessary supply slowdown.

On the flip side, there's also a bullish scenario where we and the market are all overestimating the demand impact. If oil demand doesn't slow down as much as we currently expect and OPEC were to revert quite quickly back to managing the supply side again, then inventories would still build but only slowly. Now in that case, Brent could actually return into the low-$70s as well.

All in all, we would suspect that the twin headwinds of higher-than-expected trade tariffs and faster-than-expected OPEC+ quota increases will continue to weigh on oil prices in the months ahead. And so we have lowered our demand forecast for the second half of the year to just 0.5 million barrels a day, year-on-year. And we’ve also lowered our prices forecasts for 2026; we’re now calling for $65 a barrel – that’s $5 a barrel lower than we were forecasting before.

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.

What Should Investors Expect from Earnings Season?

28 april 2025 | 4 min

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson discusses how market volatility over the last month will affect equity markets as earnings season begins.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today, I will discuss what to expect from Equity markets as we enter the heart of earnings season.

It's Monday, April 28th at 11:30am in New York.

So, let’s get after it.

The S&P 500 tested both the lower and upper ends of our 5000-5500 range last week, reinforcing the notion that we remain in a volatile trading environment. Incrementally positive news on a potential tariff deal with China and hope for a more dovish Fed lifted stocks into the end of the week, and the S&P 500 closed slightly above the upper end of our range. While a modest overshoot of 5500 can persist very short-term, a sustainable break above this level is dependent on developments that have yet to come to fruition.

Those include a tariff deal with China that brings down the effective rate materially; a more dovish Fed; 10-year Treasury yields falling below 4 percent without recessionary risks increasing; and a clear rebound in earnings revisions. Bottom line, until we see clear positive shift in one or more of these factors, range trading is likely to continue with risks to the downside given that we are now at the top end of the range.

A frequent question we're getting from clients is does the soft data matter for equities or is the market waiting for the hard data to make up its mind in terms of an upside or downside breakout above or below this range? Our view has been consistent that the most important macro data at this stage is from the labor market while the most important micro data are earnings revisions. Equities have already priced a meaningful slowdown in growth relative to expectations.

What's not priced is a labor cycle or recession. While this risk has been reduced to some extent given the recent, more dovish tone shift on tariffs from the administration, it's far from extinguished. Until we see clear evidence over multiple months that the labor market remains solid, a recession will likely remain a coin toss. One soft data point to pay attention to this week that could move the market is the April ISM Manufacturing data on May 1st. Recall this series accelerated the August 2024 selloff ahead of a soft July payroll report.

The most important takeaway from an equity strategy perspective is to stay up the quality curve. No matter what the hard data says, we remain in a late cycle backdrop where both quality and large cap relative outperformance should continue. While uncertainty remains higher than usual, defensives should continue to do well. However, given their relative outperformance over the past year, it also makes sense to pick spots in high quality cyclicals that have already discounted a material slowdown in both macro conditions and earnings.

To be clear, this is not a blanket call on cyclicals; it's a selective, stock-specific one. More specifically, look for quality, cyclical stocks that are more de-risked based on what the stocks are pricing from a forward earnings growth standpoint. See our written research for stock screens.

And from a global standpoint, we recommend favoring U.S. over international equities at this point as a weaker dollar should benefit U.S. relative earnings revisions, particularly versus Europe and Japan. Furthermore, less volatile earnings growth and a higher quality bias should benefit the U.S. on a relative basis in today's late cycle backdrop.

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.

Tariffs Could Drag on Growth in Asia as Well as U.S.

25 april 2025 | 11 min

Our U.S. and Asia economists Michael Gapen and Chetan Ahya discuss how tariff uncertainty is shaping their expectations for these economies over the second half of 2025.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Michael Gapen: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist.

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

Michael Gapen: Today we'll discuss some significant changes to our Asia growth forecast on the heels of tariffs. As well as how the U.S. economy is reacting to the changes in the global trading environment.

It's Friday, April 25th at 8am in New York.

Chetan Ahya: And 8pm in Hong Kong.

Michael Gapen: So, Chetan, since the last time we were both on the show, it appears that we are headed towards at least some de-escalation of trade tensions. Just last week, you wrote in your report that the tariffs on China are too prohibitive for any trade to take place – and that you expected some dialing down of the escalatory action. And this week the administration started to talk about easing tariffs on China significantly.

Considering all the events since April 2nd – and it's felt like a lot of events since April 2nd –where does it leave you in terms of how you are thinking about the outlook?

Chetan Ahya: So, Mike, that's right. You know what we thought was that the current level of tariffs that the U.S. has on China and what China has on the U.S. means that effectively there are no transactions possible

But look, even after those tariff rates are going down, we are still expecting it to be in the range of around 60 per cent. And that would still be relatively high level of tariffs. If I were just to translate this into what it means for the whole region? So, for the whole region, the weighted average tariff will still be around 32 per cent. And remember this number was close to 5 per cent in early January.

So, we are talking about a huge amount of uncertainty related to this tariff path and the tariff level itself is going to remain somewhat high.

And so, with that concern on uncertainty, we are expecting a region's investment growth to be affected significantly, taking down region's growth lower.

Michael Gapen: So, Chetan, I was looking over your growth forecast and noticed that you have a sharp step down in growth from the second quarter of 2025 on. Can you walk us through these revisions in particular?

Chetan Ahya: So yes, we have changed our forecast and what we are now seeing is in terms of growth path is that Asia's overall GDP growth will slow from 4.8 per cent that we saw in fourth quarter of last year, to around 3.6 per cent by fourth quarter of this year.

And for comparable time period, China's growth will slow from 5.4 to 3.7 [per cent]. So that's another meaningful step down for China

Michael Gapen: What do you think Asian economies can do to counteract the impact from tariffs at this point?

Chetan Ahya: So, we expect the policy makers in the region to take up both monetary and fiscal policy easing. But, you know, despite that policy easing effort, you will still see that meaningful growth drag. So, for China, we think it'll be the fiscal policy that will do the heavy lifting. Whereas for Asia ex-China is going to be more monetary policy that will do the heavy lifting.

And in terms of the exact magnitude, we're expecting 50 to 150 basis points depending upon the economy in the region in form of rate cuts. And specifically on China; on the fiscal policy, we expect them to take up about 2.5 per cent of GDP increase in fiscal deficit in form of investment in infrastructure, as well as some programs for supporting consumption spending.

Michael Gapen: So Chetan, it sounds like a lot of monetary and fiscal policy easing and support is coming from the Asian economies. But I guess the bottom line is that you don't think it would be sufficient to fully counteract the impact from tariffs. Is that right?

Chetan Ahya: That's right Mike. And let me come to you now and get your thoughts on how you see the development of the tariffs, et cetera, affecting the U.S. economy. You've already recently characterized your view on the U.S. economy as still living on the edge. What's driving this view?

Michael Gapen: It's a way that we were trying to communicate that, you know, we don't see the economy at the moment, falling into a recession, but we think it's close. If we thought that the effective tariff rate was going to stay where it was -- or where it is -- roughly around 18 per cent, then we would have a much more negative view on the outlook. And we do expect the effective tariff rate to come down for all the reasons that you suggested there. And there's openings for that, to happen. And that's where the conversation has been going in recent days.

And so, I think there's a tension between how much uncertainty can be reduced on one hand. And then on the other hand, how quickly volumes in the economy, activity in the economy may slow. So, I think we're in a window here where – where we are in a race against time to bring the effective tariff rate lower, in order to keep the economy in recovery. So that was really my narrative here where living on the edge, where we're not projecting a recession, but we're close enough to one. That, it’s almost a coin toss. And I think we need to backpedal here relatively quickly, or we could have much more negative effects on the economy.

Chetan Ahya: And Mike, I remember that, in 2018, we did not see this kind of a reaction in the consumer confidence data, but we are seeing that in this cycle. And on top of it, we have this expectation that corporate confidence will also be weighed down by policy uncertainty. So how does this double whammy of weak confidence feature in your forecast?

Michael Gapen: I think the key component or in, in this case two key components for the outlook for the economy – because it's relatively straightforward to try and project or pass through the direct effect of tariffs on consumer spending, real incomes and trade volumes. But what's really hard to understand here is what does a highly uncertain environment do to asset markets and business sentiment?

So, ~~the,~~ the two channels here that you mentioned, consumer confidence and business confidence. These are kind of what might get you spill over effects, and a recession.

So, for the consumer, what we're really focused on here is, yes. Stated confidence by households is weak, but they're still generally spending. And tariffs affect lower- and middle-income houses more than they do upper income households. So, we're really keyed in on: Do equity markets fall enough? Do we get a negative wealth shock on upper income consumers, where they decide, ‘Hey, I feel less wealthy, therefore I'm going to spend less than save more.’

So, then the business sector delays spending and may even, you know, generate some layoffs; and recessions, as you know, happen when there's a lot of negative feedback loops in the economy. And so, this is what we're worried about.

Chetan Ahya: Another interesting debate, that we as a team are having with the investors is about the Fed policy response. And so, Fed Chair Powell has said that tariffs would generate at least a temporary rise in inflation. How do you think the Fed will handle a tariff induced spike in inflation?

Michael Gapen: So, there has been an evolution in the Fed's thought and thinking around how to handle tariffs. Given the dramatic increase in tariffs,, I think the Fed has to wait and they have to see the actual data come in.

So, in our view, with inflation rising first and activity weakening later, you probably don't get any Fed cuts this year. And the Fed moves to rate cuts in 2026. If we're wrong in the economy, and, and it decelerates, and moves into a recession more quickly than we would anticipate, and the labor market deteriorates rapidly, then the Fed will ease.

But what they're doing here is they're responding to a world where both sides of their mandate are getting worse. And they're going to respond to the one that's more offsides than the other. And in the short run, we think that'll be inflation. So, it means the Fed moves much later than markets currently expect.

Chetan Ahya: In terms of the next set of data points or events that you're watching, ~~uh,~~ which can change your view on the growth outlook – what are you really, looking out for?

Michael Gapen: Well, I think in the very short run, it's looking at all the inflation data and seeing whether or not the higher tariff rates are getting passed through to the final consumer. We think a little of that will show up in the April inflation data that's due out in the middle of May. That'll be mainly around autos. But then we think the May, June, and July data will begin to show much more increase in goods prices from the tariff pass through. So, we'll be kind of watching that to see whether the inflation impulse is as strong as we think it will be.

Second, I think in the very short run, we'll be watching trade volumes. We'll be watching even, shipping container volumes.

We'll be watching for blank sales where ships skip ports because there's just not any activity or demand. And then finally, I'd say employment, right? Obviously, expansion versus contraction and whether the economy will stay in expansion phase will be dependent on whether employment continues to grow. We'll get an early look on that. For the April employment data in early May. We don't think there'll be much negative imprint on April employment, but as we move into May, June, and July, we could see hiring slow down more rapidly.

So, Chetan, that's what I would point to – just ascertaining the near-term inflation impulse, looking out for any sharp slowdown in trade volumes and whether or not the labor market holds up.

Michael Gapen: Before we close, based on what I just described about the U.S. and also how you're thinking about the tariff situation, how would you differentiate the economies in your part of the world? I only have to deal with one. You have to deal with many. How would you differentiate between economies in your region right now?

Chetan Ahya: So Mike, what we've tried to do is to think about this more from which economies are more trade oriented and which economies are less trade oriented. Because we are aware about the fact that there is going to be an overall trade slowdown for the region. And so, in that context, India and Australia are the ones we think will be, relatively less affected from this trade slowdown and global growth slowdown. Whereas more trade-oriented economies, which is, you know, the likes of Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Malaysia would be getting more affected.; The reality is that China is facing the maximum amount of tariffs within the region. And therefore we are building in a bit more growth slowdown in case of China, even while its trade orientation is a bit lower than Korea and Taiwan.

Michael Gapen: Chetan, thanks for taking time to talk today.

Chetan Ahya: Great speaking with you, Mike,

Michael Gapen: 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.

Will Housing Prices Keep Climbing?

24 april 2025 | 8 min

Our Co-Heads of Securitized Products Research Jay Bacow and James Egan explain how mortgage rates, tariffs and stock market volatility are affecting the U.S. housing market.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- 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 today we're here to talk about all of the headlines that we've been seeing and how they impact the U.S. housing market.

It's Thursday, April 24th at 9am in New York.

Jay Bacow: Jim, there are a lot of headlines right now. Mortgage rates have decreased about 60 basis points from the highs that we saw in January through the beginning of April. But since the tariff announcements, they've retraced about half of that move. Now, speaking of the tariffs, I would imagine that's going to increase the cost of building homes.

So, what does all of this mean for the U.S. housing market?

James Egan: On top of everything you just mentioned, the stock market is down over 15 per cent from recent peaks, so there is a lot going on these days. We think it all has implications for the U.S. housing market. Where do you want me to start?

Jay Bacow: I think it's hard to have a conversation these days without talking about tariffs, so let's start there.

James Egan: So, we worked on the impacts of tariffs on the U.S. housing market with our colleagues in economics research, and we did share some of the preliminary findings on another episode of this podcast a couple weeks ago. Since then, we have new estimates on tariffs, and that does raise our baseline expectation from about a 4 to 5 per cent increase in the cost of materials used to build a home to closer to 8 per cent right now.

Jay Bacow: Now I assume at least some of that 8 per cent is going to get pushed through into home prices, which presumably is then going to put more pressure on affordability. And given the – I don't know – couple hundred conversations that you and I have had over the past few years, I am pretty sure affordability's already under a lot of pressure.

James Egan: It is indeed. And this is also coming at a time when new home sales are playing their largest role in the U.S. housing market in decades. New home sales, as a percent of total, make up their largest share since 2006. New homes for sale – so now talking about the inventory piece of this – they’re making up their largest share of the homes that are listed for sale every month in the history of our data. And that's going back to the early 1980s.

Jay Bacow: And since presumably the cost of construction is much higher on a new home sale than an existing home sale, that's going to have an even bigger impact now than it has when we look to the history where new home sales were making up a much smaller portion of housing activity.

James Egan: Right, and we're already seeing this impact come through on the home builder side of this, specifically weighing on home builder sentiment and single unit building volumes. Through the first quarter of this year, single unit housing starts are down 6 per cent versus the first quarter of 2024.

Jay Bacow: All right. And we're experiencing a housing shortage already; but if building volumes are going to come down, then presumably that puts upward pressure on home prices. Now, Jim, you mentioned home builder sentiment. But there's got to be home buyer sentiment right now. And that can't feel very good given the sell off in equity markets and what that does with home buyer's ability to afford to put down money for down payment. So how does that all affect the housing market?

James Egan: Now that's a question that we've been getting a lot over the past couple weeks. And to answer it, we took a look at all of the times that the stock market has fallen by at least 20 per cent over the past few decades.

Jay Bacow: I assume when you looked at that, the answers weren't very good.

James Egan: You know, it depends on the question. We identified 10 instances of at least a 20 per cent drawdown in equity markets over the past few decades. For eight of them, we have sufficient home price data. Outside of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), which you could argue was a housing led global recession, every other instance saw home prices actually climb during the equity market correction.

Jay Bacow: So, people were buying homes during a drawdown in the equity market?

James Egan: No home prices were climbing. But in every instance, and here we can go back a little bit further, sales declined during the drawdown. Now, once stock markets officially bottomed, sales climbed sharply in the following 12 months. But while stock prices were falling, so were sales.

And Jay, at the top of this podcast, you mentioned mortgage rate volatility. That matters a lot here…

Jay Bacow: Can you elaborate on why I said something so thoughtful?

James Egan: Well, it's because you're a very thoughtful person. But why mortgage rate volatility matters here? While sales volumes fall in all instances, the magnitude of that decrease falls into two distinct camps. There are four of these roughly 10 instances, where the decrease in sales volumes is large; it exceeds 10 per cent. And again, one of those was that GFC – housing led global recession. But the other three all had mortgage rates increased by at least 200 basis points alongside the equity market selloff.

Jay Bacow: So not only were people feeling less wealthy, but homes were getting more expensive. That just seems like a double whammy.

James Egan: Bingo. And there were more instances where rates did actually decrease amid the equity market selloff. And while that didn't stop sales from falling, it did contain the decrease. In each of these instances, sales were virtually flat to down low single digits. So, call it a 3 or 4 per cent drop.

Jay Bacow: All right, so that's a really good history lesson. What's going to happen now? We've been talking about the housing market being at almost trough turnover rates already for some time.

James Egan: Right, so when we think about the view forward, and you talk about trough turnover rates, I've said some version of this statement on this podcast a few times…

Jay Bacow [crosstalk]: You’re saying it again…

James Egan: … but there’s some level of housing activity that has to occur regardless of where rates and affordability are. And coming into this year, we really thought we were at those levels. I'm not saying we don't still think that we're there, but if mortgage rates were to stay elevated like they are today as we're recording this podcast, amid this broader equity market volatility, we do think that could introduce a little bit more downside to sales volumes.

Jay Bacow: All right, but if we've got this equity drawdown, then I feel like we've been getting other questions from homeowners’ ability to pay for these mortgages – and delinquencies in the pipeline. Do you have anything to highlight there?

James Egan: Yes, so I think one of the things we've also highlighted with respect to the unique situation that we're in in the US housing market is – just how low effective mortgage rates are on the outstanding universe versus the prevailing rate today.

We've talked about the implications of the lock-in effect. But if we take a closer look on just how much bifurcation that's led to in terms of household mortgage payments as a share of income, depending on when you bought your house. If you bought your house back in 2016, your income, if we at least look at median income growth, is up in the interim.

You probably refinanced in 2020 when mortgage rates came down. That monthly payment as a share of today's income, today's median household income, roughly 8.5 per cent. If you bought up the median priced home at prevailing rates in 2024, you're talking about a payment to income north of 26 per cent. When we look at performance from a mortgage perspective, we are seeing real delineations by vintage of mortgage origination – with mortgages before 2021, behaving a lot better than mortgages after 2021. So the 2022 to [20]24 vintages.

I would highlight that losses and foreclosures, those remain incredibly contained. We expect them to stay that way. But when we think about all of this on a go forward basis, we do think that mortgage rate volatility is going to be important for sales volumes next year. But everything we talked about should lead to continued support for home prices. They're growing at 4 per cent year-over-year now. By the end of the year, maybe 2 to 3 per cent growth. So, a little bit of deceleration, but still climbing home prices.

Jay Bacow: Interesting. So normally we talk about the housing market. It's location, location, location. But it sounds like the timing of when you bought is also going to impact things as well. Jim, always a pleasure talking to you.

James Egan: Pleasure talking to you too, Jay. And to our listeners, thanks for listening. 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.

Is the Beverage Industry Drying Up?

23 april 2025 | 5 min

Morgan Stanley’s Head of European Consumer Staples, Sarah Simon, discusses why aging populations, wellness trends and Gen Z’s moderation are putting pressure on the long-term outlook for alcoholic beverages.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Sarah Simon, Head of the European Consumer Staples team. Today’s topic: Is America sobering up? Recent trends point to a national decline in alcohol use.

It's Wednesday, April 23rd, at 2pm in London.

Picture this: It's Friday night, and you're at a bar with friends. The drinks menu offers many options. A cold beer or glass of wine, sure. But how about a Phony Negroni. And your friends nod approvingly.

This isn't just a passing trend – we believe it's a structural shift that's set to reshape the beverage industry.

Overall alcohol consumption in volume terms has been relatively flat over the last decade in the U.S. - with spirits growing mid single digits in value terms and beer growing low single digits. But both categories are currently declining. The big debate is whether it’s cyclical or structural. We acknowledge that the consumer is under pressure right now, but we equally see long term structural pressures that are starting to play out. There are three key factors behind this trend: increased moderation by younger drinkers, an ageing population, and then broader health and wellness trends.

So let’s talk first about Gen Z – those born between 1997 and 2012. They're drinking notably less than previous generations of the same age. In fact, today’s 18-34 year-olds drink 30 per cent less than the same age group 20 years ago. And we think it’s pretty unlikely they will catch up as they get older. This isn't a temporary blip caused by the after-effects of COVID-19 lockdowns or economic pressures. It's a long-term trend that predates both of these factors. And importantly this isn’t the case of abstinence – as in the case of tobacco – but moderation. Younger generations are simply drinking less alcohol and allocating more of their beverage spending towards soft drinks.

Secondly, developed market populations are ageing. If we look at population data, we see it’s today’s 45-55 year old age group that drinks the most alcohol; and has exhibited the highest growth in consumption and spending over the last 20 years. However, over the next 20 years, this cohort is likely to cut back on drinking due to physiological reasons as they age. The body simply becomes less able to metabolize alcohol, and there’s much higher usage of prescription medication in the over 65 age group.

And in just the same way that this cohort was growing faster than the population overall over the last 20 years – because of the higher birth rate in the late 60s and 70s – in future, the aging of these GenX-ers will drive outsized growth in the number of people aged over 75, who consume much less alcohol. And so, the result is a disproportionate impact on overall alcohol consumption. And on top of this, there’s increased adoption of GLP-1 weight loss drugs that we’ve talked about previously. And increasingly negative perceptions of the health implications of alcohol – as the broader health and wellness trend takes hold.

On the flip side, there's also a growing acceptance of non-alcoholic beverages, driven by better products and broader distribution. We expect low- and zero-alcohol alternatives to gain a larger share of the market as a result. And we think beer looks particularly well-positioned; it already accounts for about 85 per cent of the non-alcoholic market overall. And this year in the U.S., non-alcoholic beer has nearly doubled its share of U.S. beer retail sales, compared to where it was in 2021. Now it’s still small, but the growth rate in the well over 20 per cent range, suggests that share gain will continue.

Meanwhile, we’re seeing more mocktails on menus and zero-alcohol beer on draft in pubs. All of this is further contributing to less stigma associated with not drinking alcohol. And all these trends add up to one conclusion, we think: earnings pressures on alcohol makers are not simply cyclical but structural. They have been underway even prior to COVID. And looking to the future, we think they’re here to stay.

So now, many more people can say cheers to that.

Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen to podcasts. And tell your friends about us too.

How Investors are Playing Defense

22 april 2025 | 4 min

Our Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Serena Tang discusses the market’s shifting perception of risk and what’s behind some unusual patterns in fund flows among asset classes.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

No investment recommendation is made with respect to any of the ETFs or mutual funds referenced herein. Investors should not rely on the information included in making investment decisions with respect to those funds.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Cross-Asset Strategist. Today I want to look at how investors are playing defense amid elevated macro uncertainty.

It’s Tuesday, April 22, at 10am in New York.

So, the last three weeks have brought intense volatility to global markets, and investors have had to reexamine their relationship with risk. Typically, in times like these, mutual fund and ETF flows from stocks into bonds serve as a clear gauge of investor defensiveness. But this pattern hasn’t really been informative this time around.

Instead, flows to gold – rather than bonds – have been the clearest evidence of flight-to-quality most recently. Between April 3rd and 11th almost US$5 billion went into gold ETFs globally, one of the strongest seven-day net flow stretches ever. There's been US$22 billion of net inflows to gold ETFs with assets under management totaling about US$250 billion year-to-date. Of the 10 days of the highest net inflows to gold ETFs over the last 20 years, three occurred in the last month.

Cash also benefited from the dash to defensives, with over US$100bn flowing into money market funds year-to-date. And we expect that reallocating to cash will be a theme for the rest of the year for many reasons. For one, our U.S. economists expect no Fed cuts in 2025 and back-loaded cuts in 2026 following a projected surge in core PCE inflation from tariffs. This means that money market fund yields should stay higher for longer. And with investors seeing the wild gyrations in safe government bonds in recent weeks, money market funds’ low volatility offer a strong risk/reward argument over holding Treasuries. For another, let's say our economists' base case is incorrect, and we do get steep cuts from the Fed sooner rather than later. That probably means we're on the brink of a recession; and in that situation, cash is king.

You know what's been particularly surprising in the middle of this recent flight to quality? Outflows from high-grade US fixed income. These outflows are notable because U.S. Treasuries, Agency mortgages, and investment grade credit are usually seen as low-beta and defensives. But U.S. high-grade bonds saw net outflows of approximately US$1.4bn during the week of April 7th. These are the largest outflows since the pandemic; and we think that this trend can continue.

So we need to ask ourselves if this is the end of American exceptionalism. And are we seeing a rotation from U.S. assets into rest-of-the-world?

The answer may surprise you, but despite the outflows in U.S. bonds, there hasn’t really been a persistent rotation out of U.S. risk assets and into rest-of-world markets. At least not a lot of evidence in the data yet. U.S. equity investors still have a strong home bias, and we've seen continued net buying from Japanese and euro area investors of foreign equities – at least some of which are U.S. equities.

We think investors should stay defensive amid the current uncertainty. But figuring out what's actually defensive has been challenging. This recent turmoil in the global markets suggests that the investors’ shifting idea of what's risky is a risk in itself.

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.

Recession Fears Are a Wild Card for Markets

21 april 2025 | 5 min

Can the U.S. equity market break out of its expected range? Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson looks at whether the Trump administration’s shifting tariff policy and Fed uncertainty will continue weighing down stocks.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today, I will discuss what it will take for the US equity market to break out of the 5000-5500 range.

It's Monday, April 21st at 11:30am in New York.

So, let’s get after it.

Last week, we focused on our view that the S&P 500 was likely to remain in a 5000-5500 range in the near term given the constraints on both the upside and the downside. First, on the upside, we think it will be challenging for the index to break through prior support of 5500 given the recent acceleration lower in earnings revisions, uncertainty on how tariff negotiations will progress and the notion that the Fed appears to be on hold until it has more clarity on the inflationary and growth impacts of tariffs and other factors. At the same time, we also believe the equity market has been contemplating all of these challenges for much longer than the consensus acknowledges. Nowhere is this evidence clearer than in the ratio of Cyclical versus Defensive stocks as discussed on this podcast many times. In fact, the ratio peaked a year ago and is now down more than 40 per cent.

Coming into the year, we had a more skeptical view on growth than the consensus for the first half due to expectations that appeared too rosy in the context of policy sequencing that was likely to be mostly growth negative to start. Things like immigration enforcement, DOGE, and tariffs. Based on our industry analysts' forecasts, we were also expecting AI Capex growth to decelerate, particularly in the first half of the year when growth rate comparisons are most challenging. Recall the Deep Seek announcement in January that further heightened investor concerns on this factor. And given the importance of AI Capex to the overall growth expectations of the economy, this dynamic remains a major consideration for investors.

A key point of today’s episode is that just as many were overly optimistic on growth coming into the year, they may be getting too pessimistic now, especially at the stock level. As the breakdown in cyclical stocks indicate, this correction is well advanced both in price and time, having started nearly a year ago. Now, with the S&P 500 closing last week very close to the middle of our range, the index appears to be struggling with the uncertainty of how this will all play out.

Equities trade in the future as they try to discount what will be happening in six months, not today. Predicting the future path is very difficult in any environment and that is arguably more difficult today than usual, which explains the high volatility in equity prices. The good news is that stocks have discounted quite a bit of slowing at this point. It’s worth remembering the factors that many were optimistic about four-to-give months ago—things like de-regulation, lower interest rates, AI productivity and a more efficient government—are still on the table as potential future positive catalysts. And markets have a way of discounting them before it's obvious.

However, there is also a greater risk of a recession now, which is a different kind of slowdown that has not been fully priced at the index level, in our view. So as long as that risk remains elevated, we need to remain balanced with our short-term views even if we believe the odds of a positive outcome for growth and equities are more likely than consensus does over the intermediate term. Hence, we will continue to range trade.

Further clouding the picture is the fact that companies face more uncertainty than they have since the early days of the pandemic. As a result, earnings revisions breadth is now at levels rarely witnessed and approaching downside extremes assuming we avoid a recession. Keep in mind that these revisions peaked almost a year ago, well before the S&P 500 topped, further supporting our view that this correction is much more advanced than acknowledged by the consensus. This is why we are now more interested in looking at stocks and sectors that may have already discounted a mild recession even if the broader index has not.

Bottom line, if a recession is averted, markets likely made their lows two weeks ago. If not, the S&P 500 will likely take those lows out. There are other factors that could take us below 4800 in a bear case outcome, too. For example, the Fed decides to raise rates due to tariff-driven inflation; or the term premium blows out, taking 10-year Treasury yields above 5 per cent without any growth improvement.

Nevertheless, we think recession probability is the wildcard now that markets are wrestling with. In S&P terms, we think 5000-5500 is the appropriate range until this risk is either confirmed or refuted by the hard data – with labor being the most important. In the meantime, stay up the quality curve with your equity portfolio.

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.

How Much More Could Your Smartphone Cost?

17 april 2025 | 8 min

Our analysts Michael Zezas and Erik Woodring discuss the ways tariffs are rewiring the tech hardware industry and how companies can mitigate the impact of the new U.S. trade policy.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

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

Erik Woodring: And I'm Erik Woodring, Head of the U.S. IT Hardware team.

Michael Zezas: Today, we continue our tariff coverage with a closer look at the impact on tech hardware. Products such as your smartphone, computers, and other personal devices.

It's Thursday, April 17th at 10am in New York.

President Trump's reciprocal tariffs announcements, followed by a 90 day pause and exemptions have created a lot of turmoil in the tech hardware space. People started panic buying smartphones, worried about rising costs, only to find out that smartphones may or may not be exempted.

As I pointed out on this podcast before, these tariffs are also significantly accelerating the transition to a multipolar world. This process was already well underway before President Trump's second term, but it's gathering steam as trade pressures escalate. Which is why I wanted to talk to you, Erik, given your expertise.

In the multipolar world, IT hardware has followed a China+1 strategy. What is the strategy, and does it help mitigate the impact from tariffs?

Erik Woodring: Historically, most IT hardware products have been manufactured in China. Starting in 2018, during the first Trump administration, there was an effort by my universe to diversify production outside of China to countries friendly with China – including Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, India, and Thailand. This has ultimately helped to protect from some tariffs, but this does not make really any of these countries immune from tariffs given what was announced on April 2nd.

Michael Zezas: And what do the current tariffs – recognizing, of course, that they could change – what do those current tariffs mean for device costs and the underlying stocks that you cover?

Erik Woodring: In short, device costs are going up, and as it relates to my stocks, there's plenty of uncertainty. If I maybe dig one level deeper, when the first round of tariffs were announced on April 2nd, the cumulative cost that my companies were facing from tariffs was over $50 billion. The weighted average tariff rate was about 25 per cent. Today, after some incremental announcements and some exemptions, the ultimate cumulative tariff cost that my universe faces is about $7 billion. That is equivalent to an average tariff rate of about 7 per cent. And what that means is that device costs on average will go up about 5 per cent.

Of course, there are some that won't be raised at all. There are some device costs that might go up by 20 to 30 per cent. But ultimately, we do expect prices to go up and as a result, that creates a lot of uncertainties with IT hardware stocks.

Michael Zezas: Okay, so let's make this real for our listeners. Suppose they're buying a new device, a smartphone, or maybe a new laptop. How would these new tariffs affect the consumer price?

Erik Woodring: Sure. Let's use the example of a smartphone. $1000 smartphone typically will be imported for a cost of maybe $500. In this current tariff regime, that would mean cost would go up about $50. So, $1000 smartphone would be $1,050.

You could use the same equivalent for a laptop; and then on the enterprise side, you could use the equivalent of a server, an AI server, or storage – much more expensive. Meaning while the percentage increase in the cost will be the same, the ultimate dollar expense will go up significantly more.

Michael Zezas: And so, what are some of the mitigation strategies that companies might be able to use to lessen the impact of tariffs?

Erik Woodring: If we start in the short term, there's two primary mitigation strategies. One is pulling forward inventory and imports ahead of the tariff deadline to ultimately mitigate those tariff costs. The second one would be to share in the cost of these tariffs with your suppliers. For IT hardware, there's hundreds of suppliers and ultimately billions of dollars of incremental tariff costs can be somewhat shared amongst these hundreds of companies.

Longer term, there are a few other mitigation strategies. First moving your production out of China or out of even some of these China+1 countries to more favorable tariff locations, perhaps such as Mexico. Many products which come from Mexico in my universe are exempted because of the USMCA compliance. So that is a kind of a medium-term strategy that my companies can use.

Ultimately, the medium-term strategy that's going to be most popular is raising prices, as we talked about. But some of my companies will also leverage affordability tools to make the cost ultimately borne out over a longer period of time. Meaning today, if you buy a smartphone over two-year of an installment plan, they could extend this installment plan to three years. That means that your monthly cost will go down by 33 per cent, even if the price of your smartphone is rising.

And then longer term, ultimately, the mitigation tool will be whether you decide to go and follow the process of onshoring. Or if you decide to continue to follow China+1 or nearshoring, but to a greater extent.

Michael Zezas: Right. So, then what about onshoring – that is moving production capacity to the U.S.? Is this a realistic scenario for IT hardware companies?

Erik Woodring: In reality, no. There is some small volume production of IT hardware projects that is done in the United States. But the majority of the IT hardware ecosystem outside of the United States has been done for a specific reason. And that is for decades, my companies have leveraged skilled workers, skilled in tooling expertise. And that has developed over time, that is extremely important. Tech CEOs have said that the reason hardware production has been concentrated in China is not about the cost of labor in the country, but instead about the number of skilled workers and the proximity of those skilled workers in one location.

There's also the benefit of having a number of companies that can aggregate tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of workers, in a specific factory space. That just makes it much more difficult to do in the United States. So, the headwinds to onshoring would be just the cost of building facilities in the United States. It would be finding the skilled labor. It would be finding resources available for building these facilities. It would also be the decision whether to use skilled labor or humanoids or robots.

Longer term, I think the decision most of my companies will have to face is the cost and time of moving your supply chain, which will take longer than three years versus, you know, the current presidential term, which will last another, call it three and a half years.

Michael Zezas: Okay. And so how does all of this impact demand for tech hardware, and what's your outlook for the industry in the second half of this year?

Erik Woodring: There's two impacts that we're seeing right now. In some cases, more mission critical products are being pulled forward, meaning companies or consumers are going and buying their latest and greatest device because they're concerned about a future pricing increase.

The other impact is going to be generally lower demand. What we're most concerned about is that a pull forward in the second quarter ultimately leads to weaker demand in the second half – because generally speaking, uncertainty, whether that's policy or macro more broadly, leads to more concerns with hardware spending and ultimately a lower level of spending. So any 2Q pull forward could mean an even weaker second half of the year.

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

Erik Woodring: Great. Thanks for speaking, Mike.

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

Tariff Uncertainty Creates Opportunity in Credit

16 april 2025 | 4 min

The ever-evolving nature of the U.S. administration’s trade policy has triggered market uncertainty, impacting corporate and consumer confidence. But our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets explains why he believes this volatility could present a silver lining for credit investors.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- 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 how high uncertainty can be a risk for credit, and also an opportunity.

It's Wednesday, April 16th at 9am in New York.

Markets year-to-date have been dominated by questions of U.S. trade policy. At the center of this debate is a puzzle: What, exactly, the goal of this policy is?

Currently, there are two competing theories of what the U.S. administration is trying to achieve. In one, aggressive tariffs are a negotiating tactic, an aggressive opening move designed to be bargained down into something much, much lower for an ultimate deal.

And in the other interpretation, aggressive tariffs are a new industrial policy. Large tariffs, for a long period of time, are necessary to encourage manufacturers to relocate operations to the U.S. over the long term.

Both of these theories are plausible. Both have been discussed by senior U.S. administration officials. But they are also mutually exclusive. They can’t both prevail.

The uncertainty of which of these camps wins out is not new. Market strength back in early February could be linked to optimism that tariffs would be more of that first negotiating tool. Weakness in March and April was linked to signs that they would be more permanent. And the more recent bounce, including an almost 10 percent one-day rally last week, were linked to hopes that the pendulum was once again swinging back.

This back and forth is uncertain. But in some sense, it gives investors a rubric: signs of more aggressive tariffs would be more challenging to the market, signs of more flexibility more positive. But is it that simple? Do signs of a more lasting tariff pause solve the story?

The important question, we think, is whether all of that back and forth has done lasting damage to corporate and consumer confidence. Even if all of the tariffs were paused, would companies and consumers believe it? Would they be willing to invest and spend over the coming quarters at similar levels to before – given all of the recent volatility?

This question is more than hypothetical. Across a wide range of surveys, the so-called soft data, U.S. corporate and consumer confidence has plunged. Merger activity has slowed sharply. We expect intense investor focus on these measures of confidence over the coming months.

For credit, lower confidence is a doubled edged sword. To some extent, it is good, keeping companies more conservative and better able to service their debt. But if it weakens the overall economy – and historically, weaker confidence surveys like we’ve seen recently have indicated much weaker growth in the future; that’s a risk. With overall spread levels about average, we do not see valuations as clearly attractive enough to be outright positive, yet.

But maybe there is one silver lining. Long term Investment grade corporate debt now yields over 6 percent. As corporate confidence has soured, and these yields have risen, we think companies will find it unattractive to lock in high costs for long-term borrowing. Fewer bonds for sale, and attractive all-in yields for investors could help this part of the market outperform, in our view.

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.

Gold Rush Picks Up Speed

15 april 2025 | 4 min

As gold prices reach new all-time highs, Metals & Mining Commodity Strategist Amy Gower discusses whether the rally is sustainable.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

---- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Amy Gower, Morgan Stanley’s Metals & Mining Commodity Strategist. Today I’m going to talk about the steady rise we’ve had in gold prices in recent months and whether or not this rally can continue.

It’s Tuesday, April 15th, at 2pm in London.

So gold breached $3000/oz for the first time ever on 17th of March this year, and has continued to rise since then; but we would argue it still has room to run.

First of all, let’s look back at how we got here. So, gold already rallied 25 percent in 2024, which was driven largely by strong central bank demand as well as the start of the US Fed rate cutting cycle, and strong demand for bars and coins as geopolitical risk remained elevated.

And arguably, these trends have continued in 2025, with gold up another 22 percent, and now rising tariff uncertainty also contributing. This comes in two ways – first, demand for gold as a safe haven asset against this current macro uncertainty. And second as an inflation hedge. Gold has historically been viewed by investors as a hedge against the impact of inflation. So, with the U.S. tariffs raising inflation risks, gold is seeing additional demand here too.

But, of course, the question is: can this gold rally keep going? We think the answer is yes, but would caveat that in big market moves -- like the ones we have seen in recent weeks -- gold can also initially fall alongside other asset classes, as it is often used to provide liquidity. But this is often short-lived and already gold has been rebounding. We would expect this to continue with the price of gold to rise further to around $3500/oz by the third quarter of this year.

There are three key drivers behind this projection:

First, we see still strong physical demand for gold, both from central banks and from the return of exchange-traded funds or ETFs. Central banks saw what looks like a structural shift in their gold purchases in 2022, which has continued now for three consecutive years. And ETF inflows are returning after four years of outflows, adding a significant amount year-to-date, but still well below their 2020 highs, suggesting there’s arguably much more room to go here.

Second, macro drivers are also contributing to this gold price outlook. A falling U.S. dollar is usually a tailwind for commodities in general, as it makes them cheaper for non-dollar holders; while a stagflation scenario, where growth expectations are skewed down and inflation risks are skewed up, would also be a set-up where gold would perform well.

And third, continued demand for gold as a safe-haven asset amid rising inflation and growth risks is also likely to keep that bar and coin segment well supported.

And what would be the bullish risks to this gold outlook? Well, as prices rise, you tend to start ask questions about demand destruction. And this is no different for gold, particularly in the jewelry segment where consumers would go with usually a budget in mind, rather than a quantity of gold. And so demand can be quite price sensitive. Annual jewelry demand is roughly twice the size of that central bank buying and we already saw this fall around 11 percent year-on-year in 2024. So, we would expect a bit of weakness here. But offset by the other factors that I mentioned.

So, all in all, a combination of physical buying, macro factors and uncertainty should be driving safe haven demand for gold, keeping prices on a rising trajectory from here.

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.

Where Is the Bottom of the Market?

14 april 2025 | 5 min

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson probes whether market confidence can return soon as long as tariff policy remains in a state of flux.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

---- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing last week’s volatility and what to expect going forward.

It's Monday, April 14th at 11:30am in New York.

So, let’s get after it.

What a month for equity markets, and it's only halfway done! Entering April, we were much more focused on growth risks than inflation risks given the headwinds from AI Capex growth deceleration, fiscal slowing, DOGE and immigration enforcement. Tariffs were the final headwind to face, and while most investors' confidence was low about how Liberation Day would play out, positioning skewed more toward potential relief than disappointment.

That combination proved to be problematic when the details of the reciprocal tariffs were announced on April 2nd. From that afternoon's highs, S&P 500 futures plunged by 16.5 per cent into Monday morning. Remarkably, no circuit breakers were triggered, and markets functioned very well during this extreme stress. However, we did observe some forced selling as Treasuries, gold and defensive stocks were all down last Monday.

In my view, Monday was a classic capitulation day on heavy volume. In fact, I would go as far as to say that Monday will likely prove to be the momentum low for this correction that began back in December for most stocks; and as far back as a year ago for many cyclicals. This also means that we likely retest or break last week's price lows for the major indices even if some individual stocks have bottomed. We suspect a more durable low will come as early as next month or over the summer as earnings are adjusted lower, and multiples remain volatile with a downward bias given the Fed's apprehension to cut rates – or provide additional liquidity unless credit or funding markets become unstable.

As discussed last week, markets are now contemplating a much higher risk of recession than normal – with tariffs acting as another blow to an economy that was already weakening from the numerous headwinds; not to mention the fact that most of the private economy has been struggling for the better part of two years. In my view, there have been three factors supporting headline GDP growth and labor markets: government spending, consumer services and AI Capex – and all three are now slowing.

The tricky thing here is that the tariff impact is a moving target. The question is whether the damage to confidence can recover. As already noted, markets moved ahead of the fundamentals; and markets have once again done a better job than the consensus in predicting the slowdown that is now appearing in the data.

While everyone can see the deterioration in the S&P 500 and other popular indices, the internals of the equity market have been even clearer. First, small caps versus large caps have been in a distinct downtrend for the past four years. This is the quality trade in a nutshell which has worked so well for reasons we have been citing for years — things like the k-economy and crowding out by government spending that has kept the headline economic statistics higher than they would have been otherwise. This strength has encouraged the Fed to maintain interest rates higher than the weaker cohorts of the economy need to recover.

Therefore, until interest rates come down, this bifurcated economy and equity markets are likely to persist. This also explains why we had a brief, yet powerful rally last fall in low quality cyclicals when the Fed was cutting rates, and why it quickly failed when the Fed paused in December. The dramatic correction in cyclical stocks and small caps is well advanced not only in price, but also in time. While many have only recently become concerned about the growth slowdown, the market began pricing it a year ago.

Looking at the drawdown of stocks more broadly also paints a picture that suggests the market correction is well advanced, but probably not complete if we end up in a recession or the fear of one gets more fully priced. This remains the key question for stock investors, in my view, and why the S&P 500 is likely to remain in a range of 5000-5500 and volatile – until we have a more definitive answer to this specific question around recession, or the Fed decides to circumvent the growth risks more aggressively, like last fall.

With the Fed saying it is constrained by inflation risks, it appears likely to err on the side of remaining on hold despite elevated recession risk. It's a similar performance story at the sector and industry level, with many cohorts experiencing a drawdown equal to 2022. Bottom line, we've experienced a lot of price damage, but it's too early to conclude that the durable lows are in – with policy uncertainty persisting, earnings revisions in a downtrend, the Fed on hold and back-end rates elevated. While it’s too late to sell many individual stocks at this point, focus on adding risk over the next month or two as markets likely re-test last week’s lows.

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.

Is the Market Rebound a Mirage?

11 april 2025 | 4 min

Our Head of Corporate Credit Research analyzes the market response to President Trump’s tariff reversal and explains why rallies do not always indicate an improvement in the overall environment.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

---- 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 historic gains we saw this week in markets, and what they may or may not tell us.

It's Friday April 11th at 2pm in London.

Wednesday saw the S&P 500 gain 9.5 percent. It was the 10th best day for the U.S. equity market in the last century. Which raises a reasonable question: Is that a good thing? Do large one-day gains suggest further strength ahead – or something else?

This is the type of Research question we love digging into. Pulling together the data, it’s pretty straightforward to sort through those other banner days in stock market history going back to 1925. And what they show is notable.

I’m now going to read to you when those large gains occurred, in order of the gains themselves.

The best day in market history, March 15th 1933, when stocks soared over 16 per cent? It happened during the Great Depression. The 2nd best day, Oct 30th 1929. During the Great Depression. The 3rd best day – Great Depression. The fourth best – the first trading day after Germany invaded Poland in 1939 and World War 2 began. The 5th best day – Great Depression. The 6th Best – October 2008, during the Financial Crisis. The 7th Best – also during the Financial Crisis. The 8th best. The Great Depression again. The 9th best – The Great Depression. And 10th best? Well, that was Wednesday.

We are in interesting company, to say the least. Incidentally, we stop here in the interest of brevity; this is a podcast known for being sharp and to the point. But if we kept moving further down the list, the next best 20 days in history all happen during either COVID, the 1987 Crash, a Recession, or a Depression.

So why would that be? Why, factually, have some of the best days in market history occurred during some of the very worst of possible backdrops.

In some cases, it really was a sign of a buying opportunity. As terrible as the Great Depression was – and as the grandson of a South Dakota farmer I heard the tales – stocks were very cheap at this time, and there were some very large rallies in 1932, 1933, or even 1929. During COVID, the gains on March 24th of 2020, which were associated with major stimulus, represented the major market low.

But it can also be the case that during difficult environments, investors are cautious. And they are ultimately right to be cautious. But because of that fear, any good news – any spark of hope – can cause an outsized reaction. But it also sometimes doesn't change that overall challenging picture. And then reverses. Those two large rallies that happened in October of 2008 during the Global Financial Crisis, well they both happened around hopes of government and central bank support. And that temporarily lifted the market – but it didn’t shift the overall picture.

What does this mean for investors? On average, markets are roughly unchanged in the three months following some of these largest historical gains. But the range of what happens next is very wide. It is a sign, we think, that these are not normal times, and that the range of outcomes, unfortunately, has become larger.

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.

Why Tariffs Spurred a Dash for Cash

10 april 2025 | 7 min

Our analysts Vishy Tirupattur and Martin Tobias explain how the announcement of new tariffs and the subsequent pause in their implementation affected the bond market.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

---- Transcript -----

Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's, Chief Fixed Income Strategist.

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

Vishy Tirupattur: Yesterday the U.S. stock market shot up quite dramatically after President Trump paused most tariffs for 90 days. But before that, there were some stresses in the funding markets. So today we will dig into what those stresses were, and what transpired, and what investors can expect going forward.

It's Thursday, April 10th at 11:30am in New York.

President Trump's Liberation Day tariff announcements led to a steep sell off in the global stock markets. Marty, before we dig into that, can you give us some Funding Markets 101? We hear a lot about terms like SOFR, effective fed funds rate, the spread between the two. What are these things and why should we care about this?

Martin Tobias: For starters, SOFR is the secured overnight financing rate, and the effective fed funds rate – EFFR – are both at the heart of funding markets.

Let's start with what our listeners are most likely familiar with – the effective fed funds rate. It's the main policy rate of the Federal Reserve. It's calculated as a volume weighted median of overnight unsecured loans in the Fed funds market. But volume in the Fed funds market has only averaged [$]95 billion per day over the past year.

SOFR is the most important reference rate for market participants. It's a broad measure of the cost to borrow cash overnight, collateralized by Treasury securities. It's calculated as a volume weighted median that covers three segments of the repo market. Now SOFR volumes have averaged 2.2 trillion per day over the past year.

Vishy Tirupattur: So, what you're telling me, Marty, is that the, the difference between these two rates really reflects how much liquidity stress is there, or the expectations of the uncertainty of funding uncertainty that exists in the market. Is that fair?

Martin Tobias: That's correct. And to do this, investors look at futures contracts on fed funds and SOFR.

Now fed funds futures reflect market expectations for the Fed's policy rate, SOFR futures reflect market expectations for the Fed policy rate, and market expectations for funding conditions. So, the difference or basis between the two contracts, isolates market expectations for funding conditions.

Vishy Tirupattur: So, this basis that you just described. What is the normal sense of this? Where [or] how many basis points is the typical basis? Is it positive? Is it negative?

Martin Tobias: In a normal environment over the past three years when reserves were in Abundancy, the three-month SOFR Fed funds Futures basis was positive 2 basis points. This reflected SOFR to set 2 basis points below fed funds on average over the next three months.

Vishy Tirupattur: So, what happened earlier this week is – SOFR was setting above effective hedge advance rate, implying…

Martin Tobias: Implying tighter funding conditions.

Vishy Tirupattur: So, Marty, what actually changed yesterday? How bad did it get and why did it get so bad?

Martin Tobias: So, three months SOR Fed funds tightened all the way to -4 basis points. And we think this was a reflection of investors’ increased demand for cash; whether it was lending more securities outright in repo to raise cash, or selling securities outright, or even not lending excess cash in repo. This caused dealer balance sheets [to] become more congested and contributed to higher SOFR rates.

Vishy Tirupattur: So, let's give some context to our listeners. So, this is clearly not the first time we've experienced stress in the funding markets. So, in previous episodes – how far did it get and gimme some context.

Martin Tobias: Funding conditions did indeed tighten this week, but the environment was far from true funding stress like in 2019 and certain periods in 2020. Now, in 2019 when funding markets seized, and the Fed had to intervene and inject liquidity, three months SOFR fed funds basis averaged -9 basis points. And that compares to -4 basis points during the peak macro uncertainty this week.

Vishy Tirupattur: So, Marty, what is your assessment of the state of the funding markets right now?

Martin Tobias: Right. Funding conditions have tightened, but I think the environment is far from true funding stress. Thus far, the repricing has occurred because of a higher floor for funding rates and not a scarcity of reserves in the banking system.

Vishy Tirupattur: So, to summarize, so the funding stress has been quite a bit earlier this week. Not as bad as the worst conditions we saw say in 2019 or during the peak COVID periods in 2020. but still pretty bad. And relative to how bad it got, today we are slightly better than what we were two days ago. Is that a fair description?

Martin Tobias: Yes. That's good. Now, Vishy, what is your view on why the longer end of the bond market sold off.

Vishy Tirupattur: So longer end bond markets, as you know, Marty, while safe from a credit risk perspective, do have interest rate sensitivity. So, the longer the bonds, the greater the interest rate sensitivity. So, in periods of uncertainty, such as the ones we are in now, investors prefer to be in ultra short-term funds or cash – to minimize that interest rate sensitivity of their portfolios. So, what we saw happening in some sense, we can call it dash for cash.

I think we both agree that this demand for safety will persist, and we will continue to see inflows into money market funds, which you covered in your research. So, your insights Marty will be very helpful to clients as we navigate these choppy waters going forward.

Thanks a lot, Marty, for joining this webcast today.

Martin Tobias: Great speaking with you, Vishy,

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

Disclaimer

Vishy Tirupattur: Yesterday all my troubles were so far away. I believe in yesterday.

Lingering Uncertainties After Tariff Reprieve

10 april 2025 | 4 min

Earlier today, President Trump announced a pause on reciprocal tariffs for 90 days. Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy Michael Zezas looks at the fallout.

----- 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 – possible outcomes of President Trump's sudden pause on reciprocal tariffs.

It’s Wednesday, April 9th, at 10pm in New York.

We’d actually planned a different episode for release today where my colleague Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter and I laid out developments in the market thus far and looked at different sets of potential outcomes. Needless to say, all of that changed after President Trump announced a 90-day pause on most tariffs that were set to rise. And so, we needed to update our thinking.

It's been a truly unprecedented week for financial markets. The volatility started on April 2, with President Trump’s announcement that new, reciprocal tariffs would take effect on April 9. When added to already announced tariffs, and later adding even more tariffs in for China, it all added up to a promise by the US to raise its average tariffs to levels not seen in 100 years.

Understandably, equity markets sold off in a volatile fashion, reflecting investor concerns that the US was committed to retrenching from global trade – inviting recession and an economic future with less potential growth. The bond market also showed signs of considerable strain. Instead of yields falling to reflect growth concerns, they started rising and market liquidity weakened. The exact rationale is still hard to pin down, but needless to say the combined equity and bond market behavior was not a healthy situation.

Then, a reprieve. President Trump announced he would delay the implementation of most new tariffs by 90 days to allow negotiations to progress. And though he would keep China tariffs at levels over 100 per cent, the announcement was enough to boost equity markets, with S&P gaining around 9 per cent on the day.

So, what does it all mean? We’re still sorting it out for ourselves, but here’s some initial takeaways and questions we think will be important to answer in the coming days.

First, there's still plenty of lingering uncertainties to deal with, and so investors can’t put US policy risk behind them. Will this 90 day reprieve hold? Or just delay inevitable tariff escalation? And even if the reprieve holds, do markets still need to price in slower economic growth and higher recession risk? After all, US tariff levels are still considerably higher than they were a week ago. And the experience of this market selloff and rapid shifts in economic policy may have impacted consumer and business confidence. In my travels this week I spent considerable time with corporate leaders who were struggling to figure out how to make strategic decisions amidst this uncertainty. So we’ll need to watch measures of confidence carefully in the coming weeks.

One signal amidst the noise is about China, specifically that the US’ desire to improve supply chain security and reduce goods trade deficit would make for difficult negotiation with China and, ultimately, higher tariffs that would stay on for longer relative to other countries. That appears to be playing out here, albeit faster and more severely than we anticipated. So even if tariff relief is durable for the rest of the world, the trade relationship with China should be strained. And that will continue to weigh on markets, where costs to rewire supply chains around this situation could weigh on key sectors like tech hardware and consumer goods.

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.

Three Things That Could Ease Tariff Jitters

8 april 2025 | 5 min

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist explains why the new tariffs added momentum to a correction that was already underway, and what could ease the fallout in equity markets.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

---- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing equity market reactions to the tariffs and what to expect from here.

It's Tuesday, April 8th at 11:30am in New York.

So, let's get after it.

From our perspective, last week's Liberation Day was more like the cherry on top for a market that had been dealing with multiple headwinds to growth all year, rather than the beginning. While the magnitude of the tariffs turned out to be worse than our public policy team's base line expectations, the price reaction appears capitulatory to us given that many stocks were already down 30 to 40 percent before the announcement on Wednesday. As discussed in last week’s podcast, our 5500 first half support level on the S&P 500 quickly gave way given this worse than expected outcome for tariffs. The price action since then has forced us to consider new technical support levels which could be as low as the 200-week moving average. And that would be 4700 on the S&P 500.

I think it’s worth highlighting that cyclical stocks started underperforming in April of last year and are now down more than 40 percent relative to defensive stocks. In other words, markets have been telling us for almost a year that growth was going to slow, and since January, it's been telling us it's going to slow significantly. In fact, cyclicals have underperformed defensives to a degree only seen during a recession, not prior to them. This fits very nicely with our long-standing view that most of the private economy has been much weaker than the headline numbers suggest – thanks to unprecedented fiscal spending, AI capex and wealthy consumers spending their gains from asset prices.

With the exceptional fourth quarter surge in U.S. fiscal spending likely to decline even without DOGE's efforts, global growth impulses will suffer too. Hence, foreign stocks are unlikely to provide much of a safe haven if the U.S. goes on a diet or detox from fiscal spending. Markets began to contemplate such an outcome with last week’s announcements. Therefore, I remain of the view we discussed two weeks ago that U.S. equities should trade better than foreign ones going forward. That is especially the case with China, Europe and Japan all which run big current account surpluses and are more vulnerable to weaker trade.

Meanwhile, the headline numbers on employment and GDP have been flattered by government related jobs and the hiring of immigrants at below market wages. This is one reason the Fed has kept rates higher than many businesses and consumers need and why we remain in an economy of haves and have-nots. Our long standing thesis is that the government has been crowding out much of the economy since COVID, and arguably since the Great Financial Crisis. It's also why large cap quality has been such a consistent outperformer since the end of 2021 and why we have continued to have high conviction and our recommendation are overweight these factors despite short periods of outperformance by low quality cyclicals or small caps – like last fall when the Fed was cutting rates and we pivoted briefly to a more pro-cyclical recommendation.

Bottom line, equity markets are discounting machines and they trade six months in advance of the headlines. With most stocks topping in December of last year and cyclicals’ relative performance peaking almost a year ago, this correction is well advanced, and this is not the time to be selling. However, it's fair to say that the tariff announcements last week have taken us to an area with greater tail risk that includes a recession or financial contagion that must be taken into consideration when thinking about levels and adding risk.

I see three specific scenarios that could put in a durable floor more quickly:

1. President Trump delays the effective date for the implementation of the additional tariffs beyond the initial 10 percent that went into effect this weekend

2. The Fed offers support for markets, either explicitly or verbally

3. A number of nations come to the table and negotiate on favorable terms to the United States.

In short, get ready for another bumpy week and remember markets are looking much further ahead than today’s headline. I remain optimistic that the second half will be better than the first as these growth negative policies morph into growth positive ones via de-regulation, a better fiscal trajectory, lower interest rates and taxes and maybe even higher wages for the American consumer.

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.

Tariff Roundtable: Global Economy on the Brink of Recession?

7 april 2025 | 12 min

As market turmoil continues, our global economists give their view on the ramifications of the Trump administration’s tariffs, and how central banks across key regions might react.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

---- Transcript -----

Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's, Global Chief Economist, and today we're going to be talking tariffs and what they mean for the global economy.

It's Monday, April 7th at 10am in New York.

Jens Eisenschmidt: It's 4pm in Frankfurt.

Chetan Ahya: And it's 10pm in Hong Kong.

Seth Carpenter: And so, I'm here with our global economists from around the world: Mike Gapen, Chief U.S. Economist, Chetan Ahya, our Chief Asia Economist, and Jens Eisenschmidt, our Chief Europe Economist. So, let's jump into it. Let me go around first and ask each of you, what is the top question that you are getting from investors around the world?

Chetan?

Chetan Ahya: Tariffs.

Seth Carpenter: Jens?

Jens Eisenschmidt: Tariffs.

Seth Carpenter: Mike?

Michael Gapen: Tariffs.

Seth Carpenter: All right. Well, that seems clear. Before we get into the likely effects of the tariffs, maybe each of you could just sketch for me where you were before tariffs were announced. Chetan, let me start with you. What was your outlook for the Chinese economy before the latest round of tariff announcements?

Chetan Ahya: Well Seth, working with our U.S. public policy team, we were already assuming a 15-percentage point increase on tariffs on imports from China. And China also was going through some domestic challenges in terms of high levels of debt, excess capacities, and deflation. And so, combining both the factors, we were assuming China's growth will slow on Q4 by Q4 basis last year – from 5.4 percent to close to 4 percent this year.

Jens, what about Europe? Before these broad-based tariffs, how were you thinking about the European economy?

Jens Eisenschmidt: We had penciled in a slight recovery, not really getting us much beyond 1 percent. Backdrop here, still rising real wages. We had some tariffs in here, on steel, aluminum; in cars, much again a bit more of a beefed-up version if you want, of the 18 tariffs – but not much more than that. And then, of course, we had the German fiscal expansion that helped our outlook to sustain this positive growth rates into 2026.

Seth Carpenter: Mike, for you. You also had thought that there were going to be some tariffs at some point before this last round of tariffs. Maybe you can tell us what you had in mind before last week's announcements.

Michael Gapen: Yeah, Seth. We had a lot of tariffs on China. The effective rate rising to say 35 to 40 percent. But as Jens just mentioned, outside of that, we had some on steel and aluminum, and autos with Europe, but not much beyond that. So, an effective tariff rate for the U.S. that reached maybe 8 to 9 percent.

We thought that would gradually weigh on the economy. We had growth at around 1.5 percent this year and 1 percent next year. And the disinflation process stopping – meaning inflation finishes the year at around 2.8 core PCE, roughly where it is now. So, a gradual slowdown from tariff implementation.

Seth Carpenter: Alright, so a little bit built in. You knew there was going to be something, but boy, I guess I have to say, judging from market reactions, the world was surprised at the magnitude of things. So, what's changed in your mind? It seems like tariffs have got to push down the outlook for growth and up the out outlook for inflation. Is that about right? And can you sketch for us how this new news is going to affect the outlook?

Michael Gapen: Sure. So instead of effective tariff rates of 8 to 9 percent, we're looking at effective tariff rates, maybe as high as 22 percent.

Seth Carpenter: Oh, that's a lot.

Michael Gapen: Yeah. So more than twice what we were expecting. Obviously, some of that may get negotiated down.

Seth Carpenter: And would you say that's the highest tariff rate we've seen in a while?

Michael Gapen: At least a century. If we were to a 1.5 percent on growth before, it's pretty easy to revise that down, maybe even a full percentage point, right?

So you’re, it's a tax on consumption and a tariff rate that high is going to pull down consumer spending. It's also going to lead to even much higher inflation than we were expecting. So rather than 2.8 for core PCE year-on-year, I wouldn't be surprised if we get something even in the high threes or perhaps even low fours.

So, it pushes the economy, we would say, at least closer to a recession. If not, you're getting closer to the proverbial coin toss because there are the potential for a lot of indirect effects on business confidence. Do they spend less and hire less? And obviously we're seeing asset markets melt down. I think it's fair to describe it that way. And you could have negative wealth effects on the upper income consumers. So, the direct effects get you very modest growth a little bit above zero. It's the indirect effects that we're worried about.

Seth Carpenter: Wow, that's quite a statement. So, a substantial slowdown for the U.S. Flirting with no growth. And then given all the uncertainty, the possibility that the U.S. actually goes into recession, a real possibility there. That feels like a big call.

Jens, if the U.S. could be on the verge of recession with uncertainty and all of that, what are you thinking about Europe now? You had talked about Europe before the tariffs growing around 1 percent. That's not that far away from zero. So, what are you thinking about the outlook for Europe once we layer in these additional tariffs? And I guess every bit is important. Do you see retaliatory tariffs coming from the European Union?

Jens Eisenschmidt: No, I think there are at least three parts here. I totally agree with that framing. So, first of all, we have the tariffs and then we have some estimates what they might mean, which, just suppose what we have heard last week sticks, would get us already in some countries into recessionary territory; and for the aggregate Euro area, not that far from it. So, we think effects could range between 60 and 120 basis points of less growth. Now that to some extent, incorporates retaliation. And so, the question is how much retaliation we might expect here. This is a key question we get from clients. I'd say we get something; that seems, sure.

At the same time, it seems that Europe weighs a response that is taking into account all the constraints that are in the equation. After all the U.S. is an ally also in security concerns. You don't wanna necessarily endanger that good relationship. So that will for sure play a role. And then the U.S. has a services surplus with Europe, so it's also likely to be a response in the space of services regulation, which is not necessarily inflationary on the European side, and not necessarily growth impacting so much.

But, you know, be it as it may. This is going to be down from here, for sure. And then the other thing just mentioned by Michael, I mean there is clearly a read across from a slower U.S. growth environment that will also not help growth in the Euro area. So, all being told it could very well mean, if we get the U.S. close to recession, that the Euro area is flirting with recession too.

Seth Carpenter: Got it.

Chetan Ahya: Seth, can I interrupt you on this one? I just wanted to add the perspective on retaliatory tariffs from China. What we had actually originally billed was that China would take up a retaliatory response, which would be less than be less than proportionate, just like the last time. But considering that China has actually, mashed U.S. reciprocal tariffs, it makes us feel that it's very unlikely that a deal will be done anytime soon.

Seth Carpenter: Okay. So then how would you revise your view for what's going on with China?

Chetan Ahya: Yeah, so as I mentioned earlier, we had already built in some downside but with these reciprocal tariffs, we see another 50 to 100 [basis points] downside to China's growth, depending upon how strong is the policy stimulus.

Seth Carpenter: So, at some point, I suspect we're going to start having a discussion about what it really means to have a global recession, and markets are going to start to look to central banks.

So, Mike, let me turn to you. Jay Powell spoke recently. He repeated that he is in no hurry to cut interest rates. Can you talk to me about the challenges that the Fed is facing right now?

Michael Gapen: The Fed is faced with this problem where tariffs mean it's missing on both sides of its mandate, where inflation is rising and there's downside risk to the economy.

So how do you respond to that?

Really what Powell said is it's going to be tough for us to look through this rise in inflation and pre-emptively ease. So, for the moment they're on hold and they're just going to evaluate how the economy responds. If there's no recession, it likely means the Fed's on hold for a very long time. If we get negative job growth, if you will, or job cuts, then the Fed may be moving to ease policy. But right now, Powell doesn't know which one of those is going to materialize first.

Seth Carpenter: Alright Mike. So, I understand what you're saying. Inflation going higher, growth going lower. Really awkward position for the Fed, and I think central banks around the world really have to weigh the two sides of these sorts of things, which one’s going to dominate…

Jens Eisenschmidt: Exactly. Seth, may I jump in here because I think that's a perfect segue to the ECB; which I was thinking a lot about that – just recently coming back from the U.S. – how different the position really is here. So, the ECB currently is on the way to neutral, at least as we have always thought as a good way of framing their way. Inflation is falling to target. Now with all the risks that we have mentioned, there's a clear risk we see. Inflation going below 2 percent, already by mid this year – if oil prices were to stay as low as they are and with the euro appreciation that we have seen.

The tariffs scare in terms of the inflationary impact from tariffs, that's much less clear. Now, whether that's really something to worry about simply because what you typically see with these tariffs – it's actually a depreciation of the exchange rate, which we haven't seen. So, we think there is a clear risk, downside risk to our path; at least that we have an anticipation. A quicker rate cutting cycle by the ECB. And potentially if the growth outlook that we have just outlined all these risks really materializes, or threatens is more likely to materialize, then the cuts could also be deeper.

Seth Carpenter: That's super tricky as well though, because they're going to have to deal with all the same uncertainty. I will say this brings up to me the Bank of Japan because it was the one major central bank that was going the opposite direction before all of this. They were hiking while the other central banks were cutting.

So, Chetan, let me turn to you. Do you think the Bank of Japan's gonna be able to follow through on the additional rate hike that you all had already had in your forecast?

Chetan Ahya: Yes Seth. I think Bank of Japan will have a difficult time. Japan is exposed to direct effect of 24 percent reciprocal tariffs. It will see downside from global trade slowdown, which will weigh on its exports and yen appreciation will weigh on its inflation outlook. Hence, unless if U.S. removes tariffs very quickly in the near term, we see the risk that BOJ will pause instead of hiking as we had assumed in our earlier base case.

Seth Carpenter: Well, this is a good place to stop. Let me see if I can summarize the conversations we've had so far. Before this latest round of tariffs had been announced, we had thought there'd be some tariffs, and we had looked for a bit of slowdown in the U.S. and in Europe and in China – the three major economies in the world. But these new rounds of tariffs have added a lot to that slowdown pushing the, the global economy right up to the edge of recession. And what that means as well is for central banks, they're left in at least something of a bind. The Bank of Japan though, the one major central bank that had been hiking, boy, there's a really good chance that that rate hike gets derailed.

Seth Carpenter: Well, thank you 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 a colleague today.

Tariff Fallout: Where Do Markets Go From Here?

4 april 2025 | 4 min

As markets continue reacting to the Trump administration’s tariffs, Michael Zezas, our Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy, lists the expected impacts for investors across equity sectors and asset classes.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

---- 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 talking about the market impacts of the recently announced tariff increases.

It’s Friday, April 4th, at 1pm in New York.

This week, as planned, President Trump unveiled tariff increases. These reciprocal tariffs were hiked with the stated goal of reducing the U.S.’s goods trade deficit with other countries. We’ve long anticipated that higher tariffs on a broad range of imports would be a fixture of U.S. policy in a second Trump term. And that whatever you thought of the goals tariffs were driving towards, their enactment would come at an economic cost along the way. That cost is what helped drive our team’s preference for fixed income over more economically-sensitive equities.

But this week’s announcement underscored that we actually underestimated the speed and severity of implementation. Following this week’s reciprocal tariff announcement, tariffs on imports from China are approaching 60 per cent, a level we didn’t anticipate would be reached until 2026. And while we expected a number of product-specific tariffs would be levied, we did not anticipate the broad-based import tariffs announced this week. All totaled, the U.S. effective tariff rate is now around 22 per cent, having started the year at 3 per cent.

So what’s next? Our colleagues across Morgan Stanley Research have detailed their expected impacts across equity sectors and asset classes and here are some key takeaways to keep in mind.

First, we do think there’s a possibility that negotiation will lower some of these tariffs, particularly for traditional U.S. allies like Japan and Europe, giving some relief to markets and the economic outlook.

However, successful negotiation may not arrive quickly, as it's not yet clear what the U.S. would deem sufficient concessions from its trading partners. Lower tariff levels and higher asset purchases might be part of the mix, but we’re still in discovery mode on this. And even if tariff reductions succeed, it's still likely that tariff levels would be meaningfully higher than previously anticipated.

So for investors, we think that means there’s more room to go for markets to price in a weaker U.S. growth outlook. In U.S. equities, for example, our strategists argue that first-order impacts of higher tariffs may be mostly priced at this point, but second-order effects – such as knock-on effects of further hits to consumer and corporate confidence – could push the S&P 500 below the 5000 level.

In credit markets, weakness has been, and may continue to be, more acute in key sectors where tariff costs are substantial; and may not be able to pass on to price, such as the consumer retail sector. These are companies whose costs are driven by overseas imports.

So what happens from here? Are there positive catalysts to watch for?

It's going to depend on market valuations. If we get to a point where a recession is more clearly in the price, then U.S. policy catalysts might help the stock market. That could include negotiations that result in smaller tariff increases than those just announced or a fiscal policy response, such as bigger than anticipated tax cuts.

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.

How Companies Can Navigate New Tariffs

3 april 2025 | 13 min

Faceoff: U.S. vs. European Equities

2 april 2025 | 10 min

What’s Weighing on U.S. Consumer Confidence?

2 april 2025 | 10 min

Are Any Stocks Immune to Tariffs?

31 mars 2025 | 4 min

Policy questions and growth risks are likely to persist in the aftermath of the Trump administration’s upcoming tariffs. Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson outlines how to seek investments that might mitigate the fallout.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast – our views on tariffs and the implications for equity markets.

It's Monday, March 31st at 11:30am in New York.

So let’s get after it.

Over the past few weeks, tariffs have moved front and center for equity investors. While the reciprocal tariff announcement expected on April 2nd should offer some incremental clarity on tariff rates and countries or products in scope, we view it as a maximalist starting point ahead of bilateral negotiations as opposed to a clearing event. This means policy uncertainty and growth risks are likely to persist for at least several more months, even if it marks a short-term low for sentiment and stock prices.

In the baseline for April 2nd, our policy strategists see the administration focusing on a continued ramp higher in the tariff rate on China – while product-specific tariffs on Europe, Mexico and Canada could see some de-escalation based on the USMCA signed during Trump’s first term. Additional tariffs on multiple Asia economies and products are also possible. Timing is another consideration. The administration has said it plans to announce some tariffs for implementation on April 2nd, while others are to be implemented later, signaling a path for negotiations. However, this is a low conviction view given the amount of latitude the President has on this issue.

We don't think this baseline scenario prevents upside progress at the index level – as an "off ramp" for Mexico and Canada would help to counter some of the risk from moderately higher China tariffs. Furthermore, product level tariffs on the EU and certain Asia economies, like Vietnam, are likely to be more impactful on a sector basis.

Having said that, the S&P 500 upside is likely capped at 5800-5900 in the near term – even if we get a less onerous than expected announcement. Such an outcome would likely bring no immediate additional increase in the tariff rate on China; more modest or targeted tariffs on EU products than our base case; an extended USMCA exemption for Mexico and Canada; and very narrow tariffs on other Asia economies.

No matter what the outcome is on Wednesday, we think new highs for the S&P 500 are out of the question in the first half of the year; unless there is a clear reacceleration in earnings revisions breadth, something we believe is very unlikely until the third or fourth quarter.

Conversely, to get a sustained break of the low end of our first half range, we would need to see a more severe April 2nd tariff outcome than our base case and a meaningful deterioration in the hard economic data, especially labor markets. This is perhaps the outcome the market was starting to price on Friday and this morning.

Looking at the stock level, companies that can mitigate the risk of tariffs are likely to outperform. Key strategies here include the ability to raise price, currency hedging, redirecting products to markets without tariffs, inventory stockpiling and diversifying supply chains geographically. All these strategies involve trade-offs or costs, but those companies that can do it effectively should see better performance. In short, it’s typically companies with scale and strong negotiating power with its suppliers and customers. This all leads us back to large cap quality as the key factor to focus on when picking stocks.

At the sector level, Capital Goods is well positioned given its stronger pricing power; while consumer discretionary goods appears to be in the weakest position.

Bottom line, stay up the quality and size curve with a bias toward companies with good mitigation strategies. And see our research for more details.

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.

New Worries in the Credit Markets

28 mars 2025 | 4 min

As credit resilience weakens with a worsening fundamental backdrop, our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets suggests investors reconsider their portfolio quality.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- 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 why we think near term improvement may be temporary, and thus an opportunity to improve credit quality.

It's Friday March 28th at 2pm in London.

In volatile markets, it is always hard to parse how much is emotion, and how much is real change. As you would have heard earlier this week from my colleague Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s Chief U.S. Equity Strategist, we see a window for short-term relief in U.S. stock markets, as a number of indicators suggest that markets may have been oversold.

But for credit, we think this relief will be temporary. Fundamentals around the medium-term story are on the wrong track, with both growth and inflation moving in the wrong direction. Credit investors should use this respite to improve portfolio quality.

Taking a step back, our original thinking entering 2025 was that the future presented a much wider range of economic scenarios, not a great outcome for credit per se, and some real slowing of U.S. growth into 2026, again not a particularly attractive outcome.

Yet we also thought it would take time for these risks to arrive. For the economy, it entered 2025 with some pretty decent momentum. We thought it would take time for any changes in policy to both materialize and change the real economic trajectory.

Meanwhile, credit had several tailwinds, including attractive yields, strong demand and stable balance sheet metrics. And so we initially thought that credit would remain quite resilient, even if other asset classes showed more volatility.

But our conviction in that resilience from credit is weakening as the fundamental backdrop is getting worse. Changes to U.S. policy have been more aggressive, and happened more quickly than we previously expected. And partly as a result, Morgan Stanley's forecasts for growth, inflation and policy rates are all moving in the wrong direction – with forecasts showing now weaker growth, higher inflation and fewer rate cuts from the Federal Reserve than we thought at the start of this year. And it’s not just us. The Federal Reserve's latest Summary of Economic Projections, recently released, show a similar expectation for lower growth and higher inflation relative to the Fed’s prior forecast path.

In short, Morgan Stanley’s economic forecasts point to rising odds of a scenario we think is challenging: weaker growth, and yet a central bank that may be hesitant to cut rates to support the economy, given persistent inflation.

The rising risks of a scenario of weaker growth, higher inflation and less help from central bank policy temper our enthusiasm to buy the so-called dip – and add exposure given some modest recent weakness. Our U.S. credit strategy team, led by Vishwas Patkar, thinks that U.S. investment grade spreads are only 'fair', given these changing conditions, while spreads for U.S. high yield and U.S. loans should actually now be modestly wider through year-end – given the rising risks.

In short, credit investors should try to keep powder dry, resist the urge to buy the dip, and look to improve portfolio quality.

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.

New Tariffs, New Patterns of Trade

27 mars 2025 | 9 min

Is the Future of Food Fermented?

26 mars 2025 | 8 min

Our European Sustainability Strategists Rachel Fletcher and Arushi Agarwal discuss how fermentation presents a new opportunity to tap into the alternative proteins market, offering a solution to mounting food supply challenges.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Rachel Fletcher: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Rachel Fletcher Morgan Stanley's, Head of EMEA Sustainability Research.

Arushi Agarwal: And I'm Arushi Agarwal European Sustainability Strategist, based in London.

Rachel Fletcher: From kombucha to kimchi, probiotic rich fermented foods have long been staples at health-focused grocers. On the show today, a deeper dive into the future of fermentation technology. Does it hold the key to meeting the world's growing nutrition needs as people live longer, healthier lives?

It's Wednesday, 26th of March, at 3 pm in London.

Many of you listening may remember hearing about longevity. It's one of our four long-term secular themes that we're following closely at Morgan Stanley; and this year we are looking even more closely at a sub-theme – affordable, healthy nutrition. Arushi, in your recent report, you highlight that traditional agriculture is facing many significant challenges. What are they and how urgent is this situation?

Arushi Agarwal: There are four key environmental and social issues that we highlight in the note. Now, the first two, which are related to emissions intensity and resource consumption are quite well known. So traditional agriculture is responsible for almost a third of global greenhouse gas emissions, and it also uses more than 50 percent of the world's land and freshwater resources. What we believe are issues that are less focused on – are related to current agricultural practices and climate change that could affect our ability to serve the rising demand for nutrition.

We highlight some studies in the note. One of them states that the produce that we have today has on average 40 percent less nutrition than it did over 80 years ago; and this is due to elevated use of chemicals and decline in soil fertility. Another study that we refer to estimates that average yields could decline by 30 to 50 percent before the end of the century, and this is even in the slowest of the warming scenarios.

Rachel Fletcher: I think everyone would agree that there are four very serious issues. Are there potential solutions to these challenges?

Arushi Agarwal: Yes, so when we've written about the future of food previously, we've identified alternative proteins, precision agriculture, and seeds technology as possible solutions for improving food security and reducing emissions.

If I focus on alternative proteins, this category has so far been dominated by plant-based food, which has seen a moderation in growth due to challenges related to taste and price. However, we still see significant need for alternative proteins, and synthetic biology-led fermentation is a new way to tap into this market.

In simple terms, this technology involves growing large amounts of microorganisms in tanks, which can then be harvested and used as a source of protein or other nutrients. We believe this technology can support healthy longevity, provide access to reliable and affordable food, and also fill many of the nutritional gaps that are related to plant-based food.

Rachel Fletcher: So how big is the fermentation market and why are we focusing on it right now?

Arushi Agarwal: So, we estimate a base case of $30 billion by 2030. This represents a 5,000-kiloton market for fermented proteins. We think the market will develop in two phases. Phase one from 2025 to 2027 will be focused on whey protein and animal nutrition. We are already seeing a few players sell products at competitive prices in these markets. Moving on to phase two from 2028 to 2030, we expect the market will expand to the egg, meat and daily replacement industry.

There are a few reasons we think investors should start paying attention now. 2024 was a pivotal year in validating the technology's proof of concept. A lot of companies moved from labs to pilot state. They achieved regulatory approvals to sell their products in markets like U.S. and Singapore, and they also conducted extensive market testing. As this technology scales, we believe the next three years will be critical for commercialization.

Rachel Fletcher: So, there's potentially significant growth there, but what's the capital investment needed for this scaling effort?

Arushi Agarwal: A lot of CapEx will be required. Scaling of this technology will require large initial CapEx, predominantly in setting up bioreactors or fermentation tanks. Achieving our 2030 base case stamp will require 200 million liters in bioreactor capacity. This equals to an initial investment opportunity of a hundred billion dollars. But once these facilities are all set up, ongoing expenses will focus on input costs for carbon, oxygen, water, nitrogen, and electricity. PWC estimates that 40 to 60 percent of the ongoing costs with this process are associated with electricity, which makes it a key consideration for future commercial investments.

Rachel Fletcher: Now we've talked a lot about the potential opportunity and the potential total addressable market, but what about consumer preferences? Do you think they'll be easy to shift?

Arushi Agarwal: So, we are already seeing evidence of shifting consumer trends, which we think can be supportive of demand for fermented proteins. An analysis of Google Trends, data shows that since 2019, interest in terms like high protein diet and gut health has increased the most. Some of the products we looked at within the fermentation space not only contain fiber as expected, but they also offer a high degree of protein concentration, a lot of times ranging from 60 to 90 percent.

Additionally, food manufacturers are focusing on new format foods that provide more than one use case. For example, free from all types of allergens. Fermentation technology utilizes a very diverse range of microbial species and can provide solutions related to non-allergenic foods.

Rachel Fletcher: We've covered a lot today, but I do want to ask a final question around policy support. What's the government's role in developing the alternative proteins market, and what's your outlook around policy in Europe, the U.S., and other key regions, for example?

Arushi Agarwal: This is an important question. Growth of fermentation technology hinges on adequate policy support; not just to enable the technology, but also to drive demand for its products. So, in the note, we highlight various instances of ongoing policy support from across the globe. For example, regulatory approvals in the U.S., a cellular agriculture package in Netherlands, plant-based food fund in Denmark, Singapore's 30 by 30 strategy.

We believe these will all be critical in boosting the supply side of fermented products. We also mentioned Denmark's upcoming legislation on carbon tax related to agriculture emissions. We believe this could provide an indirect catalyst for demand for fermented goods. Now, whilst these initiatives support the direction of travel for this technology, it's important to acknowledge that more policy support will be needed to create a level playing field versus traditional agriculture, which as we know currently benefits from various subsidies.

Rachel Fletcher: Arushi, this has been really interesting. Thanks so much for taking the time to talk.

Arushi Agarwal: Thank you, Rachel. It was great speaking with you,

Rachel Fletcher: 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.

European Banks Spark Rising Investor Interest

25 mars 2025 | 7 min

Our European Heads of Diversified Financials and Banks Research Bruce Hamilton and Alvaro Serrano discuss the biggest themes and debates from the recent Morgan Stanley European Financials Conference.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Bruce Hamilton: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Bruce Hamilton, Head of European Diversified Financials.

Alvaro Serrano: And I'm Alvaro Serrano, Head of European Banks.

Bruce Hamilton: Today we'll discuss our key takeaways from Morgan Stanley's 21st European Financials Conference last week.

It's Tuesday, March 25th, 3pm, here in London.

We were both at the conference here in London where we had more than 550 registered clients and roughly a hundred corporates in attendance. Alvaro, once again, you were the conference chair, and I wondered if you could first talk about the title of the conference this year – Europe's moment. What inspired this and was it a clear theme at the conference?

Alvaro Serrano: European banks are probably one of the strongest performing sectors globally. That has been on the back of expectations and prospects of a Ukraine peace deal, expectations of high defense spending, and we were going to German elections. I think it's fair to say that post German elections, Germany has delivered above expectations on the fiscal package. And the announcement was a big boost, at a time where U.S. growth is starting to be questioned. I think it's turning the investment flows into Europe. It's Europe's moment to shine, and hence the title.

Bruce Hamilton: And what were some of the other sort of key themes and debates that emerge from company presentations and panels at the conference?

Alvaro Serrano: The German fiscal/financial package definitely dominated the debate. But it was how it fed through the PNL that was the more tangible discussion. First of all, on NII – Net Interest Income – definitely more optimism among banks. The yield curve has steepened more than 50 basis points since the announcement together with increased prospects of loan growth. Accelerated loan growth is definitely improving the confidence from management teams on the median term growth outlook. I think that was the biggest takeaway for me.

Bruce Hamilton: Got it. And our North American colleagues have been tracking the risks and opportunities for U.S. financials under the Trump administration. How, if at all, are European financials better positioned than their U.S. counterparts?

Alvaro Serrano: Ultimately deregulation has been a big theme in the U.S. from the new administration. We've seen tangible sort of measures like the delay in implementation of Basel endgame; and some steps in around consumer legislation – so that we haven't seen [in] Europe.

We had events from the supervisory arm of the ECB. And I think the overall message is that there's unlikely to be deregulation on the capital front.

What grabbed a lot of the headlines, a lot of the debate was the proposal from the European Commission on Capital Markets Union now rebranded Savings and Investment Union. There's been measures and proposals around savings products, around a reform of the securitization market, which have pretty positive implications. Medium term, it should increase the velocity of the bank's balance sheets, and ultimately the profitability. So, more optimistic on the medium-term outlook.

Bruce, I wanted to turn it over to you. The capital markets recovery cycle was a very big topic of discussion, especially given the rising investor concerns lately. What did you learn at the conference?

Bruce Hamilton: So, yeah, you're right. I mean, obviously the capital markets cycle is pretty key for the performance of the diversified financial sector – as was clear from investor polling. I would say the messages from the companies were mixed. On the one hand, the more transactional driven models – so, some of the exchanges that the investment platforms – were relatively upbeat, across asset classes. Volume, momentum has been strong through the first quarter of this year. And so that was encouraging.

And looking further out – the confidence around some of these secular growth drivers, across the business model. So, data growth, software solutions growth, post-trade opportunities, expanding fixed income offerings were all clear from the exchanges.

On the other hand, the business models that are more geared to sort of deal activity, to M&A – sort of private market firms. Clearly there, the messaging was more mixed, given the slower start to the year in the light of tariff uncertainty, which has driven a widening in bid our spread. So certainly there, the messaging was a little bit more downbeat. Though in the context of a still-improving sort of multi-year recovery cycle anticipated in capital markets. So, a pause rather than a cancellation of that improvement.

Alvaro Serrano: And what about private markets? Especially in light of the sluggish capital markets activity since the start of the year?

Bruce Hamilton: Well encouragingly, I think, you know, investors still had private markets, the private market sub-sector, as the most popular of the diverse vote financial sub-sectors. Which I think you could take to read as meaning that the pullback in shares has already captured some of the concerns around a slower start to the year in terms of capital markets activity.

The view of most investors remains that some of the longer-term growth drivers, including increasing allocations from wealth, remain pretty supportive for the longer-term structural growth in the sector. So, I think, some clearly worry that a worsening in credit conditions could still cause share price moves down. But I think generally, we still feel the longer term looks pretty encouraging.

Finally, Alvaro, any significant updates on the use of AI within the financial sector?

Alvaro Serrano: It definitely came up pretty much in every session because ultimately AI and broader digitization efforts in mass market models like the banks are – is a key tool to improve efficiency. It came up as a key lever to improve user experience and at the same time improve cost efficiency. And when it comes to underwriting loans, it's also a very important tool, although asset quality's not a key theme at the moment.

It’s a race to embrace, I would say, because it's a key competitive advantage. And if you're not, you fall behind.

Bruce Hamilton: Great Alvaro. Thanks for taking the time to talk.

Alvaro Serrano: Great speaking with you, Bruce.

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

Key Indicators of How Far Markets Could Rebound

24 mars 2025 | 4 min

Our CIO and Chief U.S. equity strategist Mike Wilson discusses investors’ outlook following last week’s Fed meeting, and lists the key signals to gauge whether stocks can fully rebound from the recent correction.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing the recent rally in stocks and why it can continue.

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

So let’s get after it.

Last week's Fed meeting appeared to come as a relief to many market participants as Chair Powell seemed to downplay concerns about inflation, offering a bit more emphasis on the growth side of the Fed’s mandate. The Fed also made the decision to slow the pace of balance sheet runoff, a development that came sooner than some expected and indicated the Fed is ready to act, if necessary. Looking ahead, investors are now very focused on the April 2nd reciprocal tariff deadline. While this catalyst could offer some incremental clarity on tariff rates and countries and products in scope, we think it's more a starting point for tariff negotiations – as opposed to a clearing event. In short, a Fed put seems closer to being in the money than a Trump put though it probably would require material labor weakness or choppier credit and funding markets.

So far, DOGE firings have had little impact on data like jobless claims or the overall unemployment rate. There may also be a lag between when employees are laid off and when these individuals show up as unemployed, given that severance is offered to most. The more important question for labor markets is whether the recent decline in the stock market, fall in confidence and rise in economic trade uncertainty will lead to layoffs in the private economy. Our economists' base case assumes that these factors won't drive an unemployment cycle this year; but payrolls, claims, and the unemployment rate will be critical to monitor to inform that view going forward.

As usual, looking at the S&P 500 alone does not fully describe the magnitude of the correction in equities. As I noted last week, equity markets got as oversold in this correction as they were during the bear market of 2022. One could ask: Is this the bottom or the beginning of something more severe? In our experience, it’s rare for volatility to end when price momentum is at its lows. However, you can get strong rallies from these conditions which is why we expected one to begin when the S&P 500 reached the bottom end of our first half trading range of 5500 on March 13th. Since then, stocks have rallied with lower quality, higher beta equities leading the bounce, so far. We believe that can continue in the near-term even though we are still advocating higher quality stocks in one's core portfolio for the intermediate term – given weakness in earnings revisions since last November.

More specifically, earnings revisions have remained in negative territory for the major U.S. averages all year and have not yet showed signs of bottoming. However, we are starting to see some interesting shifts in revisions trends under the surface. The most notable change here is that the Magnificent 7 earnings revisions look to be stabilizing after a steep decline. This could halt the underperformance of these mega cap stocks in the near term as we head into earnings season and this would help stabilize the S&P 500, in line with our call from two weeks ago.

It could also help to attract flows back into the U.S. In our view, one of the reasons why we've seen capital rotate to international markets is that the high-quality leadership cohort of the U.S. equity market began to underperform. So, if this group regains relative strength we could see a rotation back to the U.S.

Finally, the weaker U.S. dollar could also reverse the relative earnings revisions downtrend between U.S. and European companies. If you remember, at the end of last year, the U.S. dollar was very strong and provided a headwind to U.S. relative revisions when companies reported fourth quarter results, as we previewed. This may be going the other way for first quarter results season and drive money back to the U.S., at least temporarily.

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.

Investors Look Beyond U.S. for Opportunities

21 mars 2025 | 9 min

Risks and Uncertainty in the Fed’s New Outlook

20 mars 2025 | 9 min

Our Global Head of Macro Strategy Matthew Hornbach and Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen discuss the outcome of the recent FOMC meeting, and the outlook for interest rates in 2025 and 2026.

Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.

----- Transcript -----

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

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

Matthew Hornbach: Today we're talking about the March Federal Open Market Committee meeting and the path for rates from here.

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

Mike, the Fed released a new set of projections yesterday. What do these say and what did you learn from them?

Michael Gapen: Yeah, Matt, well, the Fed's forecast actually now look a lot like our outlook for the U.S. economy. So, they revised down their expectation of growth. They revised up their expectation for inflation. So, it has a bit of a stagflation, slower growth, stickier inflation outlook – which is very much what we were thinking coming into this year. The Fed also, though, highlighted high policy uncertainty. They wrote down a forecast, but I'm not all that convinced that they have a lot of confidence in how things will evolve.

So, I think for me, really, the bigger story were their updated perceptions about uncertainty and risks to the outlook. So, in December, if you remember, they told us; virtually everybody on the committee said, uncertainty around inflation is high and risk to inflation to the upside. They complemented that this week with the fact that uncertainty around growth in the labor market is high, but risk to growth is to the downside, the unemployment rate to the upside. So, you have kind of competing risks here around the Fed's dual mandate. They've got upside risk to inflation, downside risk to growth.

To me, that's kind of the really important message. It's hard to have a confidence in a forecast right now, but I think that risk assessment is really interesting.

Matthew Hornbach: And with that in mind, and given all the policy uncertainty that the Fed mentioned, what did Powell say about how the Fed should react? In other words, what is appropriate policy at this stage?

Michael Gapen: Right. Yeah, it's tricky, right? So, on one side of your mandate, you think risks to inflation are squarely to the upside and growth in labor markets to the downside. So, what do you do? And I think Powell said, I think that the logical answer, which is, well, right now you do nothing, and you wait.

But then I think what Powell said is: How we think this plays out is – tariffs may boost inflation in the short run. Which we're going to try to ignore. And if the economy does weaken and the labor market softens, we'll ease policy in order to support activity, right? So, there might be, say, symmetric risks around their dual mandate, but there's asymmetry in the policy outlook.

He said we're either going to be on hold or we're going to be cutting rates. And generally, I think that's the right thing.

Matthew Hornbach: So, Mike, what I heard from you was that the Fed was going to look through inflation in the near term, and then eventually cut. I mean, do you think they can do that?

Michael Gapen: Yeah, I think, Matt, that's a great question. My answer to that is, I think it's easier said than done. We agree that the next move from the Fed is going to be a cut, but we think that cut comes much later.

This is a very data dependent Fed. So, I think in the moment, if tariffs boost inflation now and weaken activity later, it's easy to say, ‘I'm going to look through that and cut.’ But in practice, I think it's hard.

So, Matt, actually, at this point, though, I think I would actually kind of ask you the same question, but in a different way, right? We doubt the Fed may be able to do this. But the market priced in more rate cuts this year than we think is likely. How would you explain the market pricing and how far away from my expectation do you think it could run?

Matthew Hornbach: What’s really interesting about how the market has priced the recent events is – it’s actually pricing more in line with the spirt of your view. In the sense that the market has priced more rate cuts in 2026 than it’s pricing in 2025. So, in spirit, the market is very much with you. But as we like to say, the market price is an average of all possible outcomes. And if one of the outcomes is the Fed does nothing for the foreseeable future. And the other outcome is the Fed cuts aggressively this year. Then the market price has to reflect some degree of additional easing in 2025 that wouldn't necessarily be aligned with a rational baseline for Fed policy.

So, market in some ways is reflecting the idea that you're proposing in your forecast. But it's also reflecting the idea that it's a market and that it has to be priced for some amount of risk premia that the Fed is ultimately forced to cut rates more.

And in fact, if I can ask you a question relating to that, Mike, you know, the equity market at one point last week had fallen about 10 per cent from the highs.

Michael Gapen: Mm hmm.

Matthew Hornbach: Number one, is there a percentage drawdown that gets the Fed’s attention? You know, how does the Fed think about the equity market in an environment like this?

Michael Gapen: Yeah, I think the equity market, in my view, and I think the view of the Fed, is what I'll call a key spillover channel. Trade and manufacturing are relatively small shares of the economy. So, if we pursue restrictive trade policies, growth should slow, inflation may be firm. That's the Fed's essential baseline; it's ours. The risk here though is that somewhere in there you get a destabilizing period, equity markets fall, upper income consumers take a step back, and you have a much broader downturn at that point.

So, you ask a great question, how far do equity markets have to fall? Well, we get 10 per cent declines in equity markets on average about once a year, so it's not that. And the theory would say households have to view that decline in wealth as permanent, right? So, it has to be a fairly substantial decline.

Given how far wealth has risen, we're over [$]51 trillion now and an increase in net wealth since COVID. I think that decline has to be large. I would pencil in something, probably need about a 30 per cent decline in equity markets – before maybe that spillover risk gets very elevated.

So, Matt, if I can turn back, because, you know, I think we're in general agreement here on what we heard yesterday. But what I'd like to do in terms of looking forward, so aside from the usual communications coming from the Fed, after the blackout period, following the meeting. What do you think investors will be focusing on over the next month?

Matthew Hornbach: My sense is that there is already an unusual amount of focus on April 2nd.

You know, that is the day when the Trump administration is supposed to unveil their plan for reciprocal tariffs. It's unclear what tariffs will be implemented on April 2nd; what tariffs will be saved for a negotiating process thereafter. So, clients are very focused on April 2nd. I also suspect that at some various periods between now and then, we are likely to receive previews, in the form of various communications coming from the Trump administration on the types of policies that we may end up seeing delivered on April 2nd.

And so, I suspect that between now and then there will be a crescendo in concern, perhaps, over what will come of U.S. trade policy for the balance of this year. And really for the balance of the next three and a half years.

So, with that, Michael, thanks for taking the time to talk.

Michael Gapen: Great speaking with you, Matt.

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

Making a Bet on the Future of Betting

19 mars 2025 | 8 min

Our analysts Michael Cyprys and Stephen Grambling discuss prediction markets’ rising popularity and how they could disrupt the U.S. sports betting industry.

----- Transcript -----

Michael Cyprys: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Cyprys, Morgan Stanley's head of U.S. Brokers, Asset Managers, and Exchanges Research.

Stephen Grambling: And I'm Stephen Grambling, head of U.S. Gaming, Lodging, and Leisure.

Michael Cyprys: Today, we'll talk about sports betting and how prediction markets can disrupt it.

It's Wednesday, March 19th at 10 am in New York.

Sports betting used to be against the law in most of America, outside of Nevada. That changed in 2018, when the U.S. Supreme Court declared a federal ban on sports betting to be unconstitutional. As a result, many American states legalized sports betting. Over the last seven years, it's become even more popular and profitable. The American sports betting industry posted a record [$]13.7 billion of revenues last year. That's up from 2023's record of [$]11 billion, according to the American Gaming Association.

Now, prediction markets are set to potentially disrupt this industry.

Stephen, to set the stage, how is the U.S. sports betting industry currently organized and regulated?

Stephen Grambling: Well, as you mentioned, Mike, with the overturning of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act in 2018, legalization of sports betting turned to the states. The path to legislation varies by state with different constituents to consider – beyond even the local government. You know, Senate and Congress, but also tribal casinos, commercial casinos, sports teams, leagues, etc.

We now have 38 states plus D.C. and Puerto Rico offering legal sports betting in some format, collecting billions of dollars in taxes in aggregate. At this point, the big states that are remaining are really only Texas, Florida, Georgia, and California. Each state forms its own framework across taxes, what sports can or can't bet on, and regulations around advertising. This means a separate commission for each state regulates the industry, in conjunction with state lawmakers,

Michael Cyprys: I see. And what exactly are betting exchanges and how do they fit within the U.S. sports betting market?

Stephen Grambling: Betting exchanges have existed for a long time in markets around the world. These are really exchanges – and are platforms – where individuals can bet directly against each other on an event outcome, rather than against a bookmaker. These exchanges match opposing bets and then take a commission on the winnings and typically offer better odds by eliminating traditional bookmaker margins.

That said, the all in commission can range at two to five per cent. Whereas the spread on a traditional singles bet is about five to six per cent. So, it's relatively small. This is also known as the, the vigorish or the vig, or what the book gets to keep. Due to the need to be perfectly balanced as an exchange, these platforms, which operate in various markets, as I said around the world, are generally more akin to premarket, single bets. So single bet, or sometimes people call them straight bets, are really just betting on the outcome of a match or the over-under. They don't typically impact things like multi leg bets, also known as parlays, since there's less of a consistent betting pool.

Because the type of bets are more limited than what a sports book offers, these exchanges somewhat plateaued in popularity in markets like the UK. For frame of reference, we estimate these singles bets are about $900 million in markets where it's legal for sports betting, and roughly another $800 million in states without legislation.

Again, this is really just the market for people who only bet on that type of bet; that don't do both singles bets and parlays, or parlays alone.

Mike, maybe turning it back to you, sports betting is a type of prediction market. But from where you sit, how would you define prediction markets more broadly, and can you give some examples?

Michael Cyprys: Sure. So prediction markets are a type of marketplace where event contracts trade. Sometimes they're called forecast markets or even information markets. A core feature here is trading an outcome at an event, such as the November election, economic indicators, or even corporate events. But unlike futures contracts, event contracts have a defined risk and defined reward.

Generally, they're structured as binary options, which can be easily understood. For instance, a contract could pay a dollar if the consumer price index, or CPI, exceeds say, 3 per cent in March. If an investor buys that contract for 75 cents, they could generate a 25 percent potential return if CPI comes in over 3 per cent and they collect a dollar on that contract.

Now, the counterparty on the other side of that trade is the investor who sold that contract, collected the 75 cents, and they would stand to lose 25 cents potentially – if they held on to that contract, paid out the full dollar in the event that CPI came in hot.

What's interesting is the price of that contract becomes the best forecast of that event happening, and so this can provide a lot of information value.

Stephen Grambling: So, it sounds like you could bet on just about anything, so are these prediction markets legal?

Michael Cyprys: Not only are they legal, they've been around for some time – though perhaps more esoteric in nature, in terms of where we have seen contracts and types of events traded on marketplaces. They've been geared more towards end users and farmers. For example, event contracts on the weather have been listed on a Chicago derivative exchange for over 25 years.

What's new and interesting is that we're seeing new exchange upstarts enter the space. They're innovating, they're broadening access to retail investors, and they're benefiting from the confluence of a number of different trends around technology improvements – with mobile trading in recent years, the speed and access to information, the ease of account opening, broadly retail investors coming into the marketplace, and the pure simplicity and intuitive nature of event contracts.

The 2024 election sparked people's interest in event contracts. And that's persisting post election. In the coming months, we do expect a large retail brokerage platform in the U.S. to really help potentially mainstream event contracts.

Coming back to your legality point and question. One area of open debate, though, is around the legality of sports event contracts, where we expect regulators to provide some clarity around that in the months ahead.

Stephen Grambling: Interesting, so some have also argued that the prediction markets are not just the future of trading, but for information in general. Do you think prediction markets can be a disruptive force in finance then?

Michael Cyprys: Over time, potentially, yes. I do think that's going to require participation from both retail as well as institutional investors that can help fuel robust and liquid marketplace. The sheer simplicity is helpful in terms of driving retail adoption; but for institutional investors and corporates, they could look to prediction markets as a valuable hedging tool, with insurance-like properties – not to mention the information value that can be derived.

Stephen, given our discussion of prediction markets and their relevance for sports betting, how are you framing the potential for risk and opportunity for the sports betting industry from the application of prediction market models?

Stephen Grambling: There's a bit of a put and take wherein existing sports betting markets, that's where it's legal, the industry may face new competition. So, the incumbents will face new competition from these prediction markets being opened up. On the other hand, a new regulatory framework could also open up new states; so the states that I referenced before that are still out there that haven't been legalized, all of a sudden become fair game.

Given the size of these new states, as I mentioned, folks like California, Texas, Florida; these are enormous economies, and they're roughly equal to the size of the existing markets. So, the potential upside opportunity, we think, actually outweighs the competitive risks. And we quantify this as being potentially in the hundreds of millions of dollars, an incremental EBITDA to some of the incumbents that operate in the space.

Michael Cyprys: That's fascinating, Stephen. Thanks for taking the time to talk.

Stephen Grambling: Great speaking with you, Mike.

Michael Cyprys: 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.

What Could Weaken Strong Credit

18 mars 2025 | 4 min

Our Chief Fixed Income Strategist Vishy Tirupattur explains why credit markets have held firm amid macro volatility, and the scenarios which could hurt its strong foundation.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Today, I will talk about why credit markets have been resilient even as other markets have been volatile – and market implications going forward.

It's Tuesday, March 18th, at 11 am in New York.

Market sentiment has shifted quickly from post-election euphoria and animal spirits to increasingly growing concern about downside risks to the U.S. economy, driven by ongoing policy uncertainty and a spate of uninspiring soft data. However, signaling from different markets has not been uniform.

For example, after reaching an all-time high just a few weeks ago, the S&P 500 index has given up all of its gains since the election and then some. Treasury yields have also yo-yoed, from a 40-basis points selloff to a 60+ basis points rally. Yet in the middle of this volatility in equities and rates, credit markets have barely budged. In other words, credit has been a low beta asset class so far.

This resilience which resonates with our long-standing constructive view on credit has strong underpinnings. We had expected that many of the supporting factors from 2024 would continue – such as solid credit fundamentals, strong investor demand driven by elevated overall yields rather than the level of spreads. While we expected the economic growth in 2025 to slow somewhat, to about 2 per cent, we thought that would still be a robust level for credit investors. These expectations have largely played out until recently. While we maintain our overall positive stance on credit, some of the factors contributing to its resilience are changing, calling the persistence of credit’s low beta into question.

While we did anticipate that sequencing and severity of policy would be key drivers of the economy and markets in 2025, growth constraining policies, especially tariffs, have come in faster and broader than what we had penciled in. Incorporating these policy signals, our U.S. economists have marked down real GDP growth to 1.5 per cent in 2025 and 1.2 per cent in 2026.

From a credit perspective, we would highlight that our economists are not calling for a recession. Their growth expectations still leave us in territory we would deem credit friendly, although edging towards the bottom of our comfort zone. On the positive side of the ledger, cooling growth may also temper animal spirits and continue to constrain corporate debt supply, keeping market technicals supportive. Also, while treasury yields have rallied, overall yields are still at levels that sustain demand from yield-motivated buyers.

That said, if growth concerns intensify from these levels, with weakness in soft data spreading notably to hard data, the probability of markets assigning above-average recession probabilities will increase. This could challenge credit’s low beta, that has prevailed so far, and the credit beta could increase on further drawdowns in risk assets.

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.

Is the Correction Over Yet?

17 mars 2025 | 6 min

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains the stock market tumble and whether investors can hope for a rally.

----- 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 the recent Equity Market correction and what to look for next.

It's Monday, March 17th at 11:30am in New York.

So let’s get after it.

Major U.S. equity Indices are as oversold as they've been since 2022. Sentiment, positioning gauges are bearish, and seasonals improve in the second half of March for earnings revisions and price. Furthermore, recent dollar weakness should provide a tailwind to first quarter earnings season and second quarter guidance, particularly relative to the fourth quarter results; and the decline in rates should benefit economic surprises. In short, I stand by our view that 5,500 on the S&P 500 should provide support for a tradable rally led by lower quality, higher beta stocks that have sold off the most, and it looks like it may have started on Friday.

The more important question is whether such a rally is likely to extend into something more durable and mark the end of the volatility we’ve seen YTD? The short answer is – probably not.

First, from a technical standpoint there has been significant damage to the major indices—more than what we witnessed in recent 10 per cent corrections, like last summer. More specifically, the S&P 500, Nasdaq 100, Russell 1000 growth and value indices have all traded straight through their respective 200-day moving averages, making these levels now resistance, rather than support. Meanwhile, many stocks are closer to a 20 per cent correction with the lower quality Russell 2000 falling below its 200 week moving average for the first time since the 2022 bear market. At a minimum, this kind of technical damage will take time to repair, even if we don’t get additional price degradation at the index level.

In order to forecast a larger, sustainable recovery, it’s important to acknowledge what’s really been driving this correction. From my conversations with institutional investors, there appears to be a lot of focus on the tariff announcements and other rapid-fire policy announcements from the new administration. While these factors are weighing on sentiment and confidence, other factors started this correction in December.

In our year ahead outlook, we forecasted a tougher first half of the year for several reasons. First, stocks were extended on a valuation basis and relative to the key macro and fundamental drivers like earnings revisions, which peaked in early December. Second, the Fed went on hold in mid-December after aggressively cutting rates by 100 basis points over the prior three months. Third, we expected AI capex growth to decelerate this year and investors now have the DeepSeek development to consider. Add in immigration enforcement, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) exceeding expectations, and tariffs – and it’s no surprise that growth expectations are hitting equities in the form of lower multiples.

As noted, we highlighted these growth headwinds in December and have been citing a first half range for the S&P 500 of 5500-6100 with a preference for large cap quality. Finally, President Trump has recently indicated he is not focused on the stock market in the near term as a barometer of his policies and agenda. Perhaps more than anything else, this is what led to the most recent technical breakdown in the S&P 500.

In my view, it will take more than just an oversold market to get more than a tradable rally. Earnings revisions are the most important variable and while we could see some seasonal strength or stabilization in revisions, we believe it will take a few quarters for this factor to resume a positive uptrend. As noted in our outlook, the growth-positive policy changes like tax cuts, de-regulation, less crowding out and lower yields could arrive later in the second half of the year – but we think that’s too far away for the market to contemplate for now.

Finally, while the Trump put apparently doesn’t exist, the Fed put is alive and well, in our view. However, that will likely require conditions to get worse either on growth, especially labor, or in the credit and funding market, neither of which would be equity-positive, initially.

Bottom line, a short-term rally from our targeted 5500 level is looking more likely after Friday’s price action. It’s also being led by lower quality stocks. This helps support my secondary view that the current rally is unlikely to lead to new highs until the numerous growth headwinds are reversed or monetary policy is loosened once again. The transition from a government heavy economy to one that is more privately driven should ultimately be better for many stocks. But the path is going to take time and it is unlikely to be smooth.

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 Markets Remain Resilient, For Now

14 mars 2025 | 4 min

As equity markets gyrate in response to unpredictable U.S. policy, credit has taken longer to respond. Our Head of Corporate Credit Research, Andrew Sheets, suggests other indicators investors should have an eye on, including growth data.

----- Transcript -----

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

Today on the podcast, I’ll be discussing how much comfort or concern equity and credit markets should be taking from each other’s recent moves.

It’s Friday, March 14th at 2pm in London.

Credit has weakened as markets have gyrated in the face of rising uncertainty around U.S. economic policy. But it has been a clear outperformer. The credit market has taken longer to react to recent headlines, and seen a far more modest response to them. While the U.S. stock market, measured as the S&P 500, is down about 10 per cent, the U.S. High Yield bond index, comprised of lower-rated corporate bonds, is down about just 1 per cent.

How much comfort should stock markets take from credit’s resilience? And what could cause Credit to now catch-down to that larger weakness in equities?

A good place to start with these questions is what we think are really three distinct stories behind the volatility and weakness that we’re seeing in markets.

First, the nature of U.S. policy towards tariffs, with plenty of on-again, off-again drama, has weakened business confidence and dealmaking; and that’s cut off a key source of corporate animal spirits and potential upside in the market.

Second and somewhat relatedly, that reduced upside has lowered enthusiasm for many of the stocks that had previously been doing the best. Many of these stocks were widely held, and that’s created vulnerability and forced selling as previously popular positions were cut.

And third, there have been growing concerns that this lower confidence from businesses and consumers will spill over into actual spending, and raise the odds of weaker growth and even a recession.

I think a lot of credit’s resilience over the last month and a half, can be chalked up to the fact that the asset class is rightfully more relaxed about the first two of these issues. Lower corporate confidence may be a problem for the stock market, but it can actually be an ok thing if you’re a lender because it keeps borrowers more conservative. And somewhat relatedly, the sell-off in popular, high-flying stocks is also less of an issue. A lot of these companies are, for the most part, quite different from the issuers that dominate the corporate credit market.

But the third issue, however, is a big deal. Credit is extremely sensitive to large changes in the economy. Morgan Stanley’s recent downgrade of U.S. growth expectations, the lower prices on key commodities, the lower yields on government bonds and the underperformance of smaller more cyclical stocks are all potential signs that risks to growth are rising. It's these factors that the credit market, perhaps a little bit belatedly, is now reacting to.

So what does this all mean?

First, we’re mindful of the temptation for equity investors to look over at the credit market and take comfort from its resilience. But remember, two of the biggest issues that have faced stocks – those lower odds of animal spirits, and the heavy concentration in a lot of the same names – were never really a credit story. And so to feel better about those risks, we think you’ll want to look at other different indicators.

Second, what about the risk from the other direction, that credit catches up – or maybe more accurately down – to the stock market? This is all about that third factor: growth. If the growth data holds up, we think credit investors will feel justified in their more modest reaction, as all-in yields remain good. But if data weakens, the risks to credit grow rapidly, especially as our U.S. economists think that the Fed could struggle to lower interest rates as fast as markets are currently hoping they will.

And so with growth so important, and Morgan Stanley’s tracking estimates for U.S. growth currently weak, we think it's too early to go bottom fishing in 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.

India’s Resurgence Should Weather Trade Tensions

13 mars 2025 | 3 min

Our Chief Asia Economist Chetan Ahya discusses the early indications of India’s economic recovery and why the country looks best-positioned in the region for growth.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Asia Economist.

Today I’ll be taking a look at the Indian economy amidst escalating trade tensions in Asia and around the globe.

It’s Thursday, March 13, at 2pm in Hong Kong.

Over the last few months, investors have been skeptical about India’s growth narrative. Investors – like us – have been caught off-guard by the surprising recent slowdown in India’s growth. With the benefit of hindsight, we can very clearly attribute the slowdown to an unexpected double tightening of fiscal and monetary policy.

But India seems to be on its way to recovery. Green shoots are already emerging in recent data. And we believe the recovery will continue to firm up over the coming months. What makes us so confident in our outlook for India?

We see several key factors behind this trend:

First, fiscal policy’s turning supportive for growth again. The government has been ramping up capital expenditure for infrastructure projects like roads and railways, with growth accelerating markedly in recent months. They have also cut income tax for households which will be effective from April 2025.

Second, monetary policy easing across rates, liquidity, and the regulatory front. With CPI inflation recently printing at just 3.6 per cent which is below target, we believe the central bank will continue to pursue easy monetary policy.

And third, moderation in food inflation will mean real household incomes will be lifted.

Finally, the strength in services exports. Services exports include IT services, and increasingly business services. In fact, post-COVID India’s had very strong growth in business services exports. And the key reason for that is, post-COVID, I think businesses have come to realize that if you can work from home, you can work from Bangalore.

India's services exports have nearly doubled since December 2020, outpacing the 40 per cent rise in goods exports over the same period. This has resulted in services exports reaching $410 billion on an annualized basis in January, almost equal to the $430 billion of goods exports. Moreover, India continues to gain market share in services exports, which now account for 4.5 per cent of the global total, up from 4 per cent in 2020.

To be sure there are some risks. India does face reciprocal tariff risks due to its large trade surplus with the US and high tariff rates that India imposes select imports from the U.S. But we believe that by September-October this year, India can reach a trade deal with the U.S.

In any case, India's goods exports-to-GDP ratio is the lowest in the region. And even if global trade slows down due to tariff uncertainties, India's economy won't be as severely affected. In fact, it could potentially outperform the other economies in the region.

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.

The Other Policy Choices That Matter

12 mars 2025 | 3 min

While tariffs continue to dominate headlines, our Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy Michael Zezas suggests investors should also focus on the sectoral impacts of additional U.S. policy choices.

----- 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 talking about U.S. policy impacts on the market that aren’t about tariffs.

It’s Wednesday, March 12th, at 10:30am in New York.

If tariffs are dominating your attention, we sympathize. Again this week we heard the U.S. commit to raising tariffs and work out a resolution, this time all within the span of a workday.

These twists and turns in the tariff path are likely to continue, but in the meantime it might make sense for investors to take some time to look away – instead focusing on some key sectoral impacts of U.S. policy choices that our Research colleagues have called out.

For example, Andrew Percoco, who leads our Clean Energy Equity Research team, calls out that clean Energy stocks may be pricing in too high a probability of an Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) repeal. He cites a letter signed by 18 Republicans urging the speaker of the house to protect some of the energy tax credits in the IRA. That’s a good call out, in our view. Republicans’ slim majority means only a handful need to oppose a legislative action in order to block its enactment.

Another example is around Managed Care companies. Erin Wright, who leads our Healthcare Services Research Effort, analyzed the impact to companies of cuts to the Medicaid program and found the impact to their sector’s bottom line to be manageable. So, keeping an in-line view for the sector. We think the sector won’t ultimately face this risk, as, like with the IRA, we do not expect there to be sufficient Republican votes to enact the cuts.

Finally, Patrick Wood, who leads the Medtech team, caught up with a former FDA director to talk about how staffing cuts might affect the industry. In short, expect delays in approvals of new medical technologies. In particular, it seems the risk is most acute in the most cutting edge technologies, where skilled FDA staff are hard to find. Neurology and brain/computer interfaces stand out as areas of development that might slow in this market sector.

All that said, if you just can’t turn away from tariffs, we reiterate our guidance here: Tariffs are likely going up, even if the precise path is uncertain. And whether or not you’re constructive on the goals the administration is attempting to achieve, the path to achieving them carries costs and execution risk. Our U.S. economics team’s recent downgrade of the U.S. growth outlook for this and next year exemplifies this.

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.

The AI Agents Are Here

11 mars 2025 | 12 min

Why Uncertainty Won't Slow AI Hardware Investment

10 mars 2025 | 4 min

Our Head of U.S. IT Hardware Erik Woodring gives his key takeaways from Morgan Stanley’s Technology, Media and Telecom (TMT) conference, including why there appears to be a long runway ahead for AI infrastructure spending, despite macro uncertainty.

----- Transcript -----

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Erik Woodring, Morgan Stanley’s Head of U.S. IT Hardware Research.

Here are some reflections I recorded last week at Morgan Stanley’s Technology, Media, and Telecom Conference in San Francisco.

It’s Monday, March 10th at 9am in New York.

This was another year of record attendance at our TMT Conference. And what is clear from speaking to investors is that the demand for new, under-discovered or under-appreciated ideas is higher than ever. In a stock-pickers’ market – like the one we have now – investors are really digging into themes and single name ideas.

Big picture – uncertainty was a key theme this week. Whether it’s tariffs and the changing geopolitical landscape, market volatility, or government spending, the level of relative uncertainty is elevated. That said, we are not hearing about a material change in demand for PCs, smartphones, and other technology hardware.

On the enterprise side of my coverage, we are emerging from one of the most prolonged downcycles in the last 10-plus years, and what we heard from several enterprise hardware vendors and others is an expectation that most enterprise hardware markets – PCs , Servers, and Storage – return to growth this year given pent up refresh demand. This, despite the challenges of navigating the tariff situation, which is resulting in most companies raising prices to mitigate higher input costs.

On the consumer side of the world, the demand environment for more discretionary products like speakers, cameras, PCs and other endpoint devices looks a bit more challenged. The recent downtick in consumer sentiment is contributing to this environment given the close correlation between sentiment and discretionary spending on consumer technology goods.

Against this backdrop, the most dynamic topic of the conference remains GenerativeAI. What I’ve been hearing is a confidence that new GenAI solutions can increasingly meet the needs of market participants. They also continue to evolve rapidly and build momentum towards successful GenAI monetization.

To this point, underlying infrastructure spending—on servers, storage and other data center componentry – to enable these emerging AI solutions remains robust. To put some numbers behind this, the 10 largest cloud customers are spending upwards of [$]350 billion this year in capex, which is up over 30 percent year-over-year. Keep in mind that this is coming off the strongest year of growth on record in 2024. Early indications for 2026 CapEx spending still point to growth, albeit a deceleration from 2025.

And what’s even more compelling is that it’s still early days. My fireside chats this week highlighted that AI infrastructure spending from their largest and most sophisticated customers is only in the second inning, while AI investments from enterprises, down to small and mid-sized businesses, is only in the first inning, or maybe even earlier. So there appears to be a long runway ahead for AI infrastructure spending, despite the volatility we have seen in AI infrastructure stocks, which we see as an opportunity for investors.

I’d just highlight that amidst the elevated market uncertainty, there is a prioritization on cost efficiencies and adopting GenAI to drive these efficiencies. Company executives from some of the major players this week all discussed near-term cost efficiency initiatives, and we expect these efforts to both help protect the bottom line and drive productivity growth amidst a quickly changing market backdrop.

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.

Rewiring Global Trade

7 mars 2025 | 4 min

While policy noise continues to dominate the headlines, our Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy Michael Zezas points out a key theme: a transition toward a multipolar world.

----- 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 what investors need to focus on amidst all the U.S. policy headlines.

It’s Friday, March 7th, at 12:30 pm in New York.

In recent weeks the news flow on tariffs, immigration, and geopolitics has been relentless, culminating in this week’s state of the union address by President Trump and, if headlines hold, a partial reversal in course on Mexico and Canada tariffs that were just levied earlier this week. Understandably, measures of policy uncertainty, such as the Baker, Bloom, and Davis index, have reached all time highs. And this tracks with the confusion expressed by investing and corporate clients.

In our view, this policy noise is going to continue. But, there is an important signal. These developments track with one of our four key themes of 2025. The transition toward a multipolar world. The tense White House meeting between Presidents Trump and Zelensky, played out live in front of the news cameras, was another reminder that the U.S. is evolving its role in driving international affairs. And tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China are a reminder of the U.S.’s interest in rewiring global trade. The reasons behind this are myriad and complex, but in the near term it's about the U.S. looking more inward. Economic populism is, well, popular with voters in both parties.

There’s a few net takeaways for investors here. One is a positive for the European defense sector. The combination of tariffs and the evolving U.S. posture on global security has long been part of our thesis on why Europe would eventually chart a new path and step up to spend more on defense. The current situation in Russia and Ukraine underscores this, with potential for another $0.9-$2.7 trillion in defense spending through 2035. Germany’s new ‘whatever it takes’ approach to defense spending is a key signpost in this trend, per our colleagues in European economics, equities, and foreign exchange.

Another critical takeaway is around the effects of U.S. trade realignment on both macro markets and equity sector preferences. Whether these trade policy changes play out well over time or not, the attempt costs something in the near term. Tariffs are part of that cost. And while the precise path of tariff increases is unclear, what is clear is that they’re headed higher in the aggregate, a tactic in service of the administration’s goal of reducing trade deficits and creating reciprocal trade barriers in order to incentivize greater production in the U.S.

Over the next year, our economists expect that those tariff costs will crimp economic activity. That slower growth should eventually feed through into a more dovish monetary policy. Both factors, in the view of our U.S. rates strategy team, should continue pushing yields lower – good news for bond investors, but more challenging posture for equity investors, and a key reason our cross asset team is currently flagging a preference for fixed income.

That tariff activity should also drive supply chain realignment. But, going forward, changing those supply chains may now be more costly. Per work from our Global economics team, the supply chains that need to be moved now are complex and concentrated in geopolitical rivals. That’s a challenge for certain sectors, like U.S. IT hardware and consumer discretionary. But the investment to make it happen creates demand and is a benefit for the capital goods and broader industrials sector.

Bottom line, the policy noise will continue, as will the market cross currents it’s driving. We’ll keep you informed on it all here.

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.

Funding the Next Phase of AI Development

6 mars 2025 | 11 min

Recorded at our 2025 Technology, Media and Telecom (TMT) Conference, TMT Credit Research Analyst Lindsay Tyler joins Head of Investment Grade Debt Coverage Michelle Wang to discuss the how the industry is strategically raising capital to fund growth.

----- Transcript -----

Lindsay Tyler: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Lindsay Tyler, Morgan Stanley's Lead Investment Grade TMT Credit Research Analyst, and I'm here with Michelle Wang, Head of Investment Grade Debt Coverage in Global Capital Markets.

On this special episode, we're recording at the Morgan Stanley Technology, Media, and Telecom (TMT) Conference, and we will discuss the latest on the technology space from the fixed income perspective.

It's Thursday, March 6th at 12 pm in San Francisco.

What a week it's been. Last I heard, we had over 350 companies here in attendance.

To set the stage for our discussion, technology has grown from about 2 percent of the broader investment grade market – about two decades ago – to almost 10 percent now; though that is still relatively a small percentage, relative to the weightings in the equity market.

So, can you address two questions? First, why was tech historically such a small part of investment grade? And then second, what has driven the growth sense?

Michelle Wang: Technology is still a relatively young industry, right? I'm in my 40s and well over 90 percent of the companies that I cover were founded well within my lifetime. And if you add to that the fact that investment grade debt is, by definition, a later stage capital raising tool. When the business of these companies reaches sufficient scale and cash generation to be rated investment grade by the rating agencies, you wind up with just a small subset of the overall investment grade universe.

The second question on what has been driving the growth? Twofold. Number one the organic maturation of the tech industry results in an increasing number of scaled investment grade companies. And then secondly, the increasing use of debt as a cheap source of capital to fund their growth. This could be to fund R&D or CapEx or, in some cases, M&A.

Lindsay Tyler: Right, and I would just add in this context that my view for this year on technology credit is a more neutral one, and that's against a backdrop of being more cautious on the communications and media space.

And part of that is just driven by the spread compression and the lack of dispersion that we see in the market. And you mentioned M&A and capital allocation; I do think that financial policy and changes there, whether it's investment, M&A, shareholder returns – that will be the main driver of credit spreads.

But let's turn back to the conference and on the – you know, I mentioned investment. Let's talk about investment.

AI has dominated the conversation here at the conference the past two years, and this year is no different. Morgan Stanley's research department has four key investment themes. One of those is AI and tech diffusion.

But from the fixed income angle, there is that focus on ongoing and upcoming hyperscaler AI CapEx needs.

Michelle Wang: Yep.

Lindsay Tyler: There are significant cash flows generated by many of these companies, but we just discussed that the investment grade tech space has grown relative to the index in recent history.

Can you discuss the scale of the technology CapEx that we're talking about and the related implications from your perspective?

Michelle Wang: Let's actually get into some of the numbers. So in the past three years, total hyperscaler CapEx has increased from [$]125 billion three years ago to [$]220 billion today; and is expected to exceed [$]300 billion in 2027.

The hyperscalers have all publicly stated that generative AI is key to their future growth aspirations. So, why are they spending all this money? They're investing heavily in the digital infrastructure to propel this growth. These companies, however, as you've pointed out, are some of the most scaled, best capitalized companies in the entire world. They have a combined market cap of [$]9 trillion. Among them, their balance sheet cash ranges from [$]70 to [$]100 billion per company. And their annual free cash flow, so the money that they generate organically, ranges from [$]30 to [$]75 billion.

So they can certainly fund some of this CapEx organically. However, the unprecedented amount of spend for GenAI raises the probability that these hyperscalers could choose to raise capital externally.

Lindsay Tyler: Got it.

Michelle Wang: Now, how this capital is raised is where it gets really interesting. The most straightforward way to raise capital for a lot of these companies is just to do an investment grade bond deal.

Lindsay Tyler: Yep.

Michelle Wang: However, there are other more customized funding solutions available for them to achieve objectives like more favorable accounting or rating agency treatment, ways for them to offload some of their CapEx to a private credit firm. Even if that means that these occur at a higher cost of capital.

Lindsay Tyler: You touched on private credit. I'd love to dig in there. These bespoke capital solutions.

Michelle Wang: Right.

Lindsay Tyler: I have seen it in the semiconductor space and telecom infrastructure, but can you please just shed some more light, right? How has this trend come to fruition? How are companies assessing the opportunity? And what are other key implications that you would flag?

Michelle Wang: Yeah, for the benefit of the audience, Lindsay, I think just to touch a little bit…

Lindsay Tyler: Some definitions,

Michelle Wang: Yes, some definitions around ...

Lindsay Tyler: Get some context.

Michelle Wang: What we’re talking about.

Lindsay Tyler: Yes.

So the – I think what you're referring to is investment grade companies doing asset level financing. Usually in conjunction with a private credit firm, and like all financing trends that came before it, all good financing trends, this one also resulted from the serendipitous intersection of supply and demand of capital.

On the supply of capital, the private credit pocket of capital driven by large pockets of insurance capital is now north of $2 trillion and it has increased 10x in scale in the past decade. So, the need to deploy these funds is driving these private credit firms to seek out ways to invest in investment grade companies in a yield enhanced manner.

Lindsay Tyler: Right. And typically, we're saying 150 to 200 basis points greater than what maybe an IG bond would yield.

Michelle Wang: That's exactly right. That's when it starts to get interesting for them, right? And then the demand of capital, the demand for this type of capital, that's always existed in other industries that are more asset-heavy like telcos.

However, the new development of late is the demand for capital from tech due to two megatrends that we're seeing in tech. The first is semiconductors. Building these chip factories is an extremely capital-intensive exercise, so creates a demand for capital. And then the second megatrend is what we've seen with the hyperscalers and GenerativeAI needs. Building data centers and digital infrastructure for GenerativeAI is also extremely expensive, and that creates another pocket of demand for capital that private credit conveniently kinda serves a role in.

Lindsay Tyler: Right.

Michelle Wang: So look, think we've talked about the ways that companies are using these tools. I'm interested to get your view, Lindsay, on the investor perspective.

Lindsay Tyler: Sure.

Michelle Wang: How do investors think about some of these more bespoke solutions?

Lindsay Tyler: I would say that with deals that have this touch of extra complexity, it does feel that investor communication and understanding is all important. And I have found that, some of these points that you're raising – whether it's the spread pickup and the insurance capital at the asset managers and also layering in ratings implications and the deal terms. I think all of that is important for investors to get more comfortable and have a better understanding of these types of deals.

The last topic I do want us to address is the macro environment. This has been another key theme with the conference and with this recent earnings season, so whether it's rate moves this year, the talk of M& A, tariffs – what's your sense on how companies are viewing and assessing macro in their decision making?

Michelle Wang: There are three components to how they're thinking about it.

The first is the rate move. So, the fact that we're 50 to 60 basis points lower in Treasury yields in the past month, that's welcome news for any company looking to issue debt. The second thing I'll say here is about credit spreads. They remain extremely tight. Speaking to the incredible kind of resilience of the investment grade investor base. The last thing I'll talk about is, I think, the uncertainty. [Because] that's what we're hearing a ton about in all the conversations that we've had with companies that have presented here today at the conference.

Lindsay Tyler: Yeah. For my perspective, also the regulatory environment around that M&A, whether or not companies will make the move to maybe be more acquisitive with the current new administration.

Michelle Wang: Right, so until the dust settles on some of these issues, it's really difficult as a corporate decision maker to do things like big transformative M&A, to make a company public when you don't know what could happen both from a the market environment and, as you point out, regulatory standpoint.

The thing that's interesting is that raising debt capital as an investment grade company has some counter cyclical dynamics to it. Because risk-off sentiment usually translates into lower treasury yields and more favorable cost of debt.

And then the second point is when companies are risk averse it drives sometimes cash hoarding behavior, right? So, companies will raise what they call, you know, rainy day liquidity and park it on balance sheet – just to feel a little bit better about where their balance sheets are. To make sure they're in good shape…

Lindsay Tyler: Yeah, deal with the maturities that they have right here in the near term.

Michelle Wang: That's exactly right. So, I think as a consequence of that, you know, we do see some tailwinds for debt issuance volumes in an uncertain environment.

Lindsay Tyler: Got it. Well, appreciate all your insights. This has been great. Thank you for taking the time, Michelle, to talk during such a busy week.

Michelle Wang: It's great speaking with you, Lindsay.

Lindsay Tyler: And thanks to everyone listening in to this special episode recorded at the Morgan Stanley TMT Conference in San Francisco. 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.

Is There Too Much Focus on Fed’s Moves?

6 mars 2025 | 4 min

While central bank policy will always matter for markets, our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets explains why investors should not be worried about the number of Fed cuts in 2025.

----- 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 why the number of Fed rate cuts this year may matter less than you think.

It's Wednesday, March 5th, at 2pm in London.

Financial markets spend a lot of time discussing the Federal Reserve. And for good reason. The central bank of the world’s largest economy plays a central role in fighting inflation and setting interest rates. And what they’ll do this year is topical and shifting. At Morgan Stanley, our economists think that US Tariff and Immigration policy will lead the Fed to keep rates somewhat higher, for somewhat longer, than they did at the start of the year.

Yet we think there may be just a little bit too much focus on just how much the Fed changes policy over the course of the year. Indeed, we’d go as far as to say that given the choice, investors should be rooting for less change, not more.

To start, for all that’s happened in the world since the end of October of 2024, expectations for the Fed’s interest rate path have been remarkably stable. The US 2-year Treasury, which is a decent proxy of where the Fed’s rate will average over the next 24 months, has hovered in a very narrow range. It simply hasn’t been telling us very much; other factors have been moving markets.

There’s also a pretty reasonable rule of thumb from history: stability is good. A stable Fed funds rate, almost by definition, implies a stable equilibrium that doesn’t involve overly high inflation pushing rates further up, or overly weak growth pushing them further down. The best growth in recent history, in the mid-1990s, occurred after the Fed reduced interest rates less than one-percent, and then kept them stable, at a pretty elevated rate for a pretty extended period of time.

Large changes in rates, on the other hand, in either direction are a different story. Some of the markets worst losses have coincided with the largest declines in the Fed’s target rate – because those large rate cuts usually occur only when there is a large, unexpected slowing in the economy; something markets often don’t like.

Meanwhile, we think the Fed also very much wants to avoid a scenario where it has to start raising rates again, given the potential confusion that this could signal after it only recently continued to lower them. And so if over the course of this year, the Fed does need to raise rates, given the very high bar we think they’ve given themselves for action – it probably suggests that something unexpected, and not in a necessarily good way, has occurred.

Central bank policy will always matter for markets. But for investors, the question of whether the Fed will cut once, which is the Morgan Stanley base-case, twice, or not at all in 2025 may not matter all that much, at least for credit. Far more important is the performance of the economy, and whether big changes to tariffs or immigration policy drive big changes to growth and inflation. Those big changes, which could drive big changes in Fed policy responses, are the scenario that worries us.

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.

What Will Tariffs Do to the U.S. Dollar?

4 mars 2025 | 10 min

Our U.S. Public Policy and Currency analysts, Ariana Salvatore and Andrew Watrous, discuss why the dollar fell at the beginning of the first Trump administration and whether it could happen again this year.

----- Transcript ----

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

Andrew Watrous: And I'm Andrew Watrous, G10 FX Strategist here at Morgan Stanley.

Ariana Salvatore: Today, we'll focus on the U.S. dollar and how it might fare in global markets during the first year of the new Trump administration.

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

So, Andrew, a few weeks ago, James Lord came on to talk about the foreign exchange volatility. Since then, tariffs and trade policy have been in the news. Last night at midnight, 25 percent tariffs on Mexico and Canada went into effect, in addition to 10 percent on China. So, let's set the scene for today's conversation. Is the dollar still dominant in global currency markets?

Andrew Watrous: Yes, it is. The U.S. dollar is used in about $7 trillion worth of daily FX transactions. And the dollar's share of all currency transactions has been pretty stable over the last few decades. And something like 80 percent of all trade finance is invoiced in dollars, and that share has been pretty stable too.

A big part of that dollar dominance is because of the depth and safety of the Treasury security market.

Ariana Salvatore: That makes sense. And the dollar fell in 2017, the first year of the Trump administration. Why did that happen?

Andrew Watrous: Yeah, so 2017 gets a lot of client attention because the Fed was hiking, there was a lot of uncertainty about would happen in NAFTA, and the U.S. passed a fiscally expansionary budget bill that year.

So, people have asked us, ‘Why the U.S. dollar went down despite all those factors?’ And I think there are three reasons. One is that even though the possibility that the U.S. could leave NAFTA was all over the headlines that year, U.S. tariffs didn't actually go up. Another factor is that global growth turned out to be really strong in 2017, and that was helped in part by fiscal policy in China and Europe. And finally, there were some political risks in Europe that didn't end up materializing.

So, investors took a sigh of relief about the possibility that I think had been priced in a bit that the Eurozone might break up. And then a lot of those factors went into reverse in 2018 and the U.S. dollar went up.

Ariana Salvatore: So, applying that framework with those factors to today, is it possible that we see a repeat of 2017 in terms of the U.S. dollar decline?

Andrew Watrous: Yeah, I think it's likely that the U.S. dollar continues to go lower for some of the same reasons as we saw in 2017. So, I think that compared to 2017, there's a lot more U.S. dollar positive risk premium around trade policy. So, the bar is higher for the U.S. dollar to go up just from trade headlines alone.

And just like in 2017, European policy developments could be a tailwind to the euro. We've been highlighting the potential for German fiscal expansion as European defense policy comes into focus. And unlike in 2017, when the Fed was raising rates, now the Fed is probably going to cut more this year. So that's a headwind to the dollar that didn't exist back in 2017.

So, on trade, Ariana. What developments do you expect? Do you think that Trump's new policies will make 2025 different in any way from 2017?

Ariana Salvatore: So, taking a step back and looking at this from a very high level, a few things are different in spite of the fact that we're actually talking about a lot of similar policies. Tariffs and tax policy were a big focus in 2017 to 2019, and to be sure, this time around, they are too, but in a slightly different way.

So, for example, on tax cuts, we're not talking about bringing rates lower on the individual and corporate side. We're talking about extending current policy. And on tariffs and trade policy, this round I would characterize as much broader, right? So, Trump has scoped in a broader range of trading partners into the discussion like Mexico and Canada; and is talking about a starting point that level-wise is much higher than what we saw in the whole 2018 2019 trade friction period.

The highest rate back then we ever saw was 25 percent, and that was on the final batch of Chinese goods, that list four. Whereas this time, we're talking about 25 percent as a starting point for Mexico and Canada.

I think sequencing is also a really important distinction. In 2017, we saw the tax cuts through the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) come first, followed by trade tensions in 2018 to 2019. This time around, it's really the inverse. Republicans just passed their budget resolution in the House. That lays the groundwork for the tax cut extensions.

But in the meantime, Trump has been talking about tariff implementation since before he was even elected. And we've already had a number of really key trade related catalysts in the just six weeks or so that he's been in office.

Andrew Watrous: So, you mentioned expectations for fiscal policy. What are recent developments there, and what do you think will happen with U.S. fiscal?

Ariana Salvatore: I mentioned the budget resolution in the house that was passed last week. And you can really think of that as the starting point for the reconciliation process to kick off. And consequently, the extension of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

To be clear, we think that House Republicans will be able to align behind extending most of the expiring Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, but that's still in the books until the end of 2025. So, we see many months needed to kind of build this consensus among cohorts of the Republican caucus in Congress, and we already know there's some key sticking points in the discussion.

What happens with the SALT [State and Local Tax] cap? What sort of clawbacks occur with the Inflation Reduction Act? All these are disagreements that right now are going to need time to work their way through Congress. So not a lot of alignment just yet. We think it's going to take most of the year to get there.

But ultimately, we do see an extension of most of the TCJA, which is like I said, current law until the end of 2025.

But Andrew from what I understand when it comes to fiscal policy, there are really two stages in terms of the market impact that we saw in the last administration. Can you walk us through those?

Andrew Watrous: Yeah, so one lesson from 2016 to 2018 is that there were really two stages of when fiscal developments boosted the dollar. The first was right after the U.S. election in 2016, and the second was much later after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed. So right after the 2016 election, within a couple of weeks, the dollar index rallied from 98 up to 103, and 10-year Treasury yields rose as well.

And then things sort of moved sideways in between these two stages. Ten-year Treasury yield just moved sideways. Fiscal wasn't as supportive to the U.S. dollar. And as we know, the dollar went down. And then we had the second stage more than a year later. So, the TCJA was passed in December 2017. And then the dollar rallied after that along with the rise in Treasury yield.

So, we think that now, what we've seen is actually very similar to what happened in 2017, where the dollar and yields moved a lot after the 2024 election; but now the budget reconciliation process probably won't be a tailwind to the dollar until after a tax cuts extension passes Congress. And as you mentioned, that's not going to be for many, many months. So, in the interim, we think there's a lot of room for the dollar to go down.

Ariana Salvatore: And just to level set our expectations there to your point, it is probably going to be later this year. House Republicans have to align on a number of key sticking points. So, we have passage somewhere on the third or fourth quarter of 2025.

But when we think about the fiscal picture, aside from the deficit and the macro impacts, a really key component is going to be what these tax changes mean for the equity market. The extension of certain tax policies will matter more for certain sectors versus others. For example, we know that extending some of the corporate provisions, aside from the lower rate, will have an impact across domestically oriented industries like industrials, healthcare, and telecom.

But Andrew, to bring it back to this discussion, I want to think a little bit more about how we can loop in our expectations for the equity market and map that to certain dollar outcomes. How do you think that this as a barometer has changed, if at all, from Trump's first term?

Andrew Watrous: Yeah, currency strategists like me love talking about yield differentials. But from 2016 to 2018, the U.S. dollar did not trade in line with yield differentials. Instead, in the initial years of President Trump's first term, equities were a much better barometer than interest rates for where the U.S. dollar would go.

After President Trump was elected in 2016, U.S. stocks really outperformed stocks in the rest of the world, and the U.S. dollar went up. Then in 2017, stocks outside the U.S. caught up to the move in U.S. stocks, and the U.S. dollar fell. Then in 2018, all that went into reverse, and U.S. stocks started outperforming again, and the U.S. dollar went up.

So, what we've been seeing in stocks today really echoes 2017, not 2018. Stocks outside the U.S. have caught up to the post election rise in U.S. stocks. And so, just like it did in 2017, we think that the U.S. dollar will decline to catch up to that move in relative stock indices.

Ariana Salvatore: Finally, Andrew, we already discussed the U.S. dollar negative drivers from 2017. But what happened to these drivers the following year in 2018? And is that any indication for what might happen in 2026?

Andrew Watrous: So 2018, as you mentioned, does offer a blueprint for how the U.S. dollar could go up. So, for example, if trade tensions evolve in a direction where our economists would have to significantly downwardly revise their global growth forecasts, then the U.S. dollar could start to look more attractive as a safe haven. And in 2018, there was a big rise in long-end Treasury yields. That's not what we're calling for; but if that were to happen, then the U.S. dollar could catch a bid.

Ariana Salvatore: Andrew, thanks for taking the time to talk.

Andrew Watrous: Great speaking with you, Ariana.

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

Will GenAI Turn a Profit in 2025?

3 mars 2025 | 13 min

Our Semiconductors and Software analysts Joe Moore and Keith Weiss dive into the biggest market debate around AI and why it’s likely to shape conversations at Morgan Stanley’s Technology, Media and Telecom (TMT) Conference in San Francisco.

----- Transcript -----

Joe Moore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Joe Moore, Morgan Stanley's Head of U.S. Semiconductors.

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

Joe Moore: Today on the show, one of the biggest market debates in the tech sector has been around AI and the Return On Investment, or ROI. In fact, we think this will be the number one topic of conversation at Morgan Stanley's annual Technology, Media and Telecom (TMT) conference in San Francisco.

And that's precisely where we're bringing you this episode from.

It's Monday, March 3rd, 7am in San Francisco.

So, let's get right into it. ChatGPT was released November 2022. Since then, the biggest tech players have gained more than $9 trillion in combined market capitalization. They're up more than double the amount of the S&P 500 index. And there's a lot of investor expectation for a new technology cycle centered around AI. And that's what's driving a lot of this momentum.

You know, that said, there's also a significant investor concern around this topic of ROI, especially given the unprecedented level of investment that we've seen and sparse data points still on the returns.

So where are we now? Is 2025 going to be a year when the ROI and GenAI finally turns positive?

Keith Weiss: If we take a step back and think about the staging of how innovation cycles tend to play out, I think it's a helpful context.

And it starts with research. I would say the period up until When ChatGPT was released – up until that November 2022 – was a period of where the fundamental research was being done on the transformer models; utilizing, machine learning. And what fundamental research is, is trying to figure out if these fundamental capabilities are realistic. If we can do this in software, if you will.

And with the release of ChatGPT, it was a very strong~~, uh,~~ stamp of approval of ‘Yes, like these transformer models can work.’

Then you start stage two. And I think that's basically November 22 through where are today of, where you have two tracks going on. One is development. So these large language models, they can do natural language processing well.

They can contextually understand unstructured and semi structured data. They can generate content. They could create text; they could create images and videos.

So, there's these fundamental capabilities. But you have to develop a product to get work done. How are we going to utilize those capabilities? So, we've been working on development of product over the past two years. And at the same time, we've been scaling out the infrastructure for that product development.

And now, heading into 2025, I think we're ready to go into the next stage of the innovation cycle, which will be market uptake.

And that's when revenue starts to flow to the software companies that are trying to automate business processes. We definitely think that monetization starts to ramp in 2025, which should prove out a better ROI or start to prove out the ROI of all this investment that we've been making.

Joe Moore: Morgan Stanley Research projects that GenAI can potentially drive a $1.1 trillion dollar revenue opportunity in 2028, up from $45 billion in 2024. Can you break this down for our listeners?

Keith Weiss: We recently put out a report where we tried to size kind of what the revenue generation capability is from GenerativeAI, because that's an important part of this ROI equation. You have the return on the top of where you could actually monetize this. On the bottom, obviously, investment. And we took a look at all the investment needed to serve this type of functionality.

The [$]1.1 trillion, if you will, it breaks down into two big components. ~~Um,~~ One side of the equation is in my backyard, and that's the enterprise software side of the equation. It's about a third of that number. And what we see occurring is the automation of more and more of the work being done by information workers; for people in overall.

And what we see is about 25 percent, of overall labor being impacted today. And we see that growing to over 45 percent over the next three years.

So, what that's going to look like from a software perspective is a[n] opportunity ramping up to about, just about $400 billion of software opportunity by 2028. At that point, GenerativeAI will represent about 22 percent of overall software spending. At that point, the overall software market we expect to be about a $1.8 trillion market.

The other side of the equation, the bigger side of the equation, is actually the consumer platforms. And that kind of makes sense if you think about the broader economy, it's basically one-third B2B, two-thirds B2C. The automation is relatively equivalent on both sides of the equation.

Joe Moore: So, let's drill further into your outlook for software. What are the biggest catalysts you expect to see this year, and then over the coming three years?

Keith Weiss: The key catalyst for this year is proving out the efficacy of these solutions, right?

Proving out that they're going to drive productivity gains and yield real hard dollar ROI for the end customer. And I think where we'll see that is from labor savings.

Once that occurs, and I think it's going to be over the next 12 to 18 months, then we go into the period of mainstream adoption. You need to start utilizing these technologies to drive the efficiencies within your businesses to be able to keep up with your competitors. So, that's the main thing that we're looking for in the near term.

Over the next three years, what you're looking for is the breakthrough technologies. Where can we find opportunities not just to create efficiencies within existing processes, but to completely rewrite the business process.

That's where you see new big companies emerge within the software opportunity – is the people that really fundamentally change the equation around some of these processes.

So, Joe, turning it over to you, hardware remains a bottleneck for AI innovation. Why is that the case? And what are the biggest hurdles in the semiconductor space right now?

Joe Moore: Well, this has proven to be an extremely computationally intensive application, and I think it started with training – where you started seeing tens of thousands of GPUs or XPUS clustered together to train these big models, these Large Language Models. And you started hearing comments two years ago around the development of ChatGPT that, you know, the scaling laws are tricky.

You might need five times as much hardware to make a model that's 10 percent smarter. But the challenge of making a model that's 10 percent smarter, the table stakes of that are very significant. And so, you see, you know, those investments continuing to scale up. And that's been a big debate for the market.

But we've heard from most of the big spenders in the market that we are continuing to scale up training. And then after that happened, we started seeing inference suddenly as a big user of advanced processors, GPUs, in a way that they hadn't before. And that was sort of simple conversational types of AI.

Now as you start migrating into more of a reasoning AI, a multi pass approach, you're looking at a really dramatic scaling in the amount of hardware, that's required from both GPUs and XPUs.

And at the same time the hardware companies are focused a lot on how do we deliver that – so that it doesn't become prohibitively expensive; which it is very expensive. But there's a lot of improvement. And that's where you're sort of seeing this tug of war in the stocks; that when you see something that's deflationary, ~~uh,~~ it becomes a big negative. But the reality is the hardware is designed to be deflationary because the workloads themselves are inflationary.

And so I think there's a lot of growth still ahead of us. A lot of investment, and a lot of rich debate in the market about this.

Keith Weiss: Let's pull on that thread a little bit. You talked initially about the scaling of the GPU clusters to support training. Over the past year, we've gotten a little bit more pushback on the ideas or the efficacy of those scaling laws.

They've come more under question. And at the same time, we've seen the availability of some lower cost, but still very high-performance models. Is this going to reshape the investments from the large semiconductor players in terms of how they're looking to address the market?

Joe Moore: I think we have to assess that over time. Right now, there are very clear comments from everybody who's in charge of scaling large models that they intend to continue to scale.

I think there is a benefit to doing so from the standpoint of creating a richer model, but is the ROI there? You know, and that's where I think, you know, your numbers do a very good job of justifying our model for our core companies – where we can say, okay, this is not a bubble. This is investment that's driven by these areas of economic benefit that our software and internet teams are seeing.

And I think there is a bit of an arms race at the high end of the market where people just want to have the biggest cluster. And that's, we think that's about 30 percent of the revenue right now in hardware – is supporting those really big models. But we're also seeing, to your point, a very rich hardware configuration on the inference side post training model customization. Nvidia said on their on their earnings call recently that they see several orders of magnitude more compute required for those applications than for that pre-training. So, I think over time that's where the growth is going to come from.

But you know, right now we're seeing growth really from all aspects of the market.

Keith Weiss: Got it. So, a lot of really big opportunities out there utilizing these GPUs and ASICs, but also a lot of unknowns and potential risks. So, what are the key catalysts that you're looking for in the semiconductor space over the course of this year and maybe over the next three years?

Joe Moore: Well, 2025 is, is a year that is really mostly about supply.

You know, we're ramping up, new hardware But also, several companies doing custom silicon. We have to ramp all that hardware up and it's very complicated.

It uses every kind of trick and technique that semiconductors use to do advanced packaging and things like that. And so, it's a very challenging supply chain and it has been for two years. And fortunately, it's happened in a time when there's plenty of semiconductor capacity out there.

But I think, you know, we're ramping very quickly. And I think what you're seeing is the things that matter this year are gonna be more about how quickly we can get that supply, what are the gross margins on hardware, things like that.

I think beyond that, we have to really get a sense of, you know, these ROI questions are really important beyond 2025. Because again, this is not a bubble. But hardware is cyclical and there; it doesn't slow gracefully. So, there will be periods where investment may fall off and it'll be a difficult time to own the stocks. And that's, you know, we do think that over time, the value sort of transitions from hardware to software.

But we model for 2026 to be a year where it starts to slow down a little bit. We start to see some consolidation in these investments.

Now, 12 months ago, I thought that about 2025. So, the timeframe keeps getting pushed out. It remains very robust. But I think at some point it will plateau a little bit and we'll start to see some fragmentation; and we'll start to see markets like, you know, reasoning models, inference models becoming more and more critical. But that's where when I hear you and Brian Nowak talking about sort of the early stage that we are of actually implementing this stuff, that inference has a long way to go in terms of growth.

So, we're optimistic around the whole AI space for semiconductors. Obviously, the market is as well. So, there's expectations, challenges there. But there's still a lot of growth ahead of us.

So Keith, looking towards the future, as AI expands the functionality of software, how will that transform the business models of your companies?

Keith Weiss: We're also fundamentally optimistic about software and what GenerativeAI means for the overall software industry.

If we look at software companies today, particularly application companies, a lot of what you're trying to do is make information workers more productive. So, it made a lot of sense to price based upon the number of people who are using your software. Or you've got a lot of seat-based models.

Now we're talking about completely automating some of those processes, taking people out of the loop altogether. You have to price differently. You have to price based upon the number of transactions you're running, or some type of consumptive element of the amount of work that you're getting done. I think the other thing that we're going to see is the market opportunity expanding well beyond information workers.

So, the way that we count the value, the way that we accrue the value might change a little bit. But the underlying value proposition remains the same. It's about automating, creating productivity in those business processes, and then the software companies pricing for their fair share of that productivity.

Joe Moore: Great. Well, let me just say this has been a really useful process for me. The collaboration between our teams is really helpful because as a semiconductor analyst, you can see the data points, you can see the hardware being built. And I know the enthusiasm that people have on a tactical level. But understanding where the returns are going to come from and what milestones we need to watch to see any potential course correction is very valuable.

So on that note, it's time for us to get to the exciting panels at the Morgan Stanley TMT conference. ~~Uh,~~ And we'll have more from the conference on the show later this week. Keith, thanks for taking the time to talk.

Keith Weiss: Great speaking with you, Joe.

Joe Moore: 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.

Searching for Signals in U.S. Policy Noise

28 februari 2025 | 4 min

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.

Shaky U.S. Consumer Confidence May Be a Leading Signal

27 februari 2025 | 4 min

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.

The Impact of Shifting Immigration Policy

26 februari 2025 | 5 min

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.

Cruises Set Sail for Private Islands

25 februari 2025 | 4 min

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.

What’s Behind the Recent Stock Tumble?

24 februari 2025 | 4 min

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.

How a Potential Ukraine Peace Deal Could Impact Airlines

21 februari 2025 | 4 min

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.

The Downside Risks of Reciprocal Tariffs

20 februari 2025 | 5 min

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.

A Rollercoaster Housing Market

19 februari 2025 | 7 min

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.

Finding Opportunity in an Uncertain U.S. Equity Market

18 februari 2025 | 5 min

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.

Trump 2.0 and the Potential Economic Impact of Immigration Policy

14 februari 2025 | 9 min

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.

How Do Tariffs Affect Currencies?

13 februari 2025 | 4 min

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 Credit Upside of Market Uncertainty

12 februari 2025 | 3 min

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.

The Rising Risk of Trade Tensions in Asia

11 februari 2025 | 4 min

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.

Who Might Benefit From Trump’s Tax Policy Proposals?

10 februari 2025 | 7 min

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.

The Disruption in the AI Market

7 februari 2025 | 4 min

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.

Chinese Airlines Breaking Through Turbulence

6 februari 2025 | 5 min

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！

Trump 2.0 and the Latest on Tariffs

5 februari 2025 | 3 min

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.

Trump 2.0 and the Future of Energy

4 februari 2025 | 12 min

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.

Tariffs and Tech Challenge Stocks

3 februari 2025 | 4 min

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.

Big Debates: Who Will Be the Trade Winners Under Trump?

31 januari 2025 | 10 min

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.

Managing Fiscal Policy Uncertainty Under Trump 2.0

30 januari 2025 | 9 min

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.

A Mixed Bag for Retail and Consumer Sectors

29 januari 2025 | 11 min

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.

Will Trump’s Tariffs Reshape Asian Economies?

28 januari 2025 | 7 min

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.

Europe’s Defense Dilemma

27 januari 2025 | 7 min

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.

Have Markets Hit Peak Optimism?

24 januari 2025 | 4 min

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.

Big Debates: How Will M&A and IPOs Drive Markets in 2025?

23 januari 2025 | 11 min

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.

Potential Economic Consequences of Trump’s Executive Orders

22 januari 2025 | 3 min

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.

Asia Outlook 2025: Three Critical Themes

21 januari 2025 | 4 min

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.

The Surge in Bond Yields Likely Doesn’t Present Risk – Yet

17 januari 2025 | 4 min

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.

Should Drop in Fed Reserves Concern Investors?

16 januari 2025 | 6 min

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.

Four Key Investment Themes for 2025

15 januari 2025 | 5 min

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.

Finding Opportunity in AI’s Evolution

14 januari 2025 | 5 min

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.

Big Debates: The State of the Energy Transition

13 januari 2025 | 14 min

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.

Big Debates: The AI Evolution

10 januari 2025 | 9 min

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.

2025: Setting Expectations

10 januari 2025 | 4 min

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.

Market Implications of Trump’s Agenda

8 januari 2025 | 4 min

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.

What Could Shape the Global Economy in 2025

7 januari 2025 | 5 min

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.

Will 2024’s Weak Finish Extend into the New Year?

6 januari 2025 | 5 min

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.

Lessons to Take Into 2025

3 januari 2025 | 4 min

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.

A Bumpy Road Ahead for Onshoring EVs

2 januari 2025 | 5 min

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.

Special Encore: Will US Tariffs Drive Mexico Closer to China?

31 december 2024 | 10 min

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.

Special Encore: Uncertainty Surrounds 2025 U.S. Equities Outlook

30 december 2024 | 12 min

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.

Special Encore: A $10 Trillion Opportunity in US Reshoring

27 december 2024 | 4 min

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.

Special Encore: Housing, Currency Markets in Focus

26 december 2024 | 13 min

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.

Special Encore: What’s Ahead for Markets in 2025?

24 december 2024 | 11 min

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.

The Many Potential Policy Paths of Trump’s Second Term

23 december 2024 | 6 min

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.

More Talk, Less Action Could Be Good for Credit Markets

20 december 2024 | 4 min

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.

Fed Signals Inflation Fight Isn’t Over

19 december 2024 | 9 min

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.

Banking on Deregulation

18 december 2024 | 4 min

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.

The Calm Before the Storm?

17 december 2024 | 5 min

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.

How Investors Can Best Position for 2025

16 december 2024 | 4 min

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.

Why the Airline Industry Could Take Off in 2025

13 december 2024 | 4 min

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.

Could Private-Label Products Transform Retail?

12 december 2024 | 5 min

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.

What Could Go Wrong for Corporate Credit?

11 december 2024 | 4 min

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.

How Equity Markets Are Feeling About 2025

10 december 2024 | 5 min

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.

How AI Is Revolutionizing Healthcare

9 december 2024 | 13 min

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.

A Very Merry Start to U.S. Holiday Shopping

6 december 2024 | 9 min

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.

AI as a Second Set of Eyes

5 december 2024 | 4 min

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.

What Investors Should Know About Trump’s Tariffs

4 december 2024 | 4 min

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.

Private vs. Public Credit Competition Intensifies

4 december 2024 | 7 min

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.

Will 2025 Be a Turning Point for Credit?

2 december 2024 | 4 min

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.

Special Encore: The Beginning of an M&A Boom?

29 november 2024 | 4 min

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.

Special Encore: How Young People Think About Money

27 november 2024 | 4 min

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.

Uncertainty Surrounds 2025 U.S. Equities Outlook

26 november 2024 | 11 min

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.