Thoughts on the Market

Our Deputy Head of Global Research Michael Zezas and Stephen Byrd, Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research, discuss how the U.S. is positioning AI as a pillar of geopolitical influence and what that means for nations and investors.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Deputy Head of Global Research.Stephen Byrd: And I'm Stephen Byrd, Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research.Michael Zezas: Today – is AI becoming the new anchor of geopolitical power?It's Wednesday, February 27th at noon in New York.So, Stephen, at the recent India AI Impact Summit, the U.S. laid out a vision to promote global AI adoption built around what it calls “real AI sovereignty.” Or strategic autonomy through integration with the American AI stack. But several nations from the global south and possibly parts of Europe – they appear skeptical of dependence on proprietary systems, citing concerns about control, explainability, and data ownership. And it appears that stake isn't just technology policy. It's the future structure of global power, economic stratification, and whether sovereign nations can realistically build competitive alternatives outside the U.S. and China.So, Stephen, you were there and you've been describing a growing chasm in the AI world in terms of access to strategies between the U.S. and much of the global south, and possibly Europe. So, from what you heard at the summit, what are the core points of disagreement driving that divide?Stephen Byrd: There definitely are areas of agreement; and we've seen a couple of high-profile agreements reached between the U.S. government and the Indian government just in the last several days. So there certainly is a lot of overlap. I point to the Pax Silica agreement that's so important to secure supply chains, to secure access to AI technology. I think the focus, for example, for India is, as you said; it is, you know, explainability, open access. I was really struck by Prime Minister Modi's focus on ensuring that all Indians have access to AI tools that can help them in their everyday life.You know, a really tangible example that really stuck with me is – someone in a remote village in India who has a medical condition and there's no doctor or nurse nearby using AI to, you know, take a photo of the condition, receive diagnosis, receive support, figure out what the next steps should be. That's very powerful. So, I'd say, open access explainability is very important.Now, the American hyperscalers are very much trying to serve the Indian market and serve the objectives really of the Indian government. And so, there are versions of their models that are open weights, that are being made freely available for health agencies in India, as an example; to the Indian government, as an example.So, there is an attempt to really serve a number of objectives, but I think this key is around open access, explainability, that I do see that there's a tension.Michael Zezas: So, let's talk about that a little bit more. Because it seems one of the concerns raised is this idea of being captive within proprietary Large Language Models. And maybe that includes the risk of having to pay more over time or losing control of citizen data. But, at the same time, you've described that there are some real benefits to AI that these countries want to adopt.So, what is effectively the tension between being captive to a model or the trade off instead for pursuing open and free models? Is it that there's a major quality difference? And is that trade off acceptable?Stephen Byrd: See, that's what's so fascinating, Mike, is, you know, what we need to be thinking about is not just where the technology is today, but where is it in six months, 12 months, 24 months? And from my perspective, it's very clear. That the proprietary American models are going to be much, much more capable.So, let's put some numbers around that. The big five American firms have assembled about 10 times the compute to train their current LLMs compared to their prior LLMs, and that's a big deal. If the scaling laws hold, then a 10x increase in training compute to result in models are about twice as capable.Now just let that sink in for a minute, twice as capable from here. That's a big deal. And so, when we think about the benefit of deploying these models, whether it's in the life sciences or any number of other disciplines, those benefits could start to get very large. And the challenge for the open models will be – will they be able to keep up in terms of access to compute, to training, access to data to train those models? That's a big question.Now, again, there's room for both approaches and it's very possible for the Indian government to continue to experiment and really see which approach is going to serve their citizens the best. And I was really struck by just how focused the Indian government is on serving all of their citizens. Most notably, you know, the poorest of the poor in their nation. So, we'll just have to see.But the pure technologist would say that these proprietary models are going to be increasing capability much faster than the open-source models.So, Mike, let's pivot from the technology layer to the geopolitical layer because the U.S. strategy unveiled at the summit goes way beyond innovation.Michael Zezas: Yeah, it's a good point. And within this discussion of whether or not other countries will choose to pursue open models or more closely adhere to U.S. based models is really a question about how the United States exercises power globally and how it creates alliances going forward.Clearly some part of the strategy is that the U.S. assumes that if it has technology that's alluring to its partners, that they'll want to align with the U.S.' broad goals globally. And that they'll want to be partners in supporting those goals, which of course are tied to AI development.So, the Pax Silica [agreement], which you mentioned earlier, is an interesting point here because this is clearly part of the U.S. strategy to develop relationships with other countries – such that the other countries get access to U.S. models and access to U.S. AI in general. And what the U.S. gets in return is access to supply chain, critical resources, labor, all the things that you need to further the AI build out. Particularly as the U.S. is trying to disassociate more and more from China, and the resources that China might have been able to bring to bear in an AI build out.Stephen Byrd: So, Mike, the U.S. framed “real AI sovereignty” as strategic autonomy rather than full self-sufficiency. So, essentially the. U.S. is encouraging nations to integrate components of the American AI stack. Now, from your perspective, Mike, from a macro and policy standpoint, how significant is that distinction?Michael Zezas: Well, I think it's extremely important. And clearly the U.S. views its AI strategy as not just economic strategy, but national security strategy.There are maybe some analogs to how the U.S. has been able to, over the past 80 years or so, use its dominance in military and military equipment to create a security umbrella that other countries want to be under. And do something similar with AI, which is if there is dominant technology and others want access to it for the societal or economic benefits, then that is going to help when you're negotiating with those countries on other things that you value – whether it be trade policy, foreign policy, sanctions versus another country. That type of thing.So, in a lot of ways, it seems like the U.S. is talking about AI and developing AI as an anchor asset to its power, in a way that military power has been that anchor asset for much of the post World War II period.Stephen Byrd: See, that's what's so interesting, Mike, [be]cause you've highlighted before to me that you believe AI could replace weaponry as really the anchor asset for U.S. global power. Almost a tech equivalent of a defense umbrella.So how durable is that strategy, especially given that some countries are expressing unease about dependency?Michael Zezas: Yeah, it's really hard to know, and I think the tension you and I talked about earlier, Stephen, about whether countries will be willing to make the trade off for access to superior AI models versus open and free models that might be inferior, that'll tell us if this is a viable strategy or not. And it appears like this is still playing out because, correct me if I'm wrong, it's not like we've received some very clear signals from India or other countries about their willingness to make that trade off.Stephen Byrd: No, I think that's right. And just building on the concept of the trade-offs and, sort of, the standard for AI deployment, you know, the U.S. has explicitly rejected centralized global AI governance in favor of national control aligned with domestic values.So, what does that signal about how global technology standards may evolve, particularly as in the U.S., the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST, works to develop interoperable standards for agentic AI systems.Michael Zezas: Yeah, Stephen, I think it's hard to know. It might be that the U.S. is okay with other countries having substantial degrees of freedom with how they use U.S.-based AI models because they could use U.S. law to, at a later date, change how those models are being used – if there's a use case that comes out of it that they find is against U.S. values. Similar in some way to how the U.S. dollar being the predominant currency and, therefore, being the predominant payment system globally, gives the U.S. degrees of freedom to impose sanctions and limit other types of economic transactions when it's in the U.S. interest.So, I don't know that to be specifically true, but it's an interesting question to consider and a potential motivation behind why a laissez-faire approach might be, ultimately, still aligned with U.S. interests.Stephen Byrd: So, Michael, it sounds like really AI is becoming the new strategic infrastructure globally.Michael Zezas: Yeah, I think that's actually a great way to think about it. And so, Stephen, if that were the case, and we're talking about the potential for this to shape geopolitical competition, potentially economic differentials across the globe. And if that is correlated, at least, to some degree with the further development and computing power of these models, what do you think investors should be looking at for signals from here?Stephen Byrd: Number one, by a mile for me, is really the pace of model progress. Not just American models, but Chinese models, open-source models. And there the big reveal for the United States should be somewhere between April and June – for the big five LLM players. That's a bit of speculation based on tracking their chip purchases, their power access, et cetera. But that appears to be the timeframe and a couple of execs have spoken to that approximate timeframe.I would caution investors that I think we're going to be surprised in terms of just how powerful those models are. And we're already seeing in early 2026, these models that were not trained on that kind of volume of compute have really exceeded expectations, you know, quite dramatically in some cases. And I'll give you one example.METR is a third-party that tracks the complexity, what these models can do. And METR has been highlining that every seven months, the complexity of what these models are able to do approximately doubles. It's very fast. But what really got my attention was about a week ago, one of the LLMs broke that trend in a big way to the upside.So, if the scaling laws would hold, based on what METR would've expected, they would expect a model to be able to act independently for about eight hours, a little over eight hours. And what we saw was, the best American model that was recently introduced was more like 15. That's a big deal. And so, I think we're seeing signs of non-linear improvement.We're also going to see additional statements from these AI execs around recursive self-improvement of the models. One ex-AI executive spoke to that. Another LLM exec spoke to that recently as well. So, we're starting to see an acceleration. That means we then need to really consider the trade-offs between the open models and the proprietary. That's going to become really critical and that should happen really through the spring and summer.Michael Zezas: Got it. Well, Stephen, thanks for taking the time to talk.Stephen Byrd: Great speaking with you, Mike.Michael Zezas: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen. And share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Commodities Strategist Martijn Rats discusses the geopolitical drivers behind the recent spike in oil prices and outlines four Iran scenarios.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley's Global Commodities Strategist.Today – what's fueling the latest oil market rally.It's Thursday, February 26th, at 3pm in London.What happens when oil prices jump, even though there's no actual shortage of oil? That's the situation we're in right now. Tensions between the U.S. and Iran have escalated again. Naturally, markets are paying attention.Over the past week, Brent crude rose about $3 to around $72 per barrel. WTI climbed into the mid-$60s. Shipping costs surged. And traders have started paying a premium for protection against a sudden oil spike – the levels we haven't seen since the early days of the Ukrainian invasion.But here's the key point: there's no clear evidence that global oil supply has tightened. Exports are still flowing. Tankers are still moving. And some near-term indicators of physical tightness have actually softened. When oil is truly scarce, buyers scramble for immediate barrels and short-term prices spike relative to future delivery. Instead, those spreads have narrowed, and physical premiums have eased.This isn't a supply shock. It's a risk premium. In simple terms, investors are buying insurance. So what could happen next? We see four broad scenarios.Before I outline them though, here's something we do not see as a core case: a prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Roughly 15 million barrels per day of crude and another 5 million of refined product moves through that corridor. A sustained shutdown would be enormously disruptive. But we think the probability is very low.Now coming back to our four scenarios. The first is straightforward. A negotiated settlement; conflict is avoided. Iranian exports continue and shipping lanes remain open. In that scenario, what unwinds is the geopolitical risk premium – which we estimate at roughly $7 to $9 per barrel. If that fades, Brent could drift back to the low-to-mid $60s, similar to past episodes where prices spiked on fear and then retraced once supply proves unaffected.Second, we could see short-lived frictions – shipping delays, higher insurance costs, temporary logistical issues. That might remove a few hundred thousand barrels per day for, say, a few weeks.. Prices could briefly spike into the $75–80 range. But balancing forces would kick in relatively quickly. For example, China has been building inventories at a steady pace. At higher prices, that stockbuilding would likely slow, helping offset temporary disruptions. That points to some further upside in prices – but then normalization.The third scenario is more serious, but still contained: localized export losses of perhaps 1 to 1.5 million barrels per day for a month or two. Prices would stay elevated longer, but spare capacity and demand adjustments could eventually stabilize the market.Now our last scenario is the more serious and considers a potential shipping shock. The real risk here isn't wells shutting down – it's shipping disruption. Global trade of crude oil depends on efficient tanker movement. If transit times were extended even modestly, effective shipping capacity could fall sharply, creating what amounts to a temporary tightening of about 2 to 3 million barrels per day – or about 6 percent of global seaborne supply. That is a logistics shock, not a production outage – but it would push prices toward early-2022-type levels, at least briefly.Now let's zoom out. Beyond geopolitics, the fundamentals look weak. OPEC+ supply is rising, and our forecasts show a sizable surplus building in 2026. Even if some of that oil ends up in China's stockpiles, a lot would still likely flow into core OECD inventories. Historically, when the market looks like this, prices tend to fall, not rise.Which brings us back to the central point. Oil isn't rallying because the world has run out of barrels. It's rallying because markets are pricing geopolitical risk. And unless that risk turns into actual, sustained disruption, insurance premiums tend to expire.Thank you for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.This podcast references jurisdiction(s) or person(s) which may be the subject of economic sanctions. Readers are solely responsible for ensuring that their investment activities are carried out in compliance with applicable laws.

Original Release Date: Feb 6, 2026Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets and Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter unpack the inner workings of the Federal Reserve to illustrate the challenges that Fed chair nominee Kevin Warsh may face.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. Andrew Sheets: And today on the podcast, a further discussion of a new Fed chair and the challenges they may face. It's Friday, February 6th at 1 pm in New York. Seth, it's great to be here talking with you, and I really want to continue a conversation that listeners have been hearing on this podcast over this week about a new nominee to chair the Federal Reserve: Kevin Warsh. And you are the perfect person to talk about this, not just because you lead our economic research and our macro research, but you've also worked at the Fed. You've seen the inner workings of this organization and what a new Fed chair is going to have to deal with. So, maybe just for some broad framing, when you saw this announcement come out, what were some of the first things to go through your mind? Seth Carpenter: I will say first and foremost, Kevin Warsh's name was one of the names that had regularly come up when the White House was providing names of people they were considering in lots of news cycles. So, I think the first thing that's critically important from my perspective, is – not a shock, right? Sort of a known quantity. Second, when we think about these really important positions, there's a whole range of possible outcomes. And I would've said that of the four names that were in the final set of four that we kept hearing about in the news a lot. You know, some differences here and there across them, but none of them was substantially outside of what I would think of as mainstream sort of thinking. Nothing excessively unorthodox at all like that. So, in that regard as well, I think it should keep anybody from jumping to any big conclusions that there's a huge change that's imminent. I think the other thing that's really important is the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve really is made by a committee. The Federal Open Market Committee and committee matters in these cases. The Fed has been under lots of scrutiny, under lots of pressure, depending on how you want to put it. And so, as a result, there's a lot of discussion within the institution about their independence, making sure they stick very scrupulously to their congressionally given mandate of stable prices, full employment. And so, what does that mean in practice? That means in practice, to get a substantially different outcome from what the committee would've done otherwise… So, the market is pricing; what's the market pricing for the funds rate at the end of this year? About 3.2 percent. Andrew Sheets: Something like that. Yeah. Seth Carpenter: Yeah. So that's a reasonable forecast. It's not too far away from our house view. For us to end up with a policy rate that's substantially away from that – call it 1 percentage, 2 percentage points away from that. I just don't see that as likely to happen. Because the committee can be led, can be swayed by the chair, but not to the tune of 1 or 2 percentage points. And so, I think for all those reasons, there wasn't that much surprise and there wasn't, for me, a big reason to fully reevaluate where we think the Fed's going. Andrew Sheets: So let me actually dig into that a little bit more because I know our listeners tune in every day to hear a lot about government meetings. But this is a case where that really matters because I think there can sometimes be a misperception around the power of this position. And it's both one of the most public important positions in the world of finance. And yet, as you mentioned, it is overseeing a committee where the majority matters. And so, can you take us just a little bit inside those discussions? I mean, how does the Fed Chair interact with their colleagues? How do they try to convince them and persuade them to take a particular course of action? Seth Carpenter: Great question. And you're right, I sort of spent a bunch of time there at the Fed. I started when Greenspan was chair. I worked under the Bernanke Fed. And of course, for the end of that, Janet Yellen was the vice chair. So, I've worked with her. Jay Powell was on the committee the whole time. So, the cast of characters quite familiar and the process is important. So, I would say a few things. The chair convenes the meetings; the chair creates the agenda for the meeting. The chair directs the staff on what the policy documents are that the committee is going to get. So, there's a huge amount of influence, let's say, there. But in order to actually get a specific outcome, there really is a vote. And we only have to look back a couple weeks to the last FOMC meeting when there were two dissents against the policy decision. So, dissents are not super common. They don't happen at every single meeting, but they're not unheard of by any stretch of the imagination either. And if we go back over the past few years, lots going on with inflation and how the economy was going was uncertain. Chair Powell took some dissents. If we go back to the financial crisis Chair Bernanke took a bunch of dissents. If we go back even further through time, Paul Volcker, when he was there trying to staunch the flow of the high inflation of the 1970s, faced a lot of resistance within his committee. And reportedly threatened to quit if he couldn't get his way. And had to be very aggressive in trying to bring the committee along. So, the chair has to find a way to bring the committee along with the plan that the chair wants to execute. Lots of tools at their disposal, but not endless power or influence. Does that make sense? Andrew Sheets: That makes complete sense. So, maybe my final question, Seth, is this is a tough job. This is a tough job in… Seth Carpenter: You mean your job and my job, or… Andrew Sheets: [Laughs] Not at all. The chair of the Fed. And it seems especially tricky now. You know, inflation is above the Fed's target. Interest rates are still elevated. You know, certainly mortgage rates are still higher than a lot of Americans are used to over the last several years. And asset prices are high. You know, the valuation of the equity market is high. The level of credit spreads is tight. So, you could say, well, financial conditions are already quite easy, which can create some complications. I am sure Kevin Warsh is receiving lots of advice from lots of different angles. But, you know, if you think about what you've seen from the Fed over the years, what would be your advice to a new Fed chair – and to navigate some of these challenges? Seth Carpenter: I think first and foremost, you are absolutely right. This is a tough job in the best of times, and we are in some of the most difficult and difficult to understand macroeconomic times right now. So, you noted interest rates being high, mortgage rates being high. There's very much an eye of the beholder phenomenon going on here. Now you're younger than I am. The first mortgage I had. It was eight and a half percent. Andrew Sheets: Hmm. Seth Carpenter: I bought a house in 2000 or something like that. So, by those standards, mortgage rates are actually quite low. So, it really comes down to a little bit of what you're used to. And I think that fact translates into lots of other places. So, inflation is now much higher than the committee's target. Call it 3 percent inflation instead core inflation on PCE, rather than 2 percent inflation target. Now, on the one hand that's clearly missing their target and the Fed has been missing their target for years. And we know that tariffs are pushing up inflation, at least for consumer goods. And Chair Powell and this committee have said they get that. They think that inflation will be temporary, and so they're going to look through that inflation. So again, there's a lot of judgment going on here. The labor market is quite weak. Andrew Sheets: Hmm. Seth Carpenter: We don't have the latest months worth of job market data because of the government shutdown; that'll be delayed by a few days. But we know that at the end of last year, non-farm payrolls were running well below 50,000. Under most circumstances, you would say that is a clear indication of a super weak economy. But! But if we look at aggregate spending data, GDP, private-domestic final purchases, consumer spending, CapEx spending. It's actually pretty solid right now. And so again, that sense of judgment; what's the signal you're going to look for? That's very, very difficult right now, and that's part of what the chair is going to have to do to try to bring the committee together, in order to come to a decision. So, one intellectually coherent argument is – the main way you could get strong aggregate demand, strong spending numbers, strong GDP numbers, but with pretty tepid labor force growth is if productivity is running higher and if productivity is going higher because of AI, for example, over time you could easily expect that to be disinflationary. And if it's disinflationary, then you can cut it. Interest rates now. Not worry as much as you would normally about high inflation. And so, the result could be a lower path for policy rates. So that's one version of the argument that I suspect you're going to hear. On the other hand, inflation is high and it's been high for years. So what does that mean? Well. History suggests that if inflation stays too high for too long, inflation psychology starts to change the way businesses start to set. Andrew Sheets: Mm-hmm. Seth Carpenter: Their own prices can get a little bit loosey-goosey. They might not have to worry as much about consumers being as picky because everybody's got used to these price changes. Consumers might be become less picky because, well, they're kind of sick of shopping around. They might be more willing to accept those higher prices, and that's how things snowball. So, I do think that the new chair is going to face a particularly difficult situation in leading a committee in particularly challenging times. But I've gone on for a long, long time there. And one of the things that I love about getting to talk to you, Andrew, is the fact that you also talked to lots of investors all around the world. You're based in London. And so when the topic of the new Fed chair comes up, what are the questions that you're getting from clients? Andrew Sheets: So, I think that there are a few questions that stand out. I mean, I think a dominant question among investors was around the stability of the U.S. dollar. And so, you could say a good development on the back of Kevin Warsh's nomination is that the market response to that has been the price action you would associate with more stability. You've seen the dollar rise; you've seen precious metals prices fall. You've seen equity markets and credit spreads be very stable. So, I think so far everything in the market reaction is to your; to the point that you raised, you know, consistent with this still being orthodox policy. Every Fed chair is different, but still more similar than different now. I think where it gets more divergent in client opinions is just – what are we going to see from the Fed? Are we going to see a real big change in policy? And I think that this is where there are very different views of Kevin Warsh from investors. Some who say, ‘Well, he's in the past talked about fighting inflation more aggressively, which would imply tighter policy.' And he's also talked more recently about the productivity gains from AI and how that might support lower interest rates. So, I think that there's going to be a lot of interest when he starts to speak publicly, when we see testimony in front of the Senate. I think the other, the final piece, which I think again, people do not have as fully formed an opinion on yet is – how does he lead the Fed if the data is unexpected? And you know, you mentioned inflation and, you know, Morgan Stanley has this forecast that: Well, owner's equivalent rent, a really key part of inflation, might be a little bit higher than expected, which might be a distortion coming off of the government shutdown and impacts on data. But there's some real uncertainty about the inflation path over the near term. And so, in short, I think investors are going to give the benefit of the doubt. For now, I think they're going to lean more into this idea that it will be generally consistent with the Fed easing policy over time, for now. Generally consistent with a steeper curve for now. But I think there's a lot we're going to find out over the next couple of weeks and months. Seth Carpenter: Yeah. No, I agree with you. Andrew, I have to say, I'm glad you're here in New York. It's always great to sit down and talk to you. Let's do it again before too long. Andrew Sheets: Absolutely, Seth. Thanks for taking the time to talk. And to our audience, thank you as always for your time. If you find Thoughts the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains why he still believes in a growth cycle for equity markets, even as investors show growing concerns around AI.Mike Wilson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley's CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast, I'll be discussing recent concerns around AI disruption. It's Tuesday, February 24th at 1pm in New York. So, let's get after it. Last week you could feel it, that anxious undercurrent in the market. The headlines were noisy, volatility ticked higher, and AI disruption, once again, dominated investor conversations. But beneath the surface level unease something important happened. The S&P 500 Equal Weight Index pushed to a new relative high, keeping our broadening thesis alive and well. On one hand, investors are worried about AI driven disruption, CapEx intensity, and potential labor force reductions. On the other hand, capital is still flowing into formerly lagging areas of the market, just as the median stock is seeing its strongest earnings growth in four years. Let's unpack this. First, there's concern AI will lead to job losses. But even if that's the case, there's typically a phase-in period. Companies don't just eliminate labor overnight. Importantly, before these productivity gains are fully realized, we need broad enterprise adoption. That means building out the agentic application layer, integrating AI into workflows, retraining systems and processes. That takes time, and it is still early days in that regard. Second, what we're seeing now is typical of a major investment cycle. Volatility increases as markets challenge the pace of unbridled spending. Dispersion increases as investors debate winners and losers. Leadership rotates, sometimes sharply. There's also something different this time compared to the internet bubble of the late 1990s. Today we're in an early cycle earnings backdrop. We've just emerged from what was effectively a rolling recession between 2022 and 2025. So, as capital rotates out of the perceived structural losers, it's not just chasing long-term AI beneficiaries, it's also finding classic cyclical winners. On the losing side is long duration services-oriented sectors, particularly software. These areas are more sensitive to uncertainty around longer term cash flows. This area also has a large overhang of private capital deployed over the last 10 to 15 years. There are other forces at play too. Small cap growth, arguably the longest duration segment of the market, began breaking down in late January around the time Kevin Warsh was nominated as Fed chair. While major indices barely reacted, more speculative areas may be responding to expectations of tighter liquidity given Warsh's, reputation as a balance sheet hawk. Finally, equity markets are typically more volatile when new Fed chairs assume office. Bottom line, our broader thesis of an early cycle rolling recovery remains intact. Market internals are supportive even if index level action feels choppy. That said, near term volatility is likely to persist as we enter a weaker seasonal window for retail demand, while liquidity remains ample, but far from abundant. With this backdrop, a quality cyclical barbell with healthcare makes sense. In small caps, the higher quality S&P 600 looks more attractive than the Russell 2000. And any short-term volatility could present opportunities to add exposure in preferred cyclical areas like Consumer Discretionary Goods, Industrials, and Financials. Of course, risks remain. AI adoption could accelerate faster than expected, pressuring labor markets more abruptly. Pricing power could erode as efficiency spread, and policy makers could react in ways that slow the CapEx cycle while crowded momentum positioning remains vulnerable. Nevertheless, the signal from the internals is clear. Beneath the volatility this looks less like a market rolling over, and more like one that is confirming an early cycle economic expansion. Thanks for tuning in. I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out.

The Supreme Court's latest ruling on tariffs has thrown existing trade agreements into uncertainty. Our Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore and Arunima Sinha, from the U.S and Global Economics teams break down the fallout.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research. Arunima Sinha: And I am Arunima Sinha on the U.S. and Global Economics teams. Ariana Salvatore: Today we'll be talking about the recent Supreme Court decision on tariffs, what it means for existing trade deals, and where trade policy is headed from here. It's Monday, February 23rd at 9am in New York. On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that the president could not use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to impose broad-based tariffs. The ruling didn't give a clear signal on what it could mean for potential refunds, but the Trump administration said it plans to replace the existing tariffs, which is something that we'd long expected – first leveraging Section 122 to impose 15 percent tariffs for 150 days. The president is simultaneously going to launch a few new Section 301 investigations to eventually replace those Section 122 tariffs, since they're only allowed to be in place temporarily. So Arunima, let's start by breaking down some of this tariff math. What does this mean for the headline and effective rate given where we are now versus before? Arunima Sinha: Before the decision, Ariana, we were at a headline tariff rate of about 13 percent. What this decision does is that with the move, especially to 15 percent, for other countries, we think that it takes about a percentage point off of the headline tariff rate. So, we would go to about 12 percent, and then we have another percentage point coming off just because of the shifts in trade patterns. And so instead of a headline tariff rate of about 13 percent, we think that we're going to be at a headline tariff of just about 11 percent. But that's really just related to the Section 122s. And as you noted, this is only going to apply for the next 150 days. So how should we be thinking about trade policy going forward? Ariana Salvatore: I think we should view the 15 percent as probably a likely ceiling for these rates in the medium term; in particular because this 150-day period expires some time around the summer, so even closer to the midterm elections. And as we've been saying politically speaking, it's unpopular to impose high levels of tariffs. We've also been saying that the president will continue to lean on trade policy as his real, only way to address the affordability issue for voters, which is something that we've actually seen on the policy side for the past few months with the imposition of exemptions, more trade framework agreements, et cetera.So really, I think this is just another way for him to continue leaning on this policy avenue. But in that vein, let's talk about specific pockets of relief. What are we thinking about some of their findings on a sector level? Arunima Sinha: So, let's tie this into the affordability aspect that you mentioned, Ariana, and specifically using the consumer goods sector. What we think is that with, just in the near-term period, with the Section 122s applying, for different consumer goods categories, we could see tariff rate differentials go down. So, they could be anywhere between 1 to 4 percentage points lower across different categories. But what we also think could happen is that once we get beyond the 150-day period, and there are no additional sector tariffs that go on. So, the 232s or the 301s, particularly for this particular sector, we could see some of the largest tariff relief that we're expecting to see. So, for example, apparel and accessories could see something like a 16 to 17 percentage point tariff drop. So that particular part I think is important. Just the upside risks to consumer goods. But that of course brings us to the question of bilateral trade deals and how they come into play. What do you think about that, Ariana? Ariana Salvatore: Yeah. So, I think when it comes to the bilateral deals, as we mentioned, there's some opportunities for relief depending on the sectors and the type of tariff exposure by country. As you mentioned, the consumer goods are a good example of this. So, in general, I think that trading partners will have little incentive to abandon the existing deals or framework agreements, just given that the president and the administration have messaged this idea of continuity. So, replacing the IEEPA tariffs with a more durable, legitimate, legal authority. But what's notable is that many of our trading partners are actually now facing potentially even lower levels than they were before. Even with the increase to 15 percent on the 122s from 10 percent over the weekend. In particular, many countries in Southeast Asia are actually now facing lower tariff levels since there were somewhere in the range of 20 or maybe even 25 percent before. But as I mentioned, the export composition of these countries matters a lot. So, Vietnam, for example, most exports are subject to the 20 percent tariff because of the IEEPA exposure. This ruling is more meaningful than somewhere like South Korea, where the exports are more exposed to the Section 232 tariffs. Based on the export composition – and that's a level, remember, that's not changing as a result of this ruling. So that's how we're trying to disaggregate the impact here. Now, my last question to you, Arunima, what does this all mean for the macro-outlook? As we mentioned, refunds weren't addressed in this ruling. We've sketched out a few different scenarios, most of which leaned toward a long lead time to eventually paying back the money – if and when the administration is actually, in fact, mandated to do that. But safe to say in the near term that we aren't going to see much action on that front. That probably means status quo. But why don't you put a finer point on what this means for the macroeconomic outlook? Arunima Sinha: That's absolutely right, Ariana, for the very near term and the second quarter, we don't think we're going to be very different from what our baseline expectation is. In the third quarter and in the last part of this year, there could be some upside risks, especially once the timeline on the 122s run out, they're not extended. And the different sector and country investigations take longer to implement. So, there could be some upside risks to demand. Consumer goods, for example. If there were to be some sort of an incremental tailwind to corporate margins that might lead to better labor demand from these companies. There could be additional goods disinflation; that would support just purchasing power. So, both of those things could be some incremental uplift to demand, relative to our baseline outlook. But then the last thing I think just to emphasize from our perspective, is that we do think that there is some sort of a near-term ceiling about how high effective tariff rates can go. We don't think that we're going to be going back to Liberation Day tariff rates in the near-term or even in the latter half of this year. Because if history is any guide, many of these investigations are going to take time and that full implementation may not actually occur before early 2027. Ariana Salvatore: Makes sense. Arunima, thanks for joining. Arunima Sinha: Thanks so much for having me.Ariana Salvatore: And thank you for listening. As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Head of European Sustainability Research Rachel Fletcher talks about how AI's is quickly reshaping employment and productivity across key industries and regions.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Rachel Fletcher: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Rachel Fletcher, Head of European Sustainability Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, how AI is shaking up the global job market. It's Friday, February 20th at 2pm in London. You've probably asked yourself when all the excitement around AI is going to move beyond demos and headlines, and start showing up in ways that matter to your job, your investments, and even your day-to-day life. Our latest global AlphaWise AI survey suggests that the turning point may already be unfolding – especially in the labor market where AI is beginning to influence hiring, productivity, and workplace skills. Our survey covered the U.S., UK, Germany, Japan, and Australia, across five sectors where we see a significant AI adoption benefit. Consumer staples, distribution in retail, real estate, transportation, healthcare, equipment and services, and autos. We found that AI contributed to 11 percent of jobs being eliminated over the past 12 months, with another 12 percent not backfilled. These job cuts were partially offset by 18 percent new hires, which results in a net 4 percent global job loss. It's important to note that the survey focused on companies that had already been adopting AI for at least a year. In fact, most of the companies in our survey had been adopting AI for more than two years. So, this is likely the most significant downside case in terms of the impact of AI on jobs, but it is still an early signal of potential job disruption. In Europe, the picture is nuanced. The UK saw the highest net job loss at 8 percent. This was primarily driven by a lower level of new hires in the UK compared to other countries that we surveyed, as well as a high level of positions not backfilled. This compares to Germany, which posted a 4 percent net job loss in line with the all-country average. There could be some other factors amplifying the impact in the UK. For example, broader labor market weakness driven by higher labor costs and higher levels of unemployment amongst younger workers. Ultimately, disentangling AI from macro forces remains challenging. Moving to sector impacts in Europe, autos experience the largest net job loss at 13 percent, and this compares to a 10 percent global average for the sector. It's possible these numbers reflect persistent sales weakness, and AI driven cost cutting. Transportation was least affected at 3 percent, whilst other sectors clustered around 6 to 7 percent. If we look at the top quintile of European companies reducing headcount, they've outperformed other companies that are more actively hiring. This suggests that investors are rewarding efficiency. On the downside, staffing firms face potential growth risks from AI displacement. On productivity, European firms report 10 to 11 percent gains from AI, close to the 11.5 percent global average, and the U.S. at 10.8 percent. It's worth noting that whilst Europe lags the U.S. in exposure to AI enablers, adopters and adopter enablers make up more than two-thirds of the MSCI Europe Index. However, European AI adopters have traded at a material discount versus their equivalent U.S. AI adoption peers. So, turning AI adoption into real ROI and defending pricing power is crucial for European companies. If we shift our focus to the U.S., there's a contrast. Whilst the global net job change was a 4 percent loss, the U.S. actually saw a 2 percent net gain, driven by AI related hiring. Our U.S. strategists have lifted expectations for S&P 500 margin expansion by 40 basis points in 2026 and 60 basis points in 2027. In our survey, the most frequently cited goals of AI deployment in the U.S. are boosting productivity, personalizing customer interactions, and accelerating data insights. Other common use cases include search, content generation, dashboards, and virtual agents. What's becoming clear is AI is no longer theoretical. Our survey data suggests that it is reshaping hiring, productivity and margins. The investor question is not whether AI matters, but who captures the value. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Head of FX and EM Strategy James Lord and Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter discuss what's driving the U.S. policy for the dollar and the outlook for other global currencies.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----James Lord: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm James Lord, Global Head of FX and EM Strategy at Morgan Stanley. Seth Carpenter:  And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. James Lord: Today we're talking about U.S. currency policy and whether recent news on intervention and nominations to the Fed change anything for the outlook of the dollar. It's Thursday, February 19th at 3pm in London. So it's been an interesting few weeks in currency markets. Plenty of dollar selling going on But then, we got news that Kevin Warsh is going to be nominated to Chair of the Board of Governors. And that sent the dollar back higher, reminding everybody that monetary policy and central bank policy still matter. So, in the aftermath of the dollar-yen rate check, investors started to discuss whether or not the U.S. might be starting to target a weaker currency. Not just be comfortable with a weaker currency, but actually explicitly target a weaker currency, which would presumably be a shift away from the stronger strong dollar policy that Secretary Bessent referenced. So, what is your understanding? What do you think the strong dollar policy actually means? Seth Carpenter: Strong dollar policy, that's a phrase, that's a term; it's a concept that lots of Secretaries of the Treasury have used for a long time. And I specifically point to the Secretary of the Treasury because at least in the recent couple of decades, there has been in standard Washington D.C. approach to things, a strong dichotomy that currency policy is the policy of the Treasury Department, not of the central bank. And that's always been important. I remember when I was working at the Treasury Department, that was still part of the talking points that the secretary used. However, you also hear Secretaries of the Treasury say that exchange rates should be market determined; that that's a key part of it. And with the back and forth between the U.S. and China, for example, there was a lot of discussion: Was the Chinese government adjusting or manipulating the value of their currency? And there was a push that currencies should be market determined. And so, if you think about those two things, at the same time – pushing really hard that the dollar should be strong, pushing really hard that currencies should be market determined – you start to very quickly run into a bit of an intellectual tension. And I think all of that is pretty intentional. What does it mean? It means that there's no single clear definition of strong dollar policy. It's a little bit of the eye of the beholder. It's an acknowledgement that the dollar plays a clear key role in global markets, and it's good for the U.S. for that to happen. That's traditionally been what it means. But it has not meant a specific number relative to any other currency or any basket of currency. It has not meant a specific value based on some sort of long run theoretical fair value. It is always meant to be a very vague, deliberately so, very vague concept. James Lord: So, in that version of what the strong dollar policy means, presumably the sort of ambiguity still leaves space for the Treasury to conduct some kind of intervention in dollar-yen, if they wanted to. And that would still be very much consistent with that definition of the strong dollar policy. I also, in the back of my head, always wonder whether the strong dollar policy has anything to do with the dollar's global role. And the sort of foreign policy power that gives the Treasury in sanctions policy. And other areas where, you know, they can control dollar flows and so on. And that gives the U.S. government some leverage. And that allows them to project strength in foreign policy. Has that anything to do with the traditional versions of the strong policy? Seth Carpenter: Absolutely. I think all of that is part and parcel to it. But it also helps to explain a little bit of why there's never going to be a very crisp, specific numerical definition of what a strong dollar policy is.So, first and foremost, I think the discussion of intervention; I think it is, in lots of ways, consistent, especially if you have that more expansive definition of strong dollar, i.e. the currency that's very important, or most important in global financial markets and in global trade. So, I think in that regard, you could have both the intervention and the strong dollar at the same time. I will add though that the administration has not had a clear, consistent view in this regard, in the following very specific sense. When now Governor Myron was chair of the Council of Economic Advisors, he penned a piece on the Council of Economics website that said that the reserve currency status of the dollar had brought with it some adverse effects on the U.S., and in terms of what happened in terms of trade flows and that sort of thing.So again, this administration has also tried to find ways to increase the nuance about what the currency policy is, and putting forward the idea that too strong of a dollar in the FX sense. In the sense that you and your colleagues in FX markets would think about is a high valuation of the dollar relative to other currencies – could have contributed to these trade deficits that they're trying to push back against. So, I would say we went from the previous broad, perhaps vague definition of strong dollar. And now we're in an even murkier regime where there could be other motivations for changing the value of the dollar. Seth Carpenter: So, James, that's been our view in terms of the Fed, but let me come back to you because there are lots of different forces going on at the same time. The central bank is clearly an important one, but it's only one factor among many. So, if you think about where the dollar is likely to go over the next three months, over the next six months, maybe over the next year, what is it that you and your team are looking for? Where are the questions that you're getting from clients? James Lord: Yeah, so when we came into the start of this year, we did have a bearish view on the dollar. I would say that the drivers of it, we'd split up into two components. The first component was a lot more of the conventional stuff about growth expectations, what we see the Fed doing. And then there was another component to it where – what we defined as risk premia, I suppose. The more unconventional catalysts that can push the dollar around, as we saw, come very much to market attention during the second quarter of last year, when the Liberation Day tariffs were announced and the dollar weakened far in excess of what rate differentials would imply. And so, I would say so far this year, the majority of the dollar move that we've seen, the weakening in the dollar that we've seen, has been driven by that second component. What we've kind of called risk premia. And the conversations that, you know, investors have been having about U.S. policy towards Greenland, and then more recently, the conversations that people have been having around FX intervention following the dollar-yen rate check. These sorts of things have been really driving the currency up until , when the Kevin Warsh nomination was announced. When we look at the extent of the risk premia that we see in the dollar now, it is pretty close to the levels that we saw in the second quarter of last year, which is to say it's pretty big. Euro dollar would probably be closer to 1-10, if we were just thinking about the impact of rate differentials and none of this risk premia stuff over the past year had materialized. That's obviously a very big gap. And I think for now that gap probably isn't going to widen much further, particularly now that market attention is much more focused on the impact that Kevin Warsh will have on markets and the dollar. We also have, you know, the ECB and the Bank of England; , house call for those two central banks is for them to be cutting rates. That could also put some downward pressure on those currencies, relative to the dollar. So all of that is to say for some of the major currencies within the G10 space, like sterling, like euro against the dollar, this probably isn't the time to be pushing a weaker dollar. But I think there are some other currencies which still have some opportunity in the short term, but also over the longer run as well. And that's really in emerging markets. So all of that is to say, I think there is a strong monetary policy anchor for emerging market currencies. This is an asset class that has been under invested in for some time. And we do think that there are more gains there in the short term and over the medium term as well. Seth Carpenter: So on that topic, James, would you then agree? So if I think about some of the EM central banks, think about Banxico, think about the BCB – where the dollar falling in value, their currency gaining in value – that could actually have a couple things go on to allow the central bank, maybe to ease more than they would've otherwise. One, in terms of imported inflation, their currency strengthening on a relative basis probably helps with a bit lower inflation. And secondly, a lot of EM central banks have to worry a bit about defending their currency, especially in a volatile geopolitical time. And you were pointing to sort of lower volatility more broadly. So is this a reinforcing trend perhaps, where if the dollar is coming down a little bit, especially against DM currencies, it allows more external stability for those central banks, allowing them to just focus on their domestic mandates, which could also lead to a further reduction in their domestic rates, which might be good for investors. James Lord: Yeah, I think there's something to that. given the strength of emerging market currencies. There should be, over time, more space for them to ease if the domestic conditions warrant it. But so far we're not really seeing many EM central banks taking advantage of that opportunity. There is a sort of general pattern with a lot of EMs that they're staying pretty conservative and more hawkish than I think what markets have generally been expecting, and that's been supporting their currencies. I think it's interesting to think about what would happen if they're on the flip side. What would happen if they did start to push monetary easing at a faster pace? I'm sure on the days where that happens, the currencies would weaken a little bit. However, if the market backdrop is generally constructive on risk, and investors want to have exposure to EM – then what could ultimately happen is that asset managers will simply buy more bonds as they price in a lower path for central bank policy over time. And that causes more capital inflows. And that sort of overwhelms the knee jerk effect from the more dovish stance of monetary policy on the currency. You get more duration flows coming into the market and that helps their currency. So, yes, if EM central banks push back with more dovish policy, significantly, it could pose some short-term volatility. But assuming we remain a low-vol environment globally, I would use those as buying opportunities. Seth Carpenter: Thanks, James. It's been great being on the show with you. Thank you for inviting me, and I hope to be able to come back and join you at some point in the future if you'll have me. James Lord: Thank you, Seth, for making the time to talk. And to all you listening, thank you for lending us your ears. Let us know what you think of this podcast by leaving us a review. And if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, tell a friend or colleague about us today.

More Americans are blaming the AI infrastructure expansion for rising electricity bills. Our Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore explains how the topic may influence policy announcements ahead of the midterm elections.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Today I'll be talking about the relationship between affordability, the data center buildout, and the midterm elections. It's Wednesday, February 18th at 10am in New York. Markets and voters continue to grapple with questions on AI, including its potential scope, impact, and disruption across industries. That's been a clear theme on the policy side as voters seem to be pushing back against AI development and data center buildout in particular. In key states, voters are associating the rise in electricity bills with AI infrastructure – and we think that could be an important read across for the midterm elections in November. Now to be sure, electricity inflation has stayed sticky at around four to 5 percent year-over- year, and our economists expect it to remain in that range through this year and next. Nationally the impact of data centers on electricity prices has been relatively modest so far, but regionally, the pressure has been more visible. To that point, a recent survey in Pennsylvania found that nearly twice as many respondents believe AI will hurt the economy as it will help. More than half – 55 percent – think AI is likely to take away jobs in their own industry, and 71 percent said they're concerned about how much electricity data centers consume. But this isn't just a Pennsylvania story. In other battleground states like Arizona and Michigan, voters have actually rejected plans to build new data centers locally. So, what could that mean for the midterm elections? Think back to the off-cycle elections in November of last year. Candidates who ran on this theme of affordability and actually pushed back against data center construction tended to do pretty well in their respective races. Looking ahead to the midterm elections later this year, we see two clear takeaways from a policy perspective. First, it's important to note that more of the policy action here will actually continue to be at the local rather than federal level. Some states with heavy data center build out – so Georgia, Michigan, Ohio, and Texas among others – are now debating who should pay for grid upgrades. Federal proposals on this topic are still pretty nascent and fragmented. Meanwhile, public utility commissions in states like Georgia, Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana have adopted or proposed large load tariffs. These require data centers to shoulder more upfront grid costs; or can reflect conditional charges like long-term contracts, minimum demand charges, exit fees or collateral requirements – all of which are designed to prevent costs from spilling over to households. And secondly, because of that limited federal action, we expect the Trump administration to continue leaning on other levers of affordability policy, where the president actually does have some more unilateral control. We've been expecting the administration to continue focusing on broader affordability areas ranging from housing to trade policy, as we've said on this podcast in the past. That dynamic is especially relevant this week as the Supreme Court could rule as soon as Friday on whether or not the president has the authority under IEEPA to impose the broad-based reciprocal tariffs. The administration thus far has been projecting a message of continuity. But we've noted that a decision that constrains that authority could give the president an opportunity to pursue a lighter touch tariff policy in response to the public's concerns around affordability. That's why we think the AI infrastructure buildout debate will continue to be a flashpoint into November, especially in the context of rising data center demand. Next week, when the president delivers his State of the Union address, we expect to hear plenty about not just affordability, but also AI leadership and competitiveness. But an equally important message will be around the administration's potential policy options to address its associated costs. That tension between AI supremacy and rising everyday costs for voters will be critical in shaping the electoral landscape into November. Thanks for listening. As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen; and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Head of U.S. Internet Research Brian Nowak joins U.S. Small and Mid-Cap Internet Analyst Nathan Feather to explain why the future of agentic commerce is closer than you think.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Brian Nowak: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Brian Nowak, Morgan Stanley's Head of U.S. Internet ResearchNathan Feather: And I'm Nathan Feather, U.S. Small and Mid-Cap Internet Analyst.Brian Nowak: Today, how AI-powered shopping assistants are set to revolutionize the e-commerce experience.It's Tuesday, February 17th at 8am in New York.Nathan, let's talk a little bit about agentic commerce. When was the last time you reordered groceries? Or bought household packaged goods? Or compared prices for items you [b]ought online and said, ‘Boy, I wish there was an easier way to do this. I wish technology could solve this for me.'Nathan Feather: Yeah. Yesterday, about 24 hours ago.Brian Nowak: Well, our work on agentic commerce shows a lot of these capabilities could be [coming] sooner than a lot of people appreciate. We believe that agentic commerce could grow to be 10 to 20 percent of overall U.S. e-commerce by 2030, and potentially add 100 to 300 basis points of overall growth to e-commerce.There are certain categories of spend we think are going to be particularly large unlocks for agentic commerce. I mentioned grocery, I mentioned household essentials. We think these are some of the items that agentic commerce is really going to drive a further digitization of over the next five years.So maybe Nathan, let's start at the very top. Our work we did together shows that 40 to 50 percent of consumers in the U.S. already use different AI tools for product research, but only a mid single digit percentage of them are actually really starting their shopping journey or buying things today. What does that gap tell you about the agentic opportunity and some of the hurdles we have to overcome to close that gap from research to actual purchasing?Nathan Feather: Well, I think what it shows is that clearly there is demand from consumers for these products. We think agentic opens up both evolutionary and revolutionary ways to shop online for consumers. But at the moment, the tools aren't fully developed and the consumer behavior isn't yet there. And so, we think it'll take time for these tools to develop. But once they do, it's clear that the consumer use case is there and you'll start to see adoption.And building on that, Brian, on the large cap side, you've done a lot of work here on how the shopping funnel itself could evolve. Traditionally discovery has flowed through search, social or direct traffic. Now we're seeing agents begin to sit in the start of the funnel acting as the gatekeeper to the transaction. For the biggest platforms with massive reach, how meaningful is that shift?Brian Nowak: It is very meaningful. And I think that this agentic shift in how people research products, price compare products, purchase products, is going to lead to even more advertis[ing] and value creation opportunity for the big social media platforms, for the big video platforms. Because essentially these big platforms that have large corpuses of users, spending a lot of time on them are going to be more important than ever for companies that want to launch new products. Companies that want to introduce their products to new customers.People that want to start new businesses entirely, it's going to be harder to reach new potential customers in an agentic world. So, I think some of these leading social and reach based video platforms are going to go up in value and you'll see more spend on those for people to build awareness around new and existing products.On this point of the products, you know, our work shows that grocery and consumer packaged goods are probably going to be one of the largest category unlocks. You know, we already know that over 50 percent of incremental e-commerce growth in the U.S. is going to come from grocery and CPG. And we think agentic is going to be a similar dynamic where grocery and CPG is going to drive a lot of agentic spend.Why do you think that is? And sort of walk us through, what has to happen in your mind for people to really pivot and start using agents to shop for their weekly grocery basket?Nathan Feather: I think one of the key things about the grocery category is it's a very high friction category online. You have to go through and select each individual ingredient you want [in] the order, ensure that you have the right brand, the right number of units, and ensure that the substitutions – when somebody actually gets to the store – are correct.And so for a user, it just takes a substantial amount of time to build a basket for online grocery. We think agentic can change that by becoming your personal digital shopper. You can say something as simple as, ‘I want to make steak tacos for dinner.' And it can add all of the ingredients you want to your order. Go from the grocery store you like. And hey, it'll know your preferences. It'll know you already like a certain brand of tortillas, and it'll add those to the cart. And so it just dramatically reduces the friction.Now, that will take time to build the tools. The tools aren't there today, but we think that can come sooner than people expect. Even over the next one to two years that you start to get this revolutionary grocery experience.And so, it's coming. And from your perspective, Brian, once agentic grocery shopping does start to work, how does that impact the broader e-commerce adoption curve? Does it pull forward agentic behavior in other categories as well?Brian Nowak: I think it does. I think it does lead to more durable multi-year, overall e-commerce growth. And potentially in some of our more bull case scenarios, we've built out – even an acceleration in e-commerce growth, even though the numbers and the dollars added are getting larger. But there is some tension around profitability.We are in a world where a lot of e-commerce companies, they generate an outsized percentage of their profit from advertising and retail media that is attached to current transactions. Agentic commerce and agents wedging themself between the consumer and these platforms potentially put some of these high-margin retail media ad dollars at risk.So talk us through some of the math that we've run on that potential risk to any of the companies that are feeding into these agents for people to shop through.Nathan Feather: Well, in our work for most e-commerce companies, a majority – or sometimes even all – of their e-commerce profitability comes from the advertising side. And so this is the key profit pool for e-commerce. To the extent that goes away, there is one potential offset here, which is the lower fee that agentic offers for companies that currently have high marketing spend. To the extent that agentic offers a lower take rate, that could be an offset.But we think it's going to be very important for companies to monitor the retail media landscape and ensure they can try to keep direct traffic as best as possible. And things like onsite agents could be really important to making sure you're staying top of mind and owning that customer relationship.Now, on the platform side, search today captures an implied take rates that are 5-10 times higher than what we're seeing in the early agentic transaction fees. If this model does shift from CPC – or cost per click – towards a more commission based model, Brian, how do you think search platforms respond?Brian Nowak: I think the punchline is the percentage of traffic and transactions that retailers or brands or companies selling their items online that's paid is going to go up. You know, while search is a relatively more expensive channel on a per transaction basis, search works because there's a very large amount of unpaid and direct traffic that retailers benefit from post the first time they spend on search.Just some math on this. We're still at a situation where 80 percent of retailers' online traffic is free. Or direct. And so if we do get into a situation where there's a transition from a higher monetizing per transaction search to a lower monetizing per transaction agent, I would expect the search platforms to react by essentially making it more challenging to get free and direct and unpaid traffic. And we'll have that transition from more transactions at a lower rate; as opposed to fewer transactions at a higher rate, which is what we have now,Nathan, in our work, we also talked about a Five I's framework. We talked about inventory, infrastructure, innovation, incrementality and income statement, sort of a retailer framework to assess positioning within the agentic transition. Maybe walk us through what your big takeaways were from the Five I's framework and what it means that retailers need to be mindful of throughout this agentic transition.Nathan Feather: Well, for retailers, I think it's going to be very important that you're winning by differentiation. Having unique, competitively priced inventory with infrastructure that can fulfill that quickly to the consumer and critically staying on the leading edge of innovation.It's one thing to have the inventory. It's another thing to be able to be actively plugged into these agentic tools and make sure you're developing good experiences for your customers that actually are on this cutting edge. In addition, it's one thing to have all of that, but you want to make sure there's also incrementality opportunity.So [the] ability to go out, expand the TAM and gain market share. And of course what we just talked about with the margin risk, I think all of those are going to be very important. And so on balance for retailers, we do see a lot of opportunity. That's balanced with a lot of risk. But this is one of those key transition moments that we think companies that really execute and perform well should be able to perform nicely.Now finally, Brian, over the next five years, how do you think agent commerce reshapes competitive dynamics across the internet ecosystem?Brian Nowak: I think over the next few years, we're going to realize that agentic commerce is no longer a fringe experiment or a concept. It's a reality. And we may get to the point where we don't even talk about agentic commerce or agentic shopping. We just say, “‘This cool thing I did through my browser.' Or, ‘Look at what my search portal can do. Look at how my search portal found me this product. Look at how my groceries got delivered.' And it'll become part of recurring life. It'll become normal.So right now we say it's agentic, it's far off. It's going to take time to develop. But I would argue that every year that goes by, it's going to be becoming more part of normal life. And we'll just say, ‘This is how I shop online.'Nathan, thanks for taking the time todayNathan Feather: It was great speaking with you, Brian.Brian Nowak: 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.

Iconic investors sit down with Morgan Stanley leaders to go behind the scenes on the critical moments – both successes and setbacks – that shaped who they are today.Watch and listen to the series on your favorite platform.

Arunima Sinha, from the U.S. and Global Economics team, discusses how an upcoming Supreme Court decision could reshape consumer prices, retail margins and the inflation outlook in 2026.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Arunima Sinha: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Arunima Sinha from Morgan Stanley's U.S. and Global Economics Teams.Today: How a single Supreme Court ruling could change the tariff math for U.S. consumers.It's Friday, February 13th at 10am in New York.The U.S. Supreme Court is deciding whether the U.S. president has legal authority to impose sweeping tariffs under IEEPA. That decision could come as soon as next Friday. IEEPA, or the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, is the legal backbone for a significant share of today's consumer goods tariffs. If the Supreme Court limits how it can be used, tariffs on many everyday items could fall quickly – affecting prices on the shelf, margins for retailers, and the broader inflation outlook.As of now, effective tariff rates on consumer goods are running about 15 percent, and that's based on late 2025 November data. And that's quite a bit higher than the roughly 10 percent average, which we're seeing as tariffs on all goods. In a post IEEPA scenario, we think that the effective tariff rate on consumer goods could fall to the mid-11 percent range.It's not zero, but it is meaningfully lower.An important caveat is that this is not going to be eliminating all tariffs. Other trade tools – like Section 232s, which are the national security tariffs, Section 301s, the tariffs that are related to unfair trade practices – would remain in place. Autos and metals, for example, are largely outside the IEEPA discussion.The main pressure point we think is consumer goods. IEEPA has been used for two major sets of tariffs. The fentanyl-related tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China, and the so-called reciprocal tariffs applied broadly across trading partners. And these often stack on top of the existing tariffs, such as the MFN, the Most Favored Nation rates, and the section 301 duties on China that were already existing before 2025.The exposure is really concentrated in certain categories of consumer goods. So, for example, in apparel and footwear, about 60 percent of the applied tariffs are IEEPA related. For furniture and home improvement, it's over 70 percent. For toys, games, and sporting equipment, it's more than 90 percent. So, if the IEEPA authority is curtailed, the category level effects would be meaningful.There are caveats, of course. The court's decision may not be all or nothing. And policymakers could turn to alternative authorities. One example is Section 122, which allows across the board tariffs for up to 15 percent for 150 days. So, tariffs could just reappear under different tools. But in the near term, fully replacing IEEPA-based tariffs on consumer goods may not be straightforward, especially given ongoing affordability concerns.So, how does that matter for the real economy? There are two key channels, prices and margins. On prices we estimate that about 60 percent of the tariff costs are typically passed on to the consumers over two to three quarters, but it's not instant. Margins though could respond faster. If companies get cost relief before they adjust prices downwards, that creates a temporary margin tailwind. That could influence hiring, investment and earnings across retail and consumer supply chains.Over time, lower tariffs could also reinforce that broader return to core goods disinflation starting in the second quarter of this year. And because tariff driven inflation has weighed more heavily on the middle- and lower-income households, any eventual price relief could disproportionately benefit those groups.At the end of the day, this isn't just a legal story. It is a timing story. If IEEPA authority is curtailed, the arithmetic shifts pretty quickly. Margins move first, prices follow later, and the path back to goods disinflation could accelerate. That's why this is one ruling worth watching before the gavel drops.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share thoughts on the market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets explains how key market indicators reflect a constructive view around the global cyclical outlook, despite a volatile start to 2026.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I'm going to talk about the unusual alignment of a number of key indicators. It's Thursday, February 12th at 2pm in London. A frustrating element of investing is that any indicator at any time can let you down. That makes sense. With so much on the line, the secret to markets probably isn't just one of a hundreds of data series that a thousand of us can access at the push of a button. But many indicators all suggesting the same? That's far more notable. And despite a volatile start to 2026 with big swings in everything from Japanese government bonds to software stocks, it is very much what we think is happening below the surface. Specifically, a variety of indicators linked to optimism around the global cyclical outlook are all stronger, all moving up and to the right. Copper, which is closely followed as an economically sensitive commodity, is up strongly. Korean equities, which have above average cyclicality and sensitivity to global trade is the best performing of any major global equity market over the last year. Financials, which lie at the heart of credit creation, have been outperforming across the U.S., Europe, and Asia. And more recently, year-to-date cyclicals and transports are outperforming. Small caps are leading, breadth is improving, and the yield curve is bear steepening. All of these are the outcomes that you'd expect, all else equal, if global growth is going to be stronger in the future than it is today. Now individually, these data points can be explained away. Maybe Copper is just part of an AI build out story. Maybe Korea is just rebounding off extreme levels of valuation. Maybe Financials are just about deregulation in a steeper yield curve. Maybe the steeper yield curve is just about the policy uncertainty. And small cap stocks have been long-term laggards – maybe every dog has its day. But collectively, well, they're exactly what investors will be looking for to confirm that the global growth backdrop is getting stronger, and we believe they form a pretty powerful, overlapping signal worthy of respect. But if things are getting better, how much is too much. In the face of easier fiscal, monetary, and regulatory policy, the market may focus on other signposts to determine whether we now have too much of a good thing. For example, is there signs of significant inflation on the horizon? Is volatility in the bond market increasing? Is the U.S. dollar deviating significantly from its fair value? Is the credit market showing weakness? And do stocks and credit now react badly when the data is good? So far, not yet. As we discussed on this program last week, long run inflation expectations in the U.S. and euro area remain pretty consistent with central bank targets. Expected volatility in U.S. interest rates has actually fallen year-to-date. The U.S. dollar's valuation is pretty close to what purchasing power parity would suggest. Credit has been very stable. And better than expected labor market data on Wednesday was treated well. Any single indicator can and eventually will let investors down. But when a broad set of economically sensitive signals all point in the same direction, we listen. Taken together, we think this alignment is still telling a story of supportive fundamental tailwinds while key measures of stress hold. Until that evidence changes, we think those signals deserve respect. Thank you as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

With the U.S.-Canada-Mexico Agreement coming up for review, our Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore unpacks whether our 2025 call for deeper trade integration still holds.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Today I'll be talking about our expectations for the upcoming USMCA review, and how the landscape has shifted from last year. It's Wednesday, February 11th at 4pm in London. As we highlighted last fall, the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement is approaching its first mandatory review in 2026. At the time, we argued that the risks were skewed modestly to the upside. Structural contingencies built into the agreement we think cap downside risk and tilt most outcomes toward preserving and over time deepening North American trade integration. That framing, we think, remains broadly intact. But some developments over the past few months suggest that the timing and the structure of that deeper integration could end up looking a little bit different than we initially expected. We still see a scenario where negotiators resolve targeted frictions and make limited updates, but we're increasingly mindful that some of the more ambitious policy maker goals – for example, new chapters on AI, critical minerals or more explicit guardrails on Chinese investment in Mexico – may be harder to formalize ahead of the mid-2026 deadline. So, what does the base case as we framed it last year still look like? We continue to expect an outcome that preserves the agreement and resolves several outstanding disputes – auto rules of origin, labor enforcement procedures, and select digital trade provisions. On the China question, our view from last year also still holds. We expect incremental steps by Mexico to reduce trans-shipment risk and better align with U.S. trade priorities, though likely without a fully institutionalized enforcement mechanism by mid-2026. And remember, the USMCA's 10-year escape clause keeps the agreement enforced at least through 2036, meaning the probability of a disruptive trade shock is structurally quite low. What may be shifting is not the direction of travel, but the pace and the form. A more comprehensive agreement may ultimately come, but possibly with a longer runway or through site agreements rather than updates to the USMCA text itself. Of course, those come with an enforcement risk just given the lack of congressional backing. We still expect the formal review to conclude around mid-2026, albeit with a growing possibility that deeper institutional alignment happens further out or via parallel frameworks. It also is possible that into that deadline all three sides decide to extend negotiations out further into the future, extending the uncertainty for even longer. So what does it all mean for macro and markets? For Mexico, maintaining tariff free access to the U.S. continues to be essential. The base case supports ongoing manufacturing integration, especially in autos and electronics. But without the newer, more strategic chapters that policymakers have discussed, the agreement would leave Mexico in a position that it's accustomed to – stable but short of a full nearshoring acceleration. This aligns with our view from last year, but we now see clearer near-term risks to the thesis of rapid institutional, deeper trade integration. For FX, the pace of benefit is from reduced uncertainty, but the effect is likely gradual. The absence of tangible progress on adding to the original deal suggests a more muted near-term impulse. For Canada, the implications are similarly two-sided. Near-term volatility around the review is likely underpriced, but a limited agreement should eventually lead to medium term USD-CAD downside. On the economics front, last year, we argued that the review would reinforce North America as a manufacturing block, even if it didn't fully resolve supply chain diversification from China. We think that remains true today, but with the added nuance that some of the more ambitious integration pathways may be pushed further out or structured outside of the formal USMCA chapters. So bottom line, our base case remains a measured, pragmatic outcome that reduces uncertainty, but preserves the core benefits of North American trade and supports growth across key asset classes. But it also increasingly looks like an outcome that may leave some strategic opportunities on the table for now, setting the stage for deeper alignment later – on a slightly longer horizon, or through a more flexible framework. Thanks for listening. As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen. And share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research Stephen Byrd and U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist Michelle Weaver lay out Morgan Stanley's four key Research themes for 2026, and how those themes could unfold across markets for the rest of the year. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research. Michelle Weaver: And I'm Michelle Weaver, U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist. Stephen Byrd: I was recently on the show to discuss Morgan Stanley's four key themes for 2026. Today, a look at how those themes could actually play out in the real world over the course of this year. It's Tuesday, February 10th at 10am in New York. So one of the biggest challenges for investors right now is separating signal from noise. Markets are reacting to headlines by the minute, but the real drivers of long-term returns tend to move much more slowly and much more powerfully. That's why thematic analysis has been such an important part of how we think about markets, particularly during periods of high volatility. For 2026, our framework is built around four key themes: AI and tech diffusion, the future of energy, the multipolar world, and societal shifts. In other words, three familiar themes and one meaningful evolution from last year. So Michelle, let's start at the top. When investors hear four key themes, what's different about the 2026 framework versus what we laid out in 2025? Michelle Weaver: Well, like you mentioned before, three of our four key themes are the same as last year, so we're gonna continue to see important market impacts from AI and tech diffusion, the future of energy and the multipolar world.But our fourth key theme, societal shifts, is really an expansion of our prior key theme longevity from last year. And while three of the four themes are the same broad categories, the way they impact the market is going to evolve. And these themes don't exist in isolation. They collide and they intersect with one another, having other important market implications. And we'll talk about many of those intersections today as they relate to multiple themes. Let's start with AI. How does the AI and tech diffusion theme specifically evolve since last year? Stephen Byrd: Yeah. You know, you mentioned earlier the evolution of all of our themes, and that was certainly the case with AI and tech diffusion. What I think we'll see in 2026 is a few major evolutions. So, one is a concept that we think of as two worlds of LLM progress and AI adoption; and let me walk through what I mean by that. On LLM progress, we do think that the handful of American LLM developers that have 10 times the compute they had last year are going to be training and producing models of unprecedented capability. We do not think the Chinese models will be able to keep up because they simply do not have the compute required for the training. And so we will see two worlds, very different approaches. That said, the Chinese models are quite excellent in terms of providing low cost solutions to a wide range of very practical business cases. So that's one case of two worlds when we think about the world of AI and tech diffusion. Another is that essentially we could see a really big gap between what you can do with an LLM and what the average user is actually doing with LLMs. Now there're going to be outliers where really leaders will be able to fully utilize LLMs and achieve fairly substantial and breathtaking results. But on average, that won't be the case. And so you'll see a bit of a lag there. That said, I do think when investors see what those frontier capabilities are, I think that does eventually lead to bullishness. So that's one dynamic. Another really big dynamic in 2026 is the mismatch between compute demand and compute supply. We dove very deeply into this in our note, and essentially where we come out is we believe, and our analysis supports this, that the demand for compute is going to be systematically much higher than the supply. That has all kinds of implications. Compute becomes a very precious resource, both at the company level, at the national level. So those are a couple of areas of evolution.So Michelle, let's shift over to the future of energy, which does feel very different today than it did a year ago. Can you kind of walk through what's changed? Michelle Weaver: Well, we absolutely still think that power is one of the key bottlenecks for data center growth. And our power modeling work shows around a 47 gigawatt shortfall before considering innovative time to power solutions. We get down to around a 10 to 20 percent shortfall in power needed in the U.S. though, even after considering those solutions. So power is still very much a bottleneck. But the power picture is becoming even more challenged for data centers, and that's largely because of a major political overhang that's emerging. Consumers across the U.S. have seen their electricity bills rise and are increasingly pointing to data centers as the culprit behind this. I really want to emphasize though this is a nuanced issue and data center power demand is driving consumer bills higher in some areas like the Mid-Atlantic. But this isn't the case nationwide and really depends on a number of factors like data center density in the region and whether it's a regulated or unregulated utility market.But public perception has really turned against data centers and local pushback is causing planned data centers to be canceled or delayed. And you're seeing similar opinions both across political affiliations and across different regional areas. So yes, in some areas data centers have impacted consumer power bills, but in other areas that hasn't been the case. But this is good news though, for companies that offer off-grid power generation, who are able to completely insulate consumers because they're not connecting to the grid.Stephen, the multipolar theme was already strong last year. Why has it become even more central for 2026? Stephen Byrd: Yeah, you're right. It was strong in 2025. In fact, of our 21 categories of stocks, the top three performing were really driven by multipolar world dynamics. Let me walk through three areas of focus that we have for multipolar world in 2026. Number one is an aggressive U.S. policy agenda, and that's going to show up in a number of ways. But examples here would be major efforts to reshore manufacturing, a real evolution in military spending towards a wide range of newer military technologies, reducing power prices and inflation more broadly. And also really focusing on trying to eliminate dependency on China for rare earths. So that's the first big area of focus. The second is around AI technology transfer. And this is quite closely linked to rare earths. So here's the dynamic as we think about U.S. and China. China has a commanding position in rare earths. The United States has a leading position in access to computational resources. Those two are going to interplay quite a bit in 2026. So, for example, we have a view that in 2026, when those American models, these LLMs achieve these step changes up in capabilities that China cannot match, we think that it's very likely that China may exert pressure in terms of rare earths access in order to force the transfer of technology, the best AI technology to China. So that's an example of this linkage between AI and rare earths. And the last dynamic, I'd say broadly, would be the politics of energy, which you described quite well. I think that's going to be a big multipolar world dynamic everywhere around the world. A focus on how much of an impact our data centers are having – whether it's water access, price of power, et cetera. What are the impacts to jobs? And that's going to show up in a variety of policy actions in 2026. Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm. Stephen Byrd: So Michelle, the last of our four key themes is societal shifts, and you walked through that briefly before. This expands on our prior longevity work. What does this broader framing capture? Michelle Weaver: Societal shifts will include important topics from longevity still. So, things like preparing for an aging population and AI in healthcare. But the expansion really lets us look at the full age range of the demographic spectrum, and we can also now start thinking about what younger consumers want. It also allows us to look at other income based demographics, like what's been going on with the K-economy, which has been an important theme around the world. And a really critical element, though, of this new theme is AI's impact on the labor market. Last year we did a big piece called The Future of Work. And in it we estimated that around 90 percent of jobs would be impacted by AI. I want to be clear: That's not to say that 90 percent of jobs would be lost by AI or automated by AI. But rather some task or some component of that job could be automated or augmented using AI. And so you might have, you know, the jobs of today looking very different five years from now. Workers are adaptable and, and we do expect many to reskill as part of this evolving job landscape. We've talked about the evolution of our key themes, but now let's focus a little on the results. So how have these themes actually performed from an investment standpoint? Stephen Byrd: Yeah. I was very happy with the results in 2025. When we looked across our categories of thematic stocks; we have 21 categories of thematic stocks within our four big themes. On average in 2025, our thematic stock categories outperformed MSCI World by 16 percent and the S&P 500 by 27 percent respectively. So, I was very happy with that result. When you look at the breakdown, it is interesting in terms of the categories, you did really well. As I mentioned, the top three were driven by multipolar world. That is Critical Minerals, AI Semis, and Defense. But after that you can see a lot of AI in Energy show up. Power in AI was a big winner. Nuclear Power did extremely well. So, we did see other categories, but I did find it really interesting that multipolar world really did top the charts in 2025. Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm. Stephen Byrd: Michelle, thanks for taking the time to talk. Michelle Weaver: Great speaking with you, Steven. Stephen Byrd: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Our Chief LatAm Equity Strategist Nikolaj Lippmann discusses why Latin America may be approaching a rare “Spring” moment – where geopolitics, peaking rates, and elections set the scene for an investment-led growth cycle with meaningful market upside.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Nikolaj Lippmann: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Nikolaj Lippmann, Morgan Stanley's Chief Latin America Equity Strategist. If you ever felt like Latin America is too complicated to follow, today's episode is for you. It's Monday, February 9th at 10am in New York. The big idea in our research is simple. Latin America is facing a trifecta of change that could set up a very different investment story from what investors have gotten used to. We could be moving towards an investment or CapEx cycle in the shadow of the global AI CapEx cycle, and this is a stark departure from prior consumer cycles in Latin America. Latin America's GDP today is about $6 trillion. Yet Latin American equities account for just about 80 basis points of the main global index MSCI All Country World Equity benchmark. In plain English, it's really easy for investors to overlook such a vast region. But the narrative seems to be changing thanks to three key factors. Number one, shifting geopolitics in this increasingly global multipolar world. We can see this with trade rules, security priorities, supply chains that are getting rewritten. Capital and investment will often move alongside with these changing rules. Clearly, as we can all see U.S. priorities in Latin America have shifted, and with them have local priorities and incentives. Second, interest rates may very well have been peaking and could decline into [20]26. When borrowing cost fall, it just becomes easier to fund factories, infrastructure, AI, and expansion into all kinds of different investment, which become more feasible. What is more, we see a big shift in the size and growth of domestic capital markets in almost every country in Latin America – something that happens courtesy of reform and is certainly new versus prior cycles. And finally, elections that could lead to an important policy shift across Latin America. We see signs of movement towards greater fiscal responsibility in many sites of the region, with upcoming elections in Colombia and Brazil. We have already seen new policy makers in Argentina, Chile, Mexico, depart from prior populism. So, when we put all this together -- geopolitics, rates and local election -- you get to the core of our thesis, a possible LatAm spring; meaning a decisive break from the status quo towards fiscal consolidation, monetary easing, and structural reform. And we think that that could be a potential move that restores some confidence and attracts private capital. In our spring scenario, we see interest rates coming down, not rising in a scenario of higher growth to 6 percent in Brazil and Mexico, 7 percent in Argentina, and just 4 percent in Chile. This helps the rerating of the region. There's another powerful factor that I think many investors overlook, and that is a key difference versus prior cycles, as already mentioned. And that's the domestic savings. Local portfolios today are much bigger, much deeper capital markets, and they're heavily skewed towards fixed income. 75 percent of Latin American portfolios are in fixed income versus 25 percent in equity. In Brazil, the number's even higher with 90 to 95 percent in fixed income. If this shifts even halfway towards equity, it can deepen and support local capital markets; it supports valuation. For the region as a whole, sectors most impacted by this transformation would be Financial Services, Energy, Utilities, IT and Healthcare. Up until now, I think Latin America has been viewed as a region where a lot could go wrong. We asked the reverse question. What could go right? If the trifecta lines up: geopolitics, peaking rates and elections that enable a more investment friendly policy and CapEx cycle, Latin America could shift from being seen mainly as a supply of commodities and labor to far more investment driven engine of growth. That's why investors should put Latin America on the radar now and not wait until spring is already in full bloom. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to the podcast and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets and Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter unpack the inner workings of the Federal Reserve to illustrate the challenges that Fed chair nominee Kevin Warsh may face.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript ----- Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. Andrew Sheets: And today on the podcast, a further discussion of a new Fed chair and the challenges they may face. It's Friday, February 6th at 1 pm in New York. Seth, it's great to be here talking with you, and I really want to continue a conversation that listeners have been hearing on this podcast over this week about a new nominee to chair the Federal Reserve: Kevin Warsh. And you are the perfect person to talk about this, not just because you lead our economic research and our macro research, but you've also worked at the Fed. You've seen the inner workings of this organization and what a new Fed chair is going to have to deal with. So, maybe just for some broad framing, when you saw this announcement come out, what were some of the first things to go through your mind? Seth Carpenter: I will say first and foremost, Kevin Warsh's name was one of the names that had regularly come up when the White House was providing names of people they were considering in lots of news cycles. So, I think the first thing that's critically important from my perspective, is – not a shock, right? Sort of a known quantity. Second, when we think about these really important positions, there's a whole range of possible outcomes. And I would've said that of the four names that were in the final set of four that we kept hearing about in the news a lot. You know, some differences here and there across them, but none of them was substantially outside of what I would think of as mainstream sort of thinking. Nothing excessively unorthodox at all like that. So, in that regard as well, I think it should keep anybody from jumping to any big conclusions that there's a huge change that's imminent. I think the other thing that's really important is the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve really is made by a committee. The Federal Open Market Committee and committee matters in these cases. The Fed has been under lots of scrutiny, under lots of pressure, depending on how you want to put it. And so, as a result, there's a lot of discussion within the institution about their independence, making sure they stick very scrupulously to their congressionally given mandate of stable prices, full employment. And so, what does that mean in practice? That means in practice, to get a substantially different outcome from what the committee would've done otherwise… So, the market is pricing; what's the market pricing for the funds rate at the end of this year? About 3.2 percent. Andrew Sheets: Something like that. Yeah. Seth Carpenter: Yeah. So that's a reasonable forecast. It's not too far away from our house view. For us to end up with a policy rate that's substantially away from that – call it 1 percentage, 2 percentage points away from that. I just don't see that as likely to happen. Because the committee can be led, can be swayed by the chair, but not to the tune of 1 or 2 percentage points. And so, I think for all those reasons, there wasn't that much surprise and there wasn't, for me, a big reason to fully reevaluate where we think the Fed's going. Andrew Sheets: So let me actually dig into that a little bit more because I know our listeners tune in every day to hear a lot about government meetings. But this is a case where that really matters because I think there can sometimes be a misperception around the power of this position. And it's both one of the most public important positions in the world of finance. And yet, as you mentioned, it is overseeing a committee where the majority matters. And so, can you take us just a little bit inside those discussions? I mean, how does the Fed Chair interact with their colleagues? How do they try to convince them and persuade them to take a particular course of action? Seth Carpenter: Great question. And you're right, I sort of spent a bunch of time there at the Fed. I started when Greenspan was chair. I worked under the Bernanke Fed. And of course, for the end of that, Janet Yellen was the vice chair. So, I've worked with her. Jay Powell was on the committee the whole time. So, the cast of characters quite familiar and the process is important. So, I would say a few things. The chair convenes the meetings; the chair creates the agenda for the meeting. The chair directs the staff on what the policy documents are that the committee is going to get. So, there's a huge amount of influence, let's say, there. But in order to actually get a specific outcome, there really is a vote. And we only have to look back a couple weeks to the last FOMC meeting when there were two dissents against the policy decision. So, dissents are not super common. They don't happen at every single meeting, but they're not unheard of by any stretch of the imagination either. And if we go back over the past few years, lots going on with inflation and how the economy was going was uncertain. Chair Powell took some dissents. If we go back to the financial crisis Chair Bernanke took a bunch of dissents. If we go back even further through time, Paul Volcker, when he was there trying to staunch the flow of the high inflation of the 1970s, faced a lot of resistance within his committee. And reportedly threatened to quit if he couldn't get his way. And had to be very aggressive in trying to bring the committee along. So, the chair has to find a way to bring the committee along with the plan that the chair wants to execute. Lots of tools at their disposal, but not endless power or influence. Does that make sense? Andrew Sheets: That makes complete sense. So, maybe my final question, Seth, is this is a tough job. This is a tough job in… Seth Carpenter: You mean your job and my job, or… Andrew Sheets: [Laughs] Not at all. The chair of the Fed. And it seems especially tricky now. You know, inflation is above the Fed's target. Interest rates are still elevated. You know, certainly mortgage rates are still higher than a lot of Americans are used to over the last several years. And asset prices are high. You know, the valuation of the equity market is high. The level of credit spreads is tight. So, you could say, well, financial conditions are already quite easy, which can create some complications. I am sure Kevin Warsh is receiving lots of advice from lots of different angles. But, you know, if you think about what you've seen from the Fed over the years, what would be your advice to a new Fed chair – and to navigate some of these challenges? Seth Carpenter: I think first and foremost, you are absolutely right. This is a tough job in the best of times, and we are in some of the most difficult and difficult to understand macroeconomic times right now. So, you noted interest rates being high, mortgage rates being high. There's very much an eye of the beholder phenomenon going on here. Now you're younger than I am. The first mortgage I had. It was eight and a half percent. Andrew Sheets: Hmm. Seth Carpenter: I bought a house in 2000 or something like that. So, by those standards, mortgage rates are actually quite low. So, it really comes down to a little bit of what you're used to. And I think that fact translates into lots of other places. So, inflation is now much higher than the committee's target. Call it 3 percent inflation instead core inflation on PCE, rather than 2 percent inflation target. Now, on the one hand that's clearly missing their target and the Fed has been missing their target for years. And we know that tariffs are pushing up inflation, at least for consumer goods. And Chair Powell and this committee have said they get that. They think that inflation will be temporary, and so they're going to look through that inflation. So again, there's a lot of judgment going on here. The labor market is quite weak. Andrew Sheets: Hmm. Seth Carpenter: We don't have the latest months worth of job market data because of the government shutdown; that'll be delayed by a few days. But we know that at the end of last year, non-farm payrolls were running well below 50,000. Under most circumstances, you would say that is a clear indication of a super weak economy. But! But if we look at aggregate spending data, GDP, private-domestic final purchases, consumer spending, CapEx spending. It's actually pretty solid right now. And so again, that sense of judgment; what's the signal you're going to look for? That's very, very difficult right now, and that's part of what the chair is going to have to do to try to bring the committee together, in order to come to a decision. So, one intellectually coherent argument is – the main way you could get strong aggregate demand, strong spending numbers, strong GDP numbers, but with pretty tepid labor force growth is if productivity is running higher and if productivity is going higher because of AI, for example, over time you could easily expect that to be disinflationary. And if it's disinflationary, then you can cut it. Interest rates now. Not worry as much as you would normally about high inflation. And so, the result could be a lower path for policy rates. So that's one version of the argument that I suspect you're going to hear. On the other hand, inflation is high and it's been high for years. So what does that mean? Well. History suggests that if inflation stays too high for too long, inflation psychology starts to change the way businesses start to set. Andrew Sheets: Mm-hmm. Seth Carpenter: Their own prices can get a little bit loosey-goosey. They might not have to worry as much about consumers being as picky because everybody's got used to these price changes. Consumers might be become less picky because, well, they're kind of sick of shopping around. They might be more willing to accept those higher prices, and that's how things snowball. So, I do think that the new chair is going to face a particularly difficult situation in leading a committee in particularly challenging times. But I've gone on for a long, long time there. And one of the things that I love about getting to talk to you, Andrew, is the fact that you also talked to lots of investors all around the world. You're based in London. And so when the topic of the new Fed chair comes up, what are the questions that you're getting from clients? Andrew Sheets: So, I think that there are a few questions that stand out. I mean, I think a dominant question among investors was around the stability of the U.S. dollar. And so, you could say a good development on the back of Kevin Warsh's nomination is that the market response to that has been the price action you would associate with more stability. You've seen the dollar rise; you've seen precious metals prices fall. You've seen equity markets and credit spreads be very stable. So, I think so far everything in the market reaction is to your; to the point that you raised, you know, consistent with this still being orthodox policy. Every Fed chair is different, but still more similar than different now. I think where it gets more divergent in client opinions is just – what are we going to see from the Fed? Are we going to see a real big change in policy? And I think that this is where there are very different views of Kevin Warsh from investors. Some who say, ‘Well, he's in the past talked about fighting inflation more aggressively, which would imply tighter policy.' And he's also talked more recently about the productivity gains from AI and how that might support lower interest rates. So, I think that there's going to be a lot of interest when he starts to speak publicly, when we see testimony in front of the Senate. I think the other, the final piece, which I think again, people do not have as fully formed an opinion on yet is – how does he lead the Fed if the data is unexpected? And you know, you mentioned inflation and, you know, Morgan Stanley has this forecast that: Well, owner's equivalent rent, a really key part of inflation, might be a little bit higher than expected, which might be a distortion coming off of the government shutdown and impacts on data. But there's some real uncertainty about the inflation path over the near term. And so, in short, I think investors are going to give the benefit of the doubt. For now, I think they're going to lean more into this idea that it will be generally consistent with the Fed easing policy over time, for now. Generally consistent with a steeper curve for now. But I think there's a lot we're going to find out over the next couple of weeks and months. Seth Carpenter: Yeah. No, I agree with you. Andrew, I have to say, I'm glad you're here in New York. It's always great to sit down and talk to you. Let's do it again before too long. Andrew Sheets: Absolutely, Seth. Thanks for taking the time to talk. And to our audience, thank you as always for your time. If you find Thoughts the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

Our Global Head of Macro Strategy Matthew Hornbach and Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen discuss the path for U.S. interest rates after the nomination of Kevin Warsh for next Fed chair.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'll be talking about the Federal Open Market Committee meeting that occurred last week.It's Thursday, February 5th at 8:30 am in New York.So, Mike, last week we had the first Federal Open Market Committee meeting of 2026. What were your general impressions from the meeting? And how did it compare to what you had thought going in? Michael Gapen: Well, Matt, I think that the main question for markets was how hawkish a hold or how dovish a hold would this be. As you know, it was widely expected the Fed would be on hold. The incoming data had been fairly solid. Inflation wasn't all that concerning, and most of the employment data suggested things had stabilized. So, it was clear they were going to pause. The question was would they pause or would they be on pause, right? And in our view, it was more of a dovish hold. And by that, it suggests to us, or they suggested to us, I should say, that they still have an easing bias and rates should generally move lower over time. So, that really was the key takeaway for me. Would they signal a prolonged pause and perhaps suggest that they might be done with the easing cycle? Or would they say, yes, we've stopped for now, but we still expect to cut rates later? Perhaps when inflation comes down and therefore kind of retain a dovish bias or an easing bias in the policy rate path. So, to me, that was the main takeaway. Matthew Hornbach: Of course, as we all know, there are supposed to be some personnel changes on the committee this year. And Chair Powell was asked several questions to try to get at the future of this committee and what he himself was going to do personally. What was your impression of his response and what were the takeaways from that part of the press conference? Michael Gapen: Well, clearly, he's been reluctant to, say, pre-announce what he may do when his term is chair ends in May. But his term as a governor extends into 2028. So, he has options. He could leave normally that's what happens. But he could also stay and he's never really made his intentions clear on that part. I think for maybe personal or professional reasons. But he has his own; he has his own reasons and, and that's fine. And I do think the recent subpoena by the DOJ has changed the calculus in that. At least my own view is that it makes it more likely that he stays around. It may be easier for him to act in response to that subpoena by being on staff. It's a request for additional information; he needs access to that information. I think you could construct a reasonable scenario under which, ‘Well, I have to see this through, therefore, I may stay around.' But maybe he hasn't come to that conclusion yet. And then stepping back, that just complicates the whole picture in the sense that we now know the administration has put forward Kevin Warsh as the new Fed chair. Will he be replacing the seat that Jay Powell currently sits in? Will he be replacing the seat that Stephen Myron is sitting in? So yes, we have a new name being put forward, but it's not exactly clear where that slot will be; and what the composition of the committee will look like. Matthew Hornbach: Well, you beat me to the punch on mentioning Kevin Warsh… Michael Gapen: I kind of assumed that's where you were going. Matthew Hornbach: It was going to be my next question. I'm curious as to what you think that means for Fed policy later this year, if anything. And what it might mean more medium term? Michael Gapen: Yeah. Well, first of all, congratulations to Mr. Warsh on the appointment. In terms of what we think it means for the outlook for the Fed's reaction function and interest rate policy, we doubt that there will be a material change in the Fed's reaction function. His previous public remarks don't suggest his views on interest rate policy are substantively outside the mainstream, or at least certainly the collective that's already in the FOMC. Some people would prefer not to ease. The majority of the committee still sees a couple more rate cuts ahead of them. Warsh is generally aligned with that, given his public remarks. But then also all the reserve bank presidents have been renominated. There's an ongoing Supreme Court case about the ability of the administration to fire Lisa Cook. If that is not successful, then Kevin Warsh will arrive in an FOMC where there's 16 other people who all get a say. So, the chair's primary responsibility is to build a consensus; to herd the cats, so to speak. To communicate to markets and communicate to the public. So, if Mr. Warsh wanted to deviate substantially from where the committee was, he would have to build a consensus to do that. So, we think, at least in the near term, the reaction function won't change. It'll be driven by the data, whether the labor market holds up, whether inflation, decelerates as expected. So, we don't look for material change. Now you also asked about the medium term. I do think where his views differ, at least with respect to current Fed policy is on the size of the Fed's balance sheet and its footprint in financial markets. So, he has argued over time for a much smaller balance sheet. He's called the Fed's balance sheet bloated. He has said that it creates distortions in markets, which mean interest rates could be higher than they otherwise would be. And so, I think if there is a substantive change in Fed policy going forward, it could be there on the balance sheet. But what I would just say on that is it'll likely take a lot of coordination with Treasury. It will likely take changes in rules, regulations, the supervisory landscape. Because if you want to reduce the balance sheet further without creating volatility in financial markets, you have to find a way to reduce bank demand for it. So, this will take time, it'll take study, it'll take patience. I wouldn't look for big material changes right out of the box. So Matt, what I'd like to do is, if I could flip it back to you, Warsh was certainly one of the expected candidates, right? So, his name is not a surprise. But as we knew financial markets, one day we're thinking it'd be one candidate. The next day it'd be thinking at the next it was somebody else. How did you see markets reacting to the announcement of Mr. Warsh? For the next Fed share, and then maybe put that in context of where markets were coming out of the last FOMC meeting. Matthew Hornbach: Yeah, so the markets that moved the most were not the traditional, very large macro markets like the interest rate marketplace or the foreign exchange market. The markets that moved the most were the prediction markets. These newer markets that offer investors the ability to wager on different outcomes for a whole variety of events around the world. But when it comes to the implications of a Kevin Warsh led Fed – for the bigger macro markets like interest rates and currencies, the question really comes down to how? If the Fed's balance sheet policies are going to take a while to implement, those are not going to have an immediate effect, at least not an effect that is easily seen with the human eye. But it's other types of policy change in terms of his communication policy, for example. One of the points that you raised in your recent note, Mike, was how Kevin Warsh favored less communication than perhaps some of the recent, Federal Open Market Committees had with the public. And so, if there is some kind of a retrenchment from the type of over-communication to the marketplace, from either committee members or non-voters that could create a bit more volatility in the marketplace. Of course, the Fed has been one of the central banks that does not like to surprise the markets in terms of its monetary policy making. And so, that contrasts with other central banks in the G10. For example, the Swiss National Bank tends to surprise quite a lot. The Reserve Bank of Australia tends to surprise markets. More often, certainly than the Fed does. So, to the extent that there's some change in communication strategy going forward that could lead to more volatile interest rate in currency markets. And that then could cause investors to demand more risk premium to invest in those markets. If you previously were comfortable owning a longer duration Treasury security because you felt very comfortable with the future path of Fed policy, then a Kevin Warsh led Fed – if it decides to change the communication strategy – could naturally lead investors to demand more risk premium in their investments. And that, of course, would lead to a steeper U.S. Treasury curve, all else equal. So that would be one of the main effects that I could see happen in markets as a result of some potential changes that the Fed may consider going forward. So, Mike, with that said, this was the first FOMC meeting of the year, and the next meeting arrives in March. I guess we'll just have to wait between now and then to see if the Fed is on hold for a longer period of time or whether or not the data convinced them to move as soon as the March meeting. Thanks for taking time to talk, Mike. 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.

Affordability is back in focus in D.C. after the brief U.S. shutdown. Our Deputy Global Head of Research Michael Zezas and Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore look at some proposals in play.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Deputy Global Head of Research for Morgan Stanley. Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research. Michael Zezas: Today we're discussing the continued focus on affordability, and how to parse signals from the noise on different policy proposals coming out of D.C.It's Wednesday, February 4th at 10am in New York. Ariana Salvatore: President Trump signed a bill yesterday, ending the partial government shutdown that had been in place for the past few days. But affordability is still in focus. It's something that our clients have been asking about a lot. And we might hear more news when the president delivers his State of the Union address on February 24th and possibly delivers his budget proposal, which should be around the same time. So, needless to say, it's still a topic that investors have been asking us about and one that we think warrants a little bit more scrutiny. Michael Zezas: But maybe before we get into how to think about these affordability policies, we should hit on what we're seeing as the real pressure points in the debate. Ariana, you recently did some work with our economists. What were some of your findings? Ariana Salvatore: So, Heather Berger and the rest of our U.S. econ[omics] team highlighted three groups in particular that are feeling more of the affordability crunch, so to speak. That's lower income consumers, younger consumers, and renters or recent home buyers. Lower income households have experienced persistently higher inflation and more recently weaker wage growth. Younger consumers were hit hardest when inflation peaked and are more exposed to higher borrowing costs. And lastly, renters and recent buyers are dealing with much higher shelter burdens that aren't fully captured in standard inflation metrics. Now, the reason I laid all that out is because these are also the cohorts where the president's approval ratings have seen the largest declines. Michael Zezas: Right. And so, it makes sense that those are the groups where the administration might be targeting some of these affordability initiatives. Ariana Salvatore: That's right. But that's not the only variable that they're solving for. Broadly speaking, we think that the president and Republicans in Congress really need to solve for four things when it comes to affordability policies. First, targeting these quote right cohorts, which are those, as we mentioned, that have either moved furthest away from the president politically, or have been the most under pressure. Second feasibility, right? So even if Republicans can agree on certain policies, getting them procedurally through Congress can still be a challenge. Third timing – just because the legislative calendar is so tight ahead of the November elections. And fourth speed of disbursement. So basically, how long it would take these policies to translate to an uplift for consumers ahead of the elections. Michael Zezas: So, thinking through each of these constraints, starting with how easy it might be to actually get some of these policies done, most of the policies that are being proposed on the housing side require congressional approval. In terms of these cohorts, it seems like these policies are most likely to focus on – that seems aimed at lower-income and younger voters. And in terms of timing, we know the legislative calendar is tight ahead of the midterms, and the policy makers want to pursue things that can be enacted quickly and show up for voters as soon as possible. Ariana Salvatore: So, using that lens, we think the most realistic near-term tools are probably mostly executive actions. Think agency directives and potential changes to tariff policy. If we do see a second reconciliation bill emerge, it will probably move more slowly but likely cover some of those housing related tax credit changes. But of course, not all these policies would move the needle in the same way. What do we think matters most from a macro perspective? Michael Zezas: So, what our economists have argued is that the affordability policies being discussed – tax credits subsidies, payment pauses – they could be meaningful at a micro level for targeted households, but for the most part, they don't materially change the macro outlook. The exception might be tariffs; that probably has the broadest and most sustained impact on affordability because it directly affects inflation. Lower tariffs would narrow inflation differentials across cohorts, support real income growth and make it easier for the Fed to cut rates. Ariana Salvatore: Right. And just to add a finer point on that, I think directionally speaking, this is where we've seen the administration moving in recent months. Remember, towards the end of last year, the Trump administration placed an exemption on a lot of agricultural imports. And just the other day, we heard news that the trade deal with India was finalized reducing the overall tariff rate to 18 percent from about 50 percent prior. Michael Zezas: Okay. So, putting it all together for what investors need to know. We see three key takeaways. First, even absent new policy, our economists expect some improvement in affordability this year as inflation decelerates and rate cuts come into view. And specifically, when we talk about improvements in affordability, what our economists are referring to is income growth consistently outpacing inflation, lowering required monthly payments. Second, most proposed affordability policies are unlikely to generate the meaningful macro growth impulse, so investors shouldn't overreact to headline announcements. And third, the cohort divergence matters for equities. Pressure on lower income in younger consumers helps explain why parts of consumer discretionary have lagged. While higher income exposed segments have remained more resilient. So, if inflation continues to cool, especially via tariff relief, that's what would broaden the consumer recovery and potentially create better returns for some of the sectors in the equity markets that have underperformed. Ariana Salvatore: Right, and from the policy side, I would say this probably isn't the last time we'll be talking about affordability. It's politically salient. The policy responses are likely targeted and incremental, and this should continue to remain a top focus for voters heading into November. Michael Zezas: Well, Ariana, thanks for taking the time to talk. Ariana Salvatore: 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.

Our Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Serena Tang and senior leaders from Investment Management Andrew Slimmon and Jitania Kandhari unpack new investment trends from supportive monetary and fiscal policy and shifting market leadership. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Serena Tang: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's Chief Cross Asset Strategist. Today we're revisiting the 2026 global equity outlook with two senior leaders from Morgan Stanley Investment Management. Andrew Slimmon: I am Andrew Slimmon, Head of Applied Equity Team within Morgan Stanley Investment Management. Jitania Kandhari: And I'm Jitania Kandhari, Deputy CIO of the Solutions and Multi-Asset Group, Portfolio Manager for Passport Strategies and Head of Macro and Thematic Research for Emerging Market Equities within Morgan Stanley Investment Management.It's Tuesday, February 3rd at 10 am in New York. So as investors are entering in 2026, after several years of very strong equity returns with policy support reaccelerating. As regular listeners have probably heard, Mike Wilson, who of course is CIO and Chief Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley – his view is that we ended a three-year rolling earnings recession in last April and entered a rolling recovery and a new bull market. Now, Andrew, in the spirit of debate, I know you have a different take on valuations and where we are at in the cycle. I'd love to hear how you're framing this for investment management clients. Andrew Slimmon: Yeah, I mean, I guess I focus a little bit more on the behavioral cycle. And I think that from a behavioral cycle we're following a very consistent pattern, which is we had a bad bear market in 2022 that bottomed down 25 percent. And that provided a wonderful opportunity to invest. But early in a behavioral cycle, investors are very pessimistic. And that was really the story of [20]23 and really 2024, which were; investors, you know, were negative on equities. The ratios were all very negative and investors sold out of equities. And that's consistent with a early cycle. And then as you move into the third-fourth year, investors tend to get more optimistic about returns. Doesn't necessarily mean the market goes down. But what it does mean is the market tends to get more volatile and returns start to compress, and ultimately, bull markets die on euphoria. And so, I think it's late cycle, but it's not end of cycle. And that's my theme; is late cycle but not end of cycle.Serena Tang: And I think on that point, one very unusual feature of this environment is that you have both monetary and fiscal policy being supportive at the same time, which, of course, rarely happens outside of recession. So how do you see those dual policy forces shaping market behavior and which parts of the market tend to benefit? Andrew Slimmon: Well, that's exactly right. Look, the last time I checked, page one of the investment handbook says, ‘Don't fight the Fed.' And so, you have monetary policy easing. And what we; remember what happened in 2021? The Fed raised rates and monetary policy was tightening. Equities do well when the Fed is easing, and that's one of the reasons why I think it's not end of cycle. And then you layer in fiscal policy with tax relief coming, it is a reason to be relatively optimistic on equities in 2026. But it doesn't mean there can't be bumps along the way – and I think a higher level of optimism as we're seeing today is a result of that. But I think you stick with those more procyclical areas: Finance, Industrials, Technology, and then you move down the cap curve a little bit. I think those are the winning trades. They really started to come to the fore in the second half of last year, and I think that will continue into 2026. Serena Tang: Right. And we've definitely seen some bumps recently, but I think on your point around yields. So, Jitania, I think that policy backdrop really ties directly to your idea of the age of capped real rates. In very simple terms, can you explain what that means and what's behind that view? Jitania Kandhari: Sure. When I say age of real rates being capped, I mean like the structural template within which I'm operating, and real rates here are defined by the 10-year on the Treasury yield adjusted for CPI.Firstly, I'd say there was too much linear thinking in markets post Liberation Day. That tariffs equals inflation equals higher rates. Now, tariff impacts, as we have seen, can be offset in several ways, and economic relationships are rarely linear.So, inflation may not go up to the extent market is expecting. So that supports the case for capped rates. And the real constraint is the debt arithmetic, right? So, if you look at the history of public debt in the U.S., whenever there was a surge in public debt during the Civil War, two World Wars, Global Financial Crisis, even during COVID. In all these periods, when debt spiked, real rates have remained negative.So, there can be short term swings in rates, but I believe that markets not necessarily central banks will even enforce that cap. Serena Tang: You've described this moment, as the great broadening of 2026. What's driving this and what do you think is happening now after years of very narrow concentration? Jitania Kandhari: Yes. I think like if last decade was about concentration, now it's going to be about breadth. And if you look at where the concentration was, it was in the [Mag] 7, in the AI trade. We are beginning to see some cracks in the consensus where adoption is happening, but monetization is lagging. But clearly the next phase of value creation could happen from just the model building to the application layer, as you guys have also talked about – from enablers to adopters.The other thing we are seeing is two AI ecosystems evolve globally. The high cost cutting edge U.S. innovation engine and the lower cost efficiency driven Chinese model, each of them have their own supply chain beneficiaries. And as AI is moving into physical world, you're going to see more opportunities. And then secondly, I think there are limitations on this tariff policies globally; and tariff fears to me remain more of an illusion than a reality because U.S. needs to import a lot of intermediate goods And then lastly, I see domestic cycles inflecting upwards in many other pockets of the world. And you add all this up; the message is clear that leadership is broadening and portfolio should broaden too. Serena Tang: And I want to sort of stay on this topic of broadening. So, Andrew, I think, you've also highlighted, you know, this market broadening, especially beyond the large cap leaders, even as AI investment continues, I think, as you touched on earlier. So why does that matter for equity leadership in 2026? And can you talk about the impact of this broadening on valuations in general? Andrew Slimmon: Sure. So I think, you know, I've been around a long time and I remember when the internet first rolled out, the Mosaic browser was introduced in 1993. And the first thing the stock market tried to do is appoint winners – of who was going to win the internet, you know, search race. And it was Ask Jeeves and it was Yahoo and it was Netscape. Well, none of those were the winners. We just don't know who's ultimately going to be the tech winner. I think it's much safer to know that just like the internet, AI is a technology productivity enhancing tool, and companies are going to embrace AI just like they embraced the internet. And the reason the stock market doubled between 1997 and the dotcom peak was that productivity margins went up for a lot of companies in a lot of industries as they embraced the internet. So, to me, a broadening out and looking at lower valuations, it is in many ways safer than saying this is the technology winner, and this is technology loser. I think it's all many different industries are going to embrace and benefit from what's going on with AI. Serena Tang: You don't want to know where I was in 1993. And I don't recognize most of those names. Andrew Slimmon: Sorry. I was 14! Serena Tang: [Laughs] Ok. Investors often hear two competing messages now. Ignore the macro and buy great companies or let the big picture drive everything. How do you balance top-down signals with bottom-up fundamentals in your investment process? Andrew Slimmon: Yeah, I think you have to employ both, and I hear that all the time; especially I hear, you know, my competitors, ‘Oh, I just focus on my stock picks, my bottom up.' But, you know, look statistically, two-thirds of a manager's relative performance comes from macro. You know, how did growth do? How did value do? All those types of things that have nothing to do with what stock picks... And likewise, much of a return of an individual stock has to do with things beyond just what's happening fundamentally. But some of it comes from what's happening at the company level. So, I think to be a great investor, you have to be aware of the macro. The Fed cutting rates this year is a very powerful tool, and if you don't understand the amplifications of that as per what types of stocks work, because you're so focused on the micro, I think that's a mistake. Likewise, you have to know what's going on in your company [be]cause one third of term does come from actual stock selection. So, I'm a big believer in marrying a top down and a bottom up and try to capture the two thirds and the one third.Serena Tang: Since that 2022 bear market low that you talked about earlier. I mean, your framework really favored growth and value over defensives. But I think more recently you've increased your non-U.S. exposure. What changed in your top-down signals and bottom-up data to make global opportunities more compelling now? Is it the narrative of the end of U.S. exceptionalism or something else? Andrew Slimmon: No, I really think it's actually something else, which is we have picked up signals from other parts of the world, Europe and Japan. That are different signals than we saw really for the last decade, which is namely that pro-cyclical stocks started to work. Value stocks started to work in the first half of 2025. And you look at the history of when that happens, usually value doesn't work for a year and peter out. So that's been a huge change where I would say, a safer orientation has shown the relative leadership, and we have to be – recognize that. So, in our global strategies, we've been heavily weighted towards, the U.S. orientation because we didn't see really a cyclical bias outside. And now that's changing and that has caused us to increase the allocation to non-U.S. exposure. It's a longwinded way of saying, look, I think what the story of last year was the U.S. did just fine. But there were parts of the world that did better and I think that will continue in 2026. Serena Tang: Andrew, Jitania thank you so much for taking the time to talk. Andrew Slimmon: Great speaking with you, Serena. Jitania Kandhari: Thanks for having us on the show. 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.

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson discusses how the nomination of Kevin Warsh to lead the Fed could move 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: The implications of Kevin Warsh's nomination as the next Fed Chair. It's Monday, February 2nd at 10 am in New York. So, let's get after it.Last Friday, President Trump officially nominated Kevin Warsh to be the next Chair of the Fed. The prevailing narrative around Warsh is fairly straightforward: he's seen as more hawkish on the size of the Fed's balance sheet, potentially more flexible on interest rates, and less comfortable with open-ended liquidity support than the current leadership. That characterization is fair, but it doesn't answer the more important question—why pick Warsh now, and what problem is this nomination trying to solve?In my view, the answer starts with markets, not politics. Over the past several months, we've witnessed parabolic moves in precious metals alongside persistent weakness in the U.S. dollar. While this administration has been very clear that a weaker dollar is not inherently a bad thing—especially as part of a broader economic rebalancing strategy—there's an important distinction between a controlled decline and a disorderly one.To understand why this matters so much, you need to zoom out. The administration is attempting to rebalance the U.S. economy across three dimensions simultaneously, all with the same ultimate goal—growing out of an enormous debt burden that's been building for more than two decades. At this point, simply cutting spending isn't realistic, economically or politically. Nominal growth is the only viable path forward.The current strategy is more supply side driven. It focuses on rebalancing trade through tariffs and a weaker dollar, shifting the economy away from over-consumption and toward investment, and addressing inequality through immigration enforcement and deregulation. The goal is to let companies—not the government—make capital allocation decisions, while boosting income through wages rather than entitlements. If it works, the result should be higher nominal growth with a healthier mix of real growth driven by productivity.Markets, to some extent, have already started to price this in. Since last spring, cyclical stocks have outperformed, market breadth has improved, and leadership has begun to rotate away from the mega-cap names that dominated the last cycle. Small and mid-cap stocks are working again too. That's exactly what you'd expect in the middle stages of a ‘hotter but shorter' expansion, my core view. At the same time, the surge in gold tells us something else is going on. Precious metals don't move like that unless investors are questioning the endgame.That's where Kevin Warsh comes in. His nomination appears designed to restore credibility around the balance sheet and slow the momentum of that skepticism. Based on Friday's price action, it worked. Gold and silver sold off sharply, the dollar strengthened modestly, and equities and rates stayed relatively stable. That combination buys time—and time is exactly what this strategy needs to work.One of the best ways to track whether markets are buying into this story is by watching the ratio of the S&P 500 to gold. It's a simple but powerful proxy for confidence in productive growth. The recent collapse was driven mostly by gold rising—and Friday's sharp reversal was mainly gold prices falling, one of the largest on record.That doesn't mean skepticism has been eliminated. Instead, it tells me the administration is paying attention and understands they need to restore confidence. If the ratio continues to recover, it will likely come first through lower gold prices and tighter liquidity expectations, and later through stronger earnings growth driven by productivity gains. That could mean near term risk for other risk assets, including equities. Bottom line, the current ‘run it hot' approach has a better chance of delivering sustainable growth than prior policy mixes—but it won't be smooth, and confidence will ebb and flow along the way. Watching how markets respond, especially through signals like gold, the dollar, and capital spending trends, will tell us whether this strategy ultimately succeeds. My view is that it's the best approach which keeps me bullish on 2026 even if the near term is more rocky.Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!

Our Global Head of Fixed Income Andrew Sheets discusses key market metrics indicating that valuations should stay higher for longer, despite some investors' concerns.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley.Today I'm going to talk about key signposts for stability – in a world that from day to day feels anything but.It's Friday, January 30th at 2pm in London.A core theme for us at Morgan Stanley Research is that easier fiscal, monetary, and regulatory policy in 2026 will support more risk taking, corporate activity and animal spirits. Yes, valuations are high. But with so many forces blowing in the same stimulative direction across so many geographies, those valuations may stay higher for longer.We think that the Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, the European Central Bank, and the Bank of Japan, all lower interest rates more, or raise them less than markets expect. We think that fiscal policy will remain stimulative as governments in the United States, Germany, China, and Japan all spend more. And as I discussed on this program recently, regulation – a sleepy but essential part of this equation – is also aligning to support more risk taking.Of course, one concern with having so much stimulative sail out, so to speak, is that you lose control of the boat. As geopolitical headwinds swirl and the price of gold has risen a 100 percent in the last year, many investors are asking whether we're seeing too much of a shift in both government and fiscal, monetary, and regulatory policy.Specifically, when I speak to investors, I think I can paraphrase these concerns as follows: Are we seeing expectations for future inflation rise sharply? Will we see more volatility in government debt? Has the valuation of the U.S. dollar deviated dramatically from fair value? And are credit markets showing early signs of stress?Notably, so far, the answer to all of these questions based on market pricing is no. The market's expectation for CPI inflation over the next decade is about 2.4 percent. Similar actually to what we saw in 2024, 2023. Expected volatility for U.S. interest rates over the next year is, well, lower than where it was on January 1st. The U.S. dollar, despite a lot of recent headlines, is trading roughly in line with its fair value, based on purchasing power based on data from Bloomberg. And the credit markets long seen as important leading indicators of risk, well, across a lot of different regions, they've been very well behaved, with spreads still historically tight.Uncertainty in U.S. foreign policy, big moves in Japanese interest rates and even larger moves in gold have all contributed to investor concerns around the potential instability of the macro backdrop. It's understandable, but for now we think that a number of key market-based measures of the stability are still holding.While that's the case, we think that a positive fundamental story, specifically our positive view on earnings growth can continue to support markets. Major shifts in these signposts, however, could change that.Thank you as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

Original Release Date: January 16, 2026Our Head of Research Product in Europe Paul Walsh and Chief European Equity Strategist Marina Zavolock break down the main themes for European stocks this year. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Paul Walsh: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's Head of Research Product here in Europe.Marina Zavolock: And I'm Marina Zavolock, Chief European Equity Strategist.Paul Walsh: Today, we are here to talk about the big debates for European equities moving into 2026.It's Friday, January the 16th at 8am in London.Marina, it's great to have you on Thoughts on the Market. I think we've got a fascinating year ahead of us, and there are plenty of big debates to be exploring here in Europe. But let's kick it off with the, sort of, obvious comparison to the U.S.How are you thinking about European equities versus the U.S. right now? When we cast our eyes back to last year, we had this surprising outperformance. Could that repeat?Marina Zavolock: Yeah, the biggest debate of all Paul, that's what you start with. So, actually it's not just last year. If you look since U.S. elections, I think it would surprise most people to know that if you compare in constant currency terms; so if you look in dollar terms or if you look in Euro terms, European equities have outperformed U.S. equities since US elections. I don't think that's something that a lot of people really think about as a fact.And something very interesting has happened at the start of this year. And let me set the scene before I tell you what that is.In the last 10 years, European equities have been in this constantly widening discount range versus the U.S. on valuation. So next one's P/E there's been, you know, we have tactical rallies from time to time; but in the last 10 years, they've always been tactical. But we're in this downward structural range where their discount just keeps going wider and wider and wider. And what's happened on December 31st is that for the first time in 10 years, European equities have broken the top of that discount range now consistently since December 31st. I've lost count of how many trading days that is. So about two weeks, we've broken the top of that discount range. And when you look at long-term history, that's happened a number of times before. And every time that happens, you start to go into an upward range.So, the discount is narrowing and narrowing; not in a straight line, in a range. But the discount narrows over time. The last couple of times that's happened, in the last 20 years, over time you narrow all the way to single digit discount rather than what we have right now in like-for-like terms of 23 percent.Paul Walsh: Yeah, so there's a significant discount. Now, obviously it's great that we are seeing increased inflows into European equities. So far this year, the performance at an index level has been pretty robust. We've just talked about the relative positioning of Europe versus the U.S.; and the perhaps not widely understood local currency outperformance of Europe versus the U.S. last year. But do you think this is a phenomenon that's sustainable? Or are we looking at, sort of, purely a Q1 phenomenon?Marina Zavolock: Yeah, it's a really good question and you make a good point on flows, which I forgot to mention. Which is that, last year in [Q1] we saw this really big diversification flow theme where investors were looking to reduce exposure in the U.S., add exposure to Europe – for a number of reasons that I won't go into.And we're seeing deja vu with that now, mostly on the – not really reducing that much in U.S., but more so, diversifying into Europe. And the feedback I get when speaking to investors is that the U.S. is so big, so concentrated and there's this trend of broadening in the U.S. that's happening; and that broadening is impacting Europe as well.Because if you're thinking about, ‘Okay, what do I invest in outside of seven stocks in the U.S.?' You're also thinking about, ‘Okay, but Europe has discounts and maybe I should look at those European companies as well.' That's exactly what's happening. So, diversification flows are sharply going up, in the last month or two in European equities coming into this year.And it's a very good question of whether this is just a [Q1] phenomenon. [Be]cause that's exactly what it was last year. I still struggle to see European equities outperforming the U.S. over the course of the full year because we're going to come into earnings now.We have much lower earnings growth at a headline level than the U.S. I have 4 percent earnings growth forecast. That's driven by some specific sectors. It's, you know, you have pockets of very high growth. But still at a headline level, we have 4 percent earnings growth on our base case. Consensus is too high in our view. And our U.S. equity strategists, they have 17 percent earnings growth, so we can't compete.Paul Walsh That's a very stark difference.Marina Zavolock: Yeah, we cannot compete with that. But what I will say is that historically when you've had these breakouts, you don't get out performance really. But what you get is a much narrower gap in performance. And I also think if you pick the right pockets within Europe, then you could; you can get out performance.Paul Walsh: So, something you and I talked about a lot in 2025, is the bull case for Europe. There are a number of themes and secular dynamics that could play out, frankly, to the benefits of Europe, and there are a number of them. I wondered if you could highlight the ones that you think are most important in terms of the bull case for Europe.Marina Zavolock: I think the most important one is AI adoption. We and our team, we have been able to quantify this. So, when we take our global AI mapping and we look at leading AI adopters in Europe, which is about a quarter of the index, they are showing very strong earnings and returns outperformance. Not just versus the European index, but versus their respective sectors. And versus their respective sectors, that gap of earnings outperformance is growing and becoming more meaningful every time that we update our own chart.To the point that I think at this rate, by the second half of this year, it's going to grow to a point that it's more difficult for investors to ignore. That group of stocks, first of all, they trade again at a big discount to U.S. equivalent – 27 percent discount. Also, if you see adoption broadening overall, and we start to go into the phase of the AI cycle where adopters are, you know, are being sought after and are seen as in the front line of beneficiaries of AI. It's important to remember Europe; the European index because we don't have a lot of enablers in our index. It is very skewed to AI adopters. And then we also have a lot of low hanging fruit given productivity demographic challenges that AI can help to address. So that's the biggest one.Paul Walsh: Understood.Marina Zavolock: And the one I've spent most time on. But let me quickly mention a few others. M&A, we're seeing it rising in Europe, almost as sharply as we're seeing in the U.S. Again, I think there's low hanging fruit there. We're seeing easing competition commission rules, which has been an ongoing thing, but you know, that comes after decade of not seeing that. We're seeing corporate re-leveraging off of lows. Both of these things are still very far from cycle peaks. And we're seeing structural drivers, which for example, savings and investment union, which is multifaceted. I won't get into it. But that could really present a bull case.Paul Walsh: Yeah. And that could include pensions reform across Europe, particularly in Germany, deeper capital…Marina Zavolock: We're starting to see it.Paul Walsh: And in Europe as well, yeah. And so just going back to the base case, what are you advocating to clients in terms of what do we buy here in Europe, given the backdrop that you've framed?Marina Zavolock: Within Europe, I get asked a lot whether investors should be investing in cyclicals or value. Last year value really worked, or quality – maybe they will return. I think it's not really about any of those things. I think, similar to prior years, what we're going to see is stock level dispersion continuing to rise. That's what we keep seeing every month, every quarter, every year – for the last couple of years, we're seeing dispersion rising.Again, we're still far from where we normally get to, when we get to cycle peaks. So, Europe is really about stock picking. And the best way that we have at Morgan Stanley to capture this alpha under the surface of the European index. And the growth that we have under the surface of the index, is our analyst top picks – which are showing fairly consistent outperformance, not just versus the European index, but also versus the S&P. And since inception of top picks in 2021, European top picks have outperformed the S&P free float market cap weighted by over 90 percentage points. And they've outperformed, the S&P – this is pre-trade – by 17 percentage points in the last year. And whatever period we slice, we're seeing out performance.As far as sectors, key sectors, Banks is at the very top of our model. It's the first sector that non-dedicated investors ask me about. I think the investment case there is very compelling. Defense, we really like structurally with the rearmament theme in Europe, but it's also helpful that we're in this seasonal phase where defense tends to really outperform between; and have outsized returns between January and April. And then we like the powering AI thematic, and we are getting a lot of incoming on the powering AI thematic in Europe. We upgraded utilities recently.Paul, maybe if I ask you a question, one sector that I've missed out on, in our data-driven sector model, is the semis. But you've worked a lot with our semi's team who are quite constructive. Can you tell us about the investment case there?Paul Walsh: Yeah, they're quite constructive, but I would say there's nuance within the context of the sector. I think what they really like is the semi cap space, which they think is really well underpinned by a robust, global outlook for wafer fab equipment spend, which we see growing double digits globally in both 2026 and 2027.And I think within that, in particular, the outlook for memory. You have something of a memory supercycle going on at the moment. And the outlook for memory is especially encouraging. And it's a market where we see it as being increasingly capacity constrained with an unusually long order book visibility today, driven really by AI inference. So strong thematic overlay there as well.And maybe I would highlight one other key area of growth longer term for the space, which is set to come from the proliferation of humanoid robots. That's a key theme for us in 2025. And of course, we'll continue to be so, in the years to come. And we are modeling a global Humanoids Semicon TAM of over $300 billion by 2045, with key pillars of opportunity for the semi names to be able to capitalize on. So, I think those are two areas where, in particular, the team have seen some great opportunities.Now bringing it back to the other side of the equation, Marina, which sectors would you be avoiding, within the context of your model?Marina Zavolock: There's a collection of sectors and they, for the most part, are the culprits for the low growth that we have in Europe. So simply avoiding these could be very helpful from a growth perspective, to add to that multiple expansion. These are at the bottom of our data driven, sector models. So, these are Autos, Chemicals, Luxury Transport, Food and Beverage.Most of these are old economy cyclicals. Many of these sectors have high China/old economy exposure – as well where we're not seeing really a demand pickup. And then lastly, a number of these sectors are facing ever rising China competition.Paul Walsh: And I think, when we weigh up the skew of your views according to your model, I think it brings it back to the original big debate around cyclicals versus defensives. And your conclusion that actually it's much more complicated than that.Marina, thanks for taking the time to talk.Marina Zavolock: Great to speak with you Paul.Paul Walsh: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Our Deputy Head of Global Research Michael Zezas explains why the risk of a new U.S. government shutdown is worth investor attention, but not overreaction.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Deputy Head of Global Research for Morgan Stanley. Today, we'll discuss the possibility of a U.S. government shutdown later this week, and what investors should – and should not – be worried about. It's Wednesday, January 28th at 10:30 am in New York. In recent weeks investors have had to consider all manner of policy catalysts for the markets – including the impact to oil supply and emerging markets from military action in Venezuela, potential military action in Iran, and risks of fracturing of the U.S.-Europe relationship over Greenland. By comparison, a potential U.S. government shutdown may seem rather quaint. But, a good investor aggressively manages all risks, so let's break this down. Amidst funding negotiations in the Senate, Democrats are pressing for tighter rules and more oversight on how immigration enforcement is carried out given recent events. Republicans have signaled some openness to negotiations, but the calendar is really a constraint. With the House out of session until early next week any Senate changes this week could lead to a lapse in funding. So, a brief shutdown this weekend, followed by a short continuing resolution once the House returns, is a very plausible path – not because either side wants a shutdown, but because they haven't fully coalesced around the strategy and time is short. Of course, once a shutdown happens, there's a risk it could drag on. But in general our base case is that the economic impact would be manageable. Historically, shutdowns create meaningful hardship for affected workers and contractors. But the aggregate macro effects tend to be modest and reversible. Most spending is eventually made up, and disruptions to growth typically unwind quickly once funding is restored. A useful rule of thumb is that a full shutdown trims roughly one‑tenth of a percentage point from the annualized quarterly GDP for each week it lasts. With several appropriations bills already passed, what we'd face now is a partial shutdown, meaning that figure would be even smaller. For markets, that means the reaction should also be modest. Shutdowns tend not to reprice the fundamental path of earnings, inflation, or the Fed – which are still the dominant drivers of asset performance. So, the market's inclination will likely be to look past the noise and focus on more substantive catalysts ahead. Finally, it's worth unpacking the politics here, because they're relevant. But not in the way investors might think. The shutdown risk is emerging from actions that have contributed to sagging approval ratings for the President and Republicans – leading many investors to ask us what this means for midterm elections and resulting public policy choices. And taken together, one could read these dynamics as an early sign that the Republicans may face a difficult midterm environment. We think it's too early to draw any confident conclusions about this, but even if we could, we're not sure it matters. First, many of the most market‑relevant policies—on trade, regulation, industrial strategy, re‑shoring, and increasingly AI—are being executed through executive authority, not congressional action. That means their trajectory is unlikely to be altered by near‑term political turbulence. Second, the President would almost certainly veto any effort to roll back last year's tax bill, which created a suite of incentives aimed at corporate capex. A key driver of the 2026 outlook. Putting it all together, the bottom line is this: A short, calendar‑driven shutdown is a risk worth monitoring, but not one to overreact to. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review. And tell your friends about the podcast. We want everyone to listen.

Our Head of Asian Gaming & Lodging and Hong Kong/India Real Estate Research Praveen Choudhary discusses the first synchronized growth cycle for Hong Kong's major real estate segments in almost a decade.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Praveen Choudhary, Morgan Stanley's Head of Asian Gaming & Lodging and Hong Kong/India Real Estate Research. Today – a look at a market that global investors often watch but may not fully appreciate: Hong Kong real estate. It's Tuesday, January 27th, at 2pm in Hong Kong.Why should investors in New York, London, or Singapore care about trends in Hong Kong property? That's easy to answer. Because Hong Kong remains one of the world's most globally sensitive real estate markets. When [the] cycle turns here, it often reflects – and sometimes predicts – broader shift in liquidity, capital flows, and macro sentiment across Asia. And right now, for the first time since 2018, all three major Hong Kong property segments – residential prices, office rents in the Central district of Hong Kong, and retail sales – are set to grow together. That synchronized upturn hasn't happened in almost a decade. What's driving this shift? Residential real estate is the engine of this turnaround. Prices have finally bottomed after a 30 percent decline since 2018, and 2026 is shaping out to be a strong year. We actually expect home prices to grow more than 10 percent in 2026, after going up by 5 percent in 2025. And we think that it will grow further in 2027. There are three factors that give us confidence on this out-of-consensus call. The first one is policy. Back in February 2024, Hong Kong scrapped all extra stamp duty that had made it tougher for mainland Chinese or foreign buyers to enter the market. Stamp duty is basically a tax you pay when buying property, or even selling property; and it has been a key way for [the] government to control demand and raise revenue. With those extra charges gone, buying and selling real estate in Hong Kong, especially for mainlanders, is a lot more straightforward and penalty-free. In fact, post the removal of the stamp duty, [the] percentage of units that has been sold to mainlanders have gone to 50 percent of total; earlier it used to be 10-20 percent. Why is it non-consensus? That is because consensus believes that Hong Kong property price can't go up when China residential outlook is negative. In mid-2025, consensus thought that the recovery was simply a cyclical response to a sharp drop in the Hong Kong Interbank Offered Rate, or HIBOR.But we believe the drivers are supply/demand mismatch, positive carry as rental go up but rates go down, and Hong Kong as a place for global monetary interconnection between China and the world that's still thriving. Second, demand fundamentals are strengthening. Hong Kong's population turned positive again, rising to 7.5 million in the first half of 2025. During COVID we had a population decline. Now, talent attraction scheme is driving around 140,000 visa approvals in 2025, which is double what it used to be pre-COVID level. New household formation is tracking above the long‑term average, and mainland buyers are now a powerful force. The third factor is affordability. So, after years of declines, the housing prices have come to a point where affordability is back to a long‑term average. In fact, the income versus the price is now back to 2011 level. You combine this with lower mortgage rates as the Fed cut moves through, and you have pent‑up demand finally returning. And don't forget the wealth effect: Hang Seng Index climbed almost 30 percent in 2025. That kind of equity rebound historically spills over into property buying. As the recovery in residential real estate picks up speed, we're also seeing a fresh wave of optimism and actions across Hong Kong office and retail markets. So big picture: Hong Kong property market isn't just stabilizing. It's turning. A 10 percent or more residential price rebound, a Central office market finding its footing, and an improved retail environment – all in the same year – marks the clearest green lights this market has seen since 2018.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research Stephen Byrd discusses Morgan Stanley's key investment themes for this year and how they're influencing markets and economies.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research. Today – the four key themes that will define markets and economies in 2026. It's Monday, January 26th, at 10am in New York. If you're feeling overwhelmed by all the market noise and constant swings, you're not alone. One of the biggest hurdles for investors today is really figuring out how to tune out the short-term ups and downs and focus on the bigger trends that are truly changing the world. At Morgan Stanley Research, thematic analysis has long been central to how we think about markets, especially in periods of extreme volatility. A thematic lens helps us step back from the noise and really focus on the structural forces reshaping economies, industries, and societies. And that perspective has delivered results. In 2025, on average, our thematic stock categories outperformed the MSCI World Index by 16 percent and the S&P 500 by 27 percent. And this really reinforces our view that long-term themes can be powerful drivers of alpha. For 2026, our framework is built around four key themes: AI and Tech Diffusion, The Future of Energy, The Multipolar World, and Societal Shifts. Now three of these themes carry forward from last year, but each has evolved meaningfully – and one of our themes represents a major expansion on our prior work. First, the AI and Tech Diffusion theme remains central, but has clearly matured and evolved. In 2025, the focus was on rapid capability gains. In 2026, the emphasis shifts to non-linear improvement and the growing gap between AI capabilities and real-world adoption. A critical evolution is our view that compute demand is likely to exceed supply meaningfully, even as software and hardware become more efficient. As AI use cases multiply and grow more complex, the infrastructure – especially computing power – emerges as a defining constraint. Next is The Future of Energy, which has taken on new urgency. Energy demand in developed markets, long assumed to be flat, is now inflecting upwards. And this is driven largely by AI infrastructure and data centers. Compared with 2025, this theme has expanded from a supply conversation into one focused on policy. Rising energy costs are becoming increasingly visible to consumers, elevating a concept we call the ‘politics of energy.' Policymakers are under pressure to prioritize low-cost, reliable energy, even when trade-offs exist, and new strategies are emerging to secure power without destabilizing grids or increasing household bills. Our third theme, The Multipolar World, also builds on last year but with sharper edges. Globalization continues to fragment as countries prioritize security, resilience, and national self-sufficiency. Since 2025, competition has become more clearly defined by access to critical inputs – such as energy, materials, defense capabilities, and advanced technology. Notably, the top-performing thematic categories in 2025 were driven by Multipolar World dynamics, underscoring how geopolitical and industrial shifts are translating directly into market outcomes. Now the biggest evolution comes with our fourth key theme – which we call Societal Shifts – and this expands on our prior work on Longevity. This new framework captures a wider range of forces shaping societies globally: AI-driven labor disruption and evolution, aging populations, changing consumer preferences, the K-economy, the push for healthy longevity, and challenging demographics across many regions. These shifts increasingly influence government policy, corporate strategy, and economic growth – and their impact spans far more industries than investors often expect. Now crucially these themes don't operate in isolation. AI accelerates energy demand. Energy costs shape politics. Politics influence supply chains and national priorities. And all of this feeds directly into societal outcomes: from employment to consumption patterns. The power of thematic investing lies in understanding these intersections, where multiple forces reinforce one another in underappreciated ways. So to sum it up, the most important investment questions for 2026 aren't just about growth rates. They're about structure. Understanding how technology, energy, geopolitics, and society evolve together may be the clearest way to see where opportunity, and risk, are truly heading. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

In the second of their two-part roundtable, Seth Carpenter and Morgan Stanley's top economists break down the forces influencing growth across different regions.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 Head of Macro Research. And yesterday I sat down with my colleagues, Michael Gapen, our Chief U.S. Economist, Chetan Ahya, our Chief Asia Economist, and Jen Eisenschmidt, our Chief Europe Economist. And we spent a lot of time talking about monetary policy around the world. Today, let's go back to them, talk about the real side of the economy. It's Friday, January 23rd at 10am in New York. Jens Eisenschmidt: And 4pm in Frankfurt. Chetan Ahya: And 9pm in Hong Kong. Seth Carpenter: Michael, let me start with you, back on the U.S. And when I think about the U.S. economy, we have to start by talking about the U.S. consumer. Walk us through what investors need to understand about consumer spending in the U.S. What's driving it, what's going to hold it up, and where are the risks? Michael Gapen: I think the primary thing to remember here is that the upper income consumer drives about 40 percent or more of total spending. So, there can be higher inflation that eats into real labor market income growth. There can be inflation dispersion, which hits lower income households more than upper income households. We can have tariffs that get applied to goods and lower- and middle-income households buy goods more than upper income households. But when asset markets continue to appreciate, when home prices hold on to their prior gains, sometimes that doesn't matter in the aggregate statistics because that upper income household keeps spending.I do think that's a lot of what happened in 2025. So, there is a K-shaped economy. I think one of the main risks about the U.S. is that its expansion is narrowly driven. We think that will broaden out in 2026. If we're right, that inflation comes down and we're past, kind of, the peak effect of tariffs, then we think that lower- and middle-income household can have a little more residual spending power. And you might get the consumer operating on two fronts, rather than one. Seth Carpenter: Another part of domestic spending that gets a lot of attention is business investment spending, CapEx spending. First would you agree with that statement that CapEx spending last year was characterized by AI CapEx spending? Second, should we feel confident that that underlying sort of momentum in CapEx spending should continue for this year? And then third, what's it going to take for there to be a broadening out, maybe like what you said about consumers, but a broadening out of investment spending so that it's not just the AI story that's driving CapEx. Michael Gapen: I do agree that the primary, almost exclusive story in 2025 for business spending was AI. So, when you look at residential and non-residential spending, unrelated to AI, that I think did feel the effects of policy uncertainty in a changing environment. what keeps kind of sustainability around business spending? Obviously, it's a multi-year investment story around AI. There's a level versus growth rate argument here where you can have a heck of a lot of CapEx spending. May not always show up in GDP because some of it is intermediate goods, some of it is imported. But that doesn't diminish, I think, the quality of the overall story. What gets business spending to broaden out, I do think is related to whether consumer spending broadens out. Most business spending kind of follows demand with a lag. So, AI is a different story, but there's a cyclical component to business spending. There could be a housing related component, if mortgage rates come down and stimulate at least a little more turnover in the housing market. So, if the recovery does broaden out, we see greater real income growth in low- and middle-income households. The labor market stabilizes. Maybe mortgage rates come down a little bit, then I think you could get carry through momentum to non-AI related business spending. That would look more like a cyclical upswing for the economy. May be a heavy lift, but that's what I think it would take to get there. Seth Carpenter: So, Jens, let me come to you. We talked yesterday about the ECB possibly easing more on disinflation. But when I think of disinflation, I think of a weak economy. And that's maybe not really the case. So, I guess the first question to you would you characterize euro area economic growth as strong, or a little bit more complicated? Jens Eisenschmidt: A little bit more complicated. And that's always the right answer for an economist – I think it depends. Well, it is strong in some quarters. And these quarters will change from where it has been in the past.So concretely, we think the German economy has most potential to catch up and actually accelerate, and that's due to fiscal stimulus mainly. While we have other quarters, the French and the Italian one, which will be below potential and so weak – each of them for their own reason. And then we have the Spanish economy, which performs exceptionally and is really strong, but it's only a small part of the euro area economy. If we had everything together, I think the outlook is an economy that's accelerating mildly and only towards the end of our projection horizon, which is [20]27. So, in say two years, hits growth rates that are above potential. Here we are really talking about quarterly increments above 0.3. So, we are currently between 0.1 and 0.2. So, you sort of get the picture of a mildly accelerating economy that goes from 0.15 to 0.035 say in the span of two years. Seth Carpenter: One of the key narratives in markets is about fiscal policy in Germany, potentially driving growth. I know in equity markets it's been a key investing theme. So how excited should people be about the possibility of fiscal policy in Germany driving a resilient European economy? Jens Eisenschmidt: Pretty excited, I would say, in a sense that the positioning of the German government for its economy is actually exceptional in terms of the amount of fiscal space that exists and that has been made available. It's just that, of course, the connection of that sort of abstract excitement that we economists have to what actually happens in markets is sometimes a little bit loose; in the sense that equity [markets would like to see everything coming online tomorrow, and that's going to be a more drawn-out process. So, to my point before, it will take some time. We do have implementation lags. We do have lags in say, for instance, on defense procurement. There is maybe not as much capacity in the economy to deliver into everything. But the direction of travel is clear and up. So, from that perspective, I have no doubts that the future is better for the German economy over the medium term for all the reasons mentioned, but it won't be immediate. And we have just seen in recent headlines, Germany is the most trade exposed European economy. If we get more friction in global trade, that's not great. So, you could even have short term, more negative news on GDP than positive ones. Seth Carpenter: Chetan, I'm going to turn to you. Yesterday when we talked about Asia, we focused on Japan. But, of course, when it comes to the real side of the economy, the big mover in Asia is China.So, let's talk a little bit about how you see China evolving. What the key themes are for China. Last year in particular, we talked a lot about the deflationary cycle in China and how it was protracted. It wasn't going away. That policy was not sufficient to drive a huge surge in demand to push things away. Are we in the same place for China in 2026? What kind of growth should we expect and what sort of policy reactions should we be expecting from China? Chetan Ahya: Well, I think the macro backdrop for China we think will still be challenging in 2026. But at the same time, we expect the micro positives to continue. Now on the macro backdrop, when I say it's going to remain challenging because the number one issue that we are focused on from a macro perspective in China is deflation. Now we do expect some easing of deflationary pressures, but [the] economy will still stay in deflation in 2026. And on the micro front what we've seen is that China is emerging from a situation where it is making inroads into advanced manufacturing, and that's enabling it to increase market share in global goods exports. And it's also one of the reasons why when you see the numbers coming out from China on exports, they seem to be outperforming. Even just the latest month number as we saw, China's exports were surprising on the upside relative to market expectations. And that's the micro story – that you'll see China continuing to gain market share in global goods export. And that supports the corporate micro positive story. Seth Carpenter: We know collectively that export is a key part of China's economy. The productive capacity, as you point out, important for China. When you think about exports from China, the currency has to come in. And recently the renminbi has been appreciating. Lots of questions from clients here or there. How important is the renminbi in reflating or rebalancing the China economy? Can you walk us through a little bit some of these considerations about the role that the currency is playing now and over the next few quarters for China and its economic outlook. Chetan Ahya: Yeah, that's right, Seth. Actually, I've been getting a number of clients calling me and asking whether PBOC is going to allow a significant appreciation in RNB. We've seen it appreciate quite a lot in the last few days. And then whether this will mean China's economy will rebalance faster towards consumption. Look, on the first point, we don't think PBOC will allow a significant currency appreciation because, as I just mentioned earlier, the deflation problem is still there. It's not gone. While we see reduced deflationary pressures, as long as the economy is in deflation, it'll be very difficult for PBOC to allow significant currency appreciation. And what we are also watching on RMB is to see what is happening to the trade weighted RMB. The RMB basket, if you were to call it. That interestingly has been in a stable range since 2016, and we don't think that changes. We've learned from Japan's experience in the nineties that if you have deflation problem, you shouldn't be taking up currency appreciation. And we think PBOC pretty much follows that rule book. On the rebalancing part, look, I think when you have deflation and if currency appreciation is going to add to deflation pressures, that will mean corporate sector revenue suffers. They will actually be cutting wage growth and therefore that has a negative impact on consumption. And so, in our view, instead of helping rebalancing currency appreciation with China's current macro backdrop, we'll actually be making rebalancing more difficult. Seth Carpenter: And of course, we're used to China being a key driver of the economy, not just in Asia, but around the world. But if we think about then broadening out from China, what should we be expecting in terms of growth for the other economies in Asia? Chetan Ahya: For the other economies in the region, I think the most important driver will be what happens to exports more broadly. In 2025, Asia did benefit from better tech exports, but because of tariffs and also what was happening in the U.S. in terms of its own domestic demand, we'd seen that there was significant weakness in non-tech exports. So, from an outlook perspective in 2026, we think that that non-tech export story turns around and that will help the recovery in the region to broaden out from it just being tech exports to non-tech exports, to improvement in CapEx, job growth and consumption. So, I think that the whole region is going to see the benefit from this turnaround. But particularly the non-China part of the region will be seeing a meaningful improvement in their export growth, real GDP growth and normal GDP growth in 2026. Seth Carpenter: I'm getting ready to wrap things up. But before I do, I'm going to ask each of the three of you, one last rapid-fire question. Michael, I'm going to start with you. AI is on everyone's lips. If we were to see a rapid adoption of AI technology across all the economies. What would it mean for the Fed? Michael Gapen: Well, I think that would mean a substantial uptick in productivity growth. Maybe closer to 3 percent like we saw in the tech boom in the nineties. So faster real growth. But probably still disinflation. You can argue the Fed could even lower rates in that environment. It may take them a while to figure it out [be]cause they'd be balancing incoming data that shows a lot of strong growth. But probably further evidence that inflation's coming down. So, if it's supply side driven, then I think you could still probably get some rate cuts out of the Fed to normalize policy as inflation comes down. But I'd be thinking those cuts could even come much later. Seth Carpenter: Okay, Jens to you, a lot of discussion in the news about possible additional tariffs from the U.S. on Europe in some of the negotiations. Suppose some of the announcements, 10 percent tariffs rising to 25 percent tariffs later. Suppose those were actually put in place. What does that mean for European growth? Jens Eisenschmidt: So, I would say 10 percent additional tariffs, we have a framework for that. Pointing to drag on GDP growth somewhere between 30 and 60 basis points. So roughly half of what we think 2026 will bring in growth. Now, for sure the answer is additional tariffs are not great for growth. Big question mark here is though whether we get any retaliation from the European side, which we think this time around if we get additional tariffs from the U.S. side is more likely. And that would just increase the downside risk for Europe here from that additional round of trade or tariff uncertainty. Seth Carpenter: Chetan, I'm going to end up with you. When we think about China, when we think about policy, what do you think it would take for there to be a fundamental shift in policy out of Beijing to get a real full blown, demand driven fiscal stimulus? Or is that just not in the cards whatsoever? Chetan Ahya: Well, in our base case, we don't think that's likely to happen in our forecast horizon. But if we do get a big social stability challenge emerging in China, then we could get that big pivot from [a] policy response perspective, where policy makers move towards consumption. And our recommendation there is to boost social welfare spending, particularly targeted towards migrant workers, which could be taken up if you get that social stability risk event materializing. Seth Carpenter: Mike, Chetan, Jens, thank you so much for joining today. And for the listener, thank you for joining us. If you enjoy this show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.

Our Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter joins our chief regional economists to discuss the outlook for interest rates in the U.S., Japan and Europe.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 Head of Macro Research. And today we're kicking off our quarterly economic roundtable for the year. We're going to try to think about everything that matters in economics around the world. And today we're going to focus a little bit more on central banking. And when we get to tomorrow, we'll focus on the nuts and bolts of the real side of the economy. I'm joined by our chief regional economists. Michael Gapen: Hi, Seth. I'm Mike Gapen, Chief U.S. Economist at Morgan Stanley. Chetan Ahya: I'm Chetan Ahya, Chief Asia economist. Jens Eisenschmidt: And I'm Jens Eisenschmidt, Chief Europe economist. Seth Carpenter: It's Thursday, January 22nd at 10 am in New York. Jens Eisenschmidt: And 4 pm in Frankfurt. Chetan Ahya: And 9 pm in Hong Kong. Seth Carpenter: So, Mike Gapen, let me start with you as we head into 2026, what are we thinking about? Are we going into a more stable expansion? Is this just a different phase with the same amount of volatility? What do you think is going to be happening in the U.S. as a baseline outlook? And then if we're going to be wrong, which direction would we be wrong? Michael Gapen: Yeah, Seth, we took the view that we would have more policy certainty. Recent weeks have maybe suggested we're incorrect on that front. But I still believe that when it comes to deregulation, immigration policy and fiscal policy, we have much more clarity there than we did a year ago. So, I think it's another year of modest growth, above trend growth. We're forecasting something around 2.4 percent for 2026. That's about where we finished 2025. I think what's key for markets and the outlook overall will be whether inflation comes down. Firms are still passing through tariffs to the consumer. We think that'll happen at least through the end of the first quarter. It's our view that after that, inflation pressures will start to diminish. If that's the case, then we think the Fed can execute one or two more rate cuts. But we have those coming [in] the second half of the year. So, it looks like growth is strong enough. The labor market has stabilized enough for the Fed to wait and see, to look around, see the effects of their prior rate cuts, and then push policy closer to neutral if inflation comes down. Seth Carpenter: And if we go back to last year to 2025, I will give you the credit first. Morgan Stanley did not shift its forecast for recession in the U.S. the way some of our main competitors did. On the other hand, and this is where I maybe tweak you just a little bit. We underestimated how much growth there would be in the United States. CapEx spending from AI firms was strong. Consumer spending, especially from the top half of the income distribution in the U.S. was strong. Growth overall for the year was over 2 percent, close to 2.5 percent. So, if that's what we just came off of, why isn't it the case that we'd see even stronger growth? Maybe even a re-acceleration of growth in 2026? Michael Gapen: Well, some of that, say, improvement vis-à-vis our forecast, the outperformance. Some of that I think comes mechanically from trade and inventory variability. So, . I'm not sure that that says a lot about an improving trend rate of growth. Where there was other outperformance was, as you noted, from the consumer. Now our models, and I don't mean to get too technical here, but our model suggests that consumption is overshooting its fundamentals. Which I think makes it harder for the economy to accelerate further. And then AI; it's harder for AI spending to say get incrementally stronger than where it is. So, we're getting a little extra boost from fiscal. We've got that coming through. And I just think what it is, is more of the same rather than further acceleration from here. Seth Carpenter: Do you think there's a chance that the Fed in fact does not cut rates like you have in your forecast? Michael Gapen: Yes, I do think... Where we could be wrong is we've made assumptions around the One Big Beautiful Bill and what it will contribute to the economy. But as you know, there's a lot of variability around those estimates. If the bill is more catalytic to animal spirits and business spending than we've assumed, you could get, say, a demand driven animal spirits upside to the economy, which may mean inflation doesn't decelerate all that much. But I do think that that's, say, the main upside risk that we're considering. Markets have been gradually taking out probabilities of Fed cuts as growth has come in stronger. So far, the inflation data has been positive in terms of signaling about disinflation, but I would say the jury's still out on how much that continues. Seth Carpenter: Chetan, When I think about Japan, we know that it's been the developed market central bank that's been going in the opposite direction. They've been hiking when other central banks have been cutting. We got some news recently that probably put some risk into our baseline outlook that we published in our year ahead view about both growth and inflation in Japan. And with it what the Bank of Japan is going to do in terms of its normalization. Can you just walk us through a little bit about our outlook for Japan? Because right now I think that the yen, Japanese rates, they're all part of the ongoing market narrative around the world. Chetan Ahya: Yeah, Seth. So, look, I mean, on a big picture basis, we are constructive on the Japan macro-outlook. We think normal GDP growth remains strong. We are expecting to see the transition for the consumers from them seeing, you know, supply side inflation. Keeping their real wage growth low to a dynamic where we transition to real wage growth accelerating. That supports real consumption growth, and we move away from that supply side driven inflation to demand side driven inflation. So broadly we are constructive, but I think in the backdrop, what we are seeing on currency depreciation is making things a bit more challenging for the BOJ. While we are expecting that demand side pressure to build up and drive inflation, in the trailing data, it is still pretty much currency depreciation and supply side factors like food inflation driving inflation. And so, BOJ has been hesitant. So, while we had the expectation that BOJ will hike in January of 2027, we do see the risk that they may have to take up rate hike earlier to manage the currency not getting out of hand and adding on to the inflation pressures. Seth Carpenter Would I be right in saying that up until now, the yen has swung pretty widely in both directions. But the weakening of the yen until now hasn't been really the key driver of the Bank of Japan's policy reaction. It's been growth picking up, inflation picking up, wanting to get out of negative interest rates first, wanting to get away from the zero lower bounds. Second, the weaker yen in some sense could have actually been seen as a positive up until now because Japan did go through 25 years of essentially stagnant nominal growth. Is this actually that much of a fundamental change in the Bank of Japan's thinking – needing to react to the weakness of the yen? Chetan Ahya: Broadly what you're saying is right, Seth, but there is also a threshold of where the currency can be. And beyond a point, it begins to hurt the households in form of imported inflation pressures. And remember that inflation has been somewhat high, even if it is driven by currency depreciation and supply side factors for some time. And so, BOJ has to be watchful of potential lift in inflation expectations for the households. And at the same time, they are also watching the underlying inflation impact of this currency depreciation – because what we have seen is that over period workers have been demanding for higher wages. And that is also influenced by what happens to headline inflation, which is driven by currency depreciation. So, I would say that, yes, it's been true up until now. But, when currency reaches these very high levels of range, you are going to see BOJ having to act. Seth Carpenter: Jens, let's shift then to Europe. The ECB had been on a cutting cycle. They came to the end of that. President Lagarde said that she thought the disinflationary process had ended. In your year ahead forecast and a bunch of your writing recently, you've said maybe not so fast. There could still be some more disinflationary, at least risk, in the pipeline for Europe. Can you talk a little bit about what's going on in terms of European inflation and what it could mean for the European Central Bank? Because clearly that's going to be first order important for markets.Jens Eisenschmidt: I think that is right. I think we have a crucial inflation print ahead of us that comes out on the 4th of February. So, early February we get some signal, whether our anticipated fall of headline inflation here below the ECB's target is actually materializing. We think the chances for this are pretty good. There's a mix why this is happening. One is energy. Energy disinflation and base effects. But the other thing is services inflation resets always at the beginning of the year. January and February are the crucial month here. We had significant services upward pressure on prices the last years. And so just from base effects, we think we will see less of that. Another picture or another element of that picture is that wage disinflation is proceeding nicely. We have notably a significant weakness in the export-oriented manufacturing sector in Germany, which is a key sector of setting wages for the country. The country is around 30 percent of the euro area GDP. And here we had seen significant wage gains over the last year. So, the disinflationary trend coming from lower wage gains from this country, that will be very important. And an important signal to watch. Again, that's something we don't know. I think soon we have to watch simply monthly prints here. But a significant print for the first quarter comes out in May, and all of that together makes us believe that the ECB will be in a position to see enough data or have seen enough data that confirms the thesis of inflation staying below target for some time to come. So that they can cut in June and September to a terminal rate of 1.5 percent. Seth Carpenter: That is, I would say, out of consensus relative where the market is. When you talk to investors, whether they're in Europe or around the world, what's the big pushback that you get from them when you are explaining your view on how the ECB is going to act? Jens Eisenschmidt: There are two essential pushbacks. So, one is on substance. So, 'No, actually wages will not come down, and the economy will actually start overheating soon because of the big fiscal stimulus.' That, in a nutshell is the pushback on substance. I would say here, as you would say before, not so fast. Because the fiscal stimulus is only in one country. It's 30 percent. But only 30 percent of the euro area.Plus, there is another pushback, which is on the reaction function of the ECB. Here we tend to agree. So far, we have heard from policy makers that they feel rather comfortable with the 2 percent rate level that they're at. But we think that discussion will change. The moment you are below target in an actual inflation print; the burden of proof is the opposite. Now you have to prove: Is the economy really on a track that inflation will get back up to target without further monetary stimulus? We believe that will be the key debate. And again, happy to, sort of, concede that there is for now not a lot of signaling out of the ECB that further rate cuts are coming. But we believe the first inflation print of the year will change that debate significantly. Seth Carpenter: Alright, so that makes a lot of sense. However, looking at the clock, we are probably out of time for today. So, for now, Michael, Chetan, Jens, thank you so much for joining today. And to the listener, thanks for listening. And be sure to tune in tomorrow for part two of our conversation. And I have to say, if you enjoy this show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.

All eyes have been on President Trump's address at the World Economic Forum. Michael Zezas, our Deputy Global Head of Research, and Ariana Salvatore, our Head of Public Policy Research, talk about potential implications for policy and the U.S. outlook.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Deputy Global Head of Research for Morgan Stanley. Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research. Michael Zezas: Today we're discussing our takeaways from President Trump's speech in Davos and what we think it means for investors. It's Wednesday, January 21st at 1pm in New York. Michael Zezas: So, Ariana, over the last couple of weeks, there's been a lot of news about policy proposals coming out of the U.S. and from President Trump around affordability, as well as some geopolitical events around the U.S. relationship with Europe. And investors really started looking towards President Trump's speech at Davos, which he gave earlier today, as a potential vehicle to learn more about what these things would actually mean and what it might mean for the economic outlook and markets. Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, that's right. I think specifically investors were looking for the President to focus on affordability proposals pertaining to housing and some commentary around Greenland. Remember last weekend, President Trump proposed a 10 percent tariff on some EU countries related to this topic specifically. So obviously that did feature in his speech. What did we learn and what do you think are the most important things for markets to know? Michael Zezas: So, maybe the most important headline we got was President Trump appearing to take off the table the use of force when it comes to an attempt to acquire Greenland. And that would seem to, therefore, take off the table the idea of a broader rupture in the U.S.-EU relationship. Both the security relationship vis-a-vis NATO, as well as the economic relationship which could have been ruptured with higher tariffs on both sides, anti coercion measures around trade, and that would be of obvious economic importance. Europe is obviously a major importer of U.S. goods. Not as big as Canada or Mexico, but still pretty significant. So, anything that would've created higher barriers between the two would've had meaningful economic consequences for the U.S. outlook. Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, that's right. And we've been saying that the bilateral trade framework agreement between the U.S. and the EU is actually pretty tenuous in nature, right? So, this doesn't yet have formal backing from the European Parliament. They, in fact, delayed a vote on this exact deal, kind of on the back of these Greenland headlines. So how are we thinking about, you know, what's been priced into markets and maybe what this could mean for something like the dollar going forward? Michael Zezas: Yeah, so it's important to point out that we're not out of the woods yet in terms of potential trade escalation on both sides around the Greenland issue. However, it seems like that bigger tail problem of a decoupling might have gone away. And so, what you saw in markets so far today was that some of the actions over the past, kind of, 24-48 hours with equity market weakness. You know, the S&P was down about 2 percent yesterday. The dollar was weaker. It seemed like more term premium was being baked into the U.S. Treasury market. A lot of that appears to be unwinding today. Said more simply, the idea of a kind of riskier investment environment for the U.S. is getting priced out. At least today, it's getting priced out. And it all makes sense when you think about if there was less of a relationship between the U.S. and Europe, there would be less demand for U.S. dollar holdings overseas. And that's the type of thing that should manifest in a weaker dollar and higher term premia, steeper yield curves for U.S. Treasuries. Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, and that dovetails really nicely with the work that we just put out with the FX team, kind of highlighting some of the policy factors as push factors for countries to move away from the dollar. We think that's happening marginally. We think it's not really a risk in the immediate term, but some of these policy drivers can actually create dollar weakness over the medium to longer term. Michael Zezas: Of course, to the extent that we get news that this is a head fake and that tensions are re-escalating, you'd expect some of those trades to start pushing markets back in the other direction again. Now, President Trump also talked quite a bit about domestic policy, largely about affordability, and some of the policy proposals he's put forward over the last couple of weeks. Was there any new details that you heard that you think are meaningful for investors? Ariana Salvatore: So, the short version is nothing really new, and the reality is that a lot of housing policy in particular is actually out of the hands of the executive. And even if you do see congressional action here, it's likely to be marginal. A lot of housing policy is done at the state level, and even bipartisan efforts to address both the demand and the supply sides of the equation have faced some resistance in Congress. That doesn't mean they can't reemerge. But we would need to see a very large decline in the mortgage rate to get noticeable effects on economic indicators like GDP, inflation and employment. And in terms of what this means for the housing outlook, the programs talked about so far should push sales marginally higher but have little impact on our expectations for our home prices. Now it's important to note that the president didn't spend that much time of the speech talking about housing affordability proposals, as was telegraphed ahead of time. And since that, the head of the NEC Kevin Hassett has said they plan to announce more details on housing in the coming days. Michael Zezas: Got it. So, on the two pieces here that investors have really focused on, which are capping institutional ownership of single-family homes and potentially capping interest rates on credit cards, it sounded like the president talked about he would go to Congress for authorization on those things.Is that right? And if so, how plausible is it that Congress could actually deliver those authorities? Ariana Salvatore: So, here's where I think it's really critical to understand the role that Congress has to play in all of these policy initiatives. So, there are not only political constraints, but there are also procedural ones. If we were to see Republicans kind of push for this 10 percent cap, for example, that likely would have to go through the reconciliation process. And that process, as we know, comes with a number of limitations because something like a 10 percent cap wouldn't have much of an impact on the federal budget in terms of revenues or outlays. We think it's most likely not going to be permissible under that framework. So, understanding that the first filter here is Congress, and the second filter is these procedural limitations that exist in and of themselves is really important context for understanding the president's proposals on housing.Michael Zezas: So, is it fair to say the starting point is that we think Congress is unlikely to act on these things? And what would you have to see that might make you think differently? Ariana Salvatore: I think where we're looking for signals from Republican leadership in Congress – because as of right now, it's been our thinking that a second reconciliation bill ahead of the midterm elections is not feasible. It's too difficult politically, it takes a lot of time, but if you see enough of a push from the president, we do think that can start to become feasible. Again, we have to keep in mind these procedural limitations and where the rest of the party falls on these issues. But I think they're possible if the administration pushes hard enough for them.Michael Zezas: Got it. So, even though we don't think it's likely, we obviously want to prepare in case that happens. When it comes to housing, it seems like our team has said institutional ownership of single-family housing is quite low, 1 percent or less. And so, restrictions there wouldn't necessarily change the game on home prices. What about the 10 percent cap on credit card interests? What are the broader ramifications that our colleagues see? Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, so I'd say generally speaking, when it comes to consumer credit affordability policies, our strategists think that these could actually translate to a benefit for consumer ABS performance because they tend to be a tailwind for a consumer that's struggled with rising delinquencies and defaults post-COVID, right? However, there are some specific proposals like this cap on credit cards, and that's likely going to have a negative consequence because it's going to limit credit access for consumers, especially for those carrying a balance. So, probably a little bit counterintuitive to the overall affordability agenda that the administration's trying to go for. Michael Zezas: So, lots of interesting stuff coming out of the speech. Lots of things we have to track over the next few weeks and months. It certainly doesn't seem like it's going to be a boring year two of the Trump term for investors. Ariana Salvatore: Certainly not, and not for us either. Michael Zezas: Well, Ariana, thanks for finding the time to talk. Ariana Salvatore: 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.

Our co-heads of Securitized Products Jay Bacow and James Egan explain why recent U.S. government measures won't change much the outlook for mortgage rates, home prices and sales this year.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Jay Bacow: Jim Egan, I see you sitting across from me wearing a quarter zip. As old things become new again, my teenager would think that is trendy. James Egan: I think this is one of, if not the first, times in my life that a teenager has thought I was trendy, including back when I was a teenager. Jay Bacow: Well, as captain of the chess team in high school, I was never trendy. But Jim… 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. Today, we're here to talk about some of the programs that are being announced and their implications for the mortgage and U.S. housing markets. It's Tuesday, January 20th at 10am in New York. Now, Jay, there have been a lot of announcements from this administration. Some of them focused on affordability, some of them focused on the mortgage market, some of them focused on the housing market. But I think one of them that had the biggest impact, at least in terms of trading sessions immediately following, was a $200 billion buy program from the GSEs. Can you talk to us a little bit about that program? Jay Bacow: Sure. As you mentioned, President Trump announced that there would be a $200 billion purchase of mortgages, which later was confirmed by FHFA director Bill Pulte, to be purchased by Fannie and Freddie. Now, we would highlight putting this $200 billion number in context. The market was probably expecting the GSEs to buy about a hundred billion dollars of mortgages this year. So, this is maybe an incremental a hundred billion dollars more. The mortgage market round numbers is a $10 trillion market, so in the scope of the size of the market, it's not huge. However, we're only forecasting about [$]175 billion of growth in the mortgage market this year, so this is the GSEs buying more than net issuance. It's also similar in size to the Fed balance sheet runoff, which is something that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant mentioned in his comments last week. And so, the initial impact of this announcement was reasonably meaningful. Mortgage spreads tightened about 15 basis points and headline mortgage rates rallied to below 6 precent for the first time since 2022 on some mortgage measures. James Egan: Alright, so we had a 15 basis point rally almost immediately upon announcement of this program. That took us, I believe, through your bull case for agency mortgages in our 2026 outlook. So, what's next here? Jay Bacow: Well, we have a lot of questions about what is next. There's a lot of things that we're still waiting information on. But we think the initial move has sort of been fully priced in. We don't know the pace of the buying. We don't know if the purchases are going to be outright – like the Fed's purchase programs were. Or purchased and hedging the duration – like historically, the GSEs portfolios have been managed. We don't know how the $200 billion of mortgages will be funded. The way we're kind of thinking about this is if the program is just – and this is a podcast, not a video cast but I'm putting air quotes around just – $200 billion, it is probably priced in and then maybe and then some. However, if the purchases are front loaded or the purchases are increased, or maybe this purchase program indicates possible changes to the composition of the Fed's balance sheet, then there could be further moves in spreads and in mortgage rates.But Jim, what does this mean to the mortgage market writ large? James Egan: Right. So, when we think about what you're talking about, a 15 basis point move in mortgage rates, and we take that into the housing market, the first order implication is on affordability. And this is a move in the right direction, but it is small from a magnitude perspective. You mentioned mortgage rates getting below 6 percent for the first time since 2022. When we think about this in the context of our expectations for 2026, we already had the mortgage rate getting to about 5.75 in the back half of this year. This would take that forecast down to about 5.6 percent. That has a very modest upward implication for our purchase volume forecast, but I want to emphasize the modest piece. We're talking about [$]4.23 million was our original existing home sales forecast. This could take it to [$] 4.25 [million], maybe as high as [$]4.3 [million] with some media effect layered in. But any growth in demand, when we think about the home price side of the equation, we think we'll be met with additional listings. So, it really doesn't change our home price forecast for 2026, which was plus 2 percent. So very modest, slightly upward risk to some of our forecasts. And as we've been saying, when we think about U.S. housing in 2026, the risk to our modest growth forecasts, 3 percent growth in sales, 2 percent growth in home prices. The risk has always been to the upside. That could be because demand responds more to a 5 percent handle in mortgage rates than we're expecting. Or because you get more and more of these programs from the administration. So, on that note, Jay, what else do we think can be done here? Jay Bacow: I mean, there are a lot of potential things that could be done, which could be helpful on the margin or not, depending on how far they are willing to think about the possibilities. Some of the easier changes to make would be changes to the loan level pricing adjustments and the guaranteed fees, and mortgage insurance premiums, which would lower the cost in the roughly 10 to 15 basis points. There are some other changes that could be put through which we think from a legal side which would be much more difficult to make retroactive. That would be either allowing you to take your mortgage with you to the next house, which is what we call portability. Or allowing you to transfer your mortgage to the new home buyer, which is what we call assumability. We think it's extremely difficult to make that retroactive, but that could have some larger impacts, if that were to go through. Now, Jim, speaking of other impacts, mortgages spreads have tightened 15 basis points. What does that do to some of the other sectors that you cover? James Egan: Right. We do think there is a portfolio channel effect here that could be good for risk assets broader than just the agency mortgage space, even though that is clearly the primary impact of that $200 billion buying program. Securitized credit, we think is one of the clear beneficiaries of that tightening, given the relationships it has to agency mortgages. The non-QM mortgage market in particular – one that we're looking at for positive tailwinds as a result of this. Jay Bacow: All right, so we got a big announcement. We got a pretty quick market move after that, and now we're waiting to see what the next steps are. Likely going to have a marginal impact on housing activity, but we got to keep our ears and our eyes open to see what else might come. Jim, always great talking to you. James Egan: Pleasure talking to you too, Jay. And to all of you regular listeners, thank you for adding us to your playlist. Let us know what you think wherever you get this podcast and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. Jay Bacow: Go smash that subscribe button.*** Disclaimer ***James Egan: It's a shame it's not a video podcast. What a great cardigan.

Our Head of Research Product in Europe Paul Walsh and Chief European Equity Strategist Marina Zavolock break down the main themes for European stocks this year. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Paul Walsh: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's Head of Research Product here in Europe.Marina Zavolock: And I'm Marina Zavolock, Chief European Equity Strategist.Paul Walsh: Today, we are here to talk about the big debates for European equities moving into 2026.It's Friday, January the 16th at 8am in London.Marina, it's great to have you on Thoughts on the Market. I think we've got a fascinating year ahead of us, and there are plenty of big debates to be exploring here in Europe. But let's kick it off with the, sort of, obvious comparison to the U.S.How are you thinking about European equities versus the U.S. right now? When we cast our eyes back to last year, we had this surprising outperformance. Could that repeat?Marina Zavolock: Yeah, the biggest debate of all Paul, that's what you start with. So, actually it's not just last year. If you look since U.S. elections, I think it would surprise most people to know that if you compare in constant currency terms; so if you look in dollar terms or if you look in Euro terms, European equities have outperformed U.S. equities since US elections. I don't think that's something that a lot of people really think about as a fact.And something very interesting has happened at the start of this year. And let me set the scene before I tell you what that is.In the last 10 years, European equities have been in this constantly widening discount range versus the U.S. on valuation. So next one's P/E there's been, you know, we have tactical rallies from time to time; but in the last 10 years, they've always been tactical. But we're in this downward structural range where their discount just keeps going wider and wider and wider. And what's happened on December 31st is that for the first time in 10 years, European equities have broken the top of that discount range now consistently since December 31st. I've lost count of how many trading days that is. So about two weeks, we've broken the top of that discount range. And when you look at long-term history, that's happened a number of times before. And every time that happens, you start to go into an upward range.So, the discount is narrowing and narrowing; not in a straight line, in a range. But the discount narrows over time. The last couple of times that's happened, in the last 20 years, over time you narrow all the way to single digit discount rather than what we have right now in like-for-like terms of 23 percent.Paul Walsh: Yeah, so there's a significant discount. Now, obviously it's great that we are seeing increased inflows into European equities. So far this year, the performance at an index level has been pretty robust. We've just talked about the relative positioning of Europe versus the U.S.; and the perhaps not widely understood local currency outperformance of Europe versus the U.S. last year. But do you think this is a phenomenon that's sustainable? Or are we looking at, sort of, purely a Q1 phenomenon?Marina Zavolock: Yeah, it's a really good question and you make a good point on flows, which I forgot to mention. Which is that, last year in [Q1] we saw this really big diversification flow theme where investors were looking to reduce exposure in the U.S., add exposure to Europe – for a number of reasons that I won't go into.And we're seeing deja vu with that now, mostly on the – not really reducing that much in U.S., but more so, diversifying into Europe. And the feedback I get when speaking to investors is that the U.S. is so big, so concentrated and there's this trend of broadening in the U.S. that's happening; and that broadening is impacting Europe as well.Because if you're thinking about, ‘Okay, what do I invest in outside of seven stocks in the U.S.?' You're also thinking about, ‘Okay, but Europe has discounts and maybe I should look at those European companies as well.' That's exactly what's happening. So, diversification flows are sharply going up, in the last month or two in European equities coming into this year.And it's a very good question of whether this is just a [Q1] phenomenon. [Be]cause that's exactly what it was last year. I still struggle to see European equities outperforming the U.S. over the course of the full year because we're going to come into earnings now.We have much lower earnings growth at a headline level than the U.S. I have 4 percent earnings growth forecast. That's driven by some specific sectors. It's, you know, you have pockets of very high growth. But still at a headline level, we have 4 percent earnings growth on our base case. Consensus is too high in our view. And our U.S. equity strategists, they have 17 percent earnings growth, so we can't compete.Paul Walsh That's a very stark difference.Marina Zavolock: Yeah, we cannot compete with that. But what I will say is that historically when you've had these breakouts, you don't get out performance really. But what you get is a much narrower gap in performance. And I also think if you pick the right pockets within Europe, then you could; you can get out performance.Paul Walsh: So, something you and I talked about a lot in 2025, is the bull case for Europe. There are a number of themes and secular dynamics that could play out, frankly, to the benefits of Europe, and there are a number of them. I wondered if you could highlight the ones that you think are most important in terms of the bull case for Europe.Marina Zavolock: I think the most important one is AI adoption. We and our team, we have been able to quantify this. So, when we take our global AI mapping and we look at leading AI adopters in Europe, which is about a quarter of the index, they are showing very strong earnings and returns outperformance. Not just versus the European index, but versus their respective sectors. And versus their respective sectors, that gap of earnings outperformance is growing and becoming more meaningful every time that we update our own chart.To the point that I think at this rate, by the second half of this year, it's going to grow to a point that it's more difficult for investors to ignore. That group of stocks, first of all, they trade again at a big discount to U.S. equivalent – 27 percent discount. Also, if you see adoption broadening overall, and we start to go into the phase of the AI cycle where adopters are, you know, are being sought after and are seen as in the front line of beneficiaries of AI. It's important to remember Europe; the European index because we don't have a lot of enablers in our index. It is very skewed to AI adopters. And then we also have a lot of low hanging fruit given productivity demographic challenges that AI can help to address. So that's the biggest one.Paul Walsh: Understood.Marina Zavolock: And the one I've spent most time on. But let me quickly mention a few others. M&A, we're seeing it rising in Europe, almost as sharply as we're seeing in the U.S. Again, I think there's low hanging fruit there. We're seeing easing competition commission rules, which has been an ongoing thing, but you know, that comes after decade of not seeing that. We're seeing corporate re-leveraging off of lows. Both of these things are still very far from cycle peaks. And we're seeing structural drivers, which for example, savings and investment union, which is multifaceted. I won't get into it. But that could really present a bull case.Paul Walsh: Yeah. And that could include pensions reform across Europe, particularly in Germany, deeper capital…Marina Zavolock: We're starting to see it.Paul Walsh: And in Europe as well, yeah. And so just going back to the base case, what are you advocating to clients in terms of what do we buy here in Europe, given the backdrop that you've framed?Marina Zavolock: Within Europe, I get asked a lot whether investors should be investing in cyclicals or value. Last year value really worked, or quality – maybe they will return. I think it's not really about any of those things. I think, similar to prior years, what we're going to see is stock level dispersion continuing to rise. That's what we keep seeing every month, every quarter, every year – for the last couple of years, we're seeing dispersion rising.Again, we're still far from where we normally get to, when we get to cycle peaks. So, Europe is really about stock picking. And the best way that we have at Morgan Stanley to capture this alpha under the surface of the European index. And the growth that we have under the surface of the index, is our analyst top picks – which are showing fairly consistent outperformance, not just versus the European index, but also versus the S&P. And since inception of top picks in 2021, European top picks have outperformed the S&P free float market cap weighted by over 90 percentage points. And they've outperformed, the S&P – this is pre-trade – by 17 percentage points in the last year. And whatever period we slice, we're seeing out performance.As far as sectors, key sectors, Banks is at the very top of our model. It's the first sector that non-dedicated investors ask me about. I think the investment case there is very compelling. Defense, we really like structurally with the rearmament theme in Europe, but it's also helpful that we're in this seasonal phase where defense tends to really outperform between; and have outsized returns between January and April. And then we like the powering AI thematic, and we are getting a lot of incoming on the powering AI thematic in Europe. We upgraded utilities recently.Paul, maybe if I ask you a question, one sector that I've missed out on, in our data-driven sector model, is the semis. But you've worked a lot with our semi's team who are quite constructive. Can you tell us about the investment case there?Paul Walsh: Yeah, they're quite constructive, but I would say there's nuance within the context of the sector. I think what they really like is the semi cap space, which they think is really well underpinned by a robust, global outlook for wafer fab equipment spend, which we see growing double digits globally in both 2026 and 2027.And I think within that, in particular, the outlook for memory. You have something of a memory supercycle going on at the moment. And the outlook for memory is especially encouraging. And it's a market where we see it as being increasingly capacity constrained with an unusually long order book visibility today, driven really by AI inference. So strong thematic overlay there as well.And maybe I would highlight one other key area of growth longer term for the space, which is set to come from the proliferation of humanoid robots. That's a key theme for us in 2025. And of course, we'll continue to be so, in the years to come. And we are modeling a global Humanoids Semicon TAM of over $300 billion by 2045, with key pillars of opportunity for the semi names to be able to capitalize on. So, I think those are two areas where, in particular, the team have seen some great opportunities.Now bringing it back to the other side of the equation, Marina, which sectors would you be avoiding, within the context of your model?Marina Zavolock: There's a collection of sectors and they, for the most part, are the culprits for the low growth that we have in Europe. So simply avoiding these could be very helpful from a growth perspective, to add to that multiple expansion. These are at the bottom of our data driven, sector models. So, these are Autos, Chemicals, Luxury Transport, Food and Beverage.Most of these are old economy cyclicals. Many of these sectors have high China/old economy exposure – as well where we're not seeing really a demand pickup. And then lastly, a number of these sectors are facing ever rising China competition.Paul Walsh: And I think, when we weigh up the skew of your views according to your model, I think it brings it back to the original big debate around cyclicals versus defensives. And your conclusion that actually it's much more complicated than that.Marina, thanks for taking the time to talk.Marina Zavolock: Great to speak with you Paul.Paul Walsh: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets looks at the implications of the U.S. government's efforts to ease regulations, from bank balance sheets to asset valuations.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, a core theme of easing policy, and the latest iteration in the U.S. mortgage market. It's Thursday, January 15th at 2pm in London. Central to our thinking for the year ahead is that we're seeing an unusual combination of easing monetary policy, fiscal policy, and regulatory policy – all at the same time. This isn't normal, and usually this type of support is only deployed under much more dire economic conditions. All this is also happening alongside another large supportive force – over $3 trillion of AI- and datacenter-related spending that Morgan Stanley expects all to happen through the end of 2028. This broad-based easing is a global theme. Equities in Japan have been rallying on hopes of even a larger fiscal leasing in that country. In Europe, we think that Germany will continue to spend more while the European Central Bank and Bank of England cut rates more than the market expects.But like many things these days, it's the United States that's at the heart of the story. We think that the U.S. Federal Reserve will continue to lower interest rates this year, even as core inflation persists above its target. The U.S. government will spend about $1.9 trillion more than it takes in, even after adjusting for tariffs as tax cuts from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act kick in. But my focus today is on the third leg of this proverbial three-legged stimulative stool. While easing monetary and fiscal policy probably get the most focus, easing regulatory policy is another big lever that's being pulled in the same direction. Regulatory policy is opaque, and let's face it can be a little boring. But it's extremely important for how financial markets function. Regulation drives the incentives for the buyers of many assets, especially in the all-important banking and insurance sectors. It can set almost by definition what price an asset needs to trade at to be attractive, or how much of an asset a particular actor in the market can or cannot hold. Regulatory policy tightened dramatically in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis, but now it's starting to ease. Our U.S. bank equity analysts expect that finalization of key capital rules later this year – an important regulatory step – could free up about [$]5.8 trillion – with a T – of balance sheet capacity across the Global Systematically Important Banks. In mid-December, the office of the comptroller of the currency and the FDIC withdrew lending guidelines from 2013 that had discouraged banks from making loans to more highly indebted companies. And just last week, the U.S. administration announced that the U.S. mortgage agencies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would buy [$]200 billion of mortgages to hold on their own balance sheet; a significant move that quickly tightens spreads in this key market. For investors, we see several implications. This simultaneous easing across monetary, fiscal, and now regulatory policy supports a market that runs hot and where valuations may overshoot. And in the specific case of these agency mortgages, my colleague Jay Bacow and our mortgage strategy team think that this shift is now very quickly in the price. Having previously been positive on agency mortgage spreads, they've now turned to neutral. Thank you as always for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

Our Head of India Research and Chief India Equity Strategist Ridham Desai addresses a big debate: whether India stocks are poised for a recovery after underperforming other emerging markets in 2025.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ridham Desai, Morgan Stanley's Head of India Research and Chief India Equity Strategist. Today: one of the big debates in Asia this year. Can Indian equities recover their strength after a historic slump? It's Wednesday, January 14th, at 2pm in Mumbai.India ended 2025 with its weakest relative performance versus Emerging Markets since 1994. That's right – three decades. The reason? A mid-cycle growth slowdown, rich valuations, and the fact that India doesn't offer an explicit AI-related trade. Add in delays on the U.S. trade deal plus India's low beta in a global bull market, and you've got a recipe for underperformance. But we think the tide is turning. Valuations have corrected meaningfully and likely bottomed out in October. More importantly, India's growth cycle looks poised for a positive surprise. Policymakers have gone all-in on reflation, deploying a mix of aggressive measures to revive momentum. The Reserve Bank of India has cut rates, reduced the cash reserve ratio, infused liquidity and gone in for bank deregulation which are adding fuel to the fire. The government has front-loaded capital expenditure and announced a massive ₹1.5 trillion GST rate cut to encourage people to spend more on goods and services. All these moves – along with improving ties between India and China, Beijing's new anti-involution push, and the possibility of a major India-U.S. trade deal – are laying solid groundwork for recovery. Put simply, India's once-tough, post-pandemic economic stance is easing up. And that could open the door to a major shift in how investors see the market going forward. India's macro backdrop is also evolving. The reduced reliance on oil in GDP, the growing share of exports, especially in services, the ongoing fiscal consolidation – all indicate a smaller saving imbalance. This means structurally lower interest rates ahead. And flexible inflation targeting, and volatility in both inflation and interest rates should continue to decline. High growth with low volatility and falling rates should translate into higher P/E multiples. And don't forget the household balance sheet shift toward equities. Systematic flows into domestic mutual funds are evidence of this trend. Investor concerns are understandable, but let's keep them in context. More companies raising capital often signals growth ahead, not just high valuations. Domestic investment remains strong, thanks to a steady shift toward equities. India's premium valuations reflect solid long-term growth prospects and expectations for lower real interest rates. On the policy front, efforts to boost growth are robust, and we see real growth potentially surprising to the upside. While India isn't a leader in AI yet, the upcoming AI summit in February could help address concerns about India's role in tech innovation. What key catalysts should investors watch? Look for positive earnings revisions, further dovishness from the RBI, reforms from the government including privatization, and the long-awaited U.S. trade deal. But also keep an eye on key risks – slower global growth and shifting geopolitical dynamics. So, after fifteen months of relative pain, could India be on the cusp of a structural re-rating? If growth surprises to the upside – and we think it will – the story of 2026 may just be India's comeback. Stay tuned.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our U.S. Thematic Strategist Michelle Weaver and U.S. Multi-Industry Analyst Chris Snyder discuss a North America Big Debate for 2026: Whether investments in efficiency and productivity will spark a transformation of U.S. manufacturing. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist. Chris Snyder: I'm Chris Snyder, U.S. Multi-Industry Analyst. Michelle Weaver: Today: Will 2026 be the year of U.S. Manufacturing's transformation? It's Tuesday, January 13th at 10am in New York. U.S. reshoring has been an important component of our multipolar world theme, and manufacturing is one of those topics we have always had our eyes on. We've been making some big predictions about a transformation in this sector, so it makes sense that it features prominently in the big debates we've identified for North America in 2026. In the last few years, there's been a steady stream of investments in automation controls and upgrades across U.S. manufacturing. And this is happening against a backdrop of shifting global supply chains and lingering policy uncertainty. Now, the big market debate is whether these investments will generate a whole wave of greenfield projects – that is brand new, multi-year construction initiatives to build facilities, factories, and infrastructure from the ground up. Chris, what exactly is driving this current wave of efficiency and productivity investment in U.S. manufacturing? And how long term of a trend is it? Chris Snyder: I think what's driving the inflection is tariffs. The view that has underpinned my U.S. reshoring call is that I believe companies have to serve the U.S. market. The U.S. accounts for 30 percent of global consumption – equal to EU and China combined. It is also the best margin region in the world. So, companies have to serve the market, and now what they're doing is they're going back and they're looking at their production assets that they have in the U.S. and they're saying, how can I get more out of what's already here? So, the quickest, cheapest, fastest way to bring production online in the U.S. is drive better productivity and efficiency out of the assets you already have. And we're seeing it come through very quickly after Liberation Day. Michelle Weaver: And you think these investments are an on ramp to larger greenfield projects. What evidence do we have that this efficiency spend is setting the stage for a ramp up in new factory builds? Chris Snyder: I think this is absolutely the leading indicator for greenfields because this is telling us that the supply chain cost calculation has changed. What all of these companies are doing are saying, ‘Okay, how can I get products into the U.S. at the cheapest cost possible?' What we're seeing is the cost of imports have gone higher with tariffs, and now it's more economically advisable for these companies to make the product in the United States. And if that's the case, that means that when they need a new factory, it's going to come to the United States. They might not need a factory now, but when they do, the U.S. is at least incrementally better positioned to get that factory. Other data that we're seeing; I think the most interesting data that's come out of all of this is the bifurcation in global PPI or producer price data. If you look at it on a regional basis, North America markets saw PPI go higher in 2025. They were all the tariff exempt regions – U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Every other region in the world saw PPI down year-to-date. That means that these companies and factories are having to lower prices to stay competitive in the global market and sell their products into the United States. That tells us also where the next factory is going. If you have a factory in the U.S. and a factory in Malaysia, and your U.S. factory is pricing up, that means the return profile is getting better. If your factory in Malaysia is pricing down, it means the returns are getting worse and you're pricing down because it's over-capacitized. That's not a region where you're going to add a factory. You know, what I like to say is – price drives returns, and supply is going to follow returns. And right now, that price data tells us the returns are in the United States. Michelle Weaver: And, for people that might not be familiar with PPI, can you explain it to everyone? It's sort of like CPIs cousin, but how should people think about it? Chris Snyder: Yeah, yeah, so PPI, Producer Price Inflation, it's effectively the prices that my companies, the producers of goods are charging. So maybe this is the price that they would then charge a distributor, who then the distributor ultimately is selling it to a store. And then that's, you know, kind of factoring its way into CPI. But it starts with PPI. Michelle Weaver: And what are some of the key catalysts investors should be looking for in 2026 that could confirm that this greenfield ramp is underway? Chris Snyder: The number one, you know, metric I think the market looks at is manufacturing project starts. Every month there's data that comes out and says how many manufacturing projects were announced in the U.S. that month. And what we've seen coming out of Liberation Day is that number on a project value has gone higher. You know, it hasn't totally inflected, but it has pushed higher. The thing that has inflected is the number of announcements. So, this is not like two or three years ago where we had these mega projects. What we're seeing right now is very broad. And to me that's more important because that shows that there's durability behind it. And it shows that this is because the economics are saying it makes sense. It's not necessarily just because, okay, I got an incentive and I'm trying to follow alongside that. Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm. The market seems skeptical though, pointing out that the ISM manufacturing purchasing managers index has been shrinking. This could be a sign that demand isn't strong enough to justify building new factories right now. How would you address that concern? Chris Snyder: Yeah, no, I mean, you're definitely right. Like the biggest pushback on the reshoring theme is the demand for goods is not very strong. Consumers are not in a good place. So why would companies add capacity in this backdrop? That's never happened before. Companies only add capacity when they're producing a lot and the utilization goes up. This is not a normal cycle. Throughout history, the motivation to add capacity was when your production rates go higher, your utilization hits a certain level, and then you add capacity. So, it always started with demand to your point. The motivation right now is tariff mitigation. And you do not need higher demand to support that. The U.S. is a $1.2 trillion trade deficit. So, that more than anything gets me confident in the theme and the duration behind it. And I think it's a very different outlook when you look across the international markets. They're the ones that need to find incremental demand to justify investment. Michelle Weaver: And given the scale of U.S. purchasing power and the shift in global capital flows, how do you see these manufacturing trends impacting broader performance in 2026? Chris Snyder: We published our outlook and we're calling for the U.S. Industrial Economy to hit decade high growth levels in the back half of [20]26 and into [20]27. And this is a big reason why. We think about this a lot from a CapEx perspective. And we're seeing the investment, we think that ramps into larger greenfields. But we're also seeing it in the production economy. If you look at the delta between U.S. consumer spend and U.S. manufacturing production, that has really narrowed in recent months. And that tells us that we're increasingly serving U.S. demand through domestic production. So that's another factor that's going to drive activity higher and it doesn't need a cycle. And I think that's what's really important. And I think that is what creates this as a more secular and also durable opportunity. So obviously reassuring is something that's, you know, very close to me and important for the industrial economy. But as you think about the multipolar world theme more broadly, how do you think that evolves in 2026? Michelle Weaver: Yeah, absolutely. Last year the multipolar world was an incredibly powerful theme. And when investors were thinking about the multipolar world last year, it was largely about how are companies going to mitigate the risk of tariffs in the near term. We had the policies come out and surprise everyone in terms of the breadth and the magnitude of the tariffs we saw. We had a lot of policy uncertainty around what is that final level of tariffs going to look like. And a lot of the reaction was really short term. It's how can we use our inventory buffers to try and preserve our margins? How much of these additional tariff costs can we pass off to the end customer? How can we insulate ourselves in the near term? I think this year it's going to turn to more longer-term strategic thinking. Reshoring and a lot of the greenfield projects you were talking about, I think will absolutely be an important component of the multipolar world this year. I think we're also likely to see a greater emphasis on U.S. defense. With the action we just saw in Venezuela. I think we're going to see more of that defense component of the multipolar world starting to be expressed in the U.S. It was a big part of the expression of the theme in Europe last year, but I think it will gain relevance in the U.S. this year. Chris Snyder: Yeah. And I think the next chapter in U.S. industrial growth is just getting going. It's taken 25 years for the U.S. to seed roughly 12 percentage points of global share in manufacturing. We don't think they take that much back. But we think this is a very long runway opportunity. Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm. And as we watch for the next wave of greenfields, it's clear that efficiency and productivity investments are more than just a stop gap. They're a longer-term theme and they're a foundation for a new era in U.S. manufacturing. Chris, thank you for taking the time to talk. Chris Snyder: Great speaking with you, Michelle. Michelle Weaver: And to our listeners, thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen to the show and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Our Chief Fixed Income Strategists Vishy Tirupattur discusses the calm market reaction to the latest developments in Venezuela and the potential implications for oil, stocks and bonds.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. On today's podcast, I will talk about the markets' response to the complex political developments in Venezuela, and examine the opportunities and risks it presents to the markets. It is Monday, January 12th at 11 am in New York. Despite the far-reaching geopolitical implications of last weekend's developments in Venezuela, the financial markets have been strikingly calm. Oil prices have barely budged, global equities have rallied, and the reaction in the safe-haven markets – U.S. Treasuries, for example – has been fairly muted. So what explains all of this? Let's start with oil – the commodity most exposed to the situation in Venezuela. The near-term supply appears very manageable. As Morgan Stanley's chief commodities strategist Martijn Rats notes, the market entered 2026 oversupplied, and inventories remain flush. That cushion explains why Brent prices have barely budged, and why Martijn sees prices sliding into the mid-$50s in the coming months.The bigger story is medium term. The prospect of reviving Venezuela's oil industry tilts production risks higher. Despite holding over 300 billion barrels, the world's largest reserves, [the] current output of Venezuela is just 0.8-1 million barrels per day, making it the smallest producer among the major reserve holders. More Venezuelan barrels hitting global markets could keep prices soft, even against a backdrop of rising geopolitical tensions. For oil, the near-term price risk is low while medium-term price risk leans bearish. Let's talk about energy stocks. In line with the expectation of our equity energy analysts led by Devin McDermott, energy equities have largely responded favorably, reflecting the potential for increased oil supply and specific company opportunities. U.S. refiners stand out as poised to gain. A post-Maduro Venezuela could mean higher crude exports of the heavy, sour oil that these refiners are built to process. More imported heavy crude is a clear tailwind for U.S. Gulf Coast refiners like Valero (VLO) and Marathon Petroleum (MPC), potentially lowering their input costs and improving their margins. Similarly, Chevron (CVX), the only U.S. major still operating there under a sanctions waiver, is also poised to rally on the back of this. So for energy stocks, while [the] geopolitical story is complex, the market's message is straightforward. The prospect of greater supply is good news, and some companies appear uniquely positioned to gain as Venezuela's next chapter unfolds. Nowhere has the market reaction been more dramatic than in Venezuela's own sovereign debt. As Simon Waever, Morgan Stanley's global head of sovereign credit strategy anticipated, prices of Venezuela's defaulted bonds – both the government bonds (VENZ) as well as the bonds of state oil company PDVSA – soared to multi-year highs following the weekend's events. The bond complex has already rallied over 25 percent since last weekend to reach an average price of about $35, thanks to the increased likelihood of a creditor-friendly transition. A clearer path for a potential debt restructuring deal improves the prospects for future debt recovery. We expect further upside as the markets price a higher recovery rate if Venezuela's oil production increases further. So what's the bottom line: Last week's developments in Venezuela are a major geopolitical event, but the financial market reaction reflects both the contained nature of the shock and the prospect of constructive outcomes ahead – more oil supply, creditor-friendly debt resolution, etc. Oil markets are signaling that global supply can weather the storm, equity investors are cheering beneficiaries like refiners and seeing the broader risk backdrop as unchanged, and bond investors are selectively adding Venezuela's beaten-down debt in hopes of an eventual recovery. For now, the takeaway is that this political event has not affected the market's positive momentum – if anything, it has created pockets of opportunity and reinforced prevailing trends such as ample oil, and strong credit appetite. As always, we'll keep you informed of any material changes. 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.Important note regarding economic sanctions. This report references jurisdictions which may be the subject of economic sanctions. Readers are solely responsible for ensuring that their investment activities are carried out in compliance with applicable laws.

Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets takes a look at multiple indicators that are pointing on the same direction: strong growth for markets and the economy.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I'm going to talk about an unusual alignment of signs of optimism for the global cyclical backdrop and why these are important to watch. It's Friday, January 9th at 2pm in London. 2026 is now well underway. Forecasting is difficult and a humbling exercise; and 2025 certainly showed that even in a good year for markets, you can have some serious twists and turns. But overall, Morgan Stanley Research still thinks the year ahead will be a positive one, with equities higher and bond yields modestly lower. It's off to an eventful start, certainly, but we think that core message remains in place. But instead of going back again to our forecasts through the year ahead, I wanted to focus instead on a wide variety of different assets that have long been viewed as leading indicators of the global cyclical environment. I think these are important, and what's notable is that they're all moving in the same direction – all indicating a stronger cyclical backdrop. While today's market certainly has some areas of speculative activity and excessive valuations, the alignment of these things suggests something more substantive may be going on. First, Copper prices, which tend to be volatile but economically sensitive, have been rising sharply up about 40 percent in the last year. A key index of non-traded industrial commodities for everything from Glass to Tin, which is useful because it means it's less likely to be influenced by investor activity, well, it's been up 10 percent over the last year. Korean equities, which tend to be highly cyclical and thus have long been viewed by investors as a proxy for global economic optimism, well, they were the best performing major market last year, up 80 percent. Smaller cap stocks, which again, tend to be more economically sensitive, well, they've been outperforming larger ones. And last but not least, Financial stocks in the U.S. and Europe. Again, a sector that tends to be quite economically sensitive. Well, they've been outperforming the broader market and to a pretty significant degree. These are different assets in different regions that all appear to be saying the same thing – that the outlook for global cyclical activity has been getting better and has now actually been doing so for some time. Now, any individual indicator can be wrong. But when multiple indicators all point in the same direction, that's pretty worthy of attention. And I think this ties in nicely with a key message from my colleague, Mike Wilson from Monday's episode; that the positive case for U.S. equities is very much linked to better fundamental activity. Specifically, our view that earnings growth may be stronger than appreciated. Of course, the data will have a say, and if these indicators turn down, it could suggest a weaker economic and cyclical backdrop. But for now, these various cyclical indicators are giving a positive read. If they continue to do so, it may raise more questions around central bank policy and to what extent further rate cuts are consistent with these signs of a stronger global growth backdrop. For now, we think they remain supporting evidence of our core view that this market cycle can still burn hotter before it burns out. Thank you as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also, please tell a friend or colleague about us today.

Brian Nowak: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Brian Nowak, Morgan Stanley's Head of U.S. Internet Research. Andrew Percoco: And I'm Andrew Percoco, Head of North America Autos and Shared Mobility Research. Brian Nowak: Today we're going to talk about why we think 2026 could be a game changer and a point of inflection for autonomous vehicles and autonomous driving. It's Thursday, January 8th at 10am in New York. So, Andrew, let's get started. Have you ridden an autonomous car before? Andrew Percoco: Yeah, absolutely. Took a few in L.A., took one in San Francisco not too long ago. Pretty seamless and interesting experience to say the least. Brian Nowak: Any accidents or awkward left turns? Or did you feel pretty comfortable the whole time? Andrew Percoco: No, I felt pretty comfortable the whole time. No edge cases, no issues. So, all five star reviews for me. Brian Nowak: Andrew, we think your answer is going to be a lot more common as we go throughout 2026. As autonomous availability scales throughout more and more cities. Things are changing quickly. And we kind of look at our model on a city-by-city basis. We think that overall availability for autonomous driving in the U.S. is going to go from about 15 percent of the urban population at the end of 2025 to over 30 percent of the urban population by year end 2026. Andrew Percoco: Yeah, totally agree. Brian, I'm just curious. Like maybe layout for us, you know, what you're expecting for 2026 in more detail in terms of city rollouts, players involved and what we should be watching for throughout the next, you know, nine to 12 months. Brian Nowak: We have multiple new cities across the United States where we expect Waymo, Tesla, Zoox, and others to expand their fleet, expand autonomous driving availability, and ultimately make the product a lot more available and commonplace for people. There are also new potential edge cases that we think we're going to see. We're going to have our first snow cities with Waymo expected to launch in Washington, D.C.; potentially in Colorado, potentially in Michigan. So, we could have proof of concept that autonomous driving can also work in snow throughout [20]26 and into 2027 as well. So, in all, we think as we sit here at the start of [20]26, one year from now, there's going to be a lot more people who are going to say: I'm using an autonomous car to drive me around in my everyday practice. Andrew Percoco: Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. And I guess, what do you think the drivers are to get us there, right? There's also some concerns about safety, adoption, you know, cost structure. What are the main drivers that really make this growth algorithm work and really scales the robotaxi business for some of the key players? Brian Nowak: Part of it is regulatory. You know, we are still in a situation where we are dealing with state-by-state regulatory approvals needed for these autonomous vehicles and autonomous fleets to be built. We'll see if that changes, but for now, it's state by state regulation. After that, it comes down to technology, and each of the platforms needs to prove that their autonomous offerings are significantly safer than human driving. That is also linked to regulatory approval. And so, when we think about fleets becoming safer, proving that they can drive people more miles without having an accident than even a human can – we think about the autonomous players then scaling up their fleets. To make the cars and fleets available to more people. That is sort of the flywheel that we think is going to play out throughout 2026. The other part that we're very focused on across all the players from Waymo to Tesla to Zoox and others is the cost of the cars. And there is a big difference between the cost of a Waymo per mile versus the cost of a Tesla per mile. And we think one of the tension points, Andrew, that you can, you can talk about a little bit here, is the difference in the safety data and what we see on Tesla as of now versus Waymo – versus the cost advantage that Tesla has. So, talk about the cost advantage that Tesla has through all this as of right now. Andrew Percoco: Yeah, definitely. So, you know, as you mentioned, Tesla today has a very clear cost advantage over many of the robotaxi peers that they're competing with. A lot of that's driven by their vertical integration, and their sensor suite, right? So, their vehicle, the cost of their vehicle is – call it $35,000. You've got the camera only sensor approach. So, you don't have lidar, expensive lidar, and radar in the vehicle. And that's just really driven a meaningful cost improvement and cost advantage. On our math about a 40 percent cost advantage relative to Waymo today. Now going forward, you know, as you mentioned, I think the key hurdle here or bottleneck, that Tesla still needs to prove is their safety. And can they reach the same safety standards as a human driver? And, you know, the improvement that you've seen from Waymo. You know, to put some numbers around this. Based on publicly available data in Austin, Tesla's getting in a crash, you know, every about, call it every 50,000 miles; Waymo is closer to every 400,000 miles per crash. So today, Waymo is the leader on safety.I think the one important caveat that I want to mention here is that's on a relatively small number of miles driven for Tesla. They've only driven about 250,000 miles in Austin, whereas Waymo's driven close to, I think, a hundred million miles cumulatively. So, when you look back, I think this is going to be the kind of key catalyst and key data point for investors to watch is – how that data improves over the course of 2026. If you track Waymo – Waymo's data improved substantially as their miles driven improved, and as they launched into new cities.We'd expect Tesla to follow a similar trend. But that's going to be a huge catalyst in validating this camera only approach. If that happens, Tesla's not limited in scale, they're not limited in manufacturing capacity. You can meaningfully see them expand… Or you can see them expand quite quickly once they prove out that safety requirement. Brian Nowak: I think it's a great point because, you know, one of the other big debates that we are all going to have to monitor in the AV space throughout 2026 is: How quickly does Tesla completely pull the safety drivers, and how quickly do they scale up production of the vehicles? Because one of the bank shots around autonomous driving is actually the rideshare industry. You know, we have partnerships; some partnerships between Waymo and Uber and Waymo and Lyft. But Tesla is not partnering with anyone. And so, I think the extent to which we see a faster than expected ramp up in deployment from Tesla can have a lot of impact. Not only on autonomous adoption, competition with Waymo, but also the rideshare industry.So how do you think about the puts and takes on Tesla and sort of removing the drivers and scaling up the fleet this year? What should we be watching? Andrew Percoco: Yeah, so they've already made some strides there in Austin. They've pulled the safety monitor. They haven't opened that up to the public yet without the safety monitor. They're still testing, presumably in that geography. They need to be extremely careful in terms of, you know, the regulatory compliance and making sure they're doing this in a safe way. Ultimately that's what matters most to them. We do expect them to roll it out to the public without the safety monitor in 2026. Whether or not, that's the first quarter or the third quarter – is a little bit tougher to predict. But I think it's reasonable to assume whatever the timeline is, they're going to make sure it's the safest way possible to ensure that there's, you know, no unintended consequences as it relates to regulation, et cetera. I think one, also; one important data point or interesting data point here. You know, we model, I think, a 100 percent CAGR in miles driven, autonomous miles driven through 2032. You can talk a little bit about, you know, what the implications for rideshare, but I think important. It's important to contextualize that would still only represent less than 1 percent of total U.S. miles driven in the U.S. So substantial growth over the next, call it six or seven years. But still a massive TAM to be tapped into beyond 2032. And I think the key there is – what's the cost reduction roadmap look like? And can we get robotaxis to a point where they are cheaper than personal car ownership? And could robotaxis at some point disrupt the car ownership process? Brian Nowak: Yeah. And the other more important point around rideshare will be how much do these autonomous offerings expand the addressable market for rideshare and prove to be incremental? As opposed to being cannibalistic on existing ride share rides. Because you're right that, you know, even our out year autonomous projections still have it less than 1 percent of the total trips. But the question is how much does that add to ride share? Because in some scenarios, those autonomous trips could end up being 20 to 30 percent of the rideshare industry. This matters for Uber and Lyft because while they are partnering Waymo and other autonomous players across a handful of markets, they're not partnered in all the markets. And in some markets, Waymo is going alone. Tesla is going at it alone. And so when we look at our model and we say as of 2024, Uber and Lyft make up 100 percent of the ride share industry based on the current partnerships, which includes Waymo and Tesla and all; and Zoox and all the players, we think that Uber and Lyft will only make up 30 percent of the autonomous driving market. And so it's really important for the rideshare industry that when, number one, we see AV's being incremental to the TAM; and two, that Uber and Lyft are able to continue to add more partnerships over time to drive more of that overall long-term AV opportunity and participate in all this rideshare industry over the next five years. Andrew Percoco: I think it's really clear that the future of autonomous vehicles is here and we've reached an inflection point; and there's a lot of interesting catalysts and data points for us and for investors to watch for throughout 2026.So Brian, thanks again for taking the time to talk. Brian Nowak: Andrew, great speaking with you. And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Our Chief Fixed Income Strategist Vishy Tirupattur is joined by Dan Toscano, the firm's Chairman of Markets in Private Equity, unpack how credit markets are changing—and what the AI buildup means for the road ahead.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Today is a special edition of our podcast. We are joined by Dan Toscano, Chairman of Markets in Private Equity at Morgan Stanley, and a seasoned practitioner of credit markets over many, many credit cycles. We will get his thoughts on the ongoing evolution and revolution in credit marketsIt's Wednesday, January 7th at 10am in New York. Dan, welcome.Dan Toscano: Glad to be here.Vishy Tirupattur: So, to get our – the listeners familiar with your journey, can you talk a little bit about your experience in the credit markets, and how you got to where we are today?Dan Toscano: Yeah, sure. So, I've been doing this a long time. You used the nice word seasoned. My kids would refer to it as old. But I started in this journey in 1988. And to make a long story short, my first job on Wall Street was buying junk bonds in the infancy of the junk bond market, when most of what we were financing were LBOs. So, if you're familiar with Barbarians at the Gate, one of the first bonds we bought were RJR Nabisco reset notes. And I've been doing this ever since, so over almost four decades now.Vishy Tirupattur: So, the junk bond market evolved into high yield market, syndicated loan market, CLO market, financial crisis. So, talk to us about your experiences during this transition.Dan Toscano: Yeah. I mean, one of the things these markets do is they finance evolution in industries. So, when I think back to the early days of financing leveraged buyouts, they were called bootstrap deals. The first deal I did as an intermediary on Wall Street as opposed to as an investor, was a buyout with Bain Capital in 1993. At the time, Bain Capital had a $600 million AUM private equity platform. Think about that in the scale of what Bain Capital does in private equity today. You know, back then it was corporate carve outs, and trying to make the global economy more efficient. And you remember the rise of the conglomerate. And so, one of the early things we financed a lot of was the de-conglomeration of big corporates. So, they would spin off assets that were not central to the business or the strengths that they had as an organization.So, that was the early days of private equity. There was obviously the telecom build out in the late 90's and the resulting bust. And then into the GFC. And we sit here today with the distinctions of private capital, private credit, public credit, syndicated credit, and all the amazing things that are being financed in, you know, what I think of as the next industrial revolution.Vishy Tirupattur: In terms of things that have changed a lot – a lot also changed following the financial crisis. So, if you dig deep into that one thing that happened was the introduction of leveraged lending guidelines. Can you talk about what leveraged lending guidelines did to the credit markets?Dan Toscano: Yeah, I mean, it was a big change for underwriters because it dictated what you could and couldn't participate in as an underwriter or a lender, and so it really cut off one end of the market that was determined by – and I think the thing most famously attributed to the leveraged lending guidelines was this maximum leverage notion of six times leverage is the cap. Nothing beyond that. And so that really limited the ability for Wall Street firms to underwrite and distribute capital to support those deals.And inadvertently, or maybe by plan, really gave rise to the growth in the private credit market. So, when you think about everything that's going on in the world today, including, which I'm sure we'll talk about, the relaxation of the leveraged lending guidelines, it was really fuel for private credit.Vishy Tirupattur: So private credit, this relaxation that you mentioned, you know, a few weeks ago, the FDIC and the OCC withdrew the leveraged lending guidelines in total. What do you expect that will do to the private credit markets? Will that make private credit market share decrease and bank market share increase?Dan Toscano: I think many people think of these as being mutually exclusive. We've never thought of it that way. It exists more on a continuum. And so, what I think the relaxation of those guidelines or the elimination of those guidelines really frees the banks to participate in the entire continuum, either as lenders or as underwriters.And so, in addition to the opportunity that gives the banks to really find the best solutions for their clients, I think this will also continue the blurring of distinctions between public market credit and private market credit. Because now the banks can participate in all of it. And when you think about what defines in people's minds – public credit versus private credit, in many cases it's driven by what terms look like. Customary terms for a syndicated bond or loan versus a private credit loan.Also, who's participating in it. You know, these things have been blurring, right? There's a cost differential or a perceived cost differential that has been blurring for some time now. That will continue to happen, in my opinion anyway.Vishy Tirupattur: I totally agree with you, Dan, on that. I think not only the distinction between public credit and private credit, but also within the various credit channels – secured, unsecured, securitized, structured – all these distinctions are also blurring. So, in that context, let's talk a little bit more about what private credit's focus has been and where private credit focus will be going forward. So, what we'll call private credit 1.0. Focused predominantly on lending to small and medium-sized enterprises. And we now see that potentially changing. What is driving private credit 2.0 in your mind?Dan Toscano: Well, the elephant in the room is digital infrastructure. Absolutely. When you think about the scale of what is happening, the type of capital that's required for the build out, the structure you need around it, the ability to use elements of structure. You mentioned several of them earlier. To come up with an appropriate risk structure for lending is really where the market is heading. When you think about the trillions of dollars that we anticipate is needed for the technology industry to complete this transformation – not just around digital infrastructure, but around everything associated with it.And the big one I think of most often is power, right? So, you need capital to build out sources of power, and you need capital to build out the data centers to be able to handle the compute demand that is expected to be there. This is a scale unlike anything we have ever seen. It is the backbone of what will be the next industrial revolution.We've never seen anything like this in terms of the scale of the capital needed for the transformation that is already underway.Vishy Tirupattur: We are very much on board with this idea as well, Dan, in terms of the scale of the investment, the capital investment that is needed. So, when you look ahead for 2026, what worries you about the ind ustrial revolution financing that is underway?Dan Toscano: Given all that's going on in the world, this massive capital investment that's going on globally around digital infrastructure, we've never seen this before. And so, when I look at the capital raising that has been done in 2025 versus what will be done in 2026, I think one of the differences that we have to be mindful of is – nothing's gone wrong while we were raising capital in 2025 because we were very much in the infancy of these buildouts. Once you get further into these buildouts and the capital raises in 2025 that are funding the development of data centers start to season, problems will emerge. The essence of credit risk is there will be problems and it's really trying to predict and foresee where the problems will be and make sure you can manage your way through them.That is the essence of successful credit investing. And so there will definitely be issues when you think about the scale of the build out that is happening. Even if you look just in the U.S., where you need access to all sorts of commodities to build out. And you know, people focus on chips, but you also need steel and roofing, and importantly labor.And as we talk to people about the build outs, one of the concerns is supply of labor supply and cost of labor. So, when you run into situations where maybe a project is delayed a bit, or the costs are a bit more than what was expected, there will be a reaction. And we haven't had that yet. We will start to see that in 2026 and how investors and the markets react to that, I think will be very important. And I'm a little bit worried that there could be some overreaction because people have trained themselves in 2025 to think of like, ‘I'm operating in a perfect environment,' because we haven't really done anything yet. And now that we've done something, something can and will go wrong. So, you know, we'll see how that plays out.I am very fixated in 2026 on the laws of supply and demand. When I think about what's going on right now, we usually have visibility on demand. And we usually have some level of visibility on supply. Right now, we have neither – and I say that in a positive way. We don't know how big the demand is in the capital world to fund these projects. We don't know how big that can be. And almost with every passing day, the supply – and what we're hearing from our clients about what they need to execute their plans – continues to grow in a way that we don't know where it ends. And the scale, we're talking trillions of dollars, right? Not billions, not millions, but trillions.And so, I look at that – not so much as something I worry about, but something I'm really curious about. Will we run out of money to fund all of the ambitions of the Industrial Revolution? I don't think so. I think money will find great projects, but when you think about the scale of what we're looking at, we've never seen anything like it before. And it will be fascinating to watch as the year goes on.Vishy Tirupattur: Thanks Dan. That's very useful. And thanks for taking the time to speak to us and share your wisdom and insights. Dan Toscano: Well, it's great to be here.Vishy Tirupattur: And to our audience, thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share thoughts on the market with a friend or colleague today

Our Deputy Director of Global Research Michael Zezas and our U.S. Public Policy Strategist Ariana Salvatore discuss the implications of the U.S action in Venezuela for global markets, foreign and domestic policy.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Deputy Global Head of Research for Morgan Stanley. Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research. Michael Zezas: Today we're talking about the latest events in Venezuela and its implications for global markets.It's Tuesday, January 6th at 10am in New York. So, Ariana, before we get into it: Long time listeners might have noticed in our intro, a changeup in our titles. Ariana, you're stepping in to lead day-to-day public policy research. Ariana Salvatore: That's right. And Mike, you're taking on more of a leadership role across the research department globally. Michael Zezas: Right, which is great news for both of us. And because the interaction between public policy choices and financial markets is as critical as ever, and because collaboration is so important to how we do investment research at Morgan Stanley – tapping into expertise and insight wherever we can find it – you're still going to hear from one of – and sometimes both of us – here on Thoughts on the Market on a weekly basis. Ariana Salvatore: And this week is a great example of this dynamic as we start the New Year with investors trying to decide what, if anything, the recent U.S. intervention in Venezuela means for the outlook for markets. Michael Zezas: Right. So, to that point, the New Year's barely begun, but it's already brought a dramatic geopolitical situation: The U.S. capture and arrest of Venezuela's President Nicolas Maduro – an event that can have far reaching implications for oil markets, energy, equities, sovereign credit, and politics. Ariana, thinking from the perspective of the investor, what's catching your attention right now? Ariana Salvatore: I think clients have been trying to get their arms around what this means for the future of U.S. foreign policy, as well as domestic policy making here too. On the first point, I would say this isn't necessarily a surprise or out of step with the goals that the Trump administration has been at least rhetorically emphasizing all year. Which is to say we think this is really just another data point in a pre-existing longer term trend toward multipolarity. Remember that involves linkage of economic and national security interest. It comes with its own set of investment themes, many of which we've written about, but one in particular would be elevated levels of defense spending globally, as we're in an increasingly insecure geopolitical world. Another tangible takeaway I would say is on the USMCA review. I think the U.S. has likely even more leverage in the upcoming negotiations, and likely is going to push even harder for Mexico to put up trade barriers or take active steps to limit Chinese investment or influence in the country. Enforcement here obviously will be critical, as we've said. And ultimately, we do still think the review results in a slightly deeper trade integration than we have right now. But it's possible that you see tariffs on non-USMCA compliant goods higher, for example, throughout these talks. Michael Zezas: And does this affect at all your expectations for domestic policy choices from the U.S.? Ariana Salvatore: I think it's important to emphasize here that we're just seeing an increasingly diminished role for Congress to play. The past year has been punctuated by one-off US foreign policy actions and a usage of executive authority over a number of different policy areas like immigration, tariffs, and so on. So, I would say the clearest takeaway on the domestic front is we're seeing a policy making pattern that is faster and more unilateral, right? If you don't need time for consensus building on some of these issues, decisions are being made by a smaller and smaller group of people. That in itself just increases policy uncertainty and risk premia, I would say across the board. But Mike, let's turn it back specifically to Venezuela. One of the most important questions is on – what this all means for global oil markets. What are our strategists saying there? Michael Zezas: Yeah. So, oil markets are the natural first place to look when it comes to the impact of these geopolitical events. And the answer more often than not is that the oil market tends not to react too much. And that seems to be the case here following the weekend's Venezuela developments. That's because we don't expect there to be much short-term supply impact. Over the medium-term risks to Venezuela's production skew higher. But while Venezuela famously holds one of the largest oil reserves in the world – it's about 17 percent of the world's oil reserves – in terms of production, its contribution is relatively small. It's less than 1 percent of global output. So, among the top 10 reserve holders, Venezuela is by far the smallest producer. So, you wouldn't expect there to be any real meaningful supply impact in the markets, at least in the near term. So, one area where there has been price movement is in the market for Venezuela sovereign bonds. They have been priced for low recovery values and the potential restructuring that was far off. But now with the U.S. more involved and the prospect of greater foreign investment into the country's oil production, investors have been bidding up the bond price in anticipation of potentially a sooner restructuring and higher recovery value for the bonds. Ariana Salvatore: Right. And to that point, our EM sovereign credit strategists anticipate limited spillover to broader LatAm sovereign credit. Any differentiation is more likely to reflect degrees of alignment with the U.S. and exposure to oil prices and potential increases in Venezuelan production, which could leave Mexico and Columbia among relative under underperformers. Michael Zezas: Right. And this seems like it's going to be an important theme all year because the U.S. actions in Venezuela seem to be a demonstration of the government's willingness to intervene in the Western Hemisphere to protect its interests more broadly. Ariana Salvatore: That's right. So, it's a topic that we could be spending much more time talking about this year. Michael Zezas: Great. Well, Ariana, thanks for taking the time to talk. Ariana Salvatore: 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.

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson discusses key catalysts that investors may be missing, but that are likely to boost U.S. equities in 2026.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 converging market forces bolstering our bullish outlook for 2026. It's Monday, January 5th at 11:30am in New York. So, let's get after it. The New Year is usually a time to look forward. But today, I want to take a step back and talk about what the market is missing. A series of bullish catalysts are lining up at the same time, and the market is still underestimating their collective impact. There's been a lot of focus on individual positives—solid earnings growth, further Fed easing—but in our view, the real story is how these forces are reinforcing one another. Deregulation, positive operating leverage, accommodative monetary policy, and increasingly supportive fiscal policy are all working in the same direction. And as we head into mid-term elections later this year, these policy levers are likely to stay supportive.Importantly, this isn't a market that's already priced for the outcomes I envision. Positioning in cyclical trades remains relatively light, and sentiment in economically sensitive areas is far from exuberant. That combination—of improving fundamentals with cautious positioning—is exactly what tends to characterize the early stages of a recovery. I continue to believe these tailwinds are most underappreciated in cyclical areas like Consumer Discretionary Goods, Financials, Industrials, and small- and mid-cap stocks. Many of the indicators we track are only just beginning to turn higher. This doesn't look late-cycle to me—it looks early in what I have deemed to be a rolling recovery. One reason investors have been hesitant is the sluggishness of traditional business-cycle indicators, particularly the ISM Manufacturing Purchasing Managers Index. There's been a reluctance to press cyclical trades until those gauges clearly re-accelerate; and beneath that hesitation is a lingering anxiety that the U.S. economy could even slip back into a growth scare. My view is different. I believe a three year rolling recession ended with Liberation Day. If that's true, then the moderate softness we're now witnessing in lagging labor data is constructive for equities because it keeps the Fed leaning dovish for longer and more aggressive—a positive for equities. I see the second half of 2025 as the bottoming process for key macro indicators; with 2026 shaping up as a year of re-acceleration. Longer-cycle analysis supports this. Specifically, the 45-month cycle of the ISM Manufacturing Purchasing Managers Index points to a rebound. That recovery has been delayed—but not cancelled. Another tailwind that doesn't get nearly enough attention is energy prices. Gasoline prices in particular are sitting near five-year lows, which is providing real economic relief for lower- and middle-income consumers. That cushion matters, especially as other parts of the economy firm. This past weekend's events in Venezuela argue for lower oil prices for longer. From a sector standpoint, Financials stand out as the key beneficiary of deregulation and these stocks have been great performers over the past year in anticipation of these changes. I think there is more to go in 2026. Housing could be another important piece of the recovery. Subdued wage growth and falling rents may pressure home prices, while some builders are prioritizing volume over margins. While that may cap profitability for the builders, it could unlock housing velocity and feed into a more dovish inflation backdrop. Of course, there are also risks. Liquidity has been our top concern since September, and markets have reflected that through weakness in speculative assets. The good news is that the Fed has responded by ending quantitative tightening early and restarting asset purchases through the Reserve Management Program. This effectively adds liquidity to a system that was showing signs of stress this past several months. Another risk is a renewed slowdown in AI CapEx, particularly as markets demand clearer payback from debt-funded spending. And geopolitically, the U.S. intervention in Venezuela raises new questions. Strategically, it reinforces U.S. influence in the Western Hemisphere and supports our ‘Run It Hot' thesis—but the key wildcard remains whether China chooses to react. Net-net, we think the balance of risks and rewards still favor leaning into this early-cycle recovery and our bullish outlook for US equities in 2026. Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!

Our U.S. Economist Heather Berger discusses how larger tax refunds in 2026 could boost income and help support consumer balance sheets throughout the year.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market and Happy New Year! I'm Heather Berger, from Morgan Stanley's US Economics Team. On today's episode – why U.S. consumers can expect higher tax refunds, and what that means for the overall economy. It's Friday, January 2nd, at 10am in New York.As we kick off 2026, it's not just a fresh start. It's also the time when tax refund season is right around the corner. For many of us, those refunds aren't just numbers on a page; they shape the way we budget for many everyday expenses. The timing and size of our refunds this year could make a real difference in how much we're able to save, spend, or get ahead on bills.In the wake of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, this year's tax refund season is shaping up to be bigger than usual. The new fiscal bill packed in a variety of tax cuts for consumers. It also included spending cuts to programs such as SNAP benefits and Medicaid, but most of those cuts don't pick up until later this decade. Altogether, this means that we'll likely see personal incomes and spending power get a boost in 2026.Many of the new deductions and tax credits for consumers in the bill were made retroactive to the 2025 fiscal year. These include deductions for tips and overtime, a higher child tax credit, an increased senior deduction, and a higher cap on state and local tax deductions, among others. The retroactive portion of these measures should be reflected in tax refunds early this year. Overall, we're expecting these changes to increase refunds by 15 to 20 percent on average. And different groups will benefit from different parts of the bill. For example, the higher state and local tax cap is likely to help high-income consumers the most, while deductions for tips and overtime will be most valuable to middle-income earners.Historically, U.S. consumers receive about 30 to 45 percent of tax refunds by the end of February, with then 60 to 70 percent arriving by the end of March. Because of the new tax provisions, we're anticipating a noticeable boost in personal income during the first quarter of the year. While we do also expect this legislation to encourage higher spending, it's unlikely that we'll see spending rise as sharply as income right away. According to surveys, most consumers say they use their refunds mainly for saving or paying down debt. This can lead to healthier balance sheets, which is shown by higher prepayment rates and fewer loan delinquencies during the tax refund season.When people choose to spend all or some of their tax refunds, they typically put that money toward everyday needs, travel, new clothes, or home improvements. Looking ahead, we do still see some near-term headwinds to spending, such as expected increases in inflation from tariffs and the expiration of the Affordable Care Act credits, which will most affect low-income consumers. As we progress throughout the year, though, we're anticipating steady growth in real consumer spending as the labor market stabilizes, inflation decelerates, and lagged effects of easier monetary policy flow through. On top of that, this year's larger tax refunds should give another lift to household spending.The boost to spending, along with other corporate provisions in the bill, should give the broader economy a push this year too. We expect the bill as a whole to support GDP growth in 2026.  But it then becomes a drag on growth in later years when more of the spending cuts take effect.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Original Release Date: November 25, 2025Our Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen breaks down how growth, inflation and the AI revolution could play out in 2026.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.Today I'll review our 2026 U.S. Economic Outlook and what it means for growth, inflation, jobs and the Fed.It's Tuesday, November 25th, at 10am in New York.If 2025 was the year of fast and furious policy changes, then 2026 is when the dust settles.Last year, we predicted slow growth and sticky inflation, mainly because of strict trade and immigration policies – and this proved accurate. But this year, the story is changing. We see the U.S. economy finally moving past the high-uncertainty phase. Looking ahead, we see a return to modest growth of 1.8 percent in 2026 and 2 percent in 2027. Inflation should cool but it likely won't hit the Fed's 2 percent target. By the end of 2026, we see headline PCE inflation at 2.5 percent, core inflation at 2.6 percent, and both stay above the 2 percent target through 2027. In other words, the inflation fight isn't over, but the worst is behind us.So, if 2025 was slow growth and sticky inflation, then 2026 and [20]27 could be described as moderate growth and disinflation. The impact of trade and immigration policies should fade, and the economic climate should improve. Now, there are still some risks. Tariffs could push prices higher for consumers in the near term; or if firms cannot pass through tariffs, we worry about additional layoffs. But looking ahead to the second half of 2026 and beyond, we think those risks shift to the upside, with a better chance of positive surprises for growth.After all, AI-related business spending remains robust and upper income consumers are faring well. There is reason for optimism. That said, we think the most likely path for the economy is the return to modest growth. U.S. consumers start to rebound, but slowly. Tariffs will keep prices firm in the first half of 2026, squeezing purchasing power for low- and middle-income households. These households consume mainly through labor market income, and until inflation starts to retreat, purchasing power should be constrained.Real consumption should rise 1.6 percent in 2026 and 1.8 [percent] in 2027 – better, but not booming. The main culprit is a labor market that's still in ‘low-hire, low-fire' mode driven by immigration controls and tariff effects that keep hiring soft. We see unemployment peaking at 4.7 percent in the second quarter of 2026, then easing to 4.5 percent by year-end. Jobs are out there, but the labor market isn't roaring. It'll be hard for hiring to pick up until after tariffs have been absorbed.And when jobs cool, the Fed steps in. The Fed is cutting rates – but at a cost. After two 25 basis point rate cuts in September and October, we expect 75 basis points more by mid 2026, bringing the target range to 3.0-3.25 percent. Why? To insure against labor market weakness. But that insurance comes with a price: inflation staying above target longer. Think of it as the Fed walking a tightrope—lean too far toward jobs, and inflation lingers; lean too far toward inflation, and growth stumbles. For now the Fed has chosen the former.And how does AI fit into the macro picture? It's definitely a major growth driver. Spending on AI-related hardware, software, and data centers adds about 0.4 percent to growth in both 2026 and 2027. That's roughly 20 percent of total growth. But here's the twist: imports dilute the impact. After accounting for imported tech, AI's net contribution falls sharply. Still, we expect AI to boost productivity by 25-35 basis points by 2027, over our forecast horizon, marking the start of a new innovation cycle. In short: AI is planting the seeds now for bigger gains later.Of course, there are risks to our outlook. And let me flag three important ones. First, demand upside – meaning fiscal stimulus and business optimism push growth higher; under this scenario inflation stays hot, and the Fed pauses cuts. If the economy really picks up, then the Fed may need to take back the risk management cuts it's putting in now. That would be a shock to markets. Second, there's a productivity upside – in which case AI delivers bigger productivity gains, disinflation resumes, and rates drift lower. And lastly, a potential mild recession where tariffs and tight policy bite harder, GDP turns negative in early 2026, and the Fed slashes rates to near 1 percent. So in summary: 2026 looks to be a transition year with less drama but more nuance, as growth returns and inflation cools, while AI keeps rewriting the playbook.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Original Release Date: December 3, 2025Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy Michael Zezas and Chief Global Cross-Asset Strategist Serena Tang address themes that are key for markets next year.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.Serena Tang: And I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's Chief Global Cross-Asset Strategist.Michael Zezas: Today we'll be talking about key investor debates coming out of our year ahead outlook.It's Wednesday, December 3rd at 10:30am in New York.So, Serena, it was a couple weeks ago that you led the publication of our cross-asset outlook for 2026. And so, you've been engaging with clients over the past few weeks about our views – where they differ. And it seems there's some common themes, really common questions that come up that represent some important debates within the market.Is that fair?Serena Tang: Yeah, that's very fair. And, by the way, I think those important debates, are from investors globally. So, you have investors in Europe, Asia, Australia, North America, all kind of wanting to understand our views on AI, on equity valuations, on the dollar.Michael Zezas: So, let's start with talking about equity markets a bit. And one of the common questions – and I get it too, even though I don't cover equity markets – is really about how AI is affecting valuations. One of the concerns is that the stock market might be too high, might be overvalued because people have overinvested in anything related to AI. What does the evidence say? How are you addressing that question?Serena Tang: It is interesting you say that because I think when investors talk about equities being too high, of valuations – AI related valuations being very stretched, it's very much about parallels to that 1990s valuation bubble.But the way I approach it is like there are some very important differences from that time period, from valuations back then. First of all, I think companies in major equity indices are higher quality than the past. They operate more efficiently. They deliver strong profitability, and in general pretty solid free cash flow.I think we also need to consider how technology now represents a larger share of the index, which has helped push overall net margins to about 14 percent compared to 8 percent during that 1990s valuation bubble. And you know, when margins are higher, I think paying premium for stocks is more justified.In other words, I think multiples in the U.S. right now look more reasonable after adjusting for profit margins and changes in index composition. But we also have to consider, and this is something that we stress in our outlook, the policy backdrop is unusually favorable, right? Like you have economists expecting the Fed to continue easing rates into next year. We have the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that could lower corporate taxes, and deregulation is continuing to be a priority in the U.S.And I think this combination, you know, monetary easing, fiscal stimulus, deregulation. That combination rarely occurs outside of a recession. And I think this creates an environment that supports valuation, which is by the way why we recommend an overweight position in U.S. equities, even if absolute and relative valuation look elevated.Michael Zezas: Got it. So, if I'm hearing you right, what I think you're saying is that comparisons to some bubbles of the past don't necessarily stack up because profitability is better. There aren't excesses in the system. Monetary policy might be on the path that's more accommodative. And so, when compared against all of that, the valuations actually don't look that bad.Serena Tang: Exactly.Michael Zezas: Got it. And sticking with the equity markets, then another common question is – it's related to AI, but it's sort of around this idea that a small set of companies have really been driving most of the growth in the market recently. And it would be better or healthier if the equity market were to perform across a wider set of companies and names, particularly in mid- and small cap companies. Is that something that we see on the horizon?Serena Tang: Yes. We are expecting U.S. stock earnings to sort of broaden out here and it's one of the reasons why our U.S. equity strategy team has upgraded small caps and now prefer it over large caps. And I think like all of this – it comes from the fact that we are in a new bull market. I think we have a very early cycle earnings recovery here. I mean, as discussed before, the macro environment is supportive. And Fed rate cuts over the next 12 months, growth positive tax and regulatory policies, they don't just support valuations. They also act as a tailwind to earnings.And I think like on top of that, leaner cost structures, improving earnings revisions, AI driven efficiency gains. They all support a broad-based earnings upturn. and our U.S. equity strategy team do see above consensus 2026 earnings growth at 17 percent. The only other region where we have earnings growth above consensus in 2026 is Japan; for both Europe and the EM we are below, which drive out equal weight and slight underweight position in those two indices respectively.Michael Zezas: Got it. And so, since we can't seem to get away from talking about AI and how it's influencing markets, the other common question we get here is around debt issuance related to AI.So, our colleagues put together a report from earlier this year talking about the potential for nearly $3 trillion of AI related CapEx spending over the next few years. And we think about half of that is going to have to be debt financed. That seems to be a lot of debt, a lot of potential bonds that might be issued into the market – which, are credit investors supposed to be concerned about that?Serena Tang: We really can't get away from AI as a topic. And I think this will continue because AI-related CapEx is a long-term trend, with much of the CapEx still really ahead. And I think this goes to your question. Because this really means that we expect nearly another [$]3 trillion of data center related CapEx from here to 2028. You know, while half of the spend will come from operating cash flows of hyperscalers, it still leaves a financing gap of around [$]1.5 trillion, which needs to be sourced through various credit channels.Now, part of it will be via private credit, part of it would be via Asset Backed Securities. But some of it would also be via the U.S. investment grade corporate credit bond space. So, add in financing for faster M&A cycle, we forecast around [$]1 trillion in net investment grade bond issuance, you know, up 60 percent from this year.And I think given this technical backdrop, even though credit fundamentals should stay fine, we have doubled downgraded U.S. investment grade corporate credit to underweight within our cross asset allocation.Michael Zezas: Okay, so the fundamentals are fine, but it's just a lot of debt to consume over the next year. And so somewhat strangely, you might expect high yield corporate bonds actually do better.Serena Tang: Yes, because I think a high yield doesn't really see the same headwind from the technical side of things. And on the fundamentals front, our credit team actually has default rates coming down over the next 12 months, which again, I think supports high yield much better than investment grade.Michael Zezas: So, before we wrap up, moving away from the equity markets, let's talk about foreign exchange. The U.S. dollar spent much of last year weakening, and that's a call that our team was early to – eventually became a consensus call. It was premised on the idea that the U.S. was going to experience growth weakness, that there would also be these questions among investors about the role of the dollar in the world as the U.S. was raising trade barriers. It seemed to work out pretty well.Going into 2026 though, I think there's some more questions amongst our investors about whether or not that trend could continue. Where do we land?Serena Tang: I think in the first half of next year that downward pressure on the dollar should still persist. And you know, as you said, we've had a very differentiated view for most of this year, expecting the dollar to weaken in the first half versus G10 currencies. And several things drive this. There is a potential for higher dollar negative risk premium, driven by, I think, near term worries about the U.S. labor markets in the short term. And as investors, I think, debate the likely composition of the FOMC next year. Also, you know, compression in U.S. versus rest of the world. Rate differentials should reduce FX hedging costs, which also adds incentive for hedging activity and dollar selling.All this means that we see downward pressure on the dollar persisting in the first half of next year with EUR/USD at 123 and USD/JPY at 140 by the end of first half 2026.Michael Zezas: All right. Well, that's a pretty good survey about what clients care about and what our view is. So, Serena, thanks for taking the time to talk with me today.Serena Tang: And thank you for inviting me to the show today.Michael Zezas: And to our audience, thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review and share the podcast. We want everyone to listen.

Original Release Date: November 13, 2025Live from Morgan Stanley's European Tech, Media and Telecom Conference in Barcelona, our roundtable of analysts discusses tech disruptions and datacenter growth, and how Europe factors in.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Paul Walsh: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's European Head of Research Product. Today we return to my conversation with Adam Wood. Head of European Technology and Payments, Emmet Kelly, Head of European Telco and Data Centers, and Lee Simpson, Head of European Technology. We were live on stage at Morgan Stanley's 25th TMT Europe conference. We had so much to discuss around the themes of AI enablers, semiconductors, and telcos. So, we are back with a concluding episode on tech disruption and data center investments. It's Thursday the 13th of November at 8am in Barcelona. After speaking with the panel about the U.S. being overweight AI enablers, and the pockets of opportunity in Europe, I wanted to ask them about AI disruption, which has been a key theme here in Europe. I started by asking Adam how he was thinking about this theme. Adam Wood: It's fascinating to see this year how we've gone in most of those sectors to how positive can GenAI be for these companies? How well are they going to monetize the opportunities? How much are they going to take advantage internally to take their own margins up? To flipping in the second half of the year, mainly to, how disruptive are they going to be? And how on earth are they going to fend off these challenges? Paul Walsh: And I think that speaks to the extent to which, as a theme, this has really, you know, built momentum. Adam Wood: Absolutely. And I mean, look, I think the first point, you know, that you made is absolutely correct – that it's very difficult to disprove this. It's going to take time for that to happen. It's impossible to do in the short term. I think the other issue is that what we've seen is – if we look at the revenues of some of the companies, you know, and huge investments going in there. And investors can clearly see the benefit of GenAI. And so investors are right to ask the question, well, where's the revenue for these businesses? You know, where are we seeing it in info services or in IT services, or in enterprise software. And the reality is today, you know, we're not seeing it. And it's hard for analysts to point to evidence that – well, no, here's the revenue base, here's the benefit that's coming through. And so, investors naturally flip to, well, if there's no benefit, then surely, we should focus on the risk. So, I think we totally understand, you know, why people are focused on the negative side of things today. I think there are differences between the sub-sectors. I mean, I think if we look, you know, at IT services, first of all, from an investor point of view, I think that's been pretty well placed in the losers' buckets and people are most concerned about that sub-sector… Paul Walsh: Something you and the global team have written a lot about. Adam Wood: Yeah, we've written about, you know, the risk of disruption in that space, the need for those companies to invest, and then the challenges they face. But I mean, if we just keep it very, very simplistic. If Gen AI is a technology that, you know, displaces labor to any extent – companies that have played labor arbitrage and provide labor for the last 20 - 25 years, you know, they're going to have to make changes to their business model. So, I think that's understandable. And they're going to have to demonstrate how they can change and invest and produce a business model that addresses those concerns. I'd probably put info services in the middle. But the challenge in that space is you have real identifiable companies that have emerged, that have a revenue base and that are challenging a subset of the products of those businesses. So again, it's perfectly understandable that investors would worry. In that context, it's not a potential threat on the horizon. It's a real threat that exists today against certainly their businesses. I think software is probably the most interesting. I'd put it in the kind of final bucket where I actually believe… Well, I think first of all, we certainly wouldn't take the view that there's no risk of disruption and things aren't going to change. Clearly that is going to be the case. I think what we'd want to do though is we'd want to continue to use frameworks that we've used historically to think about how software companies differentiate themselves, what the barriers to entry are. We don't think we need to throw all of those things away just because we have GenAI, this new set of capabilities. And I think investors will come back most easily to that space. Paul Walsh: Emmet, you talked a little bit there before about the fact that you haven't seen a huge amount of progress or additional insight from the telco space around AI; how AI is diffusing across the space. Do you get any discussions around disruption as it relates to telco space? Emmet Kelly: Very, very little. I think the biggest threat that telcos do see is – it is from the hyperscalers. So, if I look at and separate the B2C market out from the B2B, the telcos are still extremely dominant in the B2C space, clearly. But on the B2B space, the hyperscalers have come in on the cloud side, and if you look at their market share, they're very, very dominant in cloud – certainly from a wholesale perspective. So, if you look at the cloud market shares of the big three hyperscalers in Europe, this number is courtesy of my colleague George Webb. He said it's roughly 85 percent; that's how much they have of the cloud space today. The telcos, what they're doing is they're actually reselling the hyperscale service under the telco brand name. But we don't see much really in terms of the pure kind of AI disruption, but there are concerns definitely within the telco space that the hyperscalers might try and move from the B2B space into the B2C space at some stage. And whether it's through virtual networks, cloudified networks, to try and get into the B2C space that way. Paul Walsh: Understood. And Lee maybe less about disruption, but certainly adoption, some insights from your side around adoption across the tech hardware space? Lee Simpson: Sure. I think, you know, it's always seen that are enabling the AI move, but, but there is adoption inside semis companies as well, and I think I'd point to design flow. So, if you look at the design guys, they're embracing the agentic system thing really quickly and they're putting forward this capability of an agent engineer, so like a digital engineer. And it – I guess we've got to get this right. It is going to enable a faster time to market for the design flow on a chip. So, if you have that design flow time, that time to market. So, you're creating double the value there for the client. Do you share that 50-50 with them? So, the challenge is going to be exactly as Adam was saying, how do you monetize this stuff? So, this is kind of the struggle that we're seeing in adoption. Paul Walsh: And Emmet, let's move to you on data centers. I mean, there are just some incredible numbers that we've seen emerging, as it relates to the hyperscaler investment that we're seeing in building out the infrastructure. I know data centers is something that you have focused tremendously on in your research, bringing our global perspectives together. Obviously, Europe sits within that. And there is a market here in Europe that might be more challenged. But I'm interested to understand how you're thinking about framing the whole data center story? Implications for Europe. Do European companies feed off some of that U.S. hyperscaler CapEx? How should we be thinking about that through the European lens? Emmet Kelly: Yeah, absolutely. So, big question, Paul. What… Paul Walsh: We've got a few minutes! Emmet Kelly: We've got a few minutes. What I would say is there was a great paper that came out from Harvard just two weeks ago, and they were looking at the scale of data center investments in the United States. And clearly the U.S. economy is ticking along very, very nicely at the moment. But this Harvard paper concluded that if you take out data center investments, U.S. economic growth today is actually zero. Paul Walsh: Wow. Emmet Kelly: That is how big the data center investments are. And what we've said in our research very clearly is if you want to build a megawatt of data center capacity that's going to cost you roughly $35 million today. Let's put that number out there. 35 million. Roughly, I'd say 25… Well, 20 to 25 million of that goes into the chips. But what's really interesting is the other remaining $10 million per megawatt, and I like to call that the picks and shovels of data centers; and I'm very convinced there is no bubble in that area whatsoever.So, what's in that area? Firstly, the first building block of a data center is finding a powered land bank. And this is a big thing that private equity is doing at the moment. So, find some real estate that's close to a mass population that's got a good fiber connection. Probably needs a little bit of water, but most importantly needs some power. And the demand for that is still infinite at the moment. Then beyond that, you've got the construction angle and there's a very big shortage of labor today to build the shells of these data centers. Then the third layer is the likes of capital goods, and there are serious supply bottlenecks there as well.And I could go on and on, but roughly that first $10 million, there's no bubble there. I'm very, very sure of that. Paul Walsh: And we conducted some extensive survey work recently as part of your analysis into the global data center market. You've sort of touched on a few of the gating factors that the industry has to contend with. That survey work was done on the operators and the supply chain, as it relates to data center build out. What were the key conclusions from that? Emmet Kelly: Well, the key conclusion was there is a shortage of power for these data centers, and… Paul Walsh: Which I think… Which is a sort of known-known, to some extent. Emmet Kelly: it is a known-known, but it's not just about the availability of power, it's the availability of green power. And it's also the price of power is a very big factor as well because energy is roughly 40 to 45 percent of the operating cost of running a data center. So, it's very, very important. And of course, that's another area where Europe doesn't screen very well.I was looking at statistics just last week on the countries that have got the highest power prices in the world. And unsurprisingly, it came out as UK, Ireland, Germany, and that's three of our big five data center markets. But when I looked at our data center stats at the beginning of the year, to put a bit of context into where we are…Paul Walsh: In Europe… Emmet Kelly: In Europe versus the rest. So, at the end of [20]24, the U.S. data center market had 35 gigawatts of data center capacity. But that grew last year at a clip of 30 percent. China had a data center bank of roughly 22 gigawatts, but that had grown at a rate of just 10 percent. And that was because of the chip issue. And then Europe has capacity, or had capacity at the end of last year, roughly 7 to 8 gigawatts, and that had grown at a rate of 10 percent. Now, the reason for that is because the three big data center markets in Europe are called FLAP-D. So, it's Frankfurt, London, Amsterdam, Paris, and Dublin. We had to put an acronym on it. So, Flap-D. Good news. I'm sitting with the tech guys. They've got even more acronyms than I do, in their sector, so well done them. Lee Simpson: Nothing beats FLAP-D. Paul Walsh: Yes. Emmet Kelly: It's quite an achievement. But what is interesting is three of the big five markets in Europe are constrained. So, Frankfurt, post the Ukraine conflict. Ireland, because in Ireland, an incredible statistic is data centers are using 25 percent of the Irish power grid. Compared to a global average of 3 percent.Now I'm from Dublin, and data centers are running into conflict with industry, with housing estates. Data centers are using 45 percent of the Dublin grid, 45. So, there's a moratorium in building data centers there. And then Amsterdam has the classic semi moratorium space because it's a small country with a very high population. So, three of our five markets are constrained in Europe. What is interesting is it started with the former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. The UK has made great strides at attracting data center money and AI capital into the UK and the current Prime Minister continues to do that. So, the UK has definitely gone; moved from the middle lane into the fast lane. And then Macron in France. He hosted an AI summit back in February and he attracted over a 100 billion euros of AI and data center commitments. Paul Walsh: And I think if we added up, as per the research that we published a few months ago, Europe's announced over 350 billion euros, in proposed investments around AI. Emmet Kelly: Yeah, absolutely. It's a good stat. Now where people can get a little bit cynical is they can say a couple of things. Firstly, it's now over a year since the Mario Draghi report came out. And what's changed since? Absolutely nothing, unfortunately. And secondly, when I look at powering AI, I like to compare Europe to what's happening in the United States. I mean, the U.S. is giving access to nuclear power to AI. It started with the three Mile Island… Paul Walsh: Yeah. The nuclear renaissance is… Emmet Kelly: Nuclear Renaissance is absolutely huge. Now, what's underappreciated is actually Europe has got a massive nuclear power bank. It's right up there. But unfortunately, we're decommissioning some of our nuclear power around Europe, so we're going the wrong way from that perspective. Whereas President Trump is opening up the nuclear power to AI tech companies and data centers. Then over in the States we also have gas and turbines. That's a very, very big growth area and we're not quite on top of that here in Europe. So, looking at this year, I have a feeling that the Americans will probably increase their data center capacity somewhere between – it's incredible – somewhere between 35 and 50 percent. And I think in Europe we're probably looking at something like 10 percent again. Paul Walsh: Okay. Understood. Emmet Kelly: So, we're growing in Europe, but we're way, way behind as a starting point. And it feels like the others are pulling away. The other big change I'd highlight is the Chinese are really going to accelerate their data center growth this year as well. They've got their act together and you'll see them heading probably towards 30 gigs of capacity by the end of next year. Paul Walsh: Alright, we're out of time. The TMT Edge is alive and kicking in Europe. I want to thank Emmett, Lee and Adam for their time and I just want to wish everybody a great day today. Thank you.(Applause) That was my conversation with Adam, Emmett and Lee. Many thanks again to them. Many thanks again to them for telling us about the latest in their areas of research and to the live audience for hearing us out. And a thanks to you as well for listening. Let us know what you think about this and other episodes by living us a review wherever you get your podcasts. And if you enjoy listening to Thoughts on the Market, please tell a friend or colleague about the podcast today.

Original Release Date: November 19, 2025Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains why he continues to hold on to an out-of-consensus view of a growth positive 2026, despite near-term risks.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'll discuss our outlook for 2026 that we published earlier this week. It's Wednesday, Nov 19th at 6:30 am in New York. So, let's get after it. 2026 is a continuation of the story we have been telling for the past year. Looking back to a year ago, our U.S. equity outlook was for a challenging first half, followed by a strong second half. At the time of publication, this was an out of consensus stance. Many expected a strong first half, as President Trump took office for his second term. And then a more challenging second half due to the return of inflation. We based our differentiated view on the notion that policy sequencing in the new Trump administration would intentionally be growth negative to start. We likened the strategy to a new CEO choosing to ‘kitchen sink' the results in an effort to clear the decks for a new growth positive strategy. We thought that transition would come around mid-year. The U.S. economy had much less slack when President Trump took office the second time, compared to the first time he came into office. And this was the main reason we thought it was likely to be sequenced differently. Earnings revisions breadth and other cyclical indicators were also in a phase of deceleration at the end of 2024. In contrast, at the beginning of 2017—when we were out of consensus bullish—earnings revisions breadth and many cyclical gauges were starting to reaccelerate after the manufacturing and commodity downturn of 2015/2016. Looking back on this year, this cadence of policy sequencing did broadly play out—it just happened faster and more dramatically than we expected. Our views on the policy front still appear to be out of consensus. Many industry watchers are questioning whether policies enacted this year will ultimately lead to better growth going forward, especially for the average stock. From our perspective, the policy choices being made are growth positive for 2026 and are largely in line with our ‘run it hot' thesis. There's another factor embedded in our more constructive take. April marked the end of a rolling recession that began three years prior. The final stages were a recession in government thanks to DOGE, a rate of change trough in expectations around AI CapEx growth and trade policy, and a recession in consumer services that is still ongoing. In short, we believe a new bull market and rolling recovery began in April which means it's still early days, and not obvious—especially for many lagging parts of the economy and market. That is the opportunity. The missing ingredient for the typical broadening in stock performance that happens in a new business cycle is rate cuts. Normally, the Fed would have cut rates more in this type of weakening labor market. But due to the imbalances and distortions of the COVID cycle, we think the Fed is later than normal in easing policy, and that has held back the full rotation toward early cycle winners. Ironically, the government shutdown has weakened the economy further, but has also delayed Fed action due to the lack of labor data releases. This is a near-term risk to our bullish 12-month forecasts should delays in the data continue, or lagging labor releases do not corroborate the recent weakness in non-govt-related jobs data. In our view, this type of labor market weakness coupled with the administration's desire to ‘run it hot' means that, ultimately, the Fed is likely to deliver more dovish policy than the market currently expects. It's really just a question of timing. But that is a near-term risk for equity markets and why many stocks have been weaker recently. In short, we believe a new bull market began in April with the end of a rolling recession and bear market. Remember the S&P [500] was down 20 percent and the average S&P stock was down more than 30 percent into April. This narrative remains underappreciated, and we think there is significant upside in earnings over the next year as the recovery broadens and operating leverage returns with better volumes and pricing in many parts of the economy. Our forecasts reflect this upside to earnings which is another reason why many stocks are not as expensive as they appear despite our acknowledgement that some areas of the market may appear somewhat frothy. For the S&P 500, our 12-month target is now 7800 which assumes 17 percent earnings growth next year and a very modest contraction in valuation from today's levels. Our favorite sectors include Financials, Industrials, and Healthcare. We are also upgrading Consumer Discretionary to overweight and prefer Goods over Services for the first time since 2021. Another relative trade we like is Software over Semiconductors given the extreme relative underperformance of that pair and positioning at this point. Finally, we like small caps over large for the first time since March 2021, as the early cycle broadening in earnings combined with a more accommodative Fed provides the backdrop we have been patiently waiting for. We hope you enjoy our detailed report published earlier this week and find it helpful as you navigate a changing marketplace on many levels. Thanks for tuning in. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!

Original Release Date: November 17, 2025In the first of a two-part episode presenting our 2026 outlooks, Chief Global Cross-Asset Strategist Serena Tang has Chief Global Economist Seth Carpenter explain his thoughts on how economies around the world are expected to perform and how central banks may respond.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Serena Tang: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's Chief Global Cross-Asset Strategist. Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. Serena Tang: Today, we'll focus on [the] all-important macroeconomic backdrop. Serena Tang: It's Monday, November 17th at 10am in New York. So, Seth, 2025 has been a year of transition. Global growth slowed under the weight of tariffs and policy uncertainty. Yet resilience in consumer spending and AI driven investments kept recession fears at bay. Your team has published its economic outlook for 2026. So, what's your view on global growth for the year ahead? Seth Carpenter: We really think next year is going to be the global economy slowing down a little bit more just like it did this year, settling into a slower growth rate. But at the same time, we think inflation is going to keep drifting down in most of the world. Now that anodyne view, though, masks some heterogeneity around the world; and importantly, some real uncertainty about different ways things could possibly go. Here in the U.S., we think there is more slowing to come in the near term, especially the fourth quarter of this year and the beginning of next year. But once the economy works its way through the tariffs, maybe some of the lagged effects of monetary policy, we'll start to see things pick up a bit in the second half of the year. China's a different story. We see the really tepid growth there pushed down by the deflationary spiral they've been in. We think that continues for next year, and so they're probably not quite going to get to their 5 percent growth target. And in Europe, there's this push and pull of fiscal policy across the continent. There's a central bank that thinks they've achieved their job in terms of inflation, but overall, we think growth there is, kind of, unremarkable, a little bit over 1 percent. Not bad, but nothing to write home about at all. So that's where we think things are going in general. But I have to say next year, may well be a year for surprises. Serena Tang: Right. So where do you see the biggest drivers of global growth in 2026, and what are some of the key downside risks? Seth Carpenter: That's a great question. I really do think that the U.S. is going to be a real key driver of the story here. And in fact – and maybe we'll talk about this later – if we're wrong, there's some upside scenarios, there's some downside scenarios. But most of them around the world are going to come from the U.S. Two things are going on right now in the U.S. We've had strong spending data. We've also had very, very weak employment data. That usually doesn't last for very long. And so that's why we think in the near term there's some slowdown in the U.S. and then over time things recover. We could be wrong in either direction. And so, if we're wrong and the labor market sending the real signal, then the downside risk to the U.S. economy – and by extension the global economy – really is a recession in the U.S. Now, given the starting point, given how low unemployment is, given the spending businesses are doing for AI, if we did get that recession, it would be mild. On the other hand, like I said, spending is strong. Business spending, especially CapEx for AI; household spending, especially at the top end of the income distribution where wealth is rising from stocks, where the liability side of the balance sheet is insulated with fixed rate mortgages. That spending could just stay strong, and we might see this upside surprise where the spending really dominates the scene. And again, that would spill over for the rest of the world. What I don't see is a lot of reason to suspect that you're going to get a big breakout next year to the upside or the downside from either Europe or China, relative to our baseline scenarios. It could happen, but I really think most of the story is going to be driven in the U.S. Serena Tang: So, Seth, markets have been focused on the Fed, as it should. What is the likely path in 2026 and how are you thinking about central bank policy in general in other regions? Seth Carpenter: Absolutely. The Fed is always of central importance to most people in markets. Our view – and the market's view, I have to say, has been evolving here. Our view is that the Fed's actually got a few more rate cuts to get through, and that by the time we get to the middle of next year, the middle of 2026, they're going to have their policy rate down just a little bit above 3 percent. So roughly where the committee thinks neutral is. Why do we think that? I think the slowing in the labor market that we talked about before, we think there's something kind of durable there. And now that the government shutdown has ended and we're going to start to get regular data prints again, we think the data are going to show that job creation has been below 50,000 per month on average, and maybe even a few of them are going to get to be negative over the next several months. In that situation, we think the Fed's going to get more inclination to guard against further deterioration in the labor market by keeping cutting rates and making sure that the central bank is not putting any restraint on the economy. That's similar, I would say, to a lot of other developed markets' central banks. But the tension for the ECB, for example, is that President Lagarde has said she thinks; she thinks the disinflationary process is over. She thinks sitting at 2 percent for the policy rate, which the ECB thinks of as neutral, then that's the right place for them to be. Our take though is that the data are going to push them in a different direction. We think there is clearly growth in Europe, but we think it's tepid. And as a result, the disinflationary process has really still got some more room to run and that inflation will undershoot their 2 percent target, and as a result, the ECB is probably going to cut again. And in our view, down to about 1.5 percent. Big difference is in Japan. Japan is the developed market central bank that's hiking. Now, when does that happen? Our best guess is next month in December at the policy meeting. We've seen this shift towards reflation. It hasn't been smooth, hasn't been perfectly linear. But the BoJ looks like they're set to raise rates again in December. But the path for inflation is going to be a bit rocky, and so, they're probably on hold for most of 2026. But we do think eventually, maybe not till 2027, they get back to hiking again – so that Governor Ueda can get the policy rate back close to neutral before he steps down. Serena Tang: So, one of the main investor debates is on AI. Whether it's CapEx, productivity, the future of work. How is that factoring into your team's view on growth and inflation for the next year? Seth Carpenter: Yeah, I mean that is absolutely a key question that we get all the time from investors around the world. When I think about AI and how it's affecting the economy, I think about the demand side of the economy, and that's where you think about this CapEx spending – building data centers, buying semiconductors, that sort of thing. That's demand in the economy. It's using up current resources in the economy, and it's got to be somewhat inflationary. It's part of what has kept the U.S. economy buoyant and resilient this year – is that CapEx spending. Now you also mentioned productivity, and for me, that's on the supply side of the economy. That's after the technology is in place. After firms have started to adopt the technology, they're able to produce either the same amount with fewer workers, or they're able to produce more with the same amount of workers. Either way, that's what productivity means, and it's on the supply side. It can mean faster growth and less inflation. I think where we are for 2026, and it's important that we focus it on the near term, is the demand side is much more important than the supply side. So, we think growth continues. It's supported by this business investment spending. But we still think inflation ends 2026, notably above the Fed's inflation target. And it's going to make five, five and a half years that we've been above target. Productivity should kick in. And we've written down something close to a quarter percentage point of extra productivity growth for 2026, but not enough to really be super disinflationary. We think that builds over time, probably takes a couple of years. And for example, if we think about some of the announcements about these data centers that are being built, where they're really going to unleash the potential of AI, those aren't going to be completed for a couple of years anyway. So, I think for now, AI is dominating the demand side of the economy. Over the next few years, it's going to be a real boost to the supply side of the economy. Serena Tang: So that makes a lot of sense to me, Seth. But can you put those into numbers? Seth Carpenter: Sure, Serena totally. In numbers, that's about 3 percent growth. A little bit more than that for global GDP growth on like a Q4-over-Q4 basis. But for the U.S. in particular, we've got about 1.75 percent. So that's not appreciably different from what we're looking for this year in 2025. But the number really, kind of, masks the evolution over time. We think the front part of the year is going to be much weaker. And only once we get into the second half of next year will things start to pick up. That said, compared to where we were when we did the midyear outlook, it's actually a notable upgrade. We've taken real signal from the fact that business spending, household spending have both been stronger than we think. And we've tried to add in just a little bit more in terms of productivity growth from AI. Layer on top of that, the Fed who's been clearly willing to start to ease interest rates sooner than we thought at the time of the mid-year outlook – all comes together for a little bit better outlook for growth for 2026 in the U.S. Serena Tang: Seth thanks so much for taking the time to talk. Seth Carpenter: Serena, it is always my pleasure to get to talk to you. Serena Tang: And thanks for listening. Please be sure to tune into the second half of our conversation tomorrow to hear how we're thinking about investment strategy in the year ahead. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Our Thematic and Equity Strategist Michelle Weaver and Power, Utilities, and Clean Tech Analyst David Arcaro discuss how investments in AI data centers are affecting electricity bills for U.S. consumers.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist.David Arcaro: And I'm Dave Arcaro, U.S. Power, Utilities, and Clean Tech Analyst.Michelle Weaver: Today, a hot topic. Are data centers' raising your electricity bills?It's Tuesday, December 23rd at 10am in New York.Most of us have probably noticed our electricity bills have been creeping up. And it's putting pressure on U.S. consumers, especially with higher prices and paychecks not keeping pace. More and more people are pointing to data centers as the reason behind these rising costs, but the story isn't that simple.Regional differences, shifting policies and local utility responses are all at play here. Dave, there's no doubt that data centers are becoming a much bigger part of the story when it comes to U.S. electricity demand. For listeners who might not follow these numbers every day, could you break down how data centers' share of overall electricity use is expected to grow over the next 10 years? And what does that mean for the grid and for the average consumer?David Arcaro: Definitely they're becoming much bigger, much more important and more impactful across the industry in a big way. Data centers were 6 percent of total electricity consumption in the U.S. last year. We're actually forecasting that to triple to 18 percent by 2030, and then hit 20 percent in the early 2030s. So very strong growth, and increasing proportion of the overall utility, electricity use.In aggregate, this is reflecting about 150 gigawatts of new data centers by 2030. Just a very large amount. And this is going to cause a major strain on the electric grid and is going to require substantial build out and upgrading of the transmission system along with construction of new power generation – like gas plants and large-scale renewables, wind, solar, and battery storage across the entire U.S.And generally, when we see utilities investing in additional infrastructure, they need to get that cost recovered. We would typically expect that to lead to higher electric rates for consumers. That's the overall pressure that we're facing right now on the system, from all these data centers coming in.We've got these substantial infrastructure needs. That means utilities will need to charge higher prices to consumers to cover the cost of those investments.Michelle Weaver: What are the main challenges utilities companies face in meeting this rising demand from data centers?David Arcaro: There are a number of challenges. If I were to pick a few of the biggest ones that I see, I think managing affordability is one of the biggest challenges the industry faces right now, because this overall data center growth is absolutely a shock to their business, and it needs to be managed carefully given the political and regulatory challenges that can arise when customer bills are getting are escalating faster than expected. The utility industry faces scrutiny and constant attention from a political and regulatory standpoint, so it's a balance that has to be very carefully managed. There are also reliability challenges that are important.Utilities have to keep the lights on, you know, that's priority number one. The demand for electricity is growing much faster than the supply of new generation that we're seeing; new power plants just aren't being built fast enough. New transmission assets are not being built, as quickly as the data centers are coming on. So, in many areas we're seeing that leads to essentially less of a buffer, and more risk of outages during periods of extreme weather.Michelle Weaver: And you mentioned, companies are thinking about how can they insulate consumers. Can you take us through some of the specifics of what these utility companies are doing? And what regulators are doing to respond, to protect existing customers from rate increases driven by data centers?David Arcaro: Definitely. The industry is getting creative and trying to be proactive in addressing this issue. Many utilities, we're seeing them isolate data centers and charge them higher electric rates, specifically for those data center customers to try to cover all of the grid costs that are attributable to the data center's needs.A couple examples. In Indiana, we're seeing that there's a utility there who's building new power plants, specifically for a very large data center that's coming into the state and they're ring fencing it. They're only charging the data center itself for those costs of the power plants. In Georgia, a utility there is charging a higher rate for the data centers that are coming in to the Atlanta area – such that it actually more than covers the costs and compensates other consumers in the form of bill credits or even bill reductions as those data centers come on.Similarly, then, in Pennsylvania, there's a utility that has excess transmission infrastructure than the state's [infrastructure]. They're better able to absorb data center activity. They're able to lower customer bills as the data centers come on, as they spread their costs over a larger customer base in that case. So, this isn't universal though. There are some areas around the country where there are costs related to data center growth that get socialized across all consumers.One approach I also wanted to mention that we're seeing data centers pursue more and more actively is to power themselves. Essentially bring their own power, and they're using gas turbines, engines, and fuel cells that they're deploying right on site. This is actually in many cases faster than connecting to the grid, but it also avoids any consumer impact. Companies like Solaris Energy and Bloom Energy are two providers of that type of solution. And we're also seeing at a broader industry level. Another approach is the idea of data centers being flexible or turning off and not consuming power from the grid at certain times when the grid is facing stress, in an extreme weather scenario in the winter or summer. And that idea is gaining traction as well. So, we think the industry is looking for approaches that could ease the pressure on the system and on reliability, manage the affordability issues while continuing to enable and build data centers.Michelle Weaver: You mentioned what a few different states are doing on this front. But data centers are not evenly distributed through states or evenly distributed across regions. Are there regional differences in how data center growth is impacting electricity prices?David Arcaro: There are a couple of key differences that we're seeing around the country. Some areas just aren't getting that many data centers, you know, so I'd point out the northeast – in New England, in New York, we're just not seeing that much data center growth. So, it's less of an issue, the impact of data center power demand impacting customer bills in those areas. And then in some regions around the country, the utility structure is important to be aware of. There are some regions where the price of electricity fluctuates based on the supply and demand of power, rather than being directly set and controlled by a regulator. In those markets, data centers can actually more directly impact the price of electricity and there just isn't an easy way in that case to ring fence them and protect consumers from the impact of price increases.So that's where we think unique challenges can arise. And over time, we would expect to see the most meaningful rate impacts to consumers in those areas specifically. And examples would be New Jersey, Maryland, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio. Those are a couple of the states where we're seeing those more volatile and directly impacted prices.So, as we look at utilities, we think the state exposure is going to be more and more important. And so, a few companies like NextEra, Sempra and AEP are a few utilities that are in states that have less affordability concerns and less direct exposure to rate impacts from data centers. And then several power companies like Vistra and Talen have more of their power plants that are in states that have excess infrastructure; and as a result, potentially less affordability concerns.So, clearly the energy sector is facing real challenges and changes. So, Michelle, how are rising electricity bills actually affecting U.S. households?Michelle Weaver: It's putting even more pressure on a consumer that's already being stretched thin by multiple years of inflation and elevated price levels, and electricity is a really different type of good. It's very different from gasoline or other consumer goods or staples – in that it's an essential good. You need to have it. And it's a network service that households are structurally locked into. Unlike gas where you could adjust your trip frequency or take a different type of transport, there really aren't good substitutes for electricity.And so this dynamic weighs on consumers. They have to continue paying these bills, and it weighs particularly heavily on lower income consumers where utility bills make up a much larger portion of their household budget.So, it crowds out some of that other potential spending.David Arcaro: That makes a lot of sense. It's an important expense to consider in terms of the impact on consumers. And, you know, as a result, are consumers blaming data center electricity demand for this rise that we're seeing in bills or are they pushing back?Michelle Weaver: Yeah. Data center development is quickly becoming a NIMBY or “not in my backyard” issue with communities pushing back and even getting projects canceled. Companies really need to find ways to address local concerns about environmental and water related externalities. And message that they're able to insulate consumers, or do something to mitigate these potentially higher electricity bills.A recent poll of around 2200 voters found that just over half of respondents attribute overall electricity price increases to AI data centers, at least somewhat. While around another third, consider them very responsible. And these responses are consistent across all regions and across political affiliations. And I think this consistency across regions is really interesting. As we're talking about before, data centers are not impacting bills in every region. But consumers are still blaming them and still attributing bill increases there.It's clear that both the energy sector and U.S. consumers are navigating a complex landscape with data center growth at the center of the conversation. As policy responses evolve and the U.S. midterm elections approach, this issue is only going to gain more attention. And we'll be sure to bring you the latest. Dave, thanks for taking the time to talk.David Arcaro: Great speaking with you, Michelle.Michelle Weaver: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Our Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Serena Tang discusses how current market conditions are challenging traditional investment strategies and what that means for asset allocation.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's Chief Cross-Asset Strategist.Today – does the 60/40 portfolio still make sense, and what can investors expect from long-term market returns?It's Monday, December 22nd at 10am in New York.Global equities have rallied by more than 35 percent from lows made in April. And U.S. high grade fixed income has seen the last 12 months' returns reach 5 percent, above the averages over the last 10 years. This raises important questions about future returns and how investors might want to adapt their portfolios.Now, our work shows that long-run expected returns for equities are lower than in previous decades, while fixed income – think government bonds and corporate bonds – still offers relatively elevated returns, thanks to higher yields.Let's put some numbers to it. Over the next decade, we project global equities to deliver an annualized return of nearly 7 percent, with the S&P 500 just behind at 6.8 percent. European and Japanese equities stand out, potentially returning about 8 percent. Emerging markets, however, lag at just about 4 percent. On the bond side, we think U.S. Treasuries with a 10-year maturity will return nearly 5 percent per year, German Bunds nearly 4 [percent], and Japanese government bonds nearly 2 [percent]. They may sound low, but it's all above their long-run averages.But here's where it gets interesting. The extra return you get for taking on risk – what we call the risk premium – has compressed across the board. In the U.S., the equity risk premium is just 2 percent. And for emerging markets, it's actually negative at around -1 percent. In very plain terms, investors aren't being paid as much for taking on risk as they used to be.Now, why is this the case? It's because valuations are rich, especially in the U.S. But we also need to put these valuations in context. Yes, the S&P 500's cyclically adjusted price-to-earnings ratio is near the highest level since the dotcom bubble. But the quality of the S&P 500 has improved dramatically over the past few decades. Companies are more profitable, and free cash flow -- money left after expenses -- is almost three times higher than it was in 2000. So, while valuations are rich, there's some justification for it.The lower risk premiums for stocks and credits, regardless of whether we think they are justified or not, has very interesting read across for investors' multi-asset portfolios. The efficient frontier – meaning the best possible return for any given level of portfolio risk – has shifted. It's now flatter and lower than in previous years. So, it means taking on more risk in a portfolio right now won't necessarily boost returns as much as before.Now, let's turn our attention to the classic 60/40 portfolio – the mix of 60 percent stocks and 40 percent bonds that's been a staple strategy for generations. After a tough 2022, this strategy has bounced back, delivering above-average returns for three years in a row. Looking ahead, though, we expect only around 6 percent annual returns for a 60/40 portfolio over the next decade versus around 9 percent average return historically. Importantly though, advances in AI could keep stocks and bonds moving more in sync than they used to be. If that happens, investors might benefit from increasing their equity allocation beyond the traditional 60/40 split.Either way, it's important to realize that the optimal mix of stocks and bonds is not static and should be revisited as market dynamics evolve.In a world where risk assets feel expensive and the old rules don't quite fit, it's essential to understand how risk, return, and correlation work together. This will help you navigate the next decade. The 60/40 portfolio isn't dead – and optimal multi-asset allocation weights are evolving. And so should you.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.

To conclude their two-part discussion, our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets and Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management Lisa Shalett discuss the outlook for inflation and monetary policy, with implications for investment-grade credit.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Lisa Shalett: And I am Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer of Morgan Stanley Wealth Management.Andrew Sheets: Yesterday we focused on the topic of a higher for longer inflation regime, and I was asking the questions. Today, Lisa will grill me on my views for the next year. It's Friday, December 19th at 4pm in London. Lisa Shalett: And it's 11am in New York. All right, Andrew, I'm happy to turn tables on you now. I'm very interested in your thoughts about the past year – 2025 – and looking towards 2026. In 2026, Morgan Stanley Research seems to expect a resilient global growth backdrop, with inflation moderating and central banks easing policy gradually. What do you think are the main drivers behind this more constructive inflation outlook, especially taking into account the market's prevailing concerns about persistent price pressures. Andrew Sheets: There are a couple of factors that we think are going to be near term helps for inflation, although I don't think they totally rule out what you're talking about over that longer term period.So first, we, at Morgan Stanley, are very cautious, very negative on oil prices. We think that there's going to be more supply of oil over the next year than demand for it. And so lower oil prices should help bring inflation down. There's also some measures of just how the inflation indices measure shelter and housing. And so, while we think, kind of, looking further ahead, there are some real shortages emerging in things like the rental markets – where you just haven't had a whole lot of new rental construction coming online, as you look out a year or two ahead. But in the near term, rental markets have been softer. Home prices are coming down with a lag in the data. And so, shelter inflation is relatively soft. So, we think that helps. While at the same time fiscal policy is very supportive and corporates, as we discussed in our last conversation, they're really embracing animal spirits – with more spending, more spending on AI, more capital investment generally, more M&A. And so, those factors together, we think, can over the next 12 months, still mean pretty reasonable growth and Inflation that's still above target – but at least trending a little bit lower. Lisa Shalett: You believe that central banks, including the Fed, will cut rates more slowly given better growth. And this slower pace of easing could actually be positive for the credit markets. So, could you elaborate on your expertise on credit and why a gradual Fed approach may be preferable? What risks and opportunities might this create? Andrew Sheets: Yeah, so I think this is kind of one of these big debates going into this year is – which would we rather have? Would we rather have a Fed that was more active, cutting more aggressively? Or cutting more slowly? And, indeed, we're having this conversation on the heels of a Fed meeting. There's a lot of uncertainty about that path. But the way that we're thinking about it is that the biggest risk to credit would be that this outlook for growth that we have is just too optimistic. That actually growth is weaker than expected. That this rise in the unemployment rate is signaling something far more challenging for the economy ahead and in that scenario the Fed would be justified in cutting a lot more. But I think historically in those periods where growth has deteriorated more significantly while the Fed has been cutting more, those have been periods where credit – and indeed the equity market – have actually done poorly despite more quote unquote Fed assistance. So, periods where the Fed is cutting more gradually tend to be more consistent with policy in the right place. The economy being in an okay place. And so, we think, that that's the better outcome. So again, we have to kind of monitor the situation. But a scenario where the Fed ends up doing a little bit less than the market, or even we expect with rate cuts – because the economy's holding up. That can still be, we think, an okay scenario for markets. Lisa Shalett: So, things are okay and animal spirits are returning. What does that mean for credit markets? Andrew Sheets: Yeah, so I think this is the bigger challenge: is that if our growth scenario holds up, corporates I think have a lot of incentives to start taking more risk – in a way that could be good for stock markets, but a lot more challenging to the lenders, to these companies for credit. Corporates have been impressively restrained over the last several years. They've really, kind of, held back despite lots of fiscal easing, despite very low rates. Those reasons for waiting are falling away. And so, in this backdrop that you, Lisa, were describing the other day around – easier monetary policy, easier fiscal policy, easy regulatory policy, and you know, just for good measure, maybe the biggest capital spending cycle since the railroads through AI. These are some pretty powerful forces of animal spirits. And that's a reason why we think ultimately, we see a lot more issuance. We see roughly a trillion dollars of net supply. So, total supply, less redemptions in U.S. investment grade. That's a huge uptick from this year, and we think that drives spreads wider, even if my colleague Mike Wilson is correct that equity markets rise. Lisa Shalett: So, wow. So, we have very strong U.S. equities. But perhaps an investment grade credit market that underperforms those equities. How else would you think about your asset allocation more broadly, and how might those dynamics around credit issuance and equity success play out regionally? Andrew Sheets: Yeah, so, I think this scenario where equities are up, credit is underperforming. The cycle is getting more aggressive. It's a little unusual, but I think we do have some templates for it and specifically I think investors could look to 2005 or 1997 and 1998. Those were all years where equities were up double digits, where credit spreads were wider. Where yields were somewhat range bound, where corporate aggression was increasing. That is all very consistent with Morgan Stanley's 2026 story. And yet, you did have this divergence between equities and credit market. So, I think it is a market where we see better risk-reward in stocks than in credit. I think it's a market where we want to be in somewhat smaller credits or somewhat smaller equities. We like small and mid cap stocks in the U.S. over large caps. We like high yield over investment grade. And we do think that European credit might outperform as it's somewhat lagging this animal spirits theme that we think will be led by the U.S. Lisa Shalett: So, if that's the outlook, what are the risks? Andrew Sheets: Yeah, so I think there are two risks, and you know, we alluded to one of them early on in this conversation – would be just that growth is weaker than we expect. Usually when the unemployment rate is rising, that's a pretty bad time to be in credit. The unemployment rate is rising. Now, Morgan Stanley economists think that that rise will be temporary, that it will reverse as we go through 2026. And so, it'll be less of a thing to worry about. But you know, a sign that maybe companies have been holding off on firing, waiting for more tariff clarity, if that doesn't come, then that would be a risk to growth. The other risk to growth is just around this AI-related spending. It is very large and the companies that are doing it are some of the wealthiest companies in the world, and they see this spending potentially as really core to their long-term strategic thinking. And so, if you were to ever have an issuer or a set of issuers who were just less price sensitive, who would keep issuing into the market, even if it was starting to reprice that market and push spreads wider, this might be the group. And so, a scenario where that spending is even larger than we expect, and those issuers are less price sensitive than we expect – that could also drive spreads wider, even if the underlying economic backdrop is somewhat okay. Lisa Shalett: Super. That's probably a great place for us to wrap up. So, I'll hand it back to you, Andrew. Andrew Sheets: Well, great, Lisa, always a pleasure to have this conversation. And, as a reminder for all you listening, if you enjoy Thoughts of the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen, it helps more people find the show. *****Lisa Shalett is a member of Morgan Stanley's Wealth Management Division and is not a member of Morgan Stanley's Research Department. Unless otherwise indicated, her views are her own and may differ from the views of the Morgan Stanley Research Department and from the views of others within Morgan Stanley.

Our Head of Corporate Research Andrew Sheets and Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management Lisa Shalett unpack what's fueling persistent U.S. inflation and how investors could adjust their portfolios to this new landscape.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. Lisa Shalett: And I'm Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management. Andrew Sheets: Today, is inflation really transitory or are we entering a new era where higher prices are the norm? Andrew Sheets: It's Thursday, December 18th at 4pm in London. Lisa Shalett: And it's 11am in New York. Andrew Sheets: Lisa, it's great to talk to you again. And, you know, we're having this conversation in the aftermath of, kind of, an unusual dynamic in markets when it comes to inflation. Because inflation is still hovering around 3 percent. That's well above the Federal Reserve's 2 percent target. And yet the Federal Reserve recently lowered interest rates again. Fiscal policy remains very stimulative, and I think there's this real question around whether inflation will moderate? Or whether we're going to see inflation be higher for longer. And you know, you are out with a new report touching on some of the issues behind this and why this might be a structural shift higher in inflation. So, we'd love to get your thoughts on that, and we'll drill down into the various drivers as this conversation goes on. Lisa Shalett: Thanks Andrew. And look, I think as we take a step back, and the reason we're calling this a regime change is because we see factors for inflation coming from both the demand side and the supply side. For example, on the demand side, the role of the infrastructure boom, the GenAI infrastructure boom, has become global. It has caused material appreciation of many commodities in 2025. We're seeing it obviously in some of the dynamics around precious metals. But we're also seeing it in industrial metals. Things like copper, things like nickel. We're also seeing demand factors that may stem from the K-shaped economy. And the K-shaped economy, as we know, is really about this idea that the wealthiest folks are increasingly dominating consumption. And they are getting wealthy through financial asset inflation. On the supply side, there are dynamics like immigration, dynamics around the housing market that we can talk about. But perhaps the wrapper around all of it is how policy is shifting – because increasingly policymakers are being constrained by very high levels of debt and deficits. And determining how to fund those debts and deficits actually removes some of the degrees of freedom that central bankers may have when it comes to actually using interest rates to constrain demand. Andrew Sheets: Well, Lisa, this is such a great point because we're financial analysts. We're not political analysts. But it seems safe to say that voters really don't like inflation. But they also don't like some of the policies that would traditionally be assigned to fight inflation – be they higher interest rates or tighter fiscal policy. And even some of the more recent political shifts that we've seen – I'm talking about the U.S. around, say, immigration policy could arguably be further tightening of that supply side of the economy – measures designed to raise wages, almost explicitly in their policy goals. So how do you see that dynamic? And, again, kind of where does that leave, you think, policy going forward? Lisa Shalett: Yeah. I think the very short answer – our best guess is that policy becomes constrained. So, on the monetary side, we're already seeing the Fed beginning to signal that perhaps they're going to rely on other tools in the toolkit. And what are those tools in the toolkit? Well, they're managing the size of their balance sheet, managing the duration or the mix of things that they hold in the balance sheet. And it's actual, you know, returns to how they think about reserve management in the banking system. All of those things, all of those constraints may enable the U.S. government to fund debts, right? By buying the Treasury bill issuance, which is, you know, swollen to almost [$]2 trillion a year in terms of U.S. deficits. But on the fiscal side, right, the interest payments on debt, begins to crowd out other government spending. So, policy itself in this era of fiscal dominance becomes constrained – both in, you know, Washington, D.C. and from Congress – what they can do, their degrees of freedom – and what the central bank can do to actually control inflation. Andrew Sheets: Another area that you touch on in your report is energy and technology, which are obviously related with this large boom that we're seeing – and continue to expect in AI data center construction. This is a lot of spending on the technology. This is a lot of power needed to power that technology and U.S. data center electricity demand is growing at a rapid rate. And transmission constraints are causing prices to go up. A price that is a pretty visible price for a lot of people when they get their utility bill. So, how do these factors you think shape the story? And where do you think they're going to go as we look into the future? Lisa Shalett: Yeah, 100 percent. I mean, I think, you know, when we talk about, you know, who's going to dominate in Generative AI globally, one of the factors that we have to take into consideration is what is the cost of power? What is the cost of electricity? What is the age of the infrastructure to both generate that electricity and transport it? And transmit it? This is one of the areas where the U.S., at the minute, is facing genuine constraints. When you think about some of the forecasts that have been put out there in terms of $10 trillion of spending related to Generative AI, the number of data centers that are going to be built, and the power shortfall that has been forecast. We're talking about someone having to pay the price, if you will, to ration power until you can upgrade the grid. And in the U.S., that grid upgrade, to be blunt, has lagged some of the rest of the world. Not only because the rest of the world was slower to modernize and leapfrogged in many ways. But we know in China, for example, they have one of the lowest electricity generation costs on the planet. That is an advantage for them. So, we have to consider that power generation writ large is potentially a force for upward inflation, at least in the short term. Andrew Sheets: So we have the fiscal policy backdrop. We have an AI spending backdrop both contributing to the demand side of inflation. We have these supply constraints, whether it's housing or labor also, you know, potentially being more structural drivers of higher inflation. The question I'm sure that investors are asking you is, what should they do about it? So, can you walk us through the key strategies that investors might want to consider as they navigate a new inflationary regime? Lisa Shalett: Sure. So, the first thing that we think it's really important for folks to appreciate is that typically when we've been in these higher inflation regimes in the past, stocks and bonds become positively correlated. And what that means is that the power of a very simple 60-40 or stock-bond-cash portfolio to provide complete or optimal diversification fades. And it requires investors to potentially consider investing, especially beyond fixed income. Stocks very often are pro-inflationary assets; meaning many, many companies have the power to pass through price increases. If you are consuming income from a fixed income or a bond instrument, inflation is your enemy, right? Because it's eating into your real returns. And so, one of the things that we're talking with our clients a lot about in terms of portfolio construction are things like adding real assets, adding infrastructure assets, adding energy, transportation assets, adding commodities. Adding gold even, to a certain extent. You know, there may be cryptocurrencies that have lower correlations to their portfolios. Andrew Sheets: Just to play devil's advocate, you can imagine that some investors might say, ‘Well, I can look in the market at long-term inflation expectations.' And those long-term inflation expectations have been kind of stable and a bit above the Fed's target. But not dramatically. So, what do you say to that? And what do you think those markets either might be missing? Or how could investors leverage that more benign view that's out there in the market? Lisa Shalett: Yeah, so look, I think here's where the debate, right? Our perception has been that inflation expectations have remained extraordinarily anchored – because investors have actually reasonably short memories on the one hand, and we have, by and large, been in disinflationary times. Second, there's extraordinary faith in policy makers – that policy makers will fight inflation. And I think the third thing is that there's extraordinary faith in the deflationary forces of technology. Now, all three of those things may absolutely, positively be true. The problem that we have is that the alternate case, right? The case that we're making – that maybe we're in a new inflationary regime is not priced, and the risk is non-zero. And so, what we see, and what we're watching is – how steep does the yield curve get, right? As we look at yields in the 10-30-year tenure – what is driving those rates higher? Is it a generic term premium? Or are we starting to see an unanchoring, if you will, of inflation expectations. And it takes a while for people to appreciate regime change. And so, look, as is always the case, there's no absolutes in the market. There's no one theory that is priced and the other theory is not. But sometimes you want to hedge, and we think that we're going through a period where diversified portfolios and hedging for these alternative outcomes -- because there are such powerful structural crosscurrents – is the preferred path. Andrew Sheets: Lisa, thanks for sharing your insights Lisa Shalett: Of course, Andrew. That's my pleasure. Andrew Sheets: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us, wherever you listen. It helps more people find the show.

Our Public Policy Strategists Michael Zezas and Ariana Salvatore break down key moves from the White House, U.S. Congress and Supreme Court that could influence markets 2026.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, U.S. Public Policy Strategist.Michael Zezas: Today we'll be talking about the outlook for U.S. public policy and its interaction with markets into 2026.It's Wednesday, December 17th at 10:30am in New York.So, Ariana, we published our year ahead outlook last month. And since then, you've been out there talking to clients about U.S. public policy, its interaction with markets, and how that plays into 2026. What sorts of topics are on investors' minds around this theme?Ariana Salvatore: So, the first thing I'd say is clients are definitely interested in our more bullish outlook, in particular for the U.S. equity market. And normally we would start these conversations by talking through the policy variables, right? Immigration, deregulation, fiscal, and trade policy. But I think now we're actually post peak uncertainty for those variables, and we're talking through how the policy choices that have been made interact with the outlook.So, in particular for the equity market, we do think that some of the upside actually is pretty isolated from the fact that we're post peak uncertainty on tariffs, for example. Consumer discretionary – the double upgrade that our strategists made in the outlook has very little to do with the policy backdrop, and more to do with fundamentals, and things like AI and the dollar tailwind and all of all those factors.So, I think that that's a key difference. I would say it's more about the implementation of these policy decisions rather than which direction is the policy going to go in.Michael Zezas: Picking up on that point about policy uncertainty, when we were having this conversation a year ago, right after the election, looking into 2025, the key policy variables that we were going to care about – trade, fiscal policy regulation – there was a really wide range of plausible outcomes there.With tariffs, for example, you could make a credible argument that they weren't going to increase at all. But you could also make a credible argument that the average effective tariff rate was going to go up to 50 or 60 percent. While the tariff story certainly isn't over going into 2026, it certainly feels like we've landed in a place that's more range bound. It's an average effective tariff rate that's four to five times higher than where we started the year, but not nearly as high as some of the projections would have. There's still some negotiation that's going on between the U.S. and China and ways in which that could temporarily escalate; and with some other geographies as well. But we think the equilibrium rate is roughly around where we're at right now.Fiscal policy is another area where the projections were that we were going to have anything from a very substantial deficit expansion. Tax cuts that wouldn't be offset in any meaningful way by spending cuts; to a fiscal contraction, which was going to be more focused on heavier spending cuts that would've more than offset any tax cuts. We landed somewhere in between. It seems like there's some modest stimulus in the pipe for next year. But again, that is baked. We don't expect Congress to do much more there.And in terms of regulation, listen, this is a little bit more difficult, but regulatory policy tends to move slowly. It's a bureaucratic process. We thought that some of it would start last year, but it would be in process and potentially hit next year and the year after. And that's kind of where we are.So, we more or less know how these variables have become something closer to constants, and to your point, Ariana now it's about observing how economic actors, companies, consumers react to those policy choices. And what that means for the economy next year.All that said, there's always the possibility that we could be wrong. So, going back to tariffs for a minute, what are you looking at that could change or influence trade policy in a way that investors either might not expect or just have to account for in a new way?Ariana Salvatore: So, I would say the clearest catalyst is the impending decision from the Supreme Court on the legality of the IEEPA tariffs. I think on that front, there are really two things to watch. The first is what President Trump does in response. Right now, there's an expectation that he will just replace the tariffs with other existing authorities, which I think probably should still be our base case. There's obviously a growing possibility, we think, that he actually takes a lighter touch on tariffs, given the concerns around affordability. And then the second thing I would say is on the refunds piece. So, if the Supreme Court does, in fact, say that the Treasury has to pay back the tariff revenue that it's collected, we've investigated some different scenarios what that could look like. In short, we think it's going to be dragged out over a long time period, probably six months at a minimum. And a lot of this will come down to the implementation and what specifically Treasury and CBP, its Customs and Border Protection, sets up to get that money back out to companies.The second catalyst on the trade front is really the USMCA review. So, this is an important topic because it matters a lot for the nearshoring narrative, for the trade relationship that the U.S. has with Mexico and Canada. And there are a number of sectors that come into scope. Obviously, Autos is the clearest impact.So, that's something that's going to happen by the middle of next year. But early in January, the USTR has to give his evaluation of the effectiveness of the USMCA to Congress. I think at that point we're going to start to see headlines. We're going to go start to see lawmakers engage more publicly with this topic. And again, a lot at stake in terms of North American supply chains. So that's going to be a really interesting development to keep an eye on next year too.Michael Zezas: So, what about things that Congress might do? Recently the President and Democrats have been talking about the concept of affordability in the wake of some of the off-cycle elections, where that appeared to influence voter behavior and give Democrats an advantage. So are there policies, any legislative policies in particular, that might come to the forefront that might impact how consumers behave?Ariana Salvatore: So a really important starting point here is just on the process itself, right? So, as we've said, one of the more reliable historical priors is that it's difficult to legislate during election years. That's a function of the fact that lawmakers just aren't in D.C. as often. You also have limited availabilities in terms of procedure itself because Republicans would have to probably do another Reconciliation Bill unless you get some bipartisan support.But hitting on this topic of affordability, there really are a few different things on the table right now. Obviously, the President has spoken about these tariff dividend checks, the $2,000. They've spoken about making changes on housing policy, so housing deregulation, and then the third is on these expanded ACA subsidies.Those were obviously the crux of the government shutdown debate. And for a variety of reasons, I think each of these are really challenging to see moving over the finish line in the coming months. We think that you would need to see some sort of exogenous economic downturn, which is not currently in our economists' baseline forecast, to really get that kind of more reactive fiscal policy.And because of those procedural constraints, I would just go back to the point we were saying earlier around tariff policy and maybe the Supreme Court decision, giving Trump this opportunity to pull back a little bit. It's really the easiest and most available policy lever he has to address affordability. And to that point, the administration has already taken steps in this direction. They provided a number of exemptions on agricultural products and said they weren't going to move forward with the Section 232 tariffs on semiconductors in the very near term. So, we're already seeing directionally, I would say, movement in this area.Michael Zezas: Yeah. And I think we should also keep our eye on potential legislation around energy exploration. This is something that in the past has had bipartisan support loosening up regulations around that, and it's something that also ties into the theme of developing AI as a national imperative. That being said, it's not in our base case because Democrats and Republicans might agree on the high points of loosening up regulations for energy exploration. But there's a lot of disagreements on the details below the surface.But there's also the midterm elections next year. So, how do you think investors should be thinking about that – as a major catalyst for policy change? Or is it more of the same: It's an interesting story that we should track, but ultimately not that consequential.Ariana Salvatore: So obviously we're still a year out. A lot can change. But obviously we're keeping an eye on polling and that sort of data that's coming in daily at this point. The historical precedent will tell you that the President's party almost always loses seats in a midterm election. And in the House with a three-seat majority for Republicans, the bar's actually pretty low for Democrats to shift control back. In the Senate, the map is a little bit different. But let's say you were to get something like a split Congress, we think the policy ramifications there are actually quite limited. If you get a divided government, you basically get fiscal gridlock. So, limits to fiscal expansion, absent like a recession or something like that – that we don't expect at the moment. But you really will probably see legislation only in areas that have bipartisan support.In the meantime, I think you could also expect to see more kind of political fights around things like appropriations, funding the government, the debt ceiling that's typical of divided governments, unless you have some area of bipartisan support, like I said. Maybe we see something on healthcare, crypto policy, AI policy, industrial policy is becoming more of the mainstream in both parties, so potentially some action there.But I think that's probably the limit of the most consequential policy items we should be looking out for.Michael Zezas: Right, so the way I've been thinking about it is: No clear new policies that someone has to account for coming out of the midterms. However, we definitely have to pay attention. There could be some soft signals there about political preferences and resulting policy preferences that might become live a couple years down the line after we get into the 2028 general elections – and the new power configuration that could result from that.So – interesting, impactful, not clear that there'll be fundamental catalysts. And probably along the way we should pay attention because markets will discount all sorts of potential outcomes. And it could get the wrong way on interpreting midterm outcomes, which could present opportunities. So, we'll certainly be tracking that throughout 2026.Ariana Salvatore: Yeah. And if you think about the policy items that President Trump has leaned on most heavily this year and that have mattered for markets, there are things in the executive branch, right? So, tariff policy obviously does not depend on Congress. Deregulation helps if you have fundamental backing from Congress but can occur through the executive agencies. So, to your point, less to watch out for in terms of how it will shift Trump's behavior.Michael Zezas: Well, Ariana, thanks for taking the time to talk.Ariana Salvatore: Always great speaking with you, Michael.Michael Zezas: And to our audience, thanks for listening. If you enjoy thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review and tell your friends about the podcast. We want everyone to listen.

Our Chief Fixed Income Strategist Vishy Tirupattur responds to some of the feedback from clients on Morgan Stanley's 2026 global outlooks.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Today, I consider the pushback we've received on our 2026 outlooks – distilling the themes that drew the most debate and our responses to the debates. It's Tuesday, Dec 16th at 3:30pm in New York. It's been a few weeks [since] we published our 2026 outlooks for the global economy and markets. We've had lots of wide-ranging conversations, much dialogue and debate with our clients across the globe on the key themes that we laid out in our outlook. Feedback has ranged from strong alignment to pointed disagreement, with many nuanced views in between. We welcome this dialogue, especially the pushback, as it forces us to re-examine our assumptions and refine our thinking. Our constructive stance on AI and data center-related CapEx, along with the pivotal role we see for the credit market channels, drew notable scrutiny. Our 2026 CapEx projections was anchored by a strong conviction – that demand for compute will far outstrip the supply over the next several years. We remain confident that credit markets across unsecured, structured, and securitized instruments in both public and private domains will be central to the financing of the next wave of AI-driven investments. The crucial point here is that we think this spending will be relatively insensitive to the macro conditions, i.e., the level of interest rates and economic growth. Regarding the level of AI investment, we received a bit of pushback on our economics forecast: Why don't we forecast even more growth from AI CapEx? From our perspective, that is going to be a multi-year process, so the growth implications also extend over time. Our U.S. credit strategists' forecast for IG bond supply – $2.25 trillion in gross issuance; that's up 25 percent year-over-year, or $1 trillion in net issuance; that's 60 percent year-over-year – garnered significant attention. There was some pushback to the volume of the issuance we project. As CapEx growth outpaces revenue and pressures free cash flow, credit becomes a key financing bridge. Importantly, AI is not the sole driver of the surge that we forecast. A pick-up in M&A activity and the resulting increase in acquisition-driven IG supply also will play a key role, in our view. We also received pushback on our expectation for modest widening in credit spreads, roughly 15 basis points in investment grade, which we still think will remain near the low end of the historical ranges despite this massive surge in supply. Some clients argued for more widening, but we note that the bulk of the AI-related issuance will come from high-quality – you know AAA-AA rated issuers – which are currently underrepresented in credit markets relative to their equity market weight. Additionally, continued policy easing – two more rate cuts – modest economic re-acceleration, and persistent demand from yield-focused buyers should help to anchor the spreads. Our macro strategists' framing of 2026 as a transition year for global rates – from synchronized tightening to asynchronous normalization as central banks approach equilibrium – was broadly well received, as was their call for government bond yields to remain broadly range-bound. However, their view that markets will price in a dovish tilt to Fed policy sparked considerable debate. While there was broad agreement on the outlook for yield curve steepening, the nature of that steepening – bull steepening or bear steepening – remained a point of contention. Outside the U.S., the biggest pushback was to the call on the ECB cutting rates two more times in 2026. Our economists disagreed with President Lagarde – that the disinflationary process has ended. Even with moderate continued euro area growth on German fiscal expansion, but consolidation elsewhere, we still see an output gap that will eventually lead inflation to undershoot the ECB's 2 percent target. We also engaged in lively dialogue and debate on China. The key debate here comes down to a micro versus macro story. Put differently, the market is not the economy and the economy is not the market. Sentiment on investments in China has turned around this year, and our strategists are on board with that view. However, from an economics point of view, we see deflation continuing and fiscal policy from Beijing as a bit too modest to spark near-term reflation. 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.