Thoughts on the Market

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains why market leadership is rotating beyond semiconductors and where investors may find opportunities despite near-term volatility.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley's CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast, I will explain why the recent volatility in markets makes sense. It's Wednesday, July 22nd at 2 p.m. in New York. So, let's get after it. The broadening trade is back and it's gaining steam. We established this thesis last week. Importantly, there's a key reason this broadening trade is likely to continue. One of the more crowded areas of the market—semiconductors—has lost its momentum. As I've also noted before, this is not a call that the AI cycle is over. However, stocks do trade on the rate of change in growth, and expectations often reach a place where they can no longer surprise on the upside. Earnings revisions tend to get too stretched, and capital starts looking for the next place where fundamentals are improving but positioning is still light. This is no different than what happened to other leadership groups earlier this year in areas like precious metals and energy stocks. Remember, I first made the call for market broadening in our November outlook. My view is that the economy had moved into a new expansion after the rolling recession ended in April 2025. Markets were starting to catch on before the Iran conflict interrupted that trend. Investors piled back into the AI trade—especially semis—as oil prices jumped and Fed expectations shifted more hawkish. Back in June, I noted that those earnings revisions were likely nearing their peak. Hyperscale stocks starting to lag was the first indication. Since semis ultimately depend on hyperscaler spending, that divergence usually doesn't last. It doesn't mean the buildout is ending. However, the spenders may be moving from blind enthusiasm to a more disciplined phase as a means of addressing the market's concerns about falling cash flows. We've seen this pattern before. Since ChatGPT launched, this ebbing and flowing between the hyperscaler and semiconductor stocks has happened three times. This is the fourth such adjustment, during which the hyperscaler stocks are likely to outperform the semis. Since a few weeks back, hyperscalers have outperformed semiconductors by almost 30 percent. Another consequence is that the major averages may trade lower in the near term. When a crowded, large-cap leadership group is unwinding, the index can look choppy even as the market underneath is improving. That's the key distinction. The index may struggle, but the broadening can still work. Over the next month, don't be surprised if the S&P 500 trades as low as 7000 before it makes a move to 8000 by year-end. Use this weakness to add to equity positions. I continue to like Consumer Discretionary Goods, Transports, and Biotech. Discretionary Goods remains one of the cleaner expressions of the broadening thesis. Wallet share is shifting from services back toward goods, goods pricing is improving, and earnings revisions are strengthening. Transports continue to show improving revisions as volumes stabilize and pricing gets better. Biotech is one of the more attractive lower-rate beneficiaries, especially if policy expectations are too hawkish, as I think they are. On that last point, the Fed backdrop matters. The June FOMC meeting told us forward guidance is going to be limited, and the inflation path is going to drive policy. The softer-than-expected inflation data last week should allow the Fed to stay on hold rather than hiking. It may take the bond market a few more data points to fully re-price this view. Bottom line, the broadening is in gear, but it may not feel comfortable because it's happening while the crowded momentum trade unwinds, a process that is likely unfinished. That's usually how rotations in market leadership work. Like spring, it's often: in like a lion and out like a lamb. 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!

In the second part of our economic roundtable, Michael Gapen, Jens Eisenschmidt and Chetan Ahya join Seth Carpenter to discuss how central banks are balancing sticky inflation, resilient growth and regional policy trade-offs.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 once again today, I am joined by Morgan Stanley's chief regional economists: Michael Gapen, the Chief U.S. Economist, Jens Eisenschmidt, our Chief Europe Economist, and on the other side of the world, Chetna Ahya, our Chief Asia Economist. Yesterday, we talked about what's supporting growth around the world, especially AI spending in the U.S. and some government spending in Europe, and Asia's role in making all of this happen. Today, we're going to try to dig deeper and go into policy. It's Tuesday, July 21st at 10 am in New York Jens Eisenschmidt: And 4pm in Frankfurt. Chetan Ahya: And 10pm in Hong Kong. Seth Carpenter: Since the last time we did this in mid-April, I will say the debate around central banks has probably become more complicated. Global growth has held up, probably better than many people expected. And inflation, which picked up a lot, started to recede. But it has not gone away. And some of the forces helping to shape the economy, the AI spending, government spending, that possible upswing in manufacturing, that could keep demand strong, and it might keep pushing inflation higher. So, the question today is, if growth remains resilient, how much room really do central banks have to navigate? Mike, let me start with you because your call for the Fed here in the U.S. is out of consensus, or at least at odds with where the market is pricing things. We talked about the demand going from AI. You pointed out that imports are actually limiting how much domestic demand there is. So, what is the underlying story for inflation in the U.S.? And what does it mean for the Fed? Michael Gapen: So, our view is that inflation will come down in the U.S. So, we think disinflation will be driven by some payback in energy prices. Some payback from tariffs, which have pushed up goods prices over the last year. And some further diminishment in housing-related inflation, namely shelter. So, we think on a broad-based perspective, inflation has already peaked and will start moving lower. And we think we've seen evidence of this in recent inflation prints. A risk to that, though, is from the demand side of the economy and AI-related inflation in two parts. One, higher software prices, chipflation. So, the pass-through of some of the AI pricing components. Fortunately, here, they're about less than 1 percent of the consumer basket. So, we don't think that there's a great risk, a strong risk, a high risk of AI-related inflation in the consumer bundle. I think the real risk is that maybe we underestimate broad-based demand, animal spirits. And so, you might just see a broad-based increase in inflation from stronger demand. That'll be a little bit harder to see in real times. But our expectation is that inflation moves lower to about 3 percent, by the end of this year and closer to 2.5 percent next year. Seth Carpenter: All right. Thanks, Mike. And in fact, the most recent inflation report that we just got confirms your perspective that inflation should be coming down. And so, I guess the question then remains: What would it take for the Fed to hike this year if inflation has come down like we've seen? Michael Gapen: Well, I think that the answer there is that inflation wouldn't come down in line with our expectations. So, if the view is that energy prices, tariffs, and shelter inflation should provide plenty of offset and bring inflation down, I think the answer is you don't get payback. Explicitly, core goods prices stay elevated. Maybe we get ongoing disruptions in the Middle East that push energy prices higher and create second-round effects. So, I think inflation just lingering at elevated levels could mean the Fed gets brought in to raise rates in September or later this year. We think if they're patient enough, they'll see enough disinflation to keep them on the sidelines. But the risk is disinflation forecast is too optimistic, inflation stays firm, the Fed needs to raise rates. Seth Carpenter: All right, Jens, what about for you and the ECB? They've already raised interest rates once this year. I think you've got a forecast for them raising interest rates again in September. What could make you wrong about that forecast? What's going to make you convinced that you're right about that forecast? And is there a similar tension that the ECB is wrestling with that Mike talked about for the Fed? Jens Eisenschmidt: Yeah. I mean, starting with the last part of your question, I think no doubt, very similar tension. Just that, of course, it's less obvious. It's essentially a nuanced European version instead of the loud American version that we always stereotypically think the world looks like. So, essentially, we have here clearly not an AI boom. That, I mean, there's no question. And we have discussed that yesterday. Still, there is certainly the notion that the world demand is not really weak, and some of this will also arrive in Europe. And so, you have that tension between maybe there's more resilience than we had thought, and so inflation will not come down through to slack as much. And so, we might actually add something here in terms of monetary restrictiveness. Now, the other thing that is often forgotten, even though it's blatantly obvious, the starting point is just different. The ECB is running neutral monetary policy by all accounts. I mean, you could say 2 percent is neutral, and now they are 2.25. But, you know, there are ranges of uncertainty around any estimate. And the latest that they published runs – goes from 1.75 to 2;2.5. So basically, even if they were to increase rates to 2.5 in September, you could go with the microphone around the governing council, and you would probably find a lot of people saying, "Well, this is still a neutral policy." That's probably not the case for the U.S. So, I guess this matters here for that debate too. Seth Carpenter: All right. Yesterday we talked about lots of different things, but for Europe, we brought up fiscal policy. How do you think about fiscal policy and how it affects monetary policy? And so, I'm thinking about two channels. One, how much does the ECB care that if they keep pushing up interest rates, they're going to increase the debt service burden for countries that are already facing high debt costs? And second, is fiscal policy going to be the extra impetus for inflation that forces even more rate hikes from the ECB? Jens Eisenschmidt: I guess it depends on who you ask. Certainly, more concerned members in the governing council that would point to exactly that fiscal stimulus as a reason why interest rates have to be increased further from here. The other answer I would give is – probably for now at least, the view on fiscal policy is really model-based. You look at what type of increase in interest rate gets you essentially more fiscal restraint because there's an increase in interest rate bill and so less spending somewhere else. And that gets you basically less stimulus or less growth, I mean, very roughly speaking. I don't think it's a major concern for now. We haven't reached yet interest rates where this would start to play a role. I guess, again, Europe being fragmented as it is, with all the political risk that's around the corner. Think about the elections in France and Italy and Spain next year. That will very likely find itself expressed in spreads. And so, the higher the interest rates are, the larger the spreads could become. Seth Carpenter: So, for each of you, there's clearly a role for inflation. One of the risks we'll talk about maybe is inflation expectations and how maybe there's a big shift in what's going on with inflation. But Chetan, that brings me to you and Asia, because one economy where there unquestionably has been a fundamental shift in inflation and inflation expectation over the past several years is Japan. The Bank of Japan is on this normalization path where they're raising interest rates. Interest rates had been negative and then zero, and now they're gradually raising things up. Inflation has come back to Japan. Markets are looking at what the Bank of Japan is likely to do. Can you tell us a little bit about what our view is for the Bank of Japan this year and next? And what might make them hike interest rates faster than we think? And is there any risk that in fact they hike interest rates slower than we think? Chetan Ahya: Yeah, Seth. So, we are expecting BoJ to hike twice from here. The first rate hike is coming up in December of this year, and then another one coming up in June of next year. And then we think that, you know, the underlying inflation trend in Japan is not really that strong. So, while market pricing is for about three more rate hikes instead of two that we are building in our base case. And some of the macro investors are even talking about four more rate hikes. We think the underlying inflation trend warrants a caution and BoJ to go slowly than what the market is pricing in and what the macro investors are saying in. And the key part of our framework on thinking about Japan's inflation is that bulk of the explanation to inflation rise in Japan lies in currency moves. And secondarily, you can look at also the other drivers are more from supply side, which is higher energy prices or food prices. Whereas it's not driven so much by demand. To elaborate further on why it is not driven by demand, when you look at Japan's consumption trend, and if you index it to hundred at pre-COVID levels in September [20]19 then it's currently about 101; i.e., that it's just about 1 percent up over the last seven years. So that's a very tepid trend of consumption demand. And therefore, we don't think that BoJ needs to rush into hike in a more aggressive pace going forward. Seth Carpenter: So, there is this fundamental shift, but boy, it's not on a tear, and so the BoJ can take its time. You know, Chetan, it's hard to wrap up a conversation about the global economy without talking about China. I get the sense that there's not a lot going on with monetary policy, but we did just see a soft Q2 GDP print. So, against that backdrop, what should we be expecting in terms of policy? Is there any monetary policy coming? Or is there going to be some fiscal expansion? Or is China just sort of stuck in this lower gear? Chetan Ahya: Yeah, Seth. So, we were also surprised by the soft GDP print. But when you look into the data, actually, it was interestingly doing well on exports. And I mentioned earlier about how the global CapEx trend is helping Asia. It's definitely helping China too. But at the same time, China's domestic demand turned out to be quite weak. And particularly in the areas where we think that the policy response can be providing some help, i.e., infrastructure spend, was also very weak. And therefore, we are expecting that in the back half of the year, you will see the government taking up some fiscal expansion. Not new stimulus announcement, but whatever they had budgeted. They have enough room within that to utilize that budget and actually increase that fiscal spending towards infrastructure. We have about 2 trillion RMB worth of funds available for the government to go ahead and spend in the second half. And then lift that growth trend, which has dipped to 4.3 percent in second quarter to back to 4.6 percent in the back half of the year. Seth Carpenter: You know what? Maybe that's a great place for us to leave it. We've gone around the world again today, but this time focusing much more on policy. In the U.S., the Fed is facing this interesting situation. We think inflation is coming down. The last CPI print went in our favor. And so as a result, our forecast is that the Fed doesn't change policy at all this year. But it's going to come down to the data, and in particular, whether or not Mike and his team are right in terms of where inflation is going. In Europe, the ECB has already raised interest rates once this year. Jens and team are looking for another interest rate hike. The ECB really does seem more sensitive to inflation coming from the energy shock, but there are lots of other crosscurrents that they're paying attention to as well. And then the other major developed market central bank, the Bank of Japan, is on this normalization path. They are in the process of raising interest rates, but Chetan pointed out to us that the growth rate is such that they don't have to be in any sort of hurry, and they can take their time. So, with that, Mike, Jens, Chetan, thank you so much for helping us connect all of these dots. And to the listeners, 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 a colleague today.

AI investment is reshaping the global outlook. In part one of this economic roundtable, our panel explores where the momentum is strongest — and where investment still needs to catch up.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. Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Chief U.S. Economist. Chetan Ahya: And I'm Chetan Ahya, Chief Asia Economist. Jens Eisenschmidt: And I'm Jens Eisenschmidt, Chief Europe Economist. Seth Carpenter: And today is going to be our third quarter economic roundtable taking a wide-angle view on the global economy and all the key forces shaping our outlook and the economy. Seth Carpenter: It's Monday, July 20th at 10am in New York Jens Eisenschmidt: And 4pm in Frankfurt. Chetan Ahya: And 10pm in Hong Kong. Seth Carpenter: Since our last roundtable in April, the global economy has continued to face all sorts of shocks, a mix of resilience and friction. Inflation pressures have not disappeared. Energy and geopolitical risks have come up, they've receded, they've come back, they've receded all over the place But there is one underlying source of momentum that we have to talk about. And that is the AI-driven CapEx cycle. Michael, let me turn to you because the U.S. is a real focal point of all of this. Tell me a little bit about where Morgan Stanley Research is thinking about hyperscaler CapEx. How big it is? And then for you, when you think about the U.S. economy, just how big of a driver is it for what we're looking for in the U.S.? Michael Gapen: Yeah, we continue to revise higher our estimates for hyperscaler and AI-related CapEx in the U.S. economy. We were thinking a little over a trillion for 2027. Now we're more like 1.2 - 1.3 trillion, maybe as high as 1.4 trillion in 2028. So, the level of hyperscaler spending continues to keep rising. The growth rate and its effect on the economy is likely to slow. But as you noted, it's still a major driver of momentum in the U.S. You would look at that headline number and think, "Wow, that's, you know, 3.5 percent or so of GDP. Must be a massive source of momentum for GDP growth." But roughly about 60 percent of that hyperscaler CapEx spending goes to items like computers and peripherals, equipment spending categories that have a very, very high import content. We still get a significant number that AI CapEx is probably contributing around 40 basis points to growth this year. Be a similar-sized amount perhaps next year.So, for an economy that's growing somewhere a little bit above 2 percent right now, maybe closer to 2.5 percent next year, that's a non-trivial amount. We just have to remember it's fueling growth around the world, just not here in the U.S. Seth Carpenter: Yeah, that's a really great point because I have seen some estimates where people say, "Well, if it wasn't for AI CapEx, the U.S. economy wouldn't have grown at all." And that's clearly wrong, as you point out. But U.S. imports are necessarily exports from somewhere else. And, Chetan, if I can pull you into the story then, U.S. firms are buying a lot of AI-related equipment from Asia. What does that mean in your part of the world? And in particular, I'm thinking about Korea, Taiwan, and maybe some other economies in Asia. What's the critical story there? Chetan Ahya: So, for Asia, this has definitely been a big boon. If you look at Asia's exports, they have been booming, and particularly for the ones which are exporting semiconductors to the U.S. They are seeing semiconductor exports growing by 90 percent. And when we go back in time and compare Asia's semiconductor exports, it's very tightly linked to the U.S. IT CapEx. And it's not surprising when Mike Gapen mentions about the imports going up. It's on the other side, helping Asia's exports quite meaningfully. So, so far, we've seen this benefiting Korea, number one, Taiwan, and also Japan. All these three are big beneficiaries of U.S. AI CapEx. And of course, also not just U.S., but the other countries which are doing any little amount of CapEx on AI front, that's also helping these three economies in the region. Seth Carpenter: You've been doing a lot of work, Chetan, recently about how much the story can actually broaden out, that the AI CapEx cycle has really contributed to Asian growth, but it doesn't tell the whole story that there's a broader industrial cycle. Can you give us a little bit of a flavor of that story? Chetan Ahya: That's right, Seth. So, we are actually highlighting that there is a CapEx and industrial super cycle that is underway in Asia, and there are four components to this story. AI and semiconductors CapEx, which we just briefly discussed. Number two is energy. Number three is defense. And number four is industrial supply chain onshoring related CapEx. I know that everybody still thinks that AI is the most important part of this story, but when I give you the numbers and the breakup of that... So, for Asia, AI and semiconductor companies CapEx is about $380 billion in 2026, but energy CapEx is going to be $900 billion. So, this is a far broader story than just AI for Asia. Seth Carpenter: Mike, let me come back to you and to the U.S. then. So, isn't the growth story also broader than that as well domestically? So, what's going on in terms of consumer spending in the U.S., and is there a broader CapEx story in the U.S. as well? Michael Gapen: I would say, is it broader than that? I think maybe you could argue also it's narrower than that. Here's what I mean by that. As I noted AI CapEx contributing about 40 basis points to growth, it's certainly underpinning equity valuations in the U.S. and underpinning strong wealth creation. So about [$]180 trillion in household net worth in the U.S. About [$]55 trillion of that has been created in just the last five years alone, underpinned in part by AI-related spending and optimism about future profitability. That's really supported spending by upper income households. So, I think it's both investment-led and consumer-led, but they're inextricably linked. So, the positive for the U.S. is that it's providing a lot of resilience. The negative component of that is it feels like momentum in the U.S. is narrowly driven. Jens Eisenschmidt: Let me maybe jump in here from Europe to provide some perspective from the other side. So, I think it's a fair summary to say that AI investment is not yet, or maybe will never get there, dominating the business cycle. What we do have instead is an unusually consumption-driven expansion. That has to do not so much with an extraordinary strength of consumption, but more of an absence of other factors. Now, prospectively looking forward, we think the fiscal expansion might help lifting us a little bit. And then it is really the debate how much AI investment can arrive in Europe. For now, I would say it's probably a factor of 20 that separates European investment plans from the plans we know that exist for the U.S. Seth Carpenter: Let me stick with you then in Europe because you brought up fiscal as one of the factors going on here and where it's going… You and your team recently wrote a blue paper talking about what the outlook is for fiscal policy in Europe, and in particular, we had this era of cheap debt. Interest rates in Europe were low, at times negative. It was super easy to borrow. Not as much happened then. There's been a shift towards more fiscal expansion at the same time that interest rates have gone up, causing the cost of debt to go up. Feels like there's a lot of push and pull going on. Can you unpack for us a little bit what was in that paper you wrote, what's going on with fiscal policy in Europe, especially in Germany? And what it might mean over time for Euro-area countries? Jens Eisenschmidt: Yeah, so I think fiscal policy in Europe really is looking at a regime shift. So, there is this very famous, probably in the U.S. even more so than here, notion that the Europeans have built a very comfortable welfare state. And that's true if you just look at the accounting from a GDP perspective. It's close to 50 percent that, you know, budgets are actually extended on welfare spending. And now you have three structural headwinds for any type of fiscal spend. So, one is aging related costs, you mentioned it already. Defense spending has to increase significantly, and the interest rate costs will also rise significantly. All of that means there will be very hard choices to be made. The one thing that actually could help here is growth. Growth is the one thing that's, for now at least, missing, at least in comparison to the U.S. It's probably half what we expect, what the U.S. colleagues think is in stake for the U.S., and a quarter or even less than that of what is there in Asia. So, growth is really the key, the solution, the answer to everything in Europe. More growth than just 1 percent, which is potential, would help solving that fiscal challenge. For now, it looks really, really like an uphill battle. Returning to Germany, it's the one country that has a very good fiscal starting position. They are pushing a lot but they're to some extent pushing a string. So, even with the German huge fiscal package, given that private sector investments so far are absent, doesn't get us a ton of growth. Seth Carpenter: Chetan, maybe I'll come back to you before we close part one of this roundtable. The AI CapEx cycle started with AI, broadened out further. How long do you expect this cycle to last? How durable can it be? And how might it compare to previous CapEx cycles? Chetan Ahya: Yeah, Seth. So, we think this will be a multi-year CapEx cycle. And when we are thinking about the duration of the cycle, there are two things that I would keep in mind. Number one is that most of the drivers that we just discussed – the CapEx on AI, energy, defense, and industrial supply chain onshoring related investments – these are all structural drivers. So, we think these are going to continue for some more time. At this point of time, we have the visibility for this cycle to be lasting for three-four more years. And then the second point of framework that I would keep in mind is that the corporate balance sheets are in a pretty good shape. So, when you are thinking about the leverage in the private sector, you can look at both households and the corporate sector balance sheet. But since the cycle is CapEx driven, we are looking at the corporate balance sheets, and they are in a pretty good shape. Across the region, corporate debt to GDP is below where it was in 2019. Seth Carpenter: Mike, let me, let me wrap up quickly with you. We talked about AI, AI CapEx. For now, that's a very strong demand story. When are we going to see a supply side of things coming from AI? Are you already seeing a big contribution to GDP and growth from productivity coming from AI? Michael Gapen: We are, but not outside of the high-tech sectors, and we're seeing limited, what I'll call labor market restructuring of tasks and occupations beyond high AI-exposed occupations. So right now, everything is still very isolated I think maybe as we get into 2029 and beyond, so as Chetan says, we probably have a three to four-year super cycle here around a build-out phase. Then we might see some of that broader-based diffusion to other non-tech sectors in the economy. Seth Carpenter: All right, Jens, for you, let's wrap up here. So, what is the state of play for the build-out in the CapEx cycle for AI in Europe? Jens Eisenschmidt: Yeah, it's very early stages. As I said before, we really; we connected to all the industry experts or analysts covering the sector and the total plans are a factor of 20 below what we see in the U.S. by just the seven hyperscalers. So, I would say very fragmented, very small, in general. Not only AI. I think the one thing I would be looking at for any type of sign of revival, sign of growth is investment. The second would be investment. And you can guess what the third would be… Investments in the core countries. That's really what we need to see, and we haven't seen much in Germany or France on this front. Seth Carpenter:That's a great place for us to stop today. We talked about the real side of the economy, AI, CapEx, trade. Tomorrow we're going to come back, and we'll talk about how that growth outlook affects inflation. And once you start talking about growth and inflation, you got to talk about policy, and that's where we'll be tomorrow. Mike, Jens, and Chetan, thank you for joining today. And for the listeners, thank you for listening. Be sure to tune in tomorrow for Part 2 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.

Our analysts Andrew Sheets and Mark Schmidt unpack why U.S. healthcare feels so expensive and the potential impacts of rising hospital costs.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. Mark Schmidt: And I'm Mark Schmidt, Head of Municipal Strategy at Morgan Stanley. Andrew Sheets: And today on the program, a discussion into one of the biggest mysteries in one of the biggest sectors of the economy. We're talking about healthcare costs. It's Friday, July 17th at 2pm in London. Mark Schmidt: At 9am in New York. Andrew Sheets: So, we're talking today about healthcare, which represents roughly a fifth of the U.S. economy, the bulk of job creation over the last several years, and in my view, honestly, one of the biggest inflation paradoxes that we see in the market. On the one hand, the high cost of healthcare is taken as a given, and it's something that many Americans still struggle with financially. But if you look at the official inflation data in the U.S., healthcare costs have been lower than normal, and that's been true now for a number of years. So, what's going on? How do we tie this together? And Mark, you just wrote a report that tries to do exactly that. So, what did you hope to accomplish with this report? Mark Schmidt: You're absolutely right. It's hard to underline enough just how large healthcare is to the U.S. economy overall. Americans spend nearly $6 trillion on healthcare. That's more than the GDP of the entire country of Germany. And if we think about prices, Americans pay more. A knee replacement, for example, costs $25,000 in the United States. That same procedure costs just $6,000 in France. Common heart treatments that would cost $3,000 in Germany or $10,000 in Australia cost $34,000 in the U.S. It also matters for everyone's local community. Healthcare jobs have been growing twice as fast as the rate of job growth in the economy overall. And those are good jobs. They pay above average wages. For many Americans these days, the most secure path to the middle class is a career in healthcare. Now, this may seem a little bit arcane, but it probably hits close to your portfolio as well. Earlier in the year, when we took a look at how equity separately managed accounts invest, they typically have a core overweight to healthcare. And even though American prices may seem like an American issue, many of the largest and most profitable healthcare companies in the world are actually headquartered in Europe. So, whether you're sitting in New York or sitting in London, the price of American healthcare probably matters to you. But as you noted, Andrew, it does feel like a paradox because although Americans cite healthcare costs as one of their top concerns, and although healthcare spending is growing at 6 percent a year or more, the official inflation data says that healthcare prices are in check. And at one point earlier in the year, healthcare inflation, according to official data, even dipped below 3 percent. It just didn't make a lot of sense, and that's why we got together with our colleagues across equities, fixed income research, public policy, and economics to dig into what was actually going on. Andrew Sheets: So, Mark, let's dig right into that. I mean, it seems like a perfect encapsulation of the so-called Main Street versus Wall Street perception of the economy. So, what's going on? How does one kind of square those two numbers? Mark Schmidt: The easiest way to understand it is that you can't walk through a grocery store and figure out the price of a knee replacement. And that's true both for you and me. It's also true for the government. They have to survey hospitals and health insurance companies. The trouble is that the prices that health insurance companies pay hospitals, well, those are trade secrets. So, at any given point in time, even for the best government economists, it's not entirely clear what the price trends are. And that's why when you look at the official data, healthcare inflation typically has relatively lumpy jumps in the series. You could see several months of 0.1 or 0.2 percent official growth in healthcare inflation. Or as earlier this week, you could see certain categories jump to 0.4 or even 0.8. Andrew Sheets: Another element, Mark, that you talked about in the report is that people are also consuming more healthcare. So, talk a little bit about that. How that factors into this dynamic, and again, is that just going to be the new normal as the population ages and we tend to spend more on healthcare as we get older? Mark Schmidt: That's right. The good news is that we're living longer lives. The bad news is that means that we have more chronic healthcare conditions to deal with. The good news is that more procedures can be done in outpatient settings, and those, generally speaking, are cheaper. The bad news is that inpatient care, inpatient prices go up as the complexity of procedures that actually happen in a hospital setting increase significantly. When you balance it all out, it's a situation where, thankfully, the United States and most Americans have the means and the wealth to pay more for healthcare. The flip side of that is that they are paying more for healthcare, and that's why we think that the recent softness in healthcare inflation is actually too good to be true. Andrew Sheets: Something that jumped out at me from this report, Mark, was just how important hospitals are in this equation. And the experience of the patient and the experience of the hospital can be different economically. And that difference can also matter for how this shows up in official inflation and government statistics.So, you know, it would be helpful maybe just to walk the listener through. If I go into the hospital and I need knee surgery. You know, how does that look like from my perspective in terms of paying for it, assuming I have health insurance through my employer? How could that look like to the hospital? And how could that look like coming out the other end into the official government statistics? Mark Schmidt: Well, of course, Andrew, the first thing that you do when you break your leg is you call six hospitals and shop around for the cheapest price, right? Andrew Sheets: [Laughs] Of course. Mark Schmidt: So that's actually the problem because when you get care, you're not in a place to ask about the price. And frankly, even if you asked your doctor or nurse what the price is, they probably wouldn't know. Not only is it not their job to know the price, but all of those negotiations happen after the fact – with the prices that the insurance companies negotiate with the hospitals. After COVID, hospitals had a lot more costs to spread out among the people who were coming in the door, and so they raised prices across the board, not just for procedures that were related to respiratory illness. Naturally, insurance companies noticed that, and they started to push back. So long after you get a cast for your broken leg – and by the way, I wish you a speedy recovery – insurance companies end up going back and forth negotiating with your doctors for exactly how much they should pay you. And although these prices were loosely set well before you walked in the door, the exact way it gets billed and coded? Well, let's just say there's a lot of back and forth. For a well-run hospital, the cost of talking to and ultimately getting reimbursement from your insurance company, that alone could be 2 to 4 percent of revenue. And in especially complex cases, that whole negotiation can eat up 5 to 7 percent of the total bill. You're also right to flag that hospitals really are still the central point of the U.S. healthcare system. Americans spend $2 trillion in a hospital setting. And hospitals overwhelmingly coordinate care for both primary, specialty, and pharmacy services. Andrew Sheets: Mark, another issue I wanted to ask you about was the Affordable Care Act, Medicare, Medicaid, and how those programs fit into the story? Mark Schmidt: The One Big Beautiful Bill Act included a variety of measures to slow the overall growth rate of healthcare. Now, for all the reasons we just discussed, that's probably warranted. The Affordable Care Act is another wrinkle. Enhanced subsidies, which were already set to expire – did in fact expire at the end of last year. And as a result, more Americans are now uninsured. It remains to be seen how that impacts overall costs. In the United States, when you have a health emergency, a hospital is legally obligated to treat you because of a 1990s law called EMTALA. Even if you can't pay, the system eventually does. Historically, uncompensated care costs have been passed on to individuals and companies with insurance. For now, however, it remains to be seen whether these changes in law and in the overall number of people with insurance will cause healthcare prices to rise or fall. Andrew Sheets: And Mark, just for the broad-based implications of this, right? It's fair to say that in any health insurance system, there are some people who consume a lot more healthcare. They're unhealthy or they're unlucky. And there are some who consume a lot less. And, you know, this is something where that overall coverage question matters. Because if you have things that reduce the number of otherwise healthy people who are in those healthcare pools, it can raise the cost for everybody else. Those people who were in some ways subsidizing the higher consumers of healthcare are no longer there. Is that a fair way to frame it, do you think? And are there potential changes given some of these legislative actions that could lead to changes of what the pool looks like – and what overall costs could look like? Mark Schmidt: That's a great point. And healthcare is probably the only part of our economy where you would say, "Thank goodness I did not get my money's worth." As we think about it… Andrew Sheets: [Laughs] Very true. Very true. Mark Schmidt: As we think about it, most young and healthy people are going to be paying more for their health insurance than they receive in healthcare. Again, that's a good thing. Because American healthcare prices are so much higher than anywhere else in the world, paying in more than you get back? Well, that hits the wallet harder in America than it does in other countries. And that's why for many people – choice – choosing how much health insurance to have and how much to pay for it, really is central to keeping the American economy dynamic. The flip side, however, is that as Americans get older, more people have Medicare. Now, Medicare is pretty good if you have it. But the catch is that Medicare prices, according to most independent estimates, do not fully reimburse for the cost of care. So, as more seniors take up more beds in a hospital, that means that commercial prices, the prices for people who have private insurance through their employer, are likely to rise even faster. Andrew Sheets: So, Mark, I think a good place to close it out and kind of bring this all together is a really important conclusion of this report – is that hospitals have been absorbing a number of these rising costs of healthcare through lower margins for the hospital. And that has resulted in lower ultimate inflation because the inflation is measured out the other side, out ultimately what the hospital earns. And if you could just maybe talk a little bit more about that. To what extent have those margins been compressed? And what that might mean for things going forward? Mark Schmidt: That's right. We dug into the finances for hundreds of not-for-profit hospitals in the United States. They are facing higher costs and shrinking margins. Historically, hospitals have partially passed on expense increases of this magnitude. Now, in their conversations with insurance companies, the biggest benchmark setting of prices happens once every two to three years. So, we're not going to see hospital prices show up in the inflation data overnight. But when we look at hospitals across the country, their budget information and their guidance is consistent with firming prices. Andrew Sheets: Great. Thank you so much, Mark. I've really enjoyed the conversation. Mark Schmidt: Thanks for having me, Andrew. Andrew Sheets: And thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please share it with a friend or colleague today. And rate and review us on wherever you listen. It helps more people find the show.

Credit markets are stepping in to fund the surging demand for AI. Our experts Lindsay Tyler and Anish Shah explore the opportunities and risks behind this record financing wave.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Lindsay Tyler: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Lindsay Tyler, TMT Credit Research Analyst at Morgan Stanley. Anish Shah: And I'm Anish Shah, Global Head of Debt Capital Markets at Morgan Stanley. Lindsay Tyler: Today, how issuers and investors are approaching the rapidly evolving world of AI financing. It's Thursday, July 16th at 10am in New York. As AI demand accelerates, credit markets are being asked to finance infrastructure on a scale that used to be associated with utilities, telecom, or energy. That raises a central question for issuers and investors: How much debt can the AI ecosystem absorb? And at what price? Anish, can you walk our listeners through the key products in your purview? Anish Shah: Certainly, in my nearly twenty years at Morgan Stanley, this is probably the most incredible time period I've ever seen in the credit markets. I've had the privilege of working across a number of different roles in capital markets and lending. And a couple of years ago, we integrated the debt underwriting business across both investment-grade and leverage finance franchises in recognition of how interconnected the whole credit ecosystem has become. In addition to our core activities helping clients raise capital for their strategic priorities, two of the big focus areas that we've had have been finding ways to harness the power of the private credit universe and also delivering best-in-class capabilities in funding this incredible growth in AI spend. Lindsay Tyler: AI financing has certainly been a theme we've also been focused on in research. Our equity research colleagues project that a handful of key players could add more than 30 gigawatts of capacity over a two-year timeframe, driving around [$]2 trillion of aggregate cash CapEx in that period. And to put that into context, a single gigawatt of data center capacity can require roughly $12 billion for the shell, and then often more than double that for chips and racks. So, from your vantage point, what inning are we in? And what gives you confidence that credit markets can continue funding this opportunity at scale? Anish Shah: I mean, Lindsay, the numbers certainly are staggering, as you note. And if you just observe the CapEx estimates for the hyperscalers and broadly for AI infrastructure, we're certainly in the early innings. Lindsay Tyler: Mm-hmm. Anish Shah: The largest tech companies have historically, as you know, raised very little debt. In fact, many of these companies have not even needed a credit facility. As CapEx projections were materially increased in the second half of last year, we saw the beginning of scaled capital raises. Hyperscaler issuance has quickly gone from less than one percent of the investment-grade market to more than 10 percent of the market. You know, as I look ahead, based on what we're seeing on the ground, we think that AI-related funding, whether it's for data center development or financing compute capacity, could top 15 percent of the total issuance across all credit products. This has been an unprecedented test for the capital markets, both in terms of the depth of capacity and the breadth of product. The teams have been on the forefront of deep investor dialogue and product innovation. This spans corporate investment grade, first of their kind financings in high-yield and leveraged loan markets, and new takes on asset-backed financing. And each of these areas has seen material issuance both in public and private markets. Lindsay Tyler: Great backdrop. Let's dig first into investment-grade corporate debt, an area you know well from your time previously leading the investment-grade team. Can you help frame the scale and the significance of this financing bucket and how AI-related debt is scaling within it? Anish Shah: Well, you know, as you know, the investment-grade bond market, specifically in dollars, is the deepest, most liquid pool of capital in the world. Volumes have grown materially over the last few years and are likely to eclipse $2 trillion in issuance this year. Hyperscalers are among the very best credits in the world, and they have the ability to come in and out of markets with relatively quick twitch, little to no pre-marketing, and in fairly large size. You know, $20 billion-plus deals used to be rare in the investment-grade market, now happen multiple times a quarter. This is why we've seen the predominance of AI-driven capital raising take place in the investment-grade market. For the most part, investors have digested that supply very well. While we've seen some modest widening credit spreads for hyperscalers and some of the other tech issuers, I'd say it's de minimis relative to their expected ROI. Lindsay, I've talked a lot about supply dynamics and issuance. What other factors are you and investors considering when assessing fair value for investment-grade rated technology bonds? Lindsay Tyler: Sure. It's prudent to really weigh a mix of technicals, fundamentals, and relative value. You know, as you discussed on the technical side, and related to my discussions with debt and equity investors, I've been focused on scale of buildouts, market capacity, digestibility across currencies, positioning along the curve, implications of equity issuance, and whether AI financing could crowd out other areas of TMT credit. But moving more to the fundamental side of things, you mentioned ROI, and for the players that are scaling compute capacity, there are a handful of key monetization and return questions that keep coming up. How quickly can these companies bring new capacity online? Once it's live, how does it translate into durable revenue and cash flow? Is that capacity supporting internal products, proprietary models, broader cloud offerings, or compute leased to third parties? And then how fungible is the capacity across those use cases if demand or returns shift? Further on the fundamental side, we've done some differentiated work around growing long-term commitments. We've seen that high-quality hyperscalers and a few of the semis companies are anchoring the AI ecosystem through leases, guarantees, other obligations. These commitments really extend beyond vanilla bond issuance. So, I encourage investors to look beyond the funded debt and really understand the accounting and the ratings implications here of some of those commitments. And this ties nicely into the next topic that I wanted to raise, which is project finance debt. I've noticed that, you know, a lot of the commitments that we're seeing from IG players support another layer of financing. Lease commitments can underpin project finance debt, an area of sizable issuance and innovation. The public high-yield market has emerged as a new funding source in this way for data center construction, with more than 30 billion priced across 15 deals, since fall 2025. Can you walk us through, Anish, the innovation behind these structures, and how are these high yield deals different than other ways to, kind of, raise project finance debt? Anish Shah: Yeah, it's incredibly interesting. I mean, the bulk of the issuance, as I noted has come in the investment grade market, but I would say the bulk of the innovation has come in the sub-investment grade market. You know, historically, for very capital-intensive sectors like energy and power or real estate, the project loan market was the most efficient source of initial funding. The developer would tap banks to underwrite a highly structured construction loan. Once the project is up and running, you could then refinance that loan with the predictable cash flows into a more institutional financing, like the investment grade bond market or the term loan B or securitization markets.That product may still be very viable in many sectors, but we felt early on that bank-provided construction loans would not meet the capacity needs of the AI investment cycle. The market really needed an institutional credit product that bypassed the need for construction loans. The key innovation came in the form of first-of-its-kind high-yield bonds that funded the development of a new data center complex. Given the relatively short construction period and the "offtake" supported by some of the highest quality credits in the world, we felt like this financing structure would be incredibly well-received in the high-yield market. The win here is that the developer accesses fixed rate long-term capital and maintains flexibility to call the bonds and refinance at a lower cost. Judging by how these financings have gone, there's a strong level of investor enthusiasm. I think that they've only scratched the surface, and I would expect that we see much more of this. And potentially even expand it to other products in the leverage finance markets given the tremendous level of investor demand. Lindsay Tyler: Yeah. It's certainly been exciting to follow many of those deals. Beyond the public space, we're also seeing a wave of innovation in private credit and asset-backed finance. Anish, how do companies decide whether capital is best raised in the public or the private markets? Anish Shah: Well, I'm glad you raised the whole avenue of private markets because it may be the most significant change in the credit markets over the last few years, broadening the scope of private credit from directly lending into leverage buyouts to now financing large investment-grade projects. There are great examples in the world of GPU and TPU financing, where we structure loans secured by the asset and the cash flows, or in data center development.Lindsay, from your perspective, what are investors focused on when these private structures intersect with public credits? Lindsay Tyler: Sure. Many of these asset-backed private financings have prompted investors to look more closely at any of the public companies involved, whether as issuers, tenants, customers, or support providers. This ties back to the point I raised earlier. Where does the risk reside, and who ultimately is on the hook? These financings have also sparked broader discussions around circularity, vendor financing, and technology obsolescence risk, even when amortizing structures are in place. I do think those are fair concerns to weigh, and they really speak to how quickly the AI financing trend is evolving and how much credit work there is to do. So, Anish, with that balance in mind, relatively strong demand, rapid innovation, but also some real credit questions, let's end with a quick lightning round. Anish Shah: Lindsay, let's do it. Lindsay Tyler: First, what is the biggest risk that could test investor appetite for AI-related debt? Anish Shah: I would say investors are acutely focused on construction delays. Don't underestimate the level of diligence being done by the breadth of capacity you're seeing in the markets. Investors are doing their homework, and we're spending a lot of time trying to mitigate any of their concerns with structural protections. Lindsay Tyler: Got it. Second, beyond data center shells and chips, what is the next potential AI financing opportunity? Anish Shah: It most certainly is energy and power. We're going to see a ton of capital being raised in utilities. It's going to be a little different than what the hyperscalers are doing, just given the nature of their balance sheets. You're going to see more junior capital. We've seen a wave of junior subordinated debt issuance out of the utilities. We're also seeing a lot of activity from our project finance and tax equity team, just given all things energy infrastructure. Lindsay Tyler: Great. And third, if we're sitting here a year from now, what do you think could be the biggest AI financing story we're talking about? Anish Shah: Well, we certainly underestimated the level of financing activity that we saw in the past year. I think when we look back a year from now, we will probably see that the AI labs were much more ready to finance on their own on a standalone basis. That's going to alleviate some of the pressures in the market, but I think it's going to create a whole new set of considerations and structural innovation. Lindsay Tyler: Well, it's certainly been remarkable to watch this financing theme take shape in real time, and the next chapter sounds like it could be even more interesting to follow. Anish, thanks for joining us and sharing your insights. Anish Shah: Great to join, Lindsay. Thanks. Lindsay Tyler: And thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.*****Anish Shah is a member of Morgan Stanley's Global Capital Markets Division and is not a member of Morgan Stanley's Research Department. Unless otherwise indicated, his views are his own and may differ from the views of the Morgan Stanley Research Department and from the views of others within Morgan Stanley.

AI has become a strategic policy priority as governments race to secure their technological future. Our Head of U.S. Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore explores what's driving the shift and the implications for markets.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of U.S. Public Policy Research at Morgan Stanley.Today: Why sovereign AI is becoming a policy priority around the world.It's Wednesday, July 15th, at 10am in New York.The AI controls debate used to be focused on chips. Cutting edge semiconductors are essential to train large AI models, after all. But over the past year, the debate has moved well beyond that narrow focus. The policy conversation has broadened beyond things like which advanced semis can be sold to China.The bigger question now is who controls the full AI stack — chips, cloud infrastructure, frontier models, data centers, cybersecurity standards, and the energy systems that support all of it.That's what we mean when we talk about sovereign AI. At the simplest level, it's a country's ability to develop and deploy artificial intelligence using its own infrastructure, data, workforce, and technology ecosystem. But sovereign AI is also about reducing strategic dependence on foreign platforms and foreign-controlled supply chains.That echoes a trend toward multipolarity that we've been writing about since back in 2018. Countries around the world are prioritizing national security over economic efficiencies. We see that theme applying to AI as well.So, what does this all mean for markets?First, sovereign AI turns AI infrastructure into a matter of national industrial policy. Data centers, power availability, and grid reliability are just a few examples of components that are becoming strategic assets. That means governments are likely to play a larger role in deciding several aspects of the AI buildout. Where it's built? Who finances it? And which countries get access to the most advanced parts of the stack?Second, sovereign AI reinforces the shift toward derisking and a more fragmented international order. The U.S. is trying to promote the export of an American AI technology stack to allies and partners. At the same time, it's preserving national security guardrails around the most sensitive capabilities. Meanwhile, we see China trying to indigenize as much of the technology as possible, from chips to cloud to model deployment. Other countries are navigating between the two.Third, and importantly, sovereign AI is also an energy story. Who gets to build and benefit from AI increasingly depends on access to low-cost, reliable power. That makes energy availability a competitive advantage — and it also makes energy affordability a political constraint.That dovetails with one of our thematic predictions heading into this year: the politics of energy. We see rising power costs as a more visible political issue. That's led to backlash against data center development. There's more local opposition to new projects, and greater pressure on policymakers and utilities to make sure that existing ratepayers are not subsidizing AI-driven grid investment.We think that could push AI infrastructure in a few directions. One is toward a conditional build-out. Here, offsets like large-load tariffs and other cost-allocation mechanisms are designed to protect households and small businesses.Another direction is policy support for the lowest-cost sources of energy, even where that might create tension with emissions objectives. And the third direction is more off-grid or behind-the-meter power solutions. That would include things like fuel cells, storage, and other time to power strategies — so data center developers can secure electricity without intensifying local affordability concerns.The pursuit of sovereign AI comes with many questions around inflationary impacts: compute & power are both constrained, regulation remains uncertain, and there could be more limitations on things like tech transfers if the government sees a national security edge. So, to the extent that countries want to reduce their dependencies, it may cost more to get there. There are, however, companies that can benefit in this environment.But there's also a policy risk. We are left with a more reactive policy environment. Selective access in some areas, tighter controls in others, and ongoing uncertainty around how Washington will treat advanced chips, cloud infrastructure, and frontier model deployment. Now that uncertainty matters because it affects corporate planning, cross-border investment, and the shape of global AI alliances.So what does this all mean for investors?More and more, governments view AI capability as a source of economic power and geopolitical leverage. That means the AI race is moving from a question of who builds the best model to who controls the infrastructure, standards, supply chains, and energy systems that allow those models to scale.In our view, that means sovereign AI is one of the most important themes to watch in the next phase of the AI buildout.And we'll be coming back to this topic soon. In the coming weeks, Stephen Byrd and I will talk about sovereign AI in more depth, particularly around what it means for power demand, data center investment, energy affordability, and the broader infrastructure required to support the next stage of AI adoption.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson discusses where investors may find opportunity beyond the AI sector and risks that could slow market gains.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 our broadening thesis and the near-term risks to monitor. It's Tuesday, July 14th at 11:30 am in New York. So, let's get after it. The broadening trade is now playing out. It's showing up in stock prices, relative performance and earnings revisions. It's also making investors question the sustainability of the most crowded areas of the market, and consider other near-term risks. I first made the broadening call late last year based on my view that the economy had entered a new expansion after completing the rolling recession in April of 2025. In a new expansion, earnings growth tends to be much better than expected because revenue growth returns to companies that have already become more cost efficient. That's classic operating leverage. The market began to anticipate that dynamic late last year, but then the Iran conflict interrupted the move. Oil surged, rate-cut expectations disappeared, and investors crowded back into the most obvious AI capex beneficiaries led by semiconductors and memory, in particular. Since mid May, that interruption has faded with oil prices falling sharply and the broadening trade has begun to work again. Importantly, the market is not abandoning AI. It is simply rotating within AI and beyond AI. And that distinction matters. Semiconductors have had a historic run, supported by earnings revisions. But even great stories get exhausted in the short term. When earnings revisions breadth is pressing against historical highs and the trade becomes one of the most crowded areas of the market, the bar for upside gets very high. At that point, the issue is not whether the story is good. The issue is whether the rate of change can keep improving. That is a very different question. The underperformance of the hyperscalers was probably the first warning sign. Semis depend on hyperscaler capex. So when the spenders start lagging the beneficiaries, that divergence usually resolves one way or another. And now we're starting to see it. Meta's decision to sell excess capacity to outside customers may not mean the AI capex cycle is over. But it does tell you the market is beginning to ask harder questions about the path and pace of that spending. Credit spreads and stock prices of these hyperscalers provide the feedback loop to managements that maybe they should curtail the pace of spend. We've had multiple corrections inside this AI cycle already. This looks like another one – not the end of the cycle, but a reset. That reset is what gives the rest of the market room to work. Our preferred ways to express the broadening remain Consumer Discretionary Goods, Transports, and Biotech. These are not the areas investors have been excited about. In fact, positioning and sentiment remain subdued. But that's exactly why I like them. The risks to the story in the short term are two-fold. First, uncertainty about the full re-opening of the strait remains high, with pivots on both sides. This is keeping oil prices volatile in the short term even if the primary trend remains lower. Second, interest rate volatility is picking up again with the entire curve shifting higher in both nominal and real terms. If this doesn't stabilize, it will have a negative impact on stocks both at the index level and even for stocks that should benefit from our broadening call. With the inflation data coming in today softer than expected, this should reduce some of the recent upward pressure on rates. However, the new Fed Chair and board remain resolute to make sure inflation doesn't rear its head again. In the end, dealing with this risk up front is a good thing in my view even if it means uncertainty for markets. Bottom line, equity markets have been consolidating and correcting for the past several months. This is the result of the peak rate of change in earnings revisions and a reaction function shift at the Fed to focus more on the inflation mandate than growth. With the recent rollover in semiconductors, heavy supply of equity and credit issuance, and a transition of leadership at the Fed, expect more volatility and corrective activity in stocks before the next leg of the bull market resumes. Don't chase momentum. Instead, add to risk on down days to areas that will benefit from a broadening in the economy and earnings growth. 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!

Cheaper obesity medicines could unlock broader demand, while supply-chain bottlenecks and premium-drug innovation may also shape how the market evolves. Our analysts Terence Flynn and Thibault Boutherin break down the investor implications.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Terence Flynn: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Terence Flynn, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Pharma and Biotech Analyst. Thibault Boutherin: And I'm Thibault Boutherin, Morgan Stanley's Europe Pharmaceuticals Analyst. Terence Flynn: Today, how cheaper GLP-1 obesity medicines could reshape access, pricing, and supply chains; and what the first generic markets may signal for Europe and the U.S. It's Monday, July 13th at 10am in New York. Thibault Boutherin: And it's 3 pm in London. Terence Flynn: Around one billion people live with obesity worldwide, including over a 100 million in the U.S. Right now, the introduction of the first lower cost generics of semaglutide, a GLP-1 medicine, in some international markets, could have consequences on affordability and demand. Thibault, what are the first countries seeing the introduction of sema generics? What are the current dynamics, and why should global investors pay attention? Thibault Boutherin: Sure. So, so far generics are being introduced this year in three countries: in India, Canada and Brazil. And if we look at India, this is the first market where the generics are being introduced. The patent for semaglutide expired in March 2026, and 13 companies have launched 26 generics across different formulations: autoinjectors, vials, and pills, which price is lower than the branded drug. And because the India market was quite under-penetrated for GLP-1, we are seeing affordability driving volume expansion. In Canada, two generics have been launched so far. Four other generics are waiting for approval, and more are being filed. And finally, in Brazil, one generic was approved last month, and we are expecting these generics to be launched in Brazil in July. And 17 other generics are in different stage of regulatory review in Brazil, and we would expect more to enter the market by the end of this year. And the reason why we focus on these markets is because we believe they could provide a blueprint for what could happen later in the U.S. and in Europe; in particular for Canada, which shares some characteristics with Europe and the U.S. And the patent for semaglutide will expire in Europe in 2031 and in the U.S. from 2032. Terence Flynn: Great. Maybe on the India front, I know that's at the leading edge. What happened with patient demand when price came down? Thibault Boutherin: Sure. So, what we saw in India is a surge in volume when generics were launched, and the volume in April 2026 were already six times higher than the volume in February. And that expansion has been driven mostly by these generics launch, which captured 80 percent of semaglutide volume in April. And our India team expect that the GLP-1 market in India will actually expand in value from $125 million in [20]25 to more than $1 billion by 2030, despite lower prices as we see better, you know, greater volume and greater adoption of GLP-1s in India. Terence Flynn: The other thing, you know, you and I have discussed is the supply chain, and one of the questions is the ability of some of the generic manufacturers to scale semaglutide. So, maybe talk to us about the current capabilities. And could we see bottlenecks in the supply chain formation here? Thibault Boutherin: Yeah, sure. So, there are three key elements to watch on the supply chain. The first is the active pharmaceutical ingredient or API, and that's the semaglutide molecule itself. The second element is the device and the device components, and the third element is the fill and finish, which is basically putting all of these things together. On the API side, so semaglutide molecule, we believe there will be no bottleneck in supplying for generics as we see a handful of large Chinese companies, out of China, building multi-ton capacity for semaglutide. So, we believe there will be no shortage of API to supply the generic supply chain for injectables. On the device, these are the same device companies that are supplying the branded version of semaglutide, and other GLP-1s for the device that are also supplying the generic makers. And we are seeing meaningful investments being made, so we don't believe there will be a bottleneck here. Where we could see a bottleneck emerging is on the fill and finish side. Fill and finish requires highly controlled clean room space to minimize contamination. It requires regulatory approval, and it takes up to three years to build fill and finish capacity. And so, that's where if there is not more investment being made over the next few years, there could potentially [be] a bottleneck emerging for the generic companies. Terence, while semaglutide generics will definitely represent a challenge for the existing branded version of this GLP-1, there are some insights in these emerging dynamics that suggest that tirzepatide, the other GLP-1, could be less at risk. Can you touch a bit on some of these dynamics? Terence Flynn: Absolutely. So, just to remind listeners that semaglutide targets a pathway called GLP-1. Tirzepatide actually targets two pathways. The first is GLP-1, and the second is GIP. And there are some data comparing these molecules, both in Type 2 diabetes and obesity. And tirzepatide gives not only better efficacy but also improved tolerability. And so, what you're seeing in some of the ex-U.S. markets is segmentation, where there are some consumers that are willing to pay a premium price for tirzepatide. Our team in Brazil has done a lot of work on this front looking at this dynamic and, you know, we expect that to play out in many geographies. So, despite the entry of lower-cost generic versions, we think you will still see segmentation of the market between differentiated brand and the lower-cost generics. And that as a result, you will continue to see branded growth.In the U.S. right now, market share is about 60 percent in favor of tirzepatide. And so again, you're seeing a differentiation between these two molecules. Thibault Boutherin: And beyond the introduction of generics GLP-1s, there are other dynamics in the industry that are driving this market. And the introduction of oral drugs this year has been a big topic. Terence, what are your views on the role that orals could play on the market? Terence Flynn: Yes, as a lot of people are probably aware, the many of the existing GLP-1 medicines are injectable. And so those are delivered once a week with a needle. But there are now additional oral options of these GLP-1 medicines. They started off first for Type 2 diabetes, but they have now broadened into obesity as well, following some recent FDA approvals. And what we're seeing is that the introduction in the U.S. so far is expanding the market. So, the majority of people that are taking the oral versions of these medicines are new users to GLP-1s. So again, you're getting market expansion. When you think about the orals as well, one of the other questions is capacity. I know, Thibault, you were talking about the supply chain. There are similar questions for these oral medicines because not all of the oral medicines are the same. Some are easier to manufacture than others, and as a result, that's another variable to consider. So, some of these are what's called peptide-based orals, and some of these are non-peptide-based orals. And the non-peptide-based orals are much easier to scale, for a larger global market. And so that's definitely another variable that we're monitoring and that I think investors need to consider. Thibault Boutherin: And beyond the pill versions of these GLP-1s, we are seeing more innovation in the drug pipeline of the industry, which could be a key driver of differentiation against the competition from the generics. So, what are we seeing emerging today from diabetes and obesity pipelines, which could be exciting for the future of the category? Terence Flynn: So, as we see time and time again in pharmaceutical markets, the key players continue to innovate to try to improve profiles of the existing medications. So, there are, you know, kind of two areas. One would be efficacy; another would be safety tolerability. And so, there are a number of players that are working first to develop longer acting medication. So, as I mentioned, the existing injectable drugs are dosed once weekly. But there are a number of companies that are working to develop potentially monthly or less frequent injections. So, that's one area that we're monitoring closely. And then the second, and again, this plays into what I discussed on tirzepatide, is additional pathways that are involved here in diabetes and obesity, and a number of players are working to target additional pathways beyond GLP-1 and GIP. And so, some of the leading pathways that are being studied are something called amylin and glucagon, and there are a number of medications that are in the late-stage pipeline that are coming along, which have some pretty interesting data. And so that's another area that we're watching. And again, the goal there would be to either improve efficacy and/or improve tolerability versus the existing medications. Thibault Boutherin: Great. And maybe we can also take this opportunity to talk about some of the short-term drivers in the market that are not facing generic today, like the U.S. So, what could be, you know, the key drivers for growth of GLP-1s and the overall obesity and diabetes category over the next five years? Terence Flynn: Yeah, obviously the key one is seeing additional uptake of these medicines. I think right now we estimate, again, obesity in particular, there's about low double-digit percent uptake. And so obviously seeing increasing uptake of these medicines. The orals, as I mentioned, are already driving market expansion. And then the third is access. So obviously in any market, that's very important. In the U.S., I think about 50 percent of employers cover these medications right now. We expect that to increase in the years ahead as the data continues to build. But then this year starting very shortly, the patients in the Medicare program in the U.S., so those people over the age of 65, will be able to access these medicines for $50 per month. And so, we think that is another driver of growth – is this will broaden access to about an additional 18 million people, starting this summer. So, the next phase of the diabesity market comes down to execution, lower cost and scaled supply in the mass market, and innovation and differentiation to compete in the premium segment. Thibault, thanks so much for taking the time to talk. Thibault Boutherin: Great speaking with you, Terence. Terence Flynn: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

The USMCA review is underway, with implications beyond tariffs. Our Head of U.S. Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore breaks down the key issues shaping the road ahead.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of U.S. Public Policy at Morgan Stanley Research.Today, I'll be talking about the USMCA review – what happened on July 1st, what it means for North American trade, and how investors should be thinking about the road ahead. It's Friday, July 10th at 10am in New York. Last week, the six-year review deadline for the USMCA came and went. And as we'd anticipated, the U.S. declined to extend the agreement for another sixteen-year term. U.S. Trade Representative Greer stated that the U.S. did not agree to renew the USMCA in its current form, pointing to shortcomings and trade deficits with both Canada and Mexico, much of which echoed his testimony in front of Congress in December of last year. So, what happens next? This decision triggers an annual review process that could continue until the agreement's scheduled expiration in 2036. So, that means effectively the new deadline for negotiations is now July of 2027. And if we get to that point and see a similar outcome, this procedure repeats until the deal is terminated in 2036. Now, importantly, the agreement itself remains fully in force during this period. The current tariff regime, rules of origin, investment protections, and dispute settlement mechanisms are all unaffected for now. That's actually in line with the expectation that we laid out earlier this year. In short, we anticipated an outcome in which negotiations stall and the deal moves to annual reviews. We thought that was becoming more likely than an ambitious expansion of the agreement in its current form. That being said, there are some important implications of this outcome. First, we think North American trade is being reshaped by a transition from a rules-based framework – where tariff schedules and preferential access anchored trade decisions – toward a more discretionary, sector-specific approach tied to industrial policy objectives. That, of course, increases uncertainty around exemptions, sector treatment, and consequently investment decisions for corporates. Second, we think two bilateral deals may not be off the table. While it's still our base case that the trilateral framework remains intact, reporting seems to suggest that negotiations are progressing much more substantively with Mexico than with Canada. A third round of U.S.-Mexico negotiations is scheduled for the week of July 20th, while substantive text-based negotiations between Canada and the U.S. have not yet begun. That asymmetry could mean that bilateral issues between the U.S. and Mexico are resolved more easily, while outstanding frictions like Canada's dairy market quota system could prove to be an overhang in those bilateral talks. Third, the structural divergence between Mexico and Canada is accelerating, which is something my colleagues have highlighted in their recent work. If we think about Canada's manufacturing export base – autos, metals, machinery, energy, and transportation equipment – that actually overlaps with the areas that the U.S. government is increasingly defining as strategic. And therefore, necessitating more government involvement through, in things like Section 232 tariffs. Canada accounts for only a negligible share of U.S. imports across computers, semiconductors, communications equipment, and advanced electronics. Those are actually the sectors where Mexico has become deeply integrated, particularly through assembly and re-export activity linked to AI servers, electronics, and industrial hardware. Mexico now supplies roughly 35 percent of U.S. IT hardware imports and nearly 50 percent of U.S. server imports. And the North in particular has emerged as a vital interconnection hub between Latin America and the U.S. That's been driven by nearshoring trends, AI adoption, and multi-cloud strategies, as my colleagues Nik Lippmann and Fernando Sedano highlight. That means the scope and the objectives of the bilateral talks between the U.S. and Mexico and the U.S. and Canada may diverge even more from here. So where does that leave us? The USMCA is still intact, but the annual review process means North American trade policy is now a recurring negotiation, not yet a settled framework. And that will likely remain the case if policymakers agree next July to punt the issue yet another year. The primary risk, in our view, stems less from the possibility of a full USMCA collapse and more from the prolonged uncertainty around implementation details, sector-specific trade measures, and Section 232 tariffs. 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.

Robert Feldman and Michael Gapen discuss how AI could reshape growth, labor markets and productivity in the U.S. and Japan.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Robert Feldman: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Robert Feldman, Senior Advisor at Morgan Stanley MUFG Securities in Tokyo. Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Robert Feldman: Today, we'll discuss why the U.S. and Japanese economies may react differently to the AI productivity test. It's Thursday, July 9th at 8 pm in Tokyo. Michael Gapen: And 9 am in New York. Robert Feldman: AI is the biggest theme around the world right now, but AI will play out differently in different economies. Take the cases of the U.S. and Japan. In the U.S., it's already a catalyst in investment, imports, productivity, and the labor market outlook. But here in Japan, it's seen as a savior for an economy with an intense labor shortage, low unemployment, and very little room to raise labor force participation. Mike, in the U.S., AI's contribution to real GDP growth will rise from about 0.05 percentage points in 2024 to an estimated 0.43 percentage points in 2027. What does that mean for markets? Michael Gapen: Well, Robby, I think it, it means a number of things, but, you know, I'm an economist, so the answer is always, "It depends." I think the real crux of the issue over time in the U.S., and therefore what it means for financial markets, is ultimately whether AI is labor replacing – and pushes the unemployment rate higher. Or it acts like a more traditional general-purpose technology that's labor augmenting. So, if, that's the case, meaning it looks similar to the internet and digital era, then it would mean faster output growth, stronger productivity growth, but still an economy that's running at or near full employment. That would be very beneficial in our estimation for risk assets, equity markets, credit markets, and it would probably mean that we stay in an interest rate environment that's certainly higher than it was during the post GFC period. But if – AI is a very different technology than we've seen in the past, and it displaces labor, and we get increases in the unemployment rate as AI diffuses through the economy. Then it could be very different for markets. Maybe returns to capital and equity markets are supported, but that might be more narrowly for technology stocks and not broader, say, consumer discretionary stocks. So, the answer, of course, is it depends. We don't know. And I think, ultimately, we come down on the side of thinking that AI will not create dystopian outcomes in the labor markets, that employment will hold up. So, we have a fairly constructive view, perhaps an optimistic view. And we think, ultimately it'll benefit markets greatly, similar to what we saw from the mid-90s to the early 2000's. Robert Feldman: Well, in your model, you have a particular variable that captures the speed of diffusion. But your baseline has AI spreading twice as fast as the internet did. But without that rise of employment. Is that really manageable? And if it's not, what economic indicators would warn us, if we're crossing into the danger zone? Michael Gapen: This is really the tricky part as, as you know. We have a new technology. We have to model how it diffuses through the economy. And I would say I think there's an argument here that penetration rates and usage rates are very different than what economists think about diffusion, which is how the production process is reshaped because of this new technology. And so most economists look at the internet and digital era and think it took 20-25 years to fully diffuse. Mass penetration in maybe 10 years, but full diffusion in more like 20-25 years. And so, each innovation cycle tends to happen more rapidly. So, I do think AI will spread more rapidly. And even by saying it spreads twice as fast as the internet did still means that it'll take roughly a decade, maybe 10-12 years for this to fully diffuse. So, our argument here would be that that is enough time for a flexible economy and a flexible labor market, like we have in the U.S., to rebalance labor. But if we're wrong, then Robby, what I think you will see is that as AI rolls through, it diffuses faster. And what we would see then is increases in rates of job separation and layoffs that would overwhelm the labor market's ability to reallocate workers. So, I think we would see two things – or three things: scale layoffs, a rise in the unemployment rate, and probably a significant amount of underemployment. Those who get rebalanced may be rebalanced into work that's not, say, consistent with the skill of that worker. So, I think we would see a very disrupted labor market in the process. But if it takes a decade, maybe 10-12 years, we think ultimately the U.S. economy is flexible enough to rebalance labor without large scale layoffs. Robert Feldman: Now, people are afraid of a lot of things, but one other thing is that AI might create new kinds of jobs, new kinds of tasks, have different impacts on people's wealth, and different responses from policymakers as well. How do these knock-on effects change the AI labor story? Michael Gapen: Yeah. That's right. I think you make a very good point there that I think it's easy to fall into what an economist would call a partial equilibrium trap. So, for example, we look at occupations exposed to AI task replacement, and we say, "Wow, if all these tasks are replaced, we might lose 10 million workers or 20 million workers." But that's too simplistic, in our view. Because as you note, AI may destroy some tasks or replace some tasks, but it's also going to create new ones. So, it may eliminate some types of occupations but create others. And in addition, if people are, say, laid off because of AI, you get a loss in labor market income for the economy. But AI will likely create returns to capital, say, stronger equity performance, and that's an indirect wealth effect. So, our model kind of, looks at, say, three wedges or three horse races in the economy then. It's about the speed of diffusion of AI against the ability of the labor market to rebalance. It's task destruction or task replacement versus new task creation. And then third, it's we might have weakness in labor market income in the short run, but there are indirect wealth effects. So, thinking about it this way in a richer general equilibrium context, these feedback effects matter a lot. So, the combination of if the labor market's disrupted, we get easing in monetary policy, maybe a fiscal response. There are new tasks, new jobs that are created for workers to rebalance to over time. And overall demand in the economy gets held up because wealth effects can offset some lost income. All of that is extremely important in our view that ultimately the U.S. economy can rebalance and handle the AI diffusion in a manageable way. We could be wrong, of course, but our main point here is you have to think about this in a richer context. You can't just simply, say, stack up workers and occupations and say, "Oh, we're going to lose a lot of employment." That's not the way innovation waves have worked in the past. We don't think they're going to work that way in the future. Robert Feldman: Mm-hmm. That's fascinating because the situation in the United States is so different from that in Japan, largely because of the demographic situation. Here in Japan, the key element is how much AI can ease the labor shortage. In fact, in some labor-intensive jobs now, we're seeing 6 percent wage increases, and that's great. As long as productivity rises fast enough that price hikes aren't necessary. Michael Gapen: So Robby, in your scenarios for Japan, the same 10 percent productivity gain can lead to very different outcomes. Deflation and weaker employment in one case. More inflation, higher wages, and more employment in another. What do you think drives the difference? Robert Feldman: Mm-hmm. Well, the crucial element really is the flexibility of goods and labor markets. With high flexibility, you get higher GDP, higher employment, and moderate inflation. With low flexibility, you may get a bit higher GDP, but employment plunges, and there's deflation of both prices and wages – more in wages. Now, in Japan, over the last two decades, we've seen monopoly power in key markets go down. For example, agriculture and energy. Labor markets are more flexible too, but lifetime employment system still applies to about two-thirds of the economy. And that deters people from trying to find better jobs and even from acquiring the skills needed for a new job. Michael Gapen: What conditions are needed for AI to be additive to Japan's economy? Robert Feldman: We need more reskilling. Japan is lucky because people are healthy, and they want to work into their 70s and beyond. But acquiring the skills to remain productive is a challenge, even though Japan's workforce is well-educated and still has a strong work ethic. So, to sum up, in the U.S., the race is between diffusion and absorption. But in Japan it's between labor scarcity and productivity. Is that fair? Michael Gapen: It is fair, and we come down on the side of optimism. We think diffusion will happen fast, but it'll happen at a pace that the U.S. economy can handle. So, we come down having a positive view overall. We do not lean in the direction of dystopian labor market outcomes. Robert Feldman: Mm-hmm. I agree with that as well for Japan. So, Mike, thanks for taking the time to talk. Michael Gapen: Great speaking with you, Robby-san. Robert Feldman: And thanks for listening, everyone. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets outlines what could potentially go wrong and disrupt markets' optimism this summer.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, discussing three things that could disrupt a quiet summer. It's Wednesday, July 8th at noon in New York. As markets turn the page toward the second half of the year, there are lots of reasons for optimism. Global growth remains solid. Earnings growth is strong, and broadening across more companies. Capital markets remain open and deal activity is robust. We continue to think that the best analogy for current conditions is something like 1997 through 1998 or 2005 through 2006 – periods where corporate aggression was increasing, and had further to go, leading to equities outperforming credit. Even more immediately, July also happens to be one of the best months of the year for markets. And while one should never base their entire investment strategy on how far the earth has travelled around the sun, this month has been the best month for the U.S. High Yield returns, by far, over the last 15 years. The last time the S&P 500 fell in the month of July was 2014. So given all that, what could go wrong? Well, here are three things that are on our mind. First, a key part of our most optimistic view is that U.S. inflation will be lower than the Federal Reserve expects in the second half of this year, leading them to leave interest rates unchanged, rather than raise rates as the market expects. The risk is that this assumption is just wrong, perhaps soon. There is certainly an argument that, if the Fed is worried about inflation, it shouldn't wait to act, and the market is currently placing roughly 1-in-3 chance that the Fed hikes rates on July 29th. If that happens – and again, our base case is it does not – it could drive volatility. Second is earnings season, which kicks off next week. While the general trend of earnings is important, the bigger focus is likely to be on the results of large U.S. tech companies, and in particular, how much they plan to spend building out AI infrastructure. Over the last several quarters, almost like clockwork, these spending estimates have been revised higher and higher. And that has helped boost confidence in AI – as the spending is a sign that the technology holds promise – as well as boosting the broader earnings outlook; since all of this spending is becoming other company's revenue. Our base-case remains that this AI spending cycle has further to run, with capex from the major U.S. hyperscalers rising from over $800bn of spending this year to roughly $1.2 trillion of spending next year. But the risk would be that second quarter earnings now show more hesitation to spend, maybe because the share prices of some of these big spenders have been recent underperformers. And given how much the current growth and earnings story is linked to AI, and how popular AI exposure is with investors, that would create a risk. Finally, there's Iran. Our base case assumes a gradual renormalization of flows through the Strait of Hormuz, and we forecast Brent oil at about $75/bbl in 12 months time, which is pretty similar to current levels. But as of this recording there were reports of renewed hostilities, and the ceasefire may be fragile. The U.S. has already drawn down its Strategic Petroleum Reserve to its lowest-ever levels, potentially reducing some ability to absorb shocks if the conflict re-escalates. Historically, July tends to be strong, and markets have a number of helpful tailwinds at their back. But an unexpected rate hike, an unexpected reduction in Hyperscaler Capex, and a resumption of the Iran conflict are three factors that are not in our base-case – and could disrupt 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. Also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

The biggest AI stocks have had a remarkable run – but questions still remain. Our Head of Americas Specialty Sales, Thomas Wigg, speaks with Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research Stephen Byrd and Global Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore about the competition and durability of the investment cycle.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript ----- Thomas Wigg: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Tom Wigg, Morgan Stanley's Head of Americas Specialty Sales. Stephen Byrd: I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research. Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's Head of Public Policy Research. Thomas Wigg: Today, the rally in AI CapEx beneficiaries has taken a breather in recent weeks on concerns of competition from open-source models, backlash to token-maxxing, and growing political opposition to data center builds. It's Tuesday, July 7th at 10am in New York. Let's start with you, Stephen. There's a lot of discussion recently around a backlash at token-maxxing. Essentially, enterprises trying to curtail their high spending on AI tokens from the frontier labs, and, in many cases, shifting to cheaper open-source China models. Can you first offer some perspective here on the value of tokens for enterprises? I know you have a popular token factory model that walks through the economics of agents. Stephen Byrd: Yeah, Tom, we do have this model that really walks through token economics, both from the adopter side as well as the hyperscaler side. So, let's do the adopter side. So, there's a study out that shows a whole range of enterprise use cases of AI, and the average single use case that they identify would save a company about $55 or provide that much benefit. And while we don't know exactly how many tokens it will require, we can make some educated guesses as to a typical token usage to achieve that $55 outcome. And we know that a typical American model, though this varies a lot, you can think of as the cost per million tokens being in the range of $5 per million. Some will be lower, some will be higher. So, for a few dollars of token cost, an enterprise can generate benefit of $55. So that doesn't make me overly concerned about token spend and concerns about token-maxxing. I know we're going to get into that, but the foundation here is really good in the sense that enterprise use cases are very much in the money. Thomas Wigg: How do you think market share ultimately shakes out on tokens? Do the cheaper models overtake the frontier AI labs? Do tokens bifurcate based on the complexity of workloads? How do you think this plays out? Stephen Byrd: What we continue to see is this relentless pace of innovation and cost reduction. So, the frontier keeps going out – meaning model capabilities continue to increase, and, with that, we see enterprise adoption growing quite a bit. Long way to say there is a role for both the frontier as well as these open-source models, and we'll continue to see both flourish. What I see is a lot of tokens will be spent on open-source models. A lot of the value will be in the higher end models because that's where enterprises are going to go. Let me give you an example. I was speaking with one of our programmers about a recent project, and he used a very high-end coding tool, an American coding tool. And for him, that incremental cost of the tokens was very much worth it. And here's a very practical example as to why it makes sense for many enterprises to use the higher end models. If a coding tool gets one of the thousands of lines of code wrong, the cost to remediate is very, very high. In other words, that incremental cost – in this example I'm thinking of, it's a few dollars incremental cost – is so worth it because if the quality is not there, the cost to any enterprise to go back and remediate is so high. And that's true in a lot of enterprise use cases, but not in every use case. And what we are seeing is these open-source models that are cheaper will be very good for a variety of more mundane use cases that are still very valuable. That said, what we've seen in data from places like OpenRouter is dollar-weighted, meaning valued by enterprise spend, the vast majority is still the proprietary models. But even within proprietary models, we could have more expensive and less expensive models. You do not need to go to the frontier. Where I come out on all this is that I'm very confident that the demand for compute is going to exceed the supply. What is difficult to exactly know is who are the winners, what is the exact mix. But the fundamentals of the demand for compute look extremely strong. Thomas Wigg: So, I think you just gave me the answer, but I do want to bring this all back to AI CapEx. Now, last year, when the market sold off on Deep Seek concerns, the concept of Jevons paradox ultimately prevailed, where the cheaper pricing led to even greater demand and CapEx went higher.Do you think the same plays out here? Stephen Byrd: It does look that way very much. And the Jevons paradox dynamic is what we still see today in the sense that as the models get better, what we can do with the models increase, the cost of tokens will keep dropping, the cost of compute will keep dropping.But let's talk about what might derail that, just to make sure we're thinking about all the risks. If somehow commoditized models could perform at the same level as proprietary models in all situations, then I would feel differently. But I don't see that. What I see is that these newer models really do have capabilities that are fairly breathtaking and that are worth that extra money. But if somehow, we hit a wall where these models aren't getting better and therefore the sort of the open models are going to catch up, then I'd feel differently about that. This is where Ariana will, will come in in terms of policy and, you know, this comes up a lot when we think about U.S. versus China. How do we think about, you know, access to different models? How do we think about the cost of different models? What about the risk of appropriation of capabilities by the Chinese firms, for example? That comes up a lot in policy circles. But the base case that I have is this just looks more like Jevons paradox, and there's going to be continued innovation, continued reduction in the cost of producing these services from these models. That looks like more of the same. Thomas Wigg: Let's shift to Ariana to talk about the political angle here. The cover of Barron's over the weekend was a guy wearing a no data centers T-shirt. And this does seem to be one of the few bipartisan issues of agreement heading into the midterms.The stat that the article gave was that 75 data center projects worth $130 billion were blocked or delayed in 1Q26, which is equal to the total number for 2025. This is according to Data Center Watch. Now, most of this is in blue states like New York, Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota considering a statewide moratorium, but you're also seeing Pennsylvania, Arizona, Ohio, parts of Texas restricting tax incentives here. So as this gets louder into the midterms, how do you think this plays out? Ariana Salvatore: So, this is definitely one of the big wedge issues, not just for the midterm elections, but for 2028. And to your point, it's expanding into something that's got bipartisan momentum behind it. Our view is that as long as the Trump administration is in power, something like a federal ban is unlikely to come to fruition. That's because we think the administration is still broadly supportive of the AI data center build-out. And I think even if you were to see a Democrat in office further down the road, that position is the same. And the reason is, it's just too difficult to imagine the U.S. giving up that strategic imperative relative to China. So, while it is true that voters are against AI, while it is true that you are seeing these sorts of local efforts pick up steam, it's also the case that China is accelerating its own AI build-out – not just domestically, but around the rest of the world too. It's also the case that they are kind of tweaking some export restrictions on inputs for some of these data centers, and those geopolitical realities, I think, are hard to ignore. So, at the end of the day, there is a broader strategic imperative here that both Democrats and Republicans kind of recognize and get behind. Now, what does that mean in the near term for the build-out? I think it's not that you're going to see a real pushback or moratorium so much as a conditional build-out.That means you're going to see data centers have to incorporate things like grid modernization in their contracts, agree to longer term investments, for example. Do something that benefits the communities or give it back in some way. And I think that's kind of the policy trajectory in addition to the administration continuing to lean on tech companies to basically, you know, square the circle here and find some way to make this more affordable for, you know, local constituents. Thomas Wigg: Stephen, let me get your take on this too, because I know you live in the D.C. area, and you have a lot of political conversations like you referenced earlier. How do you think this plays out? Is it a red state versus blue state dynamic? And if what Ariana says comes to fruition, where it's a conditional build-out in terms of either giving back to the community or ensuring certain prices or certain technologies behind the meter, in front of the meter, does that have implications for certain areas of the market? Stephen Byrd: Yeah. First, I think Ariana's points were all spot on. I just want to, kind of, build on that and, and dive into it a little more detail. A few things. The politics are, from my perspective, not being the expert that Ariana is, I find them a little strange – in the sense that at the federal level, we have one dynamic, and at the state and local level, we have a bit of a different dynamic. And what I mean by that is, at the federal level, I think it's becoming increasingly clear just how geopolitically important AI supremacy is. As these models get more capable, I think it's pretty clear that the Trump administration really sees just how potent these tools are from a geopolitical point of view. So that points in the direction of wanting to support AI and wanting to ensure that the United States has a leading and dominant position in terms of AI capabilities. Pause there, and then go to your point about, sort of, the local and state level. Building on what Ariana said, what I see are basically two approaches to data center development. In states where the utility is vertically integrated, meaning they control everything, like Louisiana, I do see a path where – in those kinds of states where the politics are a bit more favorable – you could develop a data center connected to the grid, where the data center developer is paying full freight and then some. Meaning that they are providing back to the community, they're providing sort of net benefits, and there should be plenty of capital to make that work and really support all constituents. That can work – in a state where the politics work – because utilities are really weather vanes from a political point of view. So, if their state supports data center development, they will more likely support a data center development. The other approach, though, in many states, whether it's deregulated or it's in a state where the politics are a little less favorable. Which, to your point on the cover of Barron's, it's a lot of states, what I'm increasingly seeing is that the developers are going to go off grid. And they just don't want to show any impact to the community that could be considered negative. So, no use of water, no use of power, and hopefully have a, you know, low or zero emissions profile to show no impact at all. Even then, you want to give back to the community. But the view there is, look, we want to sidestep all of these concerns that we might be causing impacts to the grid by just not being connected. So, I think we're going to see a whole lot of off-grid data center projects. That's mostly natural gas turbines and fuel cells, that general approach. Energy storage will be required in a big way. That's not easy to do. So, in the context of delays there, the Bitcoin players who do have grid access today are clearly seeing a lot of demand for their products. So, I would say politics is now a huge issue that's showing up. The other thing I'd flag is often local communities and states are rejecting projects and using permit requests as a way to do that. So, for example, if your data center needs an air permit because your turbines are going to emit some kind of an, you know, sulfur dioxide, et cetera, into the air, you can run into trouble there. If your data center requires water and you need a water permit, you can run into trouble. So, that's causing these developers to try to find approaches that really minimize or eliminate the need for those kinds of permits. Thomas Wigg: Stephen and Ariana, thank you for taking the time. And to our audience, thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen to the show and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.*****Tom Wigg is a member of Morgan Stanley's Institutional Equity Division and is not a member of Morgan Stanley's Research Department. Unless otherwise indicated, his views are his own and may differ from the views of the Morgan Stanley Research Department and from the views of others within Morgan Stanley.

A changing macro backdrop is creating new opportunities across the equity market. Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson looks at what's driving the shift and where it may lead next.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 discuss why I think the broadening out in equity markets can continue. It's Monday, July 6th at 11:30 am in New York. So, let's get after it. Let's talk about a market dynamic that's becoming harder to ignore. The broadening trade is back, and it's gaining momentum partly because one of the most crowded areas of the market – Semiconductors – is finally starting to lose some of its own. To be clear, this doesn't mean the AI cycle is over. However, trends don't move in straight lines, and leadership can ebb and flow; especially if there are fundamental reasons supporting it. In fact, we've seen this happen several times already over the past couple of years with the hyperscalers and semiconductors ebbing and flowing. This is based on positioning, the rate of change on expectations for capex and the returns on that capex. Meanwhile, our broadening call goes back to last November. Back then, we argued the economy had entered a new expansion after the rolling recession ended in the April of 2025. That view was based on a classic early-cycle setup where revenue growth returns to companies that had become cost efficient. That is the definition of operating leverage and that always leads to better than expected earnings growth – the core differentiation to our original outlook this year. The market started to discount that broadening late last year and into early this year. Then, the Iran war interrupted it. Oil prices surged, and the bond market went from pricing Fed cuts to pricing hikes, and investors crowded back into the obvious AI capex winners – especially Semiconductors. That made sense for a while. The revisions in Semis were spectacular. But when earnings revisions breadth gets pressed against historical extremes, the question becomes less about whether the story is good and more about whether the rate of change can keep improving. That's a much higher bar. And over the past few weeks, the market seems to be asking that question with semiconductor stocks fading. The underperformance in the hyperscalers was probably the first signal. Semis depend on hyperscaler capex, so when the spenders start to lag the beneficiaries, that divergence can't last forever. It usually ends up reconciling with hyperscalers' tempering capex guidance or indicating they are more focused on getting a return on that investment. META's announcement last week that it would begin selling excess capacity to outside customers fits right into that discussion. It doesn't kill the AI buildout, but it does change the market's perception of how linear that buildout will be. What matters for investors is how they should trade it. First, the market should continue to broaden out. Second, we continue to favor Consumer Discretionary Goods, Transports, Regional Banks, and now Biotech as part of that rotation. Discretionary Goods remains the cleanest expression, in my view, because the wallet-share shift from services back to goods is underway, goods pricing is improving, oil prices have fallen, and earnings revisions are strengthening. Transports are also showing better revisions, and Regional Banks still benefit from the broader recovery, improving loan growth dynamics and our call for a re-steepening of the yield curve. Biotech deserves more attention here, too. It is also one of the most rate-sensitive areas of the market, and our work shows it has historically done very well in falling-rate regimes. If the market's policy expectations are too hawkish – and I think they are – then Biotech offers an attractive risk-reward setup, particularly with an M&A cycle that continues to build. The Fed is part of this story as well. Chair Warsh's comments last week that inflation risks have come down should matter, especially after the weaker labor data that came out Thursday. The market had become too hawkish on policy. If falling energy prices and contained core inflation allow the Fed to stay on hold rather than hike, that should help lower rate expectations and further support broader leadership in equity markets. Bottom line, the major averages may stay choppy because Semis are a large part of the index and crowded. But, the message is improving beneath the surface. The broader market performance indicates a broader economic and earnings recovery may just be beginning. The best news is that this view is still out of consensus, which means the opportunity for investors remains significant. 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!

As America nears its 250th birthday, our Global Head of Fixed Income Andrew Sheets looks back at the early republic as a volatile frontier market, and what its path from credit risks to durable institutions can teach investors today.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, markets are closed for the observance of 4th of July. But as America approaches its 250th anniversary, we take a look back to look forward at early America as a frontier market.It's Friday, July 3rd at 9am in Seattle.If you were a global investor at the end of the 18th century looking for a stable, low-risk home for your capital, it would have been entirely reasonable to avoid the newly minted United States of America. By the standards of modern finance, the young republic was not a developed market in waiting. It was a frontier economy: volatile, debt-burdened, institutionally fragile, resource-rich, politically combustible, and astonishingly unequal.Its currency had collapsed. Its public finances were suspect. Its citizens resisted taxation, and its growth prospects were extraordinary. In 1810, 70 percent of the country was under the age of 25.That is one of the revelations of Gordon Wood's Empire of Liberty, which focuses on the early days of the new country from 1789 to 1815.Wood's America is not the marble republic of statues and myth. It is speculative, messy, and full of motion. The United States succeeded not by escaping the dysfunctions that we associate with emerging or frontier markets, but by turning them into sources of strength.Start with capital. Early America needed it desperately. Roads, canals, land purchases, and government all required credit, and there was never enough of it. The country was rich in land and poor in liquidity, a classic emerging market mismatch.What the young country couldn't borrow or invent, it misappropriated, lifting intellectual property from its former masters in Britain. What Alexander Hamilton understood was the importance of confidence given this challenge; that debts would be honored, contracts enforced, and taxes, however unpopular, collected.His financial program was an attempt to solve the emerging market problem before the phrase existed. How to persuade investors that a new state, born in revolution and nearly bankrupted by war, could be trusted. To Hamilton, public credit was the foundation of independence.To many Jeffersonians, however, this system looked like an attempt to smuggle a British financial order back into the country that had just fought to expel it.The early republic's debates over debt, banks, speculation, and taxation sound contemporary because the underlying question is perennial in frontier markets: Can a society embrace credit and foreign capital without being captured by it?The U.S. was not starting from zero. It inherited legal traditions, habits of self-government, and a culture of contract and property. Those foundations gave confidence that disputes could be adjudicated, debts pursued, and rules would not be arbitrary.Early America was risky, but it was not lawless. And still, it did not go smoothly. There was no Federal Reserve, FDIC, or even a uniform national currency. Business was conducted with foreign coins, notes issued by private banks, IOUs, and blind optimism.Bank failures were common. In 1808, the Farmers Exchange Bank of Rhode Island issued over $600,000 of notes against less than $90 of gold in its vaults. You almost have to admire the audacity.Yet the same instability that made early America risky also made it unusually open. Land was the country's great asset class, a source of migration, ambition, speculation, and opportunity, at least for white settlers. It also produced bubbles, administrative strain, the expansion of slavery, and the violent dispossession of Native peoples.The Louisiana Purchase in 1803 was a risky, leveraged acquisition of distressed real estate, doubling the scale of the American experiment before anyone had quite figured out how the original version was supposed to work. Wood is especially good on the familiar energy unleashed by this world.The engine of U.S. growth was not an aristocracy of polished grandees, but the "middling sort." Shopkeepers, artisans, tavern owners, mechanics, farmers, merchants, and speculators – many convinced that in America, birthright mattered less than hustle.Commentators of the time complained about the degraded press, political polarization, hostility to expertise, and the vulgarity of a society obsessed with getting ahead. None of this sounds especially distant.What saved America from the usual traps of frontier economies was not immaculate stability. It was adaptability. Its constitution was amended. Political power changed hands despite animosity.Bankruptcy laws allowed for failure. Competition was ferocious, and economic power was generally too diffuse to be easily monopolized. The early republic's genius lay less in solving its contradictions than in creating ways to fight over them without destroying the whole.That is a useful lesson for America at 250. We tend to look backwards for reassurance, imagining that the country once possessed a unity, prudence, and institutional solidity that we have since lost. Wood suggests something different, that the United States was turbulent from the start.Its legacy was contested, its finances distrusted, its politics venomous, its expansion intertwined with slavery and Native dispossession, and its future uncertain. Emerging markets become developed markets not because they stop having crises, but because they build credibility through them. They learn which institutions matter, which bargains endure, which debts must be paid, and which moral liabilities compound when deferred.America was not born orderly, rich, or secure. It was born in the mud, financed on fragile credit, driven by speculation, and sustained by an almost irrational confidence in the future.So, enjoy the fireworks – and let them be a reminder that national maturity is not the absence of volatility. It's the capacity to turn that volatility into renewal.A postscript: Gordon S. Wood died in early June of this year. As a professor, author, and one of the preeminent scholars of the American Revolution, he brought fresh insight and deep humanization to the country's founding. For anyone looking for a better understanding of America as it celebrates a big anniversary, we'd wholeheartedly recommend his workThank 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.

Following meetings across Europe and Asia, our Global Head of Cross-Asset Strategy Research, Serena Tang, discusses two of the main themes on investors' minds: uncertainty around U.S. monetary policy and increasing caution toward AI despite its long-term potential.Serena Tang: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Serena Tang, Global Head of Cross-Asset Strategy Research at Morgan Stanley.And today, I'm bringing you a debrief from my investor meetings across Europe and Asia, and the key debates around AI and the Fed.It's Thursday, July 2nd at 10am in New York.The last two weeks, I have been traveling in Europe and Asia to meet with investors to discuss Morgan Stanley's latest views. Two themes dominated nearly every room I walked into.The first is the Federal Reserve and monetary policy path in the U.S. Many investors had interpreted Chair Kevin Warsh's June FOMC meeting, his first at the helm, as unambiguously hawkish. What market investors at my meetings pointed out is that [the] Fed's Summary of Economic Projections – commonly shortened to SEP, which details policymakers' forecasts for macro metrics like GDP growth, inflation, and the federal funds rate – added a hike in 2026 and pushed out rate cuts, implying more restrictive policy.Now, Morgan Stanley's economists think that hikes implied by SEP at the June FOMC meeting should be interpreted with caution. The projections appeared conditioned on elevated near-term inflation and may not capture the disinflation from a straight reopening. We actually anticipate a lower path for core inflation given a combination of a reversal in travel-related inflation and tariff payback, which lead to our call that the Fed remains on hold through 2026.The second recurring theme in meetings with investors across regions is, unsurprisingly, AI. While in every single meeting investors believe firmly in the secular story of ongoing AI CapEx cycle, there was some unease – especially since AI is now also becoming an inflation story on the macro side and a funding story on the micro side.Chipflation is a new word in town, with markets still debating whether it can be one of the things that derail the AI CapEx cycle. In our economists' and sector analysts' views, it's more nuanced. While memory price is up sixfold over the past year, we think chipflation is more likely to reprice and ration AI infrastructure than derail the cycle. AI demand is scaling across three layers at once, more memory per chip, more chips per system, and more systems per cluster, while hyperscalers remain first in the allocation queue. Now, the key risk is CapEx efficiency. Memory is becoming a larger share of the AI system cost, but the cycle, we think, remains intact.As for AI funding needs, the debate with investors has been how much more can it accelerate? It's worth noting that the majority of corporate bond issuance quarter-to-date has been related to funding construction of data centers.Hyperscale's have been broadening their investor base through non-dollar issuances. They have collectively issued around $25 billion of debt in other currencies like euro, Swiss franc, and the [Japanese yen] in May.Our credit strategy colleagues forecast nearly another $600 billion of AI-related global issuance in 2026; meaning for U.S. IG corporate bonds alone, we expect one trillion of net issuance, a reason for our view that the asset class can underperform this year. With our equity colleagues estimating hyperscaler cash CapEx to surpass $1 trillion in 2027, we expect issuance to accelerate.Bringing it all together, investors globally are all grappling with the same uncertainties around the Fed and AI CapEx, which will likely continue to be key debates to come. But Morgan Stanley's base case view of lower inflation driving the Fed to stay on hold and a strong AI CapEx cycle that remains intact means we recommend investors should still stay constructive on risk assets.Thanks for listening. Let us know what you think by leaving a review. And if you enjoyed the podcast, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

With voters focused on prices and the economy, our Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore and U.S. Thematic Strategist Michelle Weaver discuss the consumer trends that could matter most heading into November's elections.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's Head of Public Policy Research. Michelle Weaver: And I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Thematic Strategist. Ariana Salvatore: Today, we'll be talking about the consumer and what recent data could imply for the midterm elections. It's Wednesday, July 1st at 10am in New York. Last week, Mike Zezas and I caught up on the consumer while he was down at our Consumer Captains Conference. This week, Michelle, I want to talk to you about what your data are saying and get into the implications of all of this for the midterm elections. So, maybe we start with the AlphaWise data. What are our surveys picking up when it comes to how the consumer feels about the outlook in the aggregate? Michelle Weaver: We run a monthly proprietary survey of around 2,000 U.S. consumers, and it's diversified by age, gender, and region, and we ask questions around sentiment, spending plans, and other special topics. Our survey recently showed a continued gradual recovery in consumer confidence in the U.S. economic outlook. We're not off to the races by any means, but we did see the net outlook score improve to -10 percent, up from -14 percent a month ago and a low of -18 percent two months ago, when concerns around oil prices were at their peak. Overall, more consumers feel negatively about the economy versus positively, hence that net score is negative. But we are seeing signs of improvement, so things are improving on a rate of change basis. Ariana Salvatore: That makes sense given the MOU that was signed between Iran and the U.S. Now, looking forward, what does the survey tell us about spending plans? Michelle Weaver: Broadly, consumer spending plans remain stable. They expect to spend more on essentials categories. This includes things like groceries, gas, and household items, while they're expecting to spend less on discretionary categories. We saw the weakest spending intentions within the consumer electronics category, and consumers are not likely to see much price relief in that category. Many consumer electronics makers are now taking their prices up because of the high price of memory chips that goes into those products. Ariana Salvatore: One of the most important components of the survey is the question that you ask on top areas of concern. What are you guys seeing there? Michelle Weaver: Inflation is still the number one concern for consumers, and we actually saw the percent of consumers citing it among their top concerns tick up again last month. So, now that's at 60 percent, up from 59 percent last month, and a low of 53 percent in January. People are also worried about the U.S. political environment. That was cited by 42 percent of consumers, up from about 39 percent last wave. Concern around geopolitical conflicts rounds out the top three, but that level's been pretty stable around 25 percent. But Ariana, can consumers expect any relief on prices from the policy front? Consumers got a nice boost from tax refunds. Is there anything else in the pipeline? Ariana Salvatore: So, we've gotten this question a lot into the midterm elections, and our view is basically that there are a number of obstacles in the way of something like another reconciliation package to give direct stimulus to consumers, whether that's procedural, whether it's the political perception. One of the most important is actually the deficit concerns, right? So, we don't expect something additional for the consumer through the legislative angle, aside from what we've already seen, like the Road to Housing Act. And that's also against a backdrop of what we've been seeing on the economic side and what your data is reflecting, which is that the consumer sentiment metrics are actually ticking up slightly from their lows. And that, of course, maps directly onto what our U.S. econ team has been saying. Their view is that the consumer story in 2026 has turned more neutral. Real consumption growth is still expected to decelerate to about 1.7 percent. That's below last year, but again, not falling off a cliff. The core dynamic is that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act had this fiscal boost from last year, tax refunds running about 17 percent higher year-over-year, but the oil shock basically mitigated that and essentially neutralized the fiscal impulse. But that's not hitting everybody equally. Goods spending tends to bear the brunt. Our econ team estimates that the oil shock takes 30 basis points off consumption entirely from goods rather than services. Low- and middle-income households are most exposed since energy makes up over 8 percent of spending for the bottom income quintile versus under 5 percent for the top. And that broadening out story from just the high-income consumer driving spending is probably going to be a little bit delayed just given the oil shock.But maybe let's drill in a little bit more on that income bifurcation. How does that manifest in your view across spending intentions? Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm. Overall, short-term spending intentions – so spending plans over the next month – are net +20 percent this month. That's still above the historical average of around +16 percent, but it is down somewhat from 23 percent last month. And the divergence is really driven by income. Upper-income consumers remain meaningfully more optimistic, while lower-income households are still under stress. So, we're still seeing the K economy very much in place. And the economy and inflation are almost always top issues for voters. How are you expecting the dynamics we've been talking about to impact the midterms? Ariana Salvatore: So, data are showing an uptick, obviously, which should on net benefit Republicans all else equal, albeit off a low base. And that's because there are other data points to consider here. So, things like the generic ballot, things like historical precedent, things like the presidential favorability ratings – all of those things are painting a more constructive backdrop for Democrats heading into November. But also, to put a finer point on it, we're seeing the AlphaWise data that you're citing reflected across other surveys as well. So, we saw the UMich data from last week show the year ahead inflation outlook drop to 4.6 percent from 4.8 percent. And of course, that's a reflection of the expectation that gas prices are going to moderate into November too. Now, on that front, it's about rate of change, right? So, not the absolute level. But again, I would just remind our listeners that this is one factor in the context of many. So, net-net, we definitely still see a slight advantage for Democrats heading into November, especially when we drill into some of the trends that we've been seeing across the primaries. Michelle Weaver: And what are some of those trends you've been picking up from the primaries? Ariana Salvatore: So, the first thing I would say is that we're cautious to extrapolate too much from primaries to the general election, but really maybe two key points here. The first is turnout seems to be an early indicator in favor of Democrats. So, enthusiasm is up. We're seeing more participation and more engagement relative to prior elections. The second point I would make is that the primaries have been showing a mixed bag in terms of candidates for November. So, in some states like New York and Colorado, you saw more progressive candidates win their races. And all else equal, that could translate to more of what we call a fragile instead of a cohesive majority come November. So, think more political noise around fiscal deadlines, things like appropriations and the debt ceiling. But of course, we still have less than 50 percent of the primaries, so plenty to watch heading into the fall. Michelle, thanks for taking the time to talk. Michelle Weaver: Thanks for having me. Ariana Salvatore: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains that gains in the stock market are expanding to more sectors and why investors should position quickly.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 changing equity market leadership.It's Tuesday, June 30th at 11:30am in New York.So, let's get after it.Something is happening in plain sight but still isn't fully appreciated by investors. The market's leadership is changing. And as usual, by the time everyone agrees that it's happening, the easier money will probably have already been made.Coming into this year, the primary differentiation to our view was that the economic and earnings outlook were much stronger than the consensus believed. That view was built around a few simple, but powerful ideas: easy comparisons after a three year rolling recession, lean cost structures, pent-up demand, fiscal support from capex incentives and tax cuts, deregulation for the banks, and a monetary backdrop that was increasingly supportive through the liquidity channel.Putting those together, the setup looked like a classic early cycle. Revenue growth returning on top of lean cost structures leads to strong operating leverage and well above trend earnings growth.Fast forward to today, and that's exactly what has happened. The median stock in the S&P 1500 is now growing earnings at a double-digit pace, the fastest since the post-COVID boom. Revenue growth has returned, with the median stock growing its top line by 7 percent. That is a rolling recovery showing up where many investors still aren't looking.For much of this year and particularly the past few months, most investors didn't want to hear that story. The Iran conflict pushed oil sharply higher. Rate-cut expectations turned into hike expectations. Faced with these headwinds, investors crowded back into the AI trade especially semiconductors and memory in particular. To be clear, the earnings revisions in semiconductors have been spectacular. The move wasn't irrational. But when something becomes the most owned, most loved, and most obvious area of the market, it becomes harder to surprise on the upside.That's where I think we are now. The hyperscalers have started to underperform, and that may be an early warning sign for semis, which are the key beneficiaries of the AI spending boom. Earnings revision breadth for semis is pressing against historical extremes. Again, this does not mean the AI cycle is over. But it does mean that the rate of change may be peaking, and when price momentum starts to fade in a crowded trade, it can lead to significant set-backs. It can also give other parts of the market room to breathe. In short, the broadening trade is back!The equal-weighted index and small caps are outperforming again. More importantly, the groups we have been recommending – Consumer Discretionary Goods, Transports, and Regional Banks – have already started to show relative strength over the past six weeks, even though positioning and sentiment remain neutral to negative. That's the kind of combination I like: better price action, improving earnings, and investors still skeptical.One reason I've been more constructive on the consumer than others is that I've also been more bearish on oil. That view was not dependent on a grand deal between the U.S. and Iran, although that obviously helps. The signals were already there. The Brent-WTI spread narrowed, and energy stocks began underperforming from the day the conflict started.The market was telling us something before the headlines confirmed it. And longer term, I think the conflict has put the world on notice: this choke point around the Strait of Hormuz must be solved. It's no longer a risk that the world is willing to tolerate. New routes, new supply, and new energy strategies are likely coming. Necessity is the mother of invention, and I would not underestimate the world's ability to adapt.A less problematic oil backdrop helps the broadening trade too. So does the Fed, at least on rates. The June FOMC meeting told us two things: forward guidance is going to be diminished, and the reaction function is now focused more squarely on inflation.My view is that falling energy prices, peaking tariff-related inflation, and contained services and housing inflation keep the Fed on hold rather than hiking this year. If that's right, lower than expected real rates could be a positive surprise for equities and another tailwind for the broadening of performance.The key variable to watch at this point is liquidity. This Fed is unlikely to be as proactive with balance sheet support, just as the real economy needs more capital for capex and the markets are dealing with more equity and credit supply. That's the near-term real risk, especially for popular momentum trades.Bottom line, the market may look choppy and even weak at the index level, over the next month, but the message underneath is improving. Earnings are broadening, oil is falling. The shift is already under way with crowded momentum trades wobbling, and the under-owned areas of the market starting to lead.Investors can either wait for it to become more certain – or position before it becomes obvious and fully priced.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!

Europe's equity rally has surprised many investors. Our Europe Head of Research Product Paul Walsh and Chief European Equity Strategist Marina Zavolock discuss potential outcomes of the broadening market.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 Products here in Europe. Marina Zavolock: And I'm Marina Zavolock, Chief European Equity Strategist. Paul Walsh: And today, we're looking at whether European equities have more room to broaden – as markets assess the implications of a potential U.S.-Iran deal and a reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.It's Monday, June the 29th at 10am in London. Marina, it's always great having you on. And for our listeners out there, I think they'd be interested to hear that if we look at Europe's performance year-to-date, it's now on a par to the S&P. So, both indices are up somewhere between 7 and 8 percent year-to-date. So, Europe is starting to stage something of a comeback from the conflict lows. And so, what's driving this? And are we beginning to see inflows into Europe again? Marina Zavolock: So, I'm going to give a two-part answer to this. Firstly, Europe has a lot of the same exposure as the U.S., so that is part of the reason… I know that Europe has this kind of reputation for not having a lot of tech exposure; but we do have tech exposure… Paul Walsh: We do. Marina Zavolock: Not to the same degree as the U.S., but, let me just give you some numbers here. So, we have a number of sectors heavily exposed to the AI CapEx boom. These are led primarily by the semis sector in Europe, tech hardware, cap goods, and metals and mining; specifically, copper has a link to AI as well. And those sectors, let's say roughly they make up at this point about 15 percent weight of our index. And if you look at that year-to-date performance that's on par with the U.S., almost 90 percent of it is made up from these sectors.Paul Walsh: Yes. Marina Zavolock: So, these sectors have moved just as aggressively as many of the AI pockets within the U.S. That's the answer that's kind of similar to the U.S. The answer that's a bit different is that we get from time to time, over the years actually, but we had a very big one earlier this year. We get these waves of interest in Europe because investors start to think about diversification. So… Paul Walsh: That's right. The broadening. Marina Zavolock: Yes. So, they... And we've called for broadening recently on the back of this, Iran-U.S. MOU. But this broadening has other drivers as well. So when we felt this wave of interest in diversification, and we saw the flows coming into Europe earlier this year, the driver was initially because the Mag7 was kind of going choppy and sideways. So, that just drove diversification out of Mag7 and into equal-weighted S&P, but that also always benefits Europe. Or tends to benefit Europe. But also, we had this wave of interest in real assets earlier this year; and Europe has a higher share of real assets than the U.S. Now, at this moment, I am sensing that we are getting that pickup in broadening interest once again from my feedback with investors. You had this MOU, which was the initial trigger. You have oil prices, broadly, they're falling. That's helpful as well. But I think the biggest driver of what's driving this diversification interest at this moment is actually the volatility that we're seeing in the AI complex. Paul Walsh: Mm. Marina Zavolock: So, what a lot of the feedback I'm getting these days from investors that are coming back to Europe after focusing primarily on the U.S. is, ‘Look, I have a lot of AI in my portfolio. I like my AI exposure. I'm not looking to get rid of it or to sell it, but incrementally, I'm a little bit worried about this volatility. And I'm looking to broaden my exposure. What do you like in Europe to help me diversify away from this kind of volatility that we're seeing now?' Paul Walsh: And I think that's a great segue, Marina, to my second question, because with Europe having really kept pace with the S&P year-to-date, the question that really is going to be asked is the sustainability of that relative performance. And when we think about a backdrop here in Europe of pretty low economic growth, the market continues to be worried about rate hikes given recent inflationary dynamics. And as you've articulated there, tech has played a very significant role here in Europe as well in terms of driving markets higher. So, you've alluded to it in a few of your comments already, but how sustainable do we see this as being? Marina Zavolock: It depends on AI, to be honest with you. So, if AI starts to really move up at an aggressive pace like it was earlier this year, then it's hard for Europe to outperform given our exposure. But if that starts to move up at a more moderate pace, Europe has a chance to do very well. Paul Walsh: Mm. Marina Zavolock: I think there's a lot of misperceptions when it comes to European equities. And outside of AI, actually there's quite a lot of strength. So, misperception one, you've mentioned it, which is basically: Oh, look at our PMIs, look at our GDP growth. Why bother with European equities? I think this is maybe what some U.S. investors may think. But just like in the U.S., the equities market, and maybe even more so, the equities market in Europe – it is not the economy. Paul Walsh: Mm. Marina Zavolock: So, we just published our global exposure guide over this past weekend, which Morgan Stanley has been running 29 iterations of this guide. Europe's exposure to Europe is pretty much at historical lows over decades. Europe's exposure to Europe as a percent of revenues is now 45 percent of revenues … Paul Walsh: Yeah. Marina Zavolock: ... is European exposed. The rest is very global, including the U.S. Um, Europe, uh, Of that 45 percent domestic, a lot of that is banks, some defensive sectors. Only a very small sliver is actually consumer-oriented sectors that would see earnings downgrades on the back of ECB hiking, for example. So, I think people may also be surprised to know that consensus earnings growth for Europe this year is over 16 percent. Paul Walsh: Mm. Marina Zavolock: It's really healthy. Paul Walsh: It's pretty healthy. Marina Zavolock: I know the U.S. is over 20, but Europe is over 16 percent. These kinds of ideas of, you know – we have a shortage of energy and therefore our earnings are going to be down – they're misperceptions. Because actually, as long as oil doesn't spike to, I don't know, [$]150. If it stays within a healthy range, call it [$]70 to 90, that's actually a very good environment for Europe because we have a lot of real assets. We have the banks which benefit from higher inflation because they trade on the steepness of the curve. And we have some AI exposure. If you add up those three things, which all benefit from inflation, that's 60 percent of our earnings pie.Paul Walsh: Right. Marina Zavolock: Hence, Europe's actually doing really well. And I'll just mention one other thing. Earlier this year, we broke out of a structural downtrend discount; that range that we were trading in versus the U.S. So, for almost 10 years, Europe's discount was just going wider and wider and wider and wider. And as of January 1st, this year, on a like-for-like basis, so sector neutral excluding Mag7, we broke out of that structural downtrend, and we keep seeing a narrowing. Paul Walsh: Yeah. Marina Zavolock: So, if you're going to broaden, it actually makes a lot of sense to look at Europe, where we have these discounts, and we have value, and we have growth. Paul Walsh: Yeah. So, the point there being the relative valuation discount of Europe to the U.S. has been actually closing a little bit more recently. Final question from my side. You have obviously recently refreshed your sector model. We have talked about the broadening in our conversation today. What are you advocating to your clients out there in terms of relative sector preferences? Marina Zavolock: Yeah. So, we run a data-driven model. Just briefly, we look at things like earnings revisions breadth – works really well as a leading indicator in Europe; a leading indicator for future earnings as well. Consensus price target revisions breadth, balance sheet measures. We look at a number of different things, AI exposure. And basically, I'll just give you the top sectors in our model now. Semis number one, metals and mining number two, led by copper. Paul Walsh: Mm-hmm. Marina Zavolock: Banks number three. I think banks, for me, it's a key diversification play. Paul Walsh: Yes. Marina Zavolock: A big differentiator. And trading on 10 times PE with very high distributions, buybacks and dividends, low teens earnings growth upgrades. Front of the line on AI adoption and seeing that ROI coming through. Cap goods, number four, that's also led by AI exposure. Paul Walsh: Yeah. Marina Zavolock: And then I'll just mention lastly, utilities is an overweight as well. That's also a little bit AI linked, but very, very under-owned; lagging the trends we've seen in the U.S. And broader based in terms of the positives there because we also have this drive for renewables, which is coming back. Paul Walsh: Marina, always, we value your insights highly. Thanks as always for taking the time to talk. Marina Zavolock: Great speaking with you, Paul. Paul Walsh: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen. And please do share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Although markets may recalibrate to a different policy playbook under the new Fed chair Kevin Warsh, housing could remain in a holding pattern. Our co-heads of Securitized Products Research Jay Bacow and James Egan explain why.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Jay Bacow: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jay Bacow, co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley. James Egan: And I'm Jim Egan, the other co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley. Jay Bacow: Today, the glow has maybe worn off the championship of the Knicks, so we can talk about the impact of Warsh on the mortgage and housing market. It's Friday, June 26th at 10am in New York. James Egan: If we have to stop talking about the Knicks, we can stop talking about the Knicks. But Jay, I think one of the things, if we take a little bit of a step back in mortgage markets, in housing markets, in fixed income markets more broadly – from the beginning of the year to now, we've gone from the market pricing in 2.5 cuts from the Fed by the end of 2026, to the market pricing in roughly 1.5 hikes. 100 basis point difference in market expectations over the course of the past five and a half months. Now, that's happened at different times, with different levels of velocity and severity. But one of the key talking points we have now is – we have a new Fed chair. We had the first FOMC meeting and his press conference after that last Wednesday. What do you think that means for mortgage markets, for volatility? How are you thinking about this? Jay Bacow: look, Jim, it's a great question, and we've got asked that by a number of different investors. Chair Warsh has been pretty clear that he thinks people should do more of what they're good at and less of what they're not good at. And so, he's felt like the Fed should keep their communication on future guidance relatively short. And so, with less forward guidance from the Fed, the market has more uncertainty, and more uncertainty translates into more volatility. And more volatility is generally bad for the mortgage market, given that investors are short the option to the homeowner to refinance. Furthermore, shifting from expectations of the Fed cutting to expectations of the Fed hiking generally makes it a little bit less favorable environment for investors like banks and overseas investors to come to the mortgage market. James Egan: Alright. Now, we've been on this podcast several times this year where we've talked about, you mentioned banks... We've talked about deregulation. We've talked about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the GSEs – them buying mortgages, that being constructive for our mortgage view.Is that still the case, or how are you layering that into your thought process? Jay Bacow: now? That's definitely still the case. Those things haven't changed. The deregulation is still flowing through the markets. That longer term should be supportive of bank demand in aggregate, although obviously there are a number of different regulations going through. The GSEs are still forecasted to buy 200 billion mortgages on behalf of President Trump's initiative. So, that's why we're just sort of tactically negative – those technicals are very strong in an environment where there really has not been much supply. Now, some of that supply is because mortgage rates are still in the context of 6.5 percent. Some of that is because with mortgage rates at 6.5 percent, there hasn't been that much housing activity. So, Jim, turning it to you, what is the outlook for the housing market in a world where they are expecting the Fed to hike and rates to stay elevated? James Egan: Right. So, the main thing that we focus on from a housing market perspective is less specifically Fed action and more the 5- and 10-year part of the curve.So, when you start to say something like you're tactically negative mortgage-backed securities here – how can I interpret that from a mortgage rate perspective? Jay Bacow: If we're tactically negative, it's more of a small move than some massive move. And as you said, and we've talked about on this call beforehand, realistically, the mortgage rate is a little bit less dependent on the Fed policy rate and more around the belly of the Treasury curve. And, you know, what's going to happen with the belly of the Treasury curve is going to be dependent on sort of market expectations along with what's happening in the geopolitical situation. So realistically, if you've written down that the mortgage rate is 6.5 percent right now, our view probably doesn't change things too much. James Egan: And if that's the case, then affordability in the housing market, as we've been talking about, is going to continue to be challenged. And what we think that means from a housing activity perspective is any upside that we really thought would have been there gets pretty significantly capped. But the same side of this token – or the other side of this token, if you will, we do think that the current level is well-supported here. There's some level of housing activity that has to occur regardless of where affordability is, and we think we found that. We're at 40-year lows from a turnover perspective. From the fourth quarter of 2023 through now, we've been roughly at the same level. That's 11 consecutive quarters now. We think this is the kind of base level for people that need to transact regardless of where mortgage rates are. So, the more that the rate environment remains challenged, the more that we kind of hang in this low to mid 6 percent mortgage rate environment. We just think that that continues to curtail upside. So, it's a housing market and a housing activity space that continues to very much just remain stuck in neutral. Jay Bacow: Alright. So, if we're in this new environment and the Fed might be hiking, it's not great locally for mortgage valuations. Housing market more broadly, probably kind of stuck in neutral here. Jim, always a pleasure speaking with you. James Egan: And always great speaking to you too, Jay. And to all of our 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: And go smash that subscribe button.

Our U.S. Public Policy Strategist Ariana Salvatore joins our Deputy Global Head of Research Michael Zezas to consider the consumer outlook and how it may impact the November midterm elections. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Public Policy Strategist. Michael Zezas: And I'm Mike Zezas, Deputy Global Head of Research. Ariana Salvatore: Today, we'll be discussing the consumer outlook, policy catalysts, and what it could mean for the 2026 midterm elections. It's Thursday, June 25th at 9am in New York. Mike, you're on the road, obviously not in New York City this week. Why don't you tell us a little bit about the conference that you're at, and then we can get into some of the topics that have come up in your conversations. Michael Zezas: Yeah. I'm down in South Carolina at Morgan Stanley's Captains of the Consumer Industry Conference, where we put together investors and leadership of key consumer companies in the U.S. to learn about each other in a more informal way, brainstorm… And it's been really interesting. We've had a lot of meetings with leadership from different prominent consumer companies throughout the U.S. And it's been really fascinating to hear how the consumer's been quite resilient. But in general, one pattern that sticks out is rising concern about lower-income consumers' behavior starting to lag in meaningful way higher-income consumers' behavior. You're starting to see substitution and sort of more selectivity amongst lower-income households, a pattern that began a bit last year as a lot of these companies would report with higher tariffs. That seems to have continued with higher gas prices driven by the conflict in the Middle East. So, there's a lot of discussion and concern about how durable it is. And in particular, if there are some policy choices here that might alleviate some of that pressure and bring some fundamental strength to what is a challenged segment of the consumer market right now. Ariana Salvatore: Let's talk a little bit more about tariffs. It's our economists' view that we've mostly gotten through the tariff pass-through. Is that the sentiment that you're hearing from corporates and the clients that you're talking to? Michael Zezas: It is. Well, it's certainly the hope. And I guess the follow-up questions here are: once some of the temporary tariff authority that was put into place after the Supreme Court struck down the use of IEEPA, will there be a restoration of those tariff levels? And will the USMCA negotiations create higher tariffs? So, Ariana, what's your thoughts there? Is there any concern for companies that they're going to start needing to deal with a re-escalation of tariff costs relative to what we experienced, say, last year? Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, I think to answer that question, we need to dig into this under the surface a little bit and understand what types of tariffs that we're talking about. So, to your question on the USMCA, we see that largely as a story of continuity, right? So, the USMCA exemption has been in place since the deal was signed, right? And since Trumpimposed those Section 301 tariffs, we think that's likely to stay the case. That means the vast majority of the goods trade between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada is right now not subject to the 301 tariffs. Now, on the other hand, we have existing Section 232 tariffs in place on not just sectors like steel and aluminum, but a bunch of other goods, too, and we're supposed to get more of those investigations wrapped up in the next week or so. So, on that front, I do think there could be some potential room for escalation, but more broadly speaking, we think the direction of travel is relatively stable, if not slightly lower, because, as you mentioned, the IEEPA tariffs that were replaced by the Section 122s have to get replaced again end of July, right? So that Section 122 authority was a temporary authority. The president is going to have to replace that with a mix of Section 232 and 301. It's been our view that when that happens, there could be some alleviation for very specific pockets of goods that fall into really neither bucket, right? So,they're not necessarily critical for national security, and they're coming from countries that are difficult to maintain a Section 301 investigation on. So, it's actually very nuanced under the surface. I would say in the aggregate level, what we think is that you're going to see the tariff rate stay somewhere around 8 to 9 percent on a headline basis; if not directionally, maybe a little bit lower throughout the course of this year. Michael Zezas: Got it. And I think that message has been music to the ears of a lot of these companies. And I've been doing these meetings with our chief economist, Michael Gapen, who has said that that's contributing to what he forecasts as being a meaningfuldeceleration in inflation into the end of the year. Certainly an inflation level lower than what the aggregate Fed forecast isat the moment. Another question that comes up is whether or not the recent decrease in oil prices, which should feed through into lower gasoline prices, is durable. If that's something that could be counted on, because obviously these companies are thinking about it being a potential tailwind to demand going into the second half of the year. How do you think about that, Ariana? Ariana Salvatore: The MOU that the U.S. and Iran signed, I would say was a welcome development for markets. But that being said, there are a number of paths to re-escalation, in our view. Really four things to keep an eye on, kind of outstanding questions or uncertainties. The first is on execution risk of the MOU itself. It's very light on details. We need to see more about how exactly the Strait of Hormuz is going to reopen, if there's going to be a servicing fee, a tolling regime, et cetera. That was a red line of the United States. But again, implementation there is a big question. The second is on the calibration or divergence between the U.S. and Israel in terms of their objectives. We identified that early in the conflict as a potential indicator of how long this could possibly last, and I think it's equally as important in assessing how long the ceasefire or the MOU could stay in place. The third thing I would say we need to learn more about is the role of Congress in all of this. So, some Republican lawmakers actually pushed back against the MOU, saying it didn't go far enough to advance U.S. interests. Now Congress has a more limited role when it comes to the actual MOU implementation itself. Remember, the JCPOA, the Iran nuclear deal in 2015, didn't go through Congress either. But Congress can exert some more power come the fall when we start talking about defense appropriations, right? The Pentagon is asking for $1.5 trillion. [$]300 billion of that is supplemental war funding. And so, I think if you see Republicans push back, that's going to be an easy forum for them to do so. And the last point is on the negotiations themselves. So, the MOU is a 60-day ceasefire throughout which both parties are supposed to be discussing the nuclear question. Now, looking back at historical context here, the JCPOA took about 20 months to negotiate start to finish. This is a very compressed timeframe, and again, obviously potential risk for escalationas we see these negotiations go on the next few months. So, Mike, I would say, like I said before, markets are definitely seeing this as a welcome development, but that doesn't mean it's without execution risk. Across the board, our outlook actually expected a normalization of flows by the end of June, so we're kind of pulling things up by about two weeks. That means that the outlook basically remains intact, but with marginal upside as this is a slightly more constructive outlook. Michael Zezas: Got it. So net net, there's still plenty of execution risk going on, but the trend is at least towards easing of some of these policy pressures that have been impacting the consumer. And it's also been interesting that a lot of the conversations have led to questions about artificial intelligence. Now, at this conference last year, a lot of the discussion about artificial intelligence was around how these companies were implementing it to create new marketing opportunities, create efficiencies inside of their operations. This year, a lot of the discussion is actually about the macro trend around artificial intelligence, the acknowledgment of the industrial build-out around this new technology and how that is buoying investment and employment – and therefore consumption. And so, the policy concern or consideration from some of these companies is whether or not there are upcoming electoral issues, either in the midterms or in the next election cycle, that might change the dynamic around the AI industrial build-out. Are there signs that would show that a tougher regulatory regime? Data center construction bans that these things might take on a bipartisan flavor? And so right now, I think that's a very difficult question to answer. There is obviously some level of concern about if policy might change this dynamic around the AI industrial build-out that really has kind of helped the economy deal with some other external shocks from policy, namely what's going on in the Middle East and trade policy changes before that Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, to that point, this question around AI pushback, especially on data center build-out, has been a big theme in the elections. Thus far, it's really been dealt with on more of a state and local level. But our view is that it's been kind of bubbling up to the national level. Efforts there are nascent, but I don't think they're going away anytime soon. So obviously something that we're going to watch heading into November because it matters a lot for corporates and for investors alike. Mike, maybe we'll leave it there. Thanks so much for taking the time to talk. Michael Zezas: And thanks for taking the time to talk to me. Ariana Salvatore: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen. And share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

In his first meeting as Fed Chair, Kevin Warsh signaled restraint in providing guidance. Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets looks at possible impacts of the new approach.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, why the Fed could do less than expected and why that could still lead to more volatility. It's Wednesday, June 24th at 2pm in London. Last week saw the first meeting of the Federal Reserve under its new chair, Kevin Warsh. It didn't disappoint. The Fed's Summary of Economic Projections saw significantly higher inflation than the last iteration in March, and in turn, a much stronger case to raise interest rates, perhaps multiple times. The Fed's statement, which laid out its views around the economy and its reasons for action, was changed dramatically – and also significantly shortened. We don't think the Fed will ultimately follow through on the interest rate rises that were flagged in this meeting and will choose instead to remain on hold this year. But we think this scenario of them staying on hold can still lead to more volatility. I'll try to address each side of this apparent contradiction. First, the Fed is clearly worried about inflation, which has been elevated for a considerable period of time. But working through the numbers, Morgan Stanley economists forecast lower inflation over the rest of this year than the Fed now expects. And so, while we think it would be entirely reasonable for the Fed to expect to raise interest rates based on the high inflation that they have penciled in, we think they could reach a different conclusion if our lower estimates are ultimately correct. Supporting our case, at least in our view, is that energy prices have fallen significantly in recent weeks since some of these Fed forecasts were set, as markets have moved to believe not only would existing oil production resume in the Persian Gulf, but Iran could increase exports materially under its new agreement with the United States. That would greatly reduce a source of underlying inflationary pressure in the U.S., Europe, and Asia. With inflation set to come in lower than feared, we think the Fed's most natural option will be to remain on hold this year rather than raise rates. But if the Fed's not doing anything, how exactly is that going to drive volatility? Our answer to that question lies in another thing that it's not going to be doing – providing as much information about where it thinks monetary policy is going next. Indeed, since the financial crisis, the Fed often went out of its way to give so-called forward guidance and significant detail about when and how they may change policy in the future. Proponents saw this as a way to avoid surprises and smooth the transmission of this policy, but critics saw it as limiting and potentially giving markets a false sense of certainty. The new Fed chair, Kevin Warsh, is one of these critics and has promised to give a lot less forward guidance. That lack of handholding by the Fed about what they might do next is a big change. Coupled with the potential for a smaller Fed balance sheet and big questions around the path of inflation and the impact of AI and productivity, every data point now has more potential to shift the market's thinking. My strategy colleagues think that this will lead to higher volatility in two-year interest rates, as well as more volatility in currencies. I'd also note that here in the UK, this paradox is not nearly as puzzling. Here, the Bank of England's target rate has been the same level since mid-December. But that hasn't stopped the UK two-year bond yield from trading in an over 100 basis point range. 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.

First-time homebuyers may get short windows of relief, but our co-head of Securitized Products Research James Egan and Senior Economist and Strategist in Morgan Stanley's Private Wealth Management Sarah Wolfe say the bigger story is a housing market resetting around a higher bar to entry.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----James Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Housing Strategist and Co-Head of Securitized Products Strategy.Sarah Wolfe: And I'm Sarah Wolfe, Senior Economist and Strategist within Morgan Stanley Wealth Management.James Egan: And today, why first-time homebuyers are facing a tougher path to ownership.It's Tuesday, June 23rd at 10am in New York.Buying a first-time home has always been a big step, but for a growing number of first-time buyers today, the goal can really seem insurmountable.Mortgage rates might be down from where they were in the second half of 2023, but they're significantly higher than they were for the several years before that. Monthly payments have roughly doubled for a median-priced home. And my colleague Jay Bacow and I have talked several times on this podcast about how many homeowners feel like they're locked into those lower rates.And they're staying put because they just don't want to give up a two or three-handle mortgage rate for something that has a six in front of it. But Sarah, as we know, this is bigger than just first-time buyers. Now, they often start the housing transaction chain, and when they can't buy, current owners may not be able to sell and trade up.That slows turnover across the market, and it also reduces activity tied to housing – from mortgages and renovations to moving and furniture. And it can keep would-be buyers renting for longer, which adds pressure to rental demand.So, how do you see this situation? Is this just another affordability squeeze, or has the housing market reset to a higher barrier to entry?Sarah Wolfe: I do think that we're on the upper bound of affordability pressures. This is about as bad as it's going to get. But as we discussed in our recent publication of The Economy Explained, unfortunately, we do think that the housing market is resetting at a structurally higher barrier to entry. There's a lot of reasons for that.The first is higher interest rates. Yes, mortgage rates are sitting around 6.5 percent, and they should come down from here, but maybe not better than 5.5 percent, right, in an optimistic scenario. The second is demographic pressures. Remember, we have this tremendous aging population of baby boomers. All of their children are now entering their prime home-buying years, so there's a lot of demand for ownership.The third and fourth ones are land regulation and permitting, which is at the state and local level, really hard to change. And the last one is climate risk. It's just raising insurance pricing and making it much more difficult to buy a home.So overall, we see a world where, yes, mortgage rates come down a bit, improve affordability marginally, but we think neutral and other interest rates at the longer end of the curve are going to be higher than the post-financial crisis period. And what we're going to see is that those forces are going to widen the divide between who can own a home and who cannot. And who gains from that wealth accumulation and who does not.James Egan: Right. So now, you mentioned where mortgage rates are today, above that 6 percent rate. Rates did briefly – in February, we got below 6 percent before they bounced back up here. Why did that short-lived relief matter so much?Sarah Wolfe: I think that short-lived relief showed us that moves in the mortgage rate make a difference, but things are so unaffordable that it didn't make that much of a difference.So, the dip below 6 percent was very exciting. It happened this past February. It was the first time that mortgage rates fell below 6 percent since 2022, and we saw a few things happen. First, it lowered the monthly payment for first-time homebuyers from about two point two thousand dollars a month to one point nine thousand.So makes a bit of a difference. And it lowered the share of income that goes towards monthly mortgage payments from about 26 percent of income to 22 percent, from peak to trough. So, that is a notable improvement. But what we saw in the new home sales data and the existing home sales data, that it did not drive people back into the housing market.I want to turn it back to you though, Jim, because you've actually done a lot of interesting work on this. And how this change in mortgage rates has changed the monthly cost that people have to pay for a median-priced home. Can you tell us a little bit more?James Egan: Sure. So, we talk about the lock-in effect a lot, and it's kind of easy to point to: Well, there are a lot of people with mortgage rates that are around 3 percent or 3.5 percent, and the prevailing rate's at 6 percent, and that's a lot higher, so they're locked in.But when we look at the actual numbers in terms of what we're asking a homeowner to do – to list their home for sale and move to another home today, pay off that existing mortgage, take out a new one. When you take into account how much higher home prices are today…You bought a home in 2016, for instance, right? Let's assume you refinanced in 2020 or 2021 if you still live there, right? Most homeowners did. So, you've actually taken your monthly payment, and it is lower today than it was when you bought your home in 2016. If we assume that your income has risen alongside just median household income over that time period, your monthly payment as a share of your income today is probably sub 8 percent.If you bought over the past three years, your monthly payment is a share of your income. You mentioned some numbers earlier. It's low to mid 20 percent. From a dollar amount perspective, if you were to pay off that 2016 mortgage, as an example, and take out one today, your payment is probably [$]13[00] or $1400 higher. It's like a 200 percent increase. That's very difficult economically for a lot of households, and that's the kind of physical manifestation of that lock-in effect.Now, Sarah, given this significant change in housing math, what does that mean for who is actually able to buy in this market?Sarah Wolfe: It's making who's able to buy into the market a lot more selective. So, what we're seeing is that first-time home buyers today are actually not meaningfully older. They're still about 36 years old, but they are a much more selective group financially. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York put out a great analysis on this recently, and they basically found that the first-time home buyer profile today is taking out a mortgage that's nearly $350,000, compared to $240,000 in 2019 and $200,000, a decade ago. So, significant increase in mortgage balances.At the same time, credit standards have tightened significantly, so that average credit score to get a mortgage has risen quite a bit over the last 5 to 10 years. And what this is doing is it's shifting who can buy and also where they can buy. So, we're seeing higher-quality home buyers moving to lower-income zip codes. So, buying cheaper homes in lower-income metro areas, and so it's wealthier buyers in lower-income areas.And that's the really big shift that we're seeing. It's a demand resorting story. And what we're also seeing, and we hear this a lot when we talk to our financial advisors and their clients, is that family is increasingly helping their other family members put that down payment down; in particular, parents helping their children buy that first home.So, we're seeing that first-time buyers may be feeling this pressure, right, when it comes to rates. How much of this affordability issue, though, is being driven by the locked-in effect specifically?James Egan: So, look, it's clearly playing a role. We just talked about some of the math behind that. But then when you look at what that means on a nationwide basis when it comes to inventory, when it comes to so many other aspects of this, that homeowner who's unwilling to give up that lower mortgage rate, that lower payment, right, their homes are off the market.Existing inventories for sale, they've picked up from historic lows in 2023, but they're still very, very low on a long-run basis. The fewer homes there are for sale, the more upward pressure or the absence of downward pressure that's going to put on home prices, right?We saw affordability plummet in 2022 and 2023 when rates backed up. We saw existing home sales really, really come down as a result. But home prices remained at record highs. They continued to set new record highs. For home prices to actually come down, right, you need people who are willing to sell at lower home prices.Sarah, you just mentioned that lending standards themselves remain tight.Sarah Wolfe: Mm-hmm.James Egan: Those forced sales, those tend to be distressed transactions. We don't see that distress in the market providing the inventory and the motivated inventory to lead to softer home prices. So, it's really that lack of inventory which we think is in large part driven by the lock-in effect that's kept home prices. And as a result, that piece of the affordability equation kind of stuck at these higher levels.Sarah Wolfe: I mean, it's really this vicious cycle, the locked-in effect making it difficult for entry-level buyers to get into the market – and then fewer existing homeowners sell or trade up or relocate. So, on and on it goes.Are there broader implications of this freeze?James Egan: Right. So, we just talked about what that means from an inventory perspective. And then if you think about affordability remaining challenged, lending standards themselves remaining tight, inventory remaining as low as it is, you could argue that we're at one of the more difficult times that we've seen for renters to exit rentership and step into homeownership.Now, there's a lot of different things that drive rent growth, and the fact that you have a stuck renter is just one of them. The other side of that equation can be the supply of rental units, right? So that's just a piece of the equation.But those are some of the externalities that we think about when it comes to how the tightness of the housing market – what the lock-in effect and what affordability is doing there. But outside of the housing market, Sarah, the wider economy, like how do these housing costs play a role there?Sarah Wolfe: Massive effect. Some of the work that we've done shows that housing affordability is the number one driver pushing down fertility rates in America. The number one driver. Above childcare costs, above finding a partner, finding a good job. It's housing affordability. So, you could see how that could pretty significantly ripple through the broader economy.But there's other components, right? So, as we discussed earlier, it's driving migration from unaffordable areas to more affordable regions. That has significant implications. And then putting my consumer economist hat on, as we discussed earlier in the podcast, when people buy a home, they tie themselves to that home. They spend money on couches, on beds, on TVs, right? Durable goods. And if we're going to have more people as renters for longer, that's going to expand the services economy at the expense of the goods economy.All right. Let's take a step back and think about where this is all going. It hasn't been a very optimistic conversation. Jim, what is the outlook for affordability in your view? Do we get anywhere back to the post-financial crisis period or even the pre-financial crisis period?James Egan: When it comes to the outlook for mortgage rates, the outlook for affordability, the outlook for the U.S. housing market – look, we just, throughout Morgan Stanley Research and Strategy, published our 2026 major outlook. From now through the end of 2027, we don't have conventional mortgage rates getting below 6 percent.We do have affordability improving on the margins. We have income growth exceeding home price appreciation that makes it a little bit better, but that doesn't get us back to the post-GFC affordability era, which was very, very affordable. Looking back over the past several decades, it gets us closer to where we were pre-GFC, not all the way back there.But when we think about how that ripples through the housing market and how we think about that evolving from here, look, we do think that the state of mortgage credit availability means there will be a lack of distress. We think that while affordability itself may be challenged and inventories may be low, there is some level of housing activity that has to occur regardless of where mortgage rates are or affordability is.We think we found that level. We think there's support for home sales at these current levels, and that combination of support for home sales, lack of inventory, means that home prices, very little room for them to grow from here. But we think they're going to be pretty supported.So, from a housing market perspective, at a ten-thousand-foot view, we're calling it 1-2 percent growth in sales, in home prices, well-supported. But the affordability outlook that we've outlined throughout this podcast – challenged to see a lot of acceleration.Now, when we pull it back to the first-time home buyer, based on our conversation, it seems that the key question is becoming less about when to buy, more about who can still afford to enter the market.But Sarah, it's really been great talking with you about the housing market today.Sarah Wolfe: It was great speaking with you, Jim.James Egan: 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. ***Sarah Wolfe is a member of Morgan Stanley's Wealth Management Division and is not a member of Morgan Stanley's Research Department. Unless otherwise indicated, her views are her own and may differ from the views of the Morgan Stanley Research Department and from the views of others within Morgan Stanley.

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson reacts to Kevin Warsh's first Fed meeting, explaining why the new chair's credibility may require letting markets experience some short-term pain.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 my views on the New Fed Chair and how to interpret his FOMC meeting last week.It's Monday, June 22nd at 11:30 am in New York. So, let's get after it.I want to spend today on what I think was one of the more important market events of the year so far. Kevin Warsh's first Fed meeting as the Chair. Specifically, he is trying to fortify credibility at a very delicate moment. The economy is stronger than many expected. Inflation is still running above target. And markets have become accustomed to central banks telling them exactly what to think.Back in February, when Warsh was nominated, I argued that this was the right choice if the goal was to lift market credibility. At that time, precious metals were rising parabolically. To me that was a bad signal that markets were questioning whether policy makers could really run the economy hot without creating a disorderly move in the dollar or a broader inflation problem.Since Warsh's nomination, the S&P 500-to-gold ratio is up close to 40 percent, and I view that as a powerful vote of confidence from the markets. It suggests investors are giving Warsh the benefit of the doubt – that he can shake up the Fed, reduce reliance on the balance sheet as a policy tool, and solidify discipline that gives the administration some breathing room.But here's the catch. Enhancing credibility is not always painless. In fact, credibility must be earned by doing something markets don't immediately like. And last week had some of that flavor. Stocks weakened, the yield curve bear-flattened, the dollar strengthened, and precious metals sold off. From my perspective, that is not a failed first meeting. That is a good and necessary first step. What stood out to me most was Warsh's emphasis on the inflation mandate. He made it very clear that the Fed's primary responsibility is price stability – not managing every wiggle in the labor market, not smoothing every risk asset drawdown, and not hand-holding investors through every data point. And frankly, after five years of missing the inflation target, that message was overdue.The stronger economy and improving private payroll data give the Fed room to lean into that message. I don't think this means the Fed is about to hike rates immediately, or even necessarily this year. But it does mean the reaction function has changed, and markets do not like uncertainty around the Fed path.The other major shift was communication. Warsh appears to be moving away from excessive forward guidance, and I think that's a very healthy development. For years, I've argued that the Fed became too influential in shaping not only market behavior, but also how investors interpreted the data. When markets are only trying to guess what the Fed will say next, the Fed loses the value of market prices as an independent signal. That's backwards. Markets should be reacting to incoming information, and the Fed should be learning from those reactions – not vice versa.A little less Fed hand-holding may be uncomfortable, but ironically it is necessary to get to a more stable place. Investors may not like it in the short term, but the system works better when market prices are less impeded by policy manipulation. The wisdom of crowds is often better than the wisdom of committees.The near-term risk for equities is not rate hikes or even uncertainty. It's liquidity. Balance sheet support has already started to fade. The Reserve Management Program is down roughly 75 percent from its peak, Treasury buybacks have been reduced by 50 percent. And at the same time lending growth is accelerating because the real economy is using more capital. That combination means liquidity is tightening, and our work suggests that could remain a headwind for stocks into July.Bottom line, the market may test Warsh's resolve. That's what markets do. The key question is whether the Fed tolerates some short-term pain in order to strengthen longer-term credibility. My guess is that it tries to do exactly that, until funding markets, credit markets, or bond volatility forces its hand to add more liquidity and loosen financial conditions again. That argues for choppy and even corrective price action in equity markets in the near term until the earnings led bull market has its next leg higher. 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!

As AI investment keeps growing, our strategists Carolyn Campbell and Vishwas Patkar discuss the many ways tech infrastructure gets financed and the opportunities for investors.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Carolyn Campbell: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Carolyn Campbell, Morgan Stanley's Asset-Backed Securities Strategist. Vishwas Patkar: And I'm Vishwas Patkar, Morgan Stanley's Head of U.S. Corporate Credit Strategy. Carolyn Campbell: Today, how fixed income markets are helping fund the AI build-out. It's Thursday, June 18th, at 10am in New York. Let's get right into it, Vishwas. We've both come on this podcast before to talk about how credit markets are financing the AI build-out. And over the last ten months, I think it's fair to say that things are faster, broader, deeper than we perhaps expected initially. This investment now spans investment-grade corporate bonds, high yield loans, and a range of securitized products. From your seat in corporate credit, why does AI infrastructure matter so much, to investors right now? Vishwas Patkar: This is a big talking point in our client discussions. it's also telling that less than a year ago, we wrote about this topic for the first time, identifying a $1.5 trillion financing gap that credit markets could help bridge. At that time, data center debt was not something that investors were really focused on. Yet less than 12 months forward, this, I think, is the number one theme dominating both your and my market. And why it's important, I would say, is across, three key vectors. First, just the scale. So, if you look at overall AI-related debt issuance so far this year, we're close to $250 billion. For the balance of the year, we expect that number to double, so about $500 billion of total AI debt financing for 2026. Increasingly the second vector, I think, is around the complexity of deals. So initially, while AI financing was dominated by vanilla investment-grade corporate bond deals, we are now seeing that broaden out into project finance style deals in the high-yield market. We have seen an uptick in chip financing across the different credit silos. And that's important for investors, as identifying value across these different options does require deep credit expertise. And third, as this investment cycle rolls along, it's also important to be cognizant of risks that are building. Not just from a very broad top-down sense around the demand for compute. But also, what are some of the nuances in these different structures – whether it is in data center construction or is in chip financing that investors will need to monitor. So, it's across these three themes that we think data center debt financing is gaining importance. Carolyn Campbell: Now, the underlying demand for AI infrastructure is very strong. That doesn't necessarily mean that every bond tied to this theme is automatically going to be attractive. And as you mentioned, [$]500 billion of supply for the year; a large amount of complexity between those structures.How should credit investors think about the various risks within these different structures? Vishwas Patkar: So, in investment grade, the story is a bit simpler. So, we have had unsecured hyperscaler bond issuance. We have had issuance from semiconductor names. And then we've had some, what we call, private style data center deals. But the vast majority still comes from hyperscaler investment grade rated bonds. For this market, our focus is less on fundamentals because fundamentals are very strong. And then hyperscaler are some of the more most creditworthy companies that we've seen in the history of the market. Our emphasis more is on just the quantum of supply. So, year to date, we have had north of [$]100 billion of hyperscaler debt in the dollar market. We've had north of [$]50 billion being issued in other currencies. If you look at the overall investment grade market, supply is up almost 25 percent versus last year. That's consistent with our call for a year of record issuance this year. And increasingly, if you look forward and then map these issuance numbers to our CapEx estimates, where we could very much be on track for another record to be hit next year. So, the issue of the investment grade market is not around the fundamentals of the companies or these deals. It's more about the quantum of supply, which we think eventually will test the demand capacity of this market. And our base case for the investment grade space is similar to 1997-1998, where credit was starting to finance the business cycle, spreads widened modestly, and IG could underperform other risk assets. But over a longer time horizon, spreads still look historically very low. Carolyn Campbell: Now, what about further down the credit spectrum into the non-investment grade portion? What about that part of the issuance spectrum for AI? Vishwas Patkar: Yeah. So, what we're seeing in the sub-investment grade space, especially in high yield, is very different. There, the growth in data center financing has happened around project finance deals for data center construction. In many cases, these have come from crypto miner companies that effectively provide what we call speed to power solutions. We've also had some unsecured issuance from neo clouds, although that's relatively small. But this sector has expanded from effectively zero billion around the fall of last year to about [$]40 billion this year. We expect to see another [$]20 billion of issuance by the end of 2026. And the way they fit into this whole ecosystem is – these project finance deals we think are interesting diversifiers for regular credit investors. They do come with construction risks, especially initially for the first two to three years till the data center is up and running. But on the flip side, you do get a lot of structural enhancements and creditor protections, which is something you don't see in the vast majority of the high yield market. So, I think a key shift in the framework that investors have to do for these deals is focus on asset-level risk, which is again, I think a big divergence from how the vast majority of the credit market trades, which is largely unsecured corporate-level risk that investors have been used to. Carolyn Campbell: All right. You just brought up construction risks. Do you think that's the biggest risk facing the high-yield investors today? Vishwas Patkar: Yes. I think for the high-yield deals in particular, construction risk is the dominant vector that investors are focused on. Because it's important to remember a lot of the debt issuers are first-time borrowers. And they have a limited track record of construction in the past. So, you could see potential delays and things like cost overruns that can affect sentiment on the sector. Or at least on specific bond deals. And this will be especially important to monitor going into the second half of the year, as we have some of the first delivery dates coming up for the deals in the sector that were announced last year. That being said, you know, even though some of the tenants have termination rights, if delays go beyond 180 days, our view is that given the structural power constraints, these termination rights are unlikely to be exercised. So, while construction milestones can affect sentiment and short-term valuations, we would look at any blips as buying opportunities in the space. Alright. So Carolyn, let me throw this back to you. So, construction risk clearly very important for the corporate credit market, especially for high yield investors. Is that something ABS investors or commercial mortgage-backed investors care about? And in what other ways are these asset classes different from corporate credit? Carolyn Campbell: Okay. So first and foremost, the biggest difference is that in securitized products, the assets are stabilized, they're cash flowing, they're online. We don't have that first vector of construction risk in our space. The second biggest difference is while in high yield and IG we've mostly seen – or we've entirely seen single campus, single tenant data centers; in securitization issuance, it's mostly multi-tenant, multi-asset, multi-regional, deals that have come to market. And so, it's a very different risk profile. And as a consequence, investors are focused not just on who is behind this one single lease and what are the termination rates, but what does the landscape look like in general for compute? How does that affect vacancy and churn rates? And then lastly, the issuers themselves are different. You talked about the crypto companies. You get a little bit more of the data center, data center construction. Whereas in securitized products, these are companies that have been around for 5, 10, 20 years. They're accustomed to managing a fleet of assets, dozens if not hundreds of tenants. They've got a little bit more of a track record for the most part, than the types of issuers we're seeing in the credit market. Vishwas Patkar: Your market post-construction, more leverage to the thematic of demand for compute – and how the AI investment cycle is playing out. Versus the corporate credit market, which is largely exposed to construction risks as the data centers get built out. So that's a very important difference.That being said, one theme that ties both our markets are just healthy fundamentals, but at the same time heavy supply. So, I talked about how we see that affecting our view on investment grade. How is that same tension showing up in securitized products? Carolyn Campbell: So exactly as you said, the fundamental story is very strong. We don't see deterioration in performance of the assets either that has happened yet or that we expect to come in the near term. So, it really is a technically driven story. Supply in this space, we're forecasting at around [$]30 billion for year, so smaller in magnitude, but relatively large for the market. That has very elevated supply expectations, and so as a consequence, we've seen spreads back up across the space. We do think that some of the cross-asset comparisons will help keep spreads contained from here. And so, we do see value in securitized credit across the stack for the rest of the year. Vishwas Patkar: All right. So, you brought up the cross-asset comparison. And so, we've discussed the fundamental differences in our market, how much issuance we expect. But, you know, just to end on a commercial note – if we are advising investors on where is the best relative value and what's the framework for comparing opportunities, how do you think about that? Where do we see value across the ecosystem? Carolyn Campbell: I mean, I think this is probably the biggest question that investors that are looking at this space are facing today. And there's... If we're thinking just about the data center backed assets, I think there are two main things. One is the asset itself, where we're focused on things like the geography, the tenant, the interconnectivity, the flexibility of this asset for multiple uses. And then the second is on the structure of the deal itself. How much leverage is being raised against the asset? How cash flowing is it? And then of course, the duration as well. But it's a great question. And because of the complexity of this space, it can be really hard to compare one to the other. Vishwas Patkar: Yeah. And, at the risk of providing a non-answer, I very much think investors are in the process of coming up with a framework because these deals have come very quickly. This is a new sector for most credit investors to analyze. But I think what we can say with a high degree of certainty is this is blurring the lines between corporate credit and securitized credit. So, you know, this opens up more avenues for us to collaborate on this topic going forward. Carolyn Campbell: All right. That's a great place for us to leave it today with that nice cross-collaboration. Vishwas, thank you so much for taking the time to talk. Vishwas Patkar: Great speaking with you, Caroline. Carolyn Campbell: 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.

AI's appetite for memory has turned chips into an inflationary factor. Our U.S. Public Policy Strategist Ariana Salvatore looks at what policymakers could do to reduce that pressure.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Public Policy Strategist. Today, I'll be talking about chipflation and what policy tools can or can't be used to address the memory bottleneck. It's Wednesday, June 17th, at 10am in New York. Last week, you heard my colleague Shawn Kim talk about chipflation and the surging cost of memory. Today, I'll get into what policymakers can and can't do about it. As listeners will know, memory chips are becoming an increasingly strategic resource because AI infrastructure depends on them. And when a resource becomes strategic, governments tend to get involved. The challenge is that policy can help at the margin but probably can't solve the problem quickly. There are three reasons for that. First, many U.S. policy tools all take time. Direct subsidies, tax credits, procurement guarantees, and faster permitting are all things that can support new fabrication plants, packaging facilities, and testing capacity. But memory supply is not going to appear overnight. This new capacity has to be built, equipped, qualified, and ramped – and that process can take years. Second, China may be able to add some supply in conventional memory markets, but not enough to close the broader gap created by AI demand. That's especially true for high bandwidth memory, the more strategic type of memory for frontier AI systems. Supply there still remains highly concentrated, technically complex, and difficult to scale. Third, our base case is that U.S. policy remains more restrictive, not less. We don't expect a broad loosening of export controls given the strategic imperative of this technology. Instead, we think policymakers are likely to continue to prioritize supply chain resilience, trusted capacity, and geopolitical de-risking over the near-term price relief. Now, from a policy perspective, we think it's important to split memory into two categories. The first is AI strategic memory, high bandwidth and advanced DRAM. That's the memory that enables the most advanced AI systems. And for that reason, we think policy here is likely to focus on protecting strategic capability, limiting geopolitical vulnerability, and expanding trusted supply across the U.S. and its allied countries. The second category is commodity or legacy memory. That's the memory that you can think of as being used in autos, industrial systems, consumer electronics, and other non-frontier applications. Now here, we think policymakers could consider more flexible options, like differentiated licensing or targeted support for critical sectors. But even then, the limits are practical: permitting, workforce, tools, qualification cycles, and production lead times. China is the other major variable. Chinese producers are expanding in conventional DRAM and NAND. In some consumer-grade applications, that supply could act as a relief valve for buyers that have been crowded out by AI-related demand. But still, there are limits. Chinese producers face yield and technology gaps, even if policy is supportive. And China alone will not solve the high-bandwidth memory bottleneck. The regulatory backdrop reinforces that point.Some Chinese memory producers remain subject to U.S. restrictions or even heightened scrutiny. Access to the most advanced lithography tools also remains a hard ceiling. Without that access, scaling leading-edge memory becomes much more difficult. So, the bottom line is this: policy can mitigate chipflation, but it's unlikely to end it in the near term. For AI strategic memory, policymakers are more likely to defend access, deepen allied coordination, and encourage trusted capacity than to loosen restrictions. For commodity memory, there may be room for some targeted flexibility. But of course, geopolitics and timing still matter. 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 Macro Strategy Matthew Hornbach and our Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen discuss the signals investors will be seeking from the new Fed Chair leading his first monetary policy meeting and possible implications for markets.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, markets are watching the Fed's next move. Are rate cuts delayed or could hikes possibly be back on the table? It's Tuesday, June 16th at 8:30am in New York. So, Mike, the FOMC meeting today and tomorrow is likely more about reading the signal rather than announcing a rate change. Markets will focus on inflation forecasts, the unemployment rate, and the growth outlook. But, of course, this will also be the first meeting after Powell ended his term as Fed chair in May. All eyes will be on Warsh. So, what are your thoughts before the press conference? Michael Gapen: A lot of thoughts, actually, before the press conference. I do think it's basically a foregone conclusion that the Fed will be changing its easing bias in favor of more neutral language. Seems clear the committee wants to do that, probably wanted to do that at the last meeting. And it does fit, I think, Warsh's preference for less communication, less guidance from the Fed. So, I do think that's largely a foregone conclusion, although obviously we need to see whether that happens and whether there are dissents. I think, as you noted, the forecasts will be important, but I think what's really important from my perspective – more than the modal outlook or the baseline that participants have – is their assessment of the balance of risks around the dual mandate. And I say that because obviously a year ago, the Fed eased policy when it felt that there were downside risks to the labor market that outweighed upside risk to inflation. This year, that seems to have flipped, where the labor market appears to have stabilized, labor demand has picked up a little bit, and it is inflation that looks persistent. So, if the Fed cut last year on downside risk to the labor market, I think the concern for markets is – maybe they hike in 2027 or later this year based on a changing balance of risks in the direction of firmer inflation. So, for me, that's really kind of key. In addition to what they're saying about growth inflation in the labor market, what is their assessment of the distribution of risks around that modal forecast? Matthew Hornbach: There's definitely going to be a lot of investor interest in the press conference itself. What exactly may result from the opening statement. Presumably, Chair Warsh will give an opening statement. How are you thinking about the back and forth between Warsh and the reporters that are asking questions? Are there certain questions that you would anticipate him getting asked, and how do you think he might respond? Michael Gapen: Well, I think certainly that if we are correct, and I think markets are correct, that they do change forward guidance in the statement to more neutral bias, that certainly opens up the possibility that the Fed will be hiking. So, the obvious first question is – is this the first step in the direction of hiking? What would get you to raise rates? Should investors be thinking about that? Is that the course of travel here? Now Warsh may not want to answer that if he, kind of, is consistent in the view of saying the Fed shouldn't give a lot of forward guidance. So maybe get some popcorn, Matt. It could be a situation where he gets asked questions about the future path of monetary policy, and maybe he decides, ‘I don't want to take that up right now. The data will tell us, and we'll do what's necessary.' And second, I think as you're noting and getting to about the structure of the press conference and what he might say is; past Federal Reserve chairs, let's say from Bernanke on, have found the press conference – the press conference statement, the questions, the format, the venue – as a way to control the narrative. And I think what will be interesting is to see whether Warsh has the same design. The risk, of course, is perhaps that he doesn't and pulls back the amount of communication guidance that he wants to give. And then we'll see what fills that vacuum. What narrative fills that vacuum? And is he okay with that? So, it may be that there's a new sheriff in town, and he chooses that there's some questions I'll answer, others I won't. And so, I do think that interaction with the press corps will be interesting. Hard to know exactly where it's going to come down until we see it in real time. Matthew Hornbach: During Chair Warsh's testimony to Congress, he alluded to the idea that potentially the Fed may not do a press conference at every meeting going forward. How are you thinking about that in the context of this idea that if you leave a void, somebody else may fill it? Michael Gapen: Obviously, the Fed used to not have press conferences at all, and then they moved to having them quarterly or four times a year. And they found that that was a little suboptimal because it became harder to make decisions and changes in the off-press conference meetings [be]cause they didn't have a venue to explain what they were doing and what they were thinking. So, they migrated to eight meetings. So, I think it's kind of twofold. Yes, it would mean that they speak less and therefore maybe their word doesn't carry as much weight. Or there's longer gaps for other narratives to come in. Like, do we lose forward guidance from the Fed, and is that replaced by forward guidance from the Treasury, for example? How do markets weigh those signals? And but then also I would say would that ultimately box in the Fed to only make decisions on quarterly meetings rather than eight times a year? Would the chair, for example… Let's assume that at some point in the future, the Fed decides it does want to raise interest rates. Historically, the Fed does not surprise on rate hikes. It's perfectly willing to surprise on rate cuts, when it comes to that. But if there is a world where the Fed does decide, ‘Hey, we do need to raise rates, but we don't have a press conference to explain our view.' Would they take the decision at that meeting or would they wait? So, does it reduce their opportunity set? Matthew Hornbach: I think this issue would certainly be an interesting one for investors to think about, which is why I'm bringing it up with you. Because to the extent that the plan going forward is to hold a press conference only once a quarter, as you alluded to – investors may interpret that as the Fed not being willing to raise rates at every single meeting going forward, which would certainly affect the pricing in the very short end of the interest rate market. But more broadly, on communication strategy, do you think that that would be something that Chair Warsh would take upon himself? Or do you think it would be more likely for him to organize a committee to discuss communications? Michael Gapen: I think the right thing to do… Again, our job is to say what we think he will do – not what he should do. But I'm going to answer this one in the question of what I think he should do. I do think he should create, say, a subcommittee on communication and reevaluate what the Fed does. [Be]ause as chair, he has almost unilateral control over communications. But obviously you work within a committee, the committee operates with consensus. So, I do think it would make sense to, kind of, work through a committee and try and get as much consensus as you can. And, here, what I would hope where they, kind of, ultimately land is – Warsh has been critical in the past of the Fed's forecast, the forecast being incorrect, providing maybe incorrect forward guidance. And I would argue that it's not really the sole job of the SEPs – the Summary of Economic Projections – to provide a forecast. But what you get out of them is more than just a forecast. You get a hint of the committee's reaction function. That if data are above or below certain thresholds on growth, inflation, and unemplyment, then expect our policy path to look different. So, is there a way that he could review the communication strategy, tamp down the elements that are, say, a pure forecast, but keep the items that communicate to the market what a reaction function is? That's where I think a review committee could be useful in reforming or revamping what they do. Matthew Hornbach: Absolutely. In terms of the things that are really the purview of the committee, can you walk us through what those are in the context of Chair Warsh coming in having to ultimately make decisions on monetary policy – both interest rate policy as well as balance sheet policy? What are the purview of the committee itself? Michael Gapen: Yeah. The two main tools of monetary policy, in this case interest rate policy and balance sheet policy, is both of those are under the purview of the Federal Open Market Committee. So, to change interest rates, to reduce the size of the balance sheet, to change the rollover rate, to buy assets, to sell assets – all of that is an FOMC decision. There are subcomponents of that world where the board can make certain decisions. Now, the Fed views communication broadly as a tool, but in this case, communication is not an FOMC decision. The evolution of the communication strategy grew kind of organically out of '08, '09. Chairman Bernanke kind of started that process. It continued through, through Yellen. And that's been more of what I'll call a consensus operation, but there's no formal vote. So, the chair has a lot of control over how the Fed communicates, how often it communicates. But the policy decisions are from the FOMC. Matthew Hornbach: I'm often asked about this idea that less communication may end up affecting the bond market in certain ways. And typically, the concern amongst investors is that with less communication from the Fed – whether it be the chair or whether it be from the committee as a whole through the Summary of Economic Projections and its interest rate dot plot – there's concern amongst investors that removing that type of guidance would raise bond yields, essentially through the term premium component of the term structure. And the way that we think about it is probably in this environment where interest rates have already been inching higher, and investors are concerned about the hiking cycle that may eventuate, it probably would raise term premia initially. But from a more medium-term perspective, the way I think about it is that, you know, term premia can be positive, it can also be negative. And if we have less forward guidance, I would generally expect that term premium component to be more volatile than it has been in the past. Not necessarily just in the upward direction. But it could also be in the downward direction if the macro environment ends up changing in some way. Michael Gapen: Yeah, I could see in the current context, the inflation surprises have been to the upside, so less communication may mean more term premium. But we went through almost a decade after '08, '09, where most of those surprises were to the downside. So, you can imagine that it could be a symmetric story rather than an asymmetric one. Matthew Hornbach: Absolutely. Well, thanks Mike. That's very interesting, and thanks for taking the time to talk ahead of this upcoming FOMC meeting. I'm looking forward to our next discussion around the following FOMC meeting. 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.

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains why the recent equity correction may be more reset than reversal and where investors may find the next opportunities.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: Possible opportunities to look out for in the equity correction over the past few weeks.It's Monday, June 15th at 1:30pm in New York. So, let's get after it.Sometimes the market changes direction or leadership not because the story has broken. Instead, it just needs to digest how quickly the story has evolved. Over the past few weeks, equities had their biggest correction since the important bottom in March. I don't view this as the end of the bull market though. I view it as a pause after an unsustainable acceleration in two key factors driving stocks higher this year: earnings revisions and liquidity. In my view, the market wasn't questioning the earnings bull market as much as it is questioning the speed at which earnings have been revised higher. These revisions have been particularly strong in leading sectors like semiconductors, which also corrected the most. When earnings revisions breadth gets north of 70 percent, it's reasonable to ask whether the second derivative is about to slow. That doesn't mean earnings estimates are going down. Instead, it means the rate of improvement is probably peaking, and in markets, it's always about the second derivative in growth. Such decelerations create corrections, not crashes. That distinction is important. Earnings revisions breadth may pause or roll over from extreme levels, but the next twelve-month earnings estimates are still likely to rise as we move through the year and roll forward toward 2027 numbers. That's why I remain convicted in our year-end S&P 500 target of 8000, even if the next few weeks remain choppy. Markets can correct while the earnings story remains intact. In fact, that's often exactly how healthy bull markets reset.The second part of this adjustment is liquidity. Earlier this year, liquidity was flowing strongly through the system as a means of regaining financial stability. Between the Fed's Reserve Management Program, reduced bank capital requirements, and Treasury buybacks, more than half a trillion dollars of liquidity was effectively added. But that pace is now slowing. The Reserve Management Program has fallen from roughly $40 billion a month in April to about $10 billion today; while Treasury buybacks have also slowed from the March and April highs. This rate of change slowdown matters at the margin, especially for crowded momentum trades that have been supported by abundant liquidity. Take note of these corrections in momentum because they often bring a change in leadership and that's the real opportunity. We've already seen a few leadership rotations this year – from precious and base metals, to rare earths, to energy and finally to semiconductors. Now I think the market may be ready to broaden again, much like it did late last year and in the first six weeks of this year.Importantly, our preferred sectors of Consumer Discretionary Goods, Transports, and Regional Banks are all up more than 10 percent over the past month while the S&P 500 was down modestly. Yet, sentiment toward these areas is still muted. That's exactly the kind of setup I like: improving fundamentals, better relative price action, and investors still skeptical.Another piece that should help this broadening. Macro variables that have been holding lower quality cyclicals back include interest rates, crude, and the dollar – they may all now be peaking. That fits nicely with the announced deal to reopen the Straits of Hormuz last night. If oil pressure eases and the bond market walks back the Fed hike it is currently pricing, interest rate sensitive groups should have room to extend their recent outperformance. Finally this week's Fed meeting matters too because it's Kevin Warsh's first as the Chair. I'll be watching less for the rate decision itself and more for how the bond market reacts. The key markers are still the same for me: 4.5 percent on the 10-year, while bond volatility and funding market stress need to remain calm. If the Iran deal holds, I think the Fed can lean less hawkish on rates – but I don't expect a proactive pivot to add more liquidity.Bottom line, markets have been digesting the peak rate of change in growth acceleration and liquidity. But that's far from the end of the cycle. The earnings driven bull market remains intact, but the leadership may be changing. As usual, the best opportunities may be hiding in the places investors don't believe in, yet.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!

Chief Asia Economist Chetan Ahya joins Head of India Research and Chief India Equity Strategist Ridham Desai to break down India's macro outlook, capital flows and sector opportunities.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Chetan Ahya: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia Economist.Ridham Desai: And I'm Ridham Desai, Morgan Stanley's Head of India Research and Chief India Equity Strategist.Chetan Ahya: Today, the biggest takeaways from our India Investment Forum in Mumbai. From the shifting outlook for India's markets and flows to the sectors driving the next phase of corporate earnings and CapEx.It's Friday, June 12th at 7PM in Hong Kong.Ridham Desai: And 4:30PM in Mumbai.Chetan Ahya: Ridham, the Morgan Stanley's India Investment Forum took place in Mumbai last week, and I was there with you. These events are a great opportunity to speak with investors who come across from the globe to attend. Now that we have had a few days to process the conversations, what stood out to you? What was the biggest shift in investor sentiment that you picked on?Ridham Desai: So, Chetan, I think it's been the case of a continuing story about India. Domestic investors look that they are bullish, and foreign investors continue to stay rather cautious on the Indian markets. We could see that in the overall attendance. In contrast, I think domestic investors were looking for the next stock that they wanted to buy. They were seeking opportunities, and there was a lot of interest in meeting companies.Before we get into markets, let me turn back to you from a macro side. India's growth story remains strong, but relative growth appears to be cooling. This is in contrast to markets like Japan, Taiwan, Korea, and the US. How should investors think about India's macro positioning in that context?Chetan Ahya: So, Ridham, when I look at the macro data in India, they're all indicating a meaningful upside in the growth trend. So I'll just cite two key cyclically sensitive macro data points. One is the banking system credit growth, and number two is the auto sales, particularly the passenger vehicle. So bank credit growth is growing as of the last biweekly data point that we got. It's growing at seventeen point seven percent year-on-year, and car sales are growing at twenty-seven percent in the month of May.But as you were mentioning earlier, the relative growth opportunity is a challenge for India and to just share the numbers on the earnings growth for the first quarter that we saw across the region. So we saw Korea's earnings growth at one hundred and seventy percent. We saw Taiwan's earnings growth at forty-eight percent year on year. Japan at thirty-three percent. The US has seen a growth of about twenty-seven percent year on year.So in that context, when India is reporting thirteen percent growth, it's becoming a challenge for investors to look for opportunities in India relative to other markets. Either they are more focused on the other markets than India. So let me come back to you, Ridham. Staying with the investment implications, India projects stable valuations and strong corporate earnings, but its relative growth advantage has narrowed. How should investors reconcile this contradiction?Ridham Desai: If I go back thirty-five years, as long as we have the MSCI index series, and as far as I have been in this industry, this is the lowest relative multiple that India has traded at. And indeed, growth last year was weak. But if you see QOQ, we have started to accelerate. The broad market earnings growth trajectory has shown a doubling in the quarter that ended March over the quarter that ended December.But it underscores the point you made about the relative growth complex. It's clearly not in India's favor. And a lot of the capital in the world is short-term oriented, and it cares for what growth is gonna come in the next quarter or two. And that's the state of the market right now.However, what I would say is that equities is a quintessential long-duration asset class. In the long run, what matters is terminal growth. I don't really think India's terminal growth has moved much. It remains far superior to a lot of other countries around the world. And therefore, I think this does present itself as a great opportunity for a long-term investor while the markets are digesting this relative growth disadvantage that India seems to have over the next, say, three or four quarters.Chetan Ahya: And Ridham, another theme from the forum was policy action to attract capital. Policymakers announced a number of measures right as our conference ended and they aimed to withdraw withholding tax on debt investors, also providing banks with an incentive to take up more dollar borrowing. How central are these measures to sustaining foreign inflows into Indian markets?Ridham Desai: I think the measures taken by policymakers are very important, probably amongst the most important policy actions this year. The removal of taxation on debt investors will make a difference. The provision for hedging to external commercial borrowings as well as to foreign currency deposits will make a difference.It should boost flows into India over the next twelve months. That said, these measures may not help the equity flows because the equity flows, I think, are going to depend on the relative growth situation. Now, there's only that much India can do to lift its growth. It may accelerate to the high teens. So growth elsewhere needs to decelerate for equity investors to return. Or India needs to see the start of a major IPO cycle because in primary issuances, foreigners do come to buy, and that may change the net picture on FBI flows in the equity markets.But as far as the debt markets are concerned, I think the measures taken last week are going to prove to be quite potent, and India should see the benefits accruing over the next few weeks and months.Chetan, from your perspective, how important is the policy backdrop right now in determining whether India can keep attracting long-term global capital despite more competitive returns elsewhere in the short run?Chetan Ahya: So Ridham, I think the key focus for the policymakers had been with these measures to boost short-term capital inflows to stabilize the currency. There has been a balance of payment deficit. So from that perspective, the short-term capital inflow augmentation effort as you mentioned, has been the correct move. But from the long-term perspective, we think that the government needs to boost competitiveness of the Indian manufacturing. Because in the context in which AI could affect India's services exports, there is a need to augment more export receipts from the manufacturing sector. At the same time, if they improve the competitiveness of the manufacturing sector, it will help India to attract more capital inflows from long-term investors for the purpose of FDI.And the good news is that the government is on it. They are taking a number of measures to boost that competitiveness in the manufacturing. But we think that there is more action needed and hopefully in the intention to improve the balance of payment dynamics and exports from manufacturing sector, we will see more actions from the government in the coming months.Ridham Desai: Chetan, you've also written extensively about the structural capital spending cycle in Asia and India. Can you walk us through the key details here, especially in the Indian context?Chetan Ahya: I think the key story that we are observing, it's sort of more or less global, but definitely very clearly seen in Asia, that there seems to be a super cycle for CapEx as well as industrial activity. This CapEx cycle is effectively driven by spending in four key sectors, and that is AI and AI-related digital infrastructure, energy, defense, and industrial onshoring-related CapEx.Now, as far as India is concerned, we are seeing investments in all the four segments that I just mentioned. In fact, it's seeing a significant amount of activity in the space of energy. And, similarly, we are seeing a lot of policy measures, I mentioned earlier, in terms of boosting manufacturing competitiveness.But at the heart of it is government's effort to onshore industrial supply chain. So India's CapEx has also inflected higher. Having said that, the difference between India and, let's say, North Asia, which is Korea, Taiwan, Japan and China, is that they are also a big player in the export market for capital goods when there is global CapEx cycle upswing happening. Nevertheless, India will see the benefit of this CapEx cycle in terms of its own growth push, as well as improvement in productivity.So Ridham, how would you think about the sectoral opportunity within the Indian markets?Ridham Desai: We see a lot of interest in some of these sectors which you mentioned. But actually, I would like to start off with financials. I see the banks in a very sweet spot. Balance sheets are in pristine condition. The interest rate cycle has troughed, which means margins for the banks have also bottomed and credit growth is finally accelerating. If this CapEx cycle unfolds like the way you are describing it, I think financials will stand to gain the most.And interestingly, the valuations are quite good, both on an absolute as well as on a relative basis. Also, of course, investors can go directly into those sectors which are doing this capital spend. Energy to start with, semiconductors, fertilizers, data centers and aerospace.The only thing to note here is that not everywhere are the valuations attractive enough because in some cases the market has recognized the coming growth cycle and has started to price that in. So we have to be careful about the valuations. But I think financials and industrials are clearly great opportunities in the context of this CapEx recovery that India is likely to see in the coming five years.Chetan Ahya: And additionally, the most requested companies at the summit, Ridham, were consumer sector companies. What do you think investors are looking for at this sector over others?Ridham Desai: So, Chetan, I think from a structural perspective, the Indian consumer is quite clearly the best place to be. In fact, I would say that it's the leverage that India enjoys over the rest of the world.The one point five billion people in this country are split across, say, a hundred and fifty cohorts of ten million each, and each of these cohorts have got different consumption opportunities. So depending on what product or service you're offering to your consumers, there's a market in India, and which in nominal terms is growing between ten and fifteen percent.As we know, last year India accounted for something around seventeen or eighteen percent of global GDP growth, which means depending again on what you are selling to your consumer, India could be between ten and hundred percent of your revenue growth. So India's consumer is something that hardly anybody can avoid.So in summary, Chetan, when I look at it from an investment opportunity, financials, industrials, and consumption, not necessarily in that particular order, are probably the best places for investors to look at. However, IT services, I think could be the dark horse. It's a sector right now which is disrupted or potentially disrupted by AI, and there's a lot of confusion there.But I think as the dust settles on this, it may emerge as one of the most interesting areas for investors to look at. So there's a lot of stuff in India happening right now. I think growth is accelerating. Valuations are looking quite interesting. In fact, the best that they've been in many, many years.Trading performance suggests that investors are not positioned at all. And if things start looking up, then India could be a very good market in the coming twelve months.Chetan Ahya: Ridham, thanks for taking the time to talk.Ridham Desai: Great speaking with you, ChetanChetan Ahya: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy our Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or a colleague today.

Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets explains our differentiated view of a potential benign outlook for inflation, despite the recent acceleration.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, why is everything still so expensive?It's Thursday, June 11th at 2pm in London.The Federal Reserve has a so-called dual mandate, tasked with keeping the labor market healthy and prices stable. It is currently having much more success with the former than the latter.Let's start with that good news.Last Friday saw solid data from the U.S. jobs market, reducing some of the fears from earlier this year that artificial intelligence and other factors would lead companies to make do with fewer workers. The U.S. unemployment rate sits at just 4.3 percent, a historically low level. Measures like initial jobless claims indicate no large uptick in firings.Yet the success within the U.S. labor market is mirrored by struggles with inflation. The Fed tries to keep inflation, the annual increase in a broad set of prices, to about 2 percent per year. Their preferred measure of these prices, so-called PCE inflation, well, it's been materially above this target over the last three months, six months, twelve months, and indeed, the last five years.As for another key measure of inflation that was reported yesterday, CPI, overall prices increased more than 4 percent. While that was close to expectations, it still represents prices that are rising much faster than the Fed would prefer.This leads to a dilemma. One diagnosis of what's going on is that elevated inflation is a sign that conditions are simply too loose and too accommodative at these levels of interest rates. Corporate capital expenditure and merger activity is surging, regulation is being eased, and the U.S. government is spending a lot more than it's taking in. All of these are consistent with a hot economic cycle, which in the past would've warranted higher interest rates to bring the economy back down to a more sustainable speed.But it might not be that simple.The surging spend that we're seeing on AI data centers feels pretty unique and almost insensitive to other dynamics. Indeed, we've seen a 700 percent increase in the price of memory over the last year. Yet it's done little to slow demand for this construction as the large, well-capitalized companies behind the AI buildout see it as so essential to their future success.U.S. consumers are also still spending, boosted perhaps by record levels of household wealth. As just one example of this, my colleagues in Equity Research note that the price of airline tickets has gone up 25 percent over the last year, yet there's been no sign of people flying less.Now, the positive story would be that while there are some high-profile categories like computer memory or airfare that are seeing these large price increases, the broader inflation picture is actually set to get better as the year goes on, and costs for things like housing and tariff-impacted goods moderate. That is our view at Morgan Stanley, where our economists think that inflation will ultimately be lower over the next twelve months – and lower than many in the market expect.But there's definitely uncertainty.This month, June, is one where central banks may appear to have a renewed commitment towards inflationary pressures; with the ECB hiking rates today and our expectation that the Bank of Japan will hike rates next week, while the Fed will remove their easing bias. And our more benign economic base case for inflation does assume that oil will start flowing through the Strait of Hormuz pretty soon. It may not, and that could also lead to more sustained inflationary pressure.The big story on inflation has not gone away. Our assumption that pressures could ease in the second half of the year is a key and differentiated input to our forecast for lower bond yields and higher stock prices in 12 months' time. But it does rely on a change of the status quo.As of now, inflation is still too high.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.

Morgan Stanley analysts Ravi Shanker and Jeff Adelson take a look at what the fight for affluent, loyal travelers could mean for banks and airlines. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Ravi Shanker: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ravi Shanker, Morgan Stanley's North American Airlines analyst. Jeff Adelson: And I'm Jeff Adelson, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Consumer Finance analyst. Ravi Shanker: Today, who really owns your travel loyalty? The airline, the bank, the rewards platform, or you? It's Wednesday, June 10th at 7am in New York. Jeff Adelson: So, Ravi, you just came from your annual travel conference, and I'm about to head into the second day of Morgan Stanley's 17th Annual Financials Conference here in New York, where we're hosting roughly 135 corporates.A lot of themes are coming up there: retail engagement, product innovation, regulatory change, AI digital assets, capital markets recovery, and so on. All of these connect back to a bigger question. Who owns the customer relationship? Ravi Shanker: And that's exactly where travel co-branded cards come in. They sit at the crossroads of premium consumer spending, loyalty, and the competition for wallet share. They've become a more important revenue stream across travel, banking, and hospitality.But it's not as simple as more travel means more co-brand growth. Most customers still want flexibility, cashback, and low fees. Premium travelers and loyal airline customers behave differently. Let's start with the cardholder. Most consumers have a credit card, but travel co-branded cards are still a much smaller piece of the overall wallet. So, how big is the opportunity here, and how hard is it to get consumers to switch? Jeff Adelson: So, what's actually interesting, Ravi, is that travel co-branded cards are still relatively under-penetrated. In our survey, about 90 percent of cardholders have a general purpose card, while only about 22 percent have an airline card, and 12 percent have an hotel co-brand card. So, on the surface, the runway for growth does look significant. The upshot is also that once you get these consumers in the door, they are much higher spending and drive a ton of volume and incremental card economics for both the banks and their co-brand travel partners. The challenge is that consumers are pretty loyal to their cards or airlines that they already use, so most people aren't actively looking to switch. They tend to add a new card only when the value proposition is compelling enough. And sometimes given these one-time nature of the signup bonuses, it results in some churning without keeping the customer for the long term. So ultimately, what this all means is issuers and travel brands aren't just competing with each other, they're competing against habit. So, to win, they need to offer something that's meaningfully better than what's already in the consumer's wallet. Ravi Shanker: Got it. So, consumers seem to care most about value, fees, rates, and reward. Cashback still leads by a wide margin. So where do travel-specific rewards fit in? Jeff Adelson: The nuance here matters. Travel rewards don't need to win with everybody to be valuable. What makes them so powerful is they resonate with a specific group of customers, specifically the ones who are traveling – the frequent travelers, the ones who spend more, and those who engage more deeply with loyalty airline programs, for instance. For those consumers, lounge access, status benefits, upgrades, and airline or hotel points can create a level of engagement that's difficult for just a basic cashback card to replicate. The nuance here matters. Travel rewards don't need to win with everybody to be valuable. What makes them so powerful is they resonate with a specific group of customers, specifically the ones who are traveling – the frequent travelers, the ones who spend more, and those who engage more deeply with loyalty airline programs, for instance. For those consumers, lounge access, status benefits, upgrades, and airline or hotel points can create a level of engagement that's difficult for just a basic cashback card to replicate. Ravi Shanker: So, the premium consumer looks different. Why is that customer so important to card issuers? Jeff Adelson: So, higher income consumers frankly just spend a lot more. They're more loyal, they carry more cards, and they're more willing to pay a higher annual fee if they feel like they're getting the value from the card back after they pay that fee. In our survey, consumers earning over [$]150,000 per year of income spent roughly twice the amount on their primary card, and they were willing to pay almost twice the annual fee as other income cohorts. They're also attractive from a credit standpoint, from a, you know, delinquency perspective. These customers are more likely to pay their balances in full each month, and as a result, have lower credit risk. And often they keep long-standing relationships with their banks or their airline partner. That's why premium card and travel partnerships remain such an important customer acquisition tool for a bank. It has a really long lifetime value. The battle isn't really for the average card holder; it's for the affluent consumer who's driving a disproportionate share of spend in the U.S. economy.Ravi Shanker: Got it. So, the banks and travel brands are partners today. But they're also starting to potentially compete more directly for the same customer. What should investors watch to see whether this stays a partnership or becomes more of a tug-of-war? Jeff Adelson: So historically, this has been a successful partnership, especially in recent years as high-income consumer spending pie has grown in the U.S. How this works is airlines provide loyalty and travel experiences. Banks provide the card issuance, distribution scale, and share back those card economics to the airlines. Everybody wins when the travel spend grows. But we're starting to see some things overlap. Banks are building their own premium travel ecosystems. That includes things like flexible rewards points with the ability to transfer to any airline you want, proprietary lounges away from the airlines, and travel benefits that increasingly compete with airline loyalty programs. So, what investors should watch from here, in our view, are two things. Number one, is the high-income consumer and the travel pie continuing to grow? That's really what's held everything up and frankly, driven the airlines that you cover to realize that they hold this golden ticket. They hold the access to that consumer, so they've begun negotiating for more of the economics away from the card issuers. The second thing we think that you need to watch out for is whether consumers really continue to value these airline-specific rewards enough to justify the existing partnership model. Our survey indicated that most consumers still prefer flexible rewards over points tied to a single airline. But among frequent travelers and airline loyalists, the airline ecosystem does remain powerful. So, the future does seem to depend in part on whether these travel brands can continue to deliver on experiences that the consumers really can't get elsewhere. So, Ravi, maybe switching to you. For the airlines, the question I have for you is a little different. How do you turn loyalty into a durable, profitable revenue stream without losing sight of the core travel product? Ravi Shanker: That's exactly it. Kind of you referenced the strength of the travel ecosystem in your previous response, and I think that's exactly what the airlines need to focus on. I think the takeaways for the airlines from the survey is very clear. You cannot have a co-brand revenue opportunity in isolation. It is just a layer on top of your core revenues. You cannot build an incredible loyalty or co-brand franchise without having a very strong core airline product. The analogy we use in our report is that it's sort of like the restaurant business.Most restaurants usually make the bulk of their profitability off of the wine menu or the liquor menu, even though you're going there primarily for the food and the ambiance and the service. If you don't have really good food and ambiance and service, you can't make money off of the wine menu. Similarly, we think the airlines need to continue to focus on their core product, whether it's their network or their reliability, their safety, where they fly, the quality of the product in the sky, the lounges, as you mentioned. And once you get all of that in order, then you can tap into the co-brand revenue opportunity over time. Jeff Adelson: So maybe just running with that analogy on, you know, co-branded revenues becoming a more meaningful part of the airline business. Why are they so strategically important in your view? Why should the consumer pay for that bottle of wine that they can get? Ravi Shanker: Look, we, we don't have a full disclosure from the airlines just yet, but we have some nuggets that tell you that this is a very attractive revenue opportunity, right? So, look at some of the numbers we do have. We think that this business has been growing at a low double-digit CAGR for the industry, which is much faster than core revenue growth. We think it has already grown to be about low double-digit percentage of overall revenues. And from the little info we have, we can surmise that this is a very, very profitable business. Something in the order of 35-50 percent operating margins, if not much higher than that in an industry that is overall working really hard to get to double-digit margins on a core basis. So, this business can be about half of overall mid-cycle profitability, maybe even higher for some of the airlines, even though, it is considered to be an ancillary revenue stream. This is also a very, very stable business that doesn't exhibit the kind of cyclicality or volatility as the core passenger airline business. And so, we think the airlines will be looking to grow this for the margins, for the stability, and for the, honestly, growth opportunity over time. Jeff Adelson: And if we think about that opportunity growing over time, if consumers really do care more about tangible benefits than brand prestige, as I think our survey indicated, what does that mean for the airlines trying to build that loyalty through these card partnerships?Ravi Shanker: It's exactly as you mentioned, kind of, earlier – that we think both the banks and the airlines need to keep investing in the product. They need to keep giving the consumers enough rewards that make it seem worth the fees and worth the while to subscribe to a travel co-brand card – versus going with a more generic card that gives you just plain cash back. And I think, again, it comes down to whether the core airline product is strong enough for the consumer to warrant going down the path of building loyalty with the airline franchise. And if the consumer is committed to travel, as a share of the consumer's wallet significantly enough to commit to travel cards' benefits over generic benefits. We have a lot of confidence in the latter. In that all of our data, all of our surveys since the pandemic have shown that travel is now almost a consumer staple spending item rather than being a consumer discretionary spending item that it was before. And travel is now a significant spending priority – after only groceries and household staples for the average consumer. For the high-end consumer, it is the number one spending intent category. So, we know that travel is very important. Whether the airline is worth, kind of, committing to or not is very airline specific in our view.Jeff Adelson: So, if we put this all together and, you know, you think about your forecast for the industry and, you know, our joint forecast for the co-branded card revenues… Ravi Shanker: Mm-hmm. Jeff Adelson: Maybe just talk a little bit about how you think those revenues keep growing so strongly, or whether they continue to grow strongly. Or is there a risk that this all plateaus at some point in the near future? Ravi Shanker: Look, that's a great question, and that's why we highlight three possible scenarios in the report. In our base case, we have the industry growing at roughly the same double-digit CAGR that it has been for the last few years. That sees the market go from about $25 billion today to about [$]60 billion in the next 10 years. In our bull case, we have travel as a share of overall spending, and travel cards as a percentage of overall credit card issuance, which you highlighted earlier was a pretty low number, actually expand to something more reasonable. And that's where we see the potential for the market almost quadrupling from $25 billion today to [$]100 billion in the next 10 years. And our bear case, kind of that's when you talk about a macro risk. Second, maybe some kind of slowing down in travel as a spending priority, which we actually don't think happens. But what's more likely is the point you referenced earlier, in response to my question about the relationship between the airlines and the hotel companies versus the credit card issuers may be changing a little bit. And this becoming a little more of a free-for-all in the industry and a little more competitive. That could potentially, kind of, hurt the economics for the overall industry, even though the size of the pie will continue to grow. So that brings us back to the consumer's wallet. So, every time I'm on a trip, I have several options – maybe a cashback card, maybe a premium travel card, maybe an airliner hotel co-brand card. So, which one am I reaching for every time I look to swipe? Jeff Adelson: Well, I mean, I think at its core, it really depends. It's a battle at the end of the day for the loyalty of a high quality, sticky and heavy spending consumer. And consumers are largely rational, right? So, they're going to go with a card where they think they get the best value. And if that's their airline card where they think they can accrue the best loyalty status and maybe get their first class upgrade every now and then and get unlimited access to the lounges, maybe they'll choose that. But really in a survey what we learned was most consumers tell us they care about value, flexibility and rewards. So, the highest value consumers I just mentioned are also looking for experiences, convenience and status. So that's why the banks, airlines and hotels are all investing so aggressively in these premium ecosystems to try to lock them in and keep them loyal. Every swipe is really a vote for which ecosystem delivers the most value if you think about it, right? The winner isn't necessarily the company with the best card too. It's the company that creates so much of the strongest overall relationship with the consumer. And that's why this competition matters so much across banking, travel and hospitality. So, we are watching this competition. So far, it's working. It's a rising tide that's lifting all boats. But as I mentioned before, it really will only continue to work if our forecasts are right and the high-income consumer views this as less of a discretionary spend item and more of a stable spend item. And, if that pie, and the high-income consumer, continues to grow in the U.S., then this relationship can continue to work for the foreseeable future, we think. Ravi Shanker: That makes a ton of sense. Jeff, thanks so much for joining me on the show today. Jeff Adelson: Thanks, Ravi. It was my pleasure. Ravi Shanker: And to our listeners, thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you get your podcasts and share with a friend or colleague today.

As AI demand surges, our Asia Energy Analyst Mayank Maheshwari discusses the new multi-trillion-dollar investment cycle to secure the power, fuels, grids and storage that keep modern life running.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mayank Maheshwari, Morgan Stanley's Asia Energy analyst. Today: how AI's rapid growth is forcing Asia into a massive energy buildout across power grids, fuels, storage and dependable energy and power generation. It's Tuesday, June 9th at 8am in Singapore. Every time you ask AI to draft a note, summarize a file, plan a trip or generate an image, the response feels instant and easy. But behind it sits a very physical system: data centers, electricity, cooling, fuel, metals, power lines, storage tanks and ships. There is no AI without energy. And in Asia, the power and energy needs could get much bigger. And right now, we are at a critical inflection point where energy, AI, and security converge into [a] once-in-a-generation investment cycle. We see a super cycle with $5 trillion plus in new investments in energy over next five years, almost double of what we have seen in the past decade. And this has global implications as Asia consumes almost half of the world's energy needs – but produces only about a third of it at home. Energy markets may be global, but energy insecurity is local. It shows up in electricity prices, fuel shortages, factory delays, food supply pressure and household budgets. By 2030, Asia's energy use could rise by about 38 exajoules. That increase is roughly equal to all the energy the Middle East consumes today. Power demand alone could reach about 19 trillion units a year when expressed in kilowatt-hours. That is around four trillion more units of electricity usage than in 2025, driven by data centers, industry, and onshoring of businesses. AI is now part of that demand story. By 2030, data centers could use roughly one-sixth of all new power units in Asia. That makes AI a major new load on the power system. Meeting this demand requires a major investment cycle. Asia's annual energy investment could rise to roughly US$1.1 trillion a year over the next five years. Much of that spending goes into the power system itself: generation, grids, storage and the equipment needed to connect everything. Grids may be the biggest bottleneck. Think of [the] grid as the highway system for electricity. You can build more power plants, but if the roads clog up, the power does not reach homes, factories or data centers. Asia's grid investment needs could reach close to about US$1 trillion by 2030. Transformer lead times have stretched to years in some cases, which shows how tight the equipment supply chain has become. The hardest part is keeping the lights on every hour of the day. Baseload power means electricity that can run around the clock. Asia is adding a large amount of renewable power to its energy infrastructure. But that source depends on when the sun shines or the wind blows. That is why coal, gas and nuclear remain part of the conversation. Storage also moves from useful to essential. Batteries help smooth out renewable power demand when supply rises and falls during the day. Global energy storage installations could rise from about 500 gigawatt hours in 2025 to around 3,000 gigawatt hours in 2030. Powering AI also reaches beyond electricity. Data centers need power, but the system around them needs dependable fuels, grids, batteries, metals, refining, storage and shipping. Electricity has to be generated, moved, backed up and supplied through physical infrastructure. That is why this story pulls in copper and aluminum for grids, fuel refining for transport and petrochemical supply chains, and fertilizers because energy security also connects to food security. The future may look digital, but it will be powered by something far more physical: the largest energy buildout Asia has seen in decades. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

The Head of our Europe and Asia Technology Team, Shawn Kim, explains how AI's appetite for memory chips is boosting the cost of everything from data centers to smartphones, with consequences that may reach far beyond the tech industry.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Shawn Kim: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Shawn Kim, Head of Morgan Stanley's Europe and Asia Technology Team. Today, we're talking about chipflation – when memory chips stop getting cheaper over time, and become more expensive and even harder to find. It's Monday, June 8th, at 3pm in London.Memory chips are easy to ignore, until your laptop slows down, your phone costs more, or your cloud bill jumps. Memory is the computer's workspace. It holds whatever the machine needs at that moment, whether that is a web search, a video, a spreadsheet, or an AI model answering a question. DRAM is the fast memory inside servers, PCs and phones. NAND is what stores files in solid-state drives. And HBM, or high bandwidth memory, is the high-performance version sitting right next to the AI chip, helping them move huge amounts of data quickly. That last one – HBM – is key because AI has become intensely memory hungry. Memory prices have risen more than six-fold over the last year, a sharp break from decades when the cost of DRAM generally kept falling. The pressure is coming from AI infrastructure buildouts. We see servers accounting for 59 percent of DRAM demand by 2028, up from 37 percent in 2023. We also see enterprise solid-state drives reaching 65 percent of NAND demand, up from 18 percent. And simply put, data centers are taking a much bigger share of the memory pie. AI memory use is climbing fast, and at every scale. A newer AI chip uses 7.2 times more HBM than earlier generations. A full system uses about 65 times more. Across an entire AI data center buildout, the jump gets even bigger. HBM has gone from roughly 10 terabytes in 2020 to about 18 petabytes in 2026, orders of magnitude more. This demand is running into a supply chain that cannot respond quickly. New memory capacity takes years to build, qualify and ramp up. Supply relief is a process, not a switch. And that creates a two-tier market. Large AI and cloud buyers can sign long-term agreements, prepay and secure priority access. Traditional buyers, including PC makers, smartphone makers and industrial hardware companies, must compete for what remains. This impacts everyday products. In 2027, we see PC memory demand potentially facing a 15 percent shortfall, equivalent to about 58 million PCs. Smartphones could face a 12 percent shortfall, equivalent to about 134 million units. Companies may have to raise prices, cut specifications, delay launches, and accept lower profits. The dollar numbers are striking. We see the memory market growing from about $220 USD billion in 2025 to about $890 billion in 2026. Expectations for 2026 memory revenue rose 71 percent in just three months. That implies roughly $600 USD billion of incremental memory revenue in 2026, more than the annual market for smartphones, PCs, or servers, each taken on its own. The broader economy may not see a significant direct inflation shock. We estimate the direct impact on headline CPI at about 0.1 percent in 2026. But pressure is showing up in producer prices, in corporate margins, cloud costs, capital spending plans and delayed technology upgrades. AI has turned memory from the cheapest part of the digital economy into one of its most contested resources. These tiny chips most people never think of may now decide what gets built or delayed, and how much we all end up paying. 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.

Trade policy is once again in the news with the announcement of new tariffs. Our Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore digs into why tariffs may not be a disruptive factor for markets this time.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 how investors should be digesting the latest tariff headlines and what they could mean for the broader economic and market outlook. It's Friday, June 5th at 10am in New York. Tariffs are back in focus as the U.S. administration has proposed new levies following Section 301 investigations into more than 60 of our trading partners. At the same time, USMCA negotiations appear to have begun in earnest, with recent headlines focused on autos, including the possibility of raising regional content requirements for vehicles and auto parts. Now, at first glance, these developments sound like a meaningful escalation in trade policy. But we think these headlines are best understood as a continuation of the existing tariff regime rather than a new and more disruptive phase. Let's start with Section 301. Listeners may recall that the administration replaced the IEEPA tariffs with Section 122 following the Supreme Court's decision back in February. However, that was done under a temporary authority that expires in the end of July. It's been our view that as we approach that deadline, the administration would seek to replace the existing regime under a new authority. The conclusion of the Section 301 investigations is really a step in that direction; or said differently, a continuation of existing policy. We see the administration preserving the current tariff regime come July, but without a larger inflation or growth shock. The second issue is the USMCA. Raising regional content rules may be part of the negotiation now, and those changes could create sector-level friction. Similarly, we think it's possible we see escalation ahead of the July deadline as all three countries work to improve the existing trade deal. Now that being said, we're still constructive on the longer-term trade alignment between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada, and we see structural and procedural constraints that are going to limit the downside risk to something like a potential withdrawal from the agreement. We still expect the USMCA carve-out to remain in place even for Section 301 goods on a range of trading partners. That's because we think the administration sees value in maintaining supply chain integration within North America across a number of sectors. In general, we actually think the recent pattern on tariffs has been toward less, not more, trade pressure at the margin. Recent months have come with several carve-outs, exemptions, and delays on broad-based and sectoral tariffs. That suggests that the administration is still sensitive to the downstream cost impact of tariffs, and of course, affordability matters politically heading into the midterm elections in November. That view also fits with our broader U.S. economics outlook. Our economists continue to see a relatively benign macro backdrop. Growth is expected to remain trend-like, with consumer spending slowing but not collapsing, and strong AI-led CapEx offsetting some of the drag from higher energy prices and policy uncertainty. On inflation, tariffs remain part of the story, but much of the pass-through appears to be already in the data. That pairs with a more constructive outlook for equity markets as well, as our strategists there see a strong earnings story supported by things like positive operating leverage, AI adoption, improving pricing power, and a broadening out in earnings growth. So, the key message for investors is this: tariff policy is still noisy, and it will remain a source of headline risk. But in our base case, the administration is moving toward a more durable version of the current tariff regime, not a materially more disruptive or restrictive one. Section 301 replaces Section 122, the USMCA carve-out stays in place, and selective exemptions continue where the affordability or supply chain costs are too high. 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 the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Commodities Strategist Martijn Rats discusses why the restart of oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz may be slower and tighter than the market expects.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley's Global Commodities Strategist. Today – how fast can Middle East production return?It is Thursday, June the 4th, at 3pm in London.Every time you pull into a gas station, those prices are staring back at you. What you see at the pump is just the front end of a global system we've been watching for months: tankers, storage, insurance, and shipping lanes, all still constrained by the Strait of Hormuz. But while prices at the pump are still high, Brent has actually fallen back to around about $92 a barrel.In inflation-adjusted terms, today's Brent price is actually right at the 50th percentile of the last 20 years – suggesting that the market is assuming a clean, near-term recovery in supply. Yet the disruption continues to be extraordinary. Roughly 11 million barrels per day of Gulf crude remains offline, close to half the region's pre-conflict output.We think the market may be too optimistic. Our working assumption is now that meaningful export recovery through the strait begins only in the second half of July. Even then, normal does not return with the flip of a switch.First, ships need to be willing to sail. Owners and insurers need confidence that the waterway is safe. If mines remain in traditional shipping lanes, the strait can be technically open but still operate at reduced capacity. Clearing that risk can take weeks, and potentially several months.Second, the tanker fleet is in the wrong place. When ships cannot work in the Gulf, they move elsewhere. Bringing enough empty tankers back to lift crude takes time.Third, storage is a limiting factor. Oilfields cannot restart if export tanks are full. For producers that rely heavily on seaborne exports, empty tankers are therefore essential.Last, oilfields themselves need restarting. Before the closure, around 36,000 wells were active across six Gulf producers. Roughly 10,000 of those are currently offline. After a shut-in of nearly five months, about 4,000 to 5,000 wells could face restart constraints. Reservoir pressure can decline, equipment can fail after sitting idle, and flowlines need cleaning and safety checks.All told, around 75 percent of lost supply can probably come back within four months after flows through the Strait of Hormuz resume. But the final 25 percent may take well into 2027.So why have prices not moved more? The market began this shock with buffers. Inventories were elevated, oil-on-water was high, and emergency relief releases helped. The U.S. increased seaborne net exports of crude oil and refined products from roughly 5 million barrels a day to 9 million barrels a day. At the same time, China's seaborne net oil imports fell from around 13 million barrels a day a year ago to just over 7.5 million a day over the last 30 days.But these cushions are thinning. Strategic reserve releases are scheduled to drop from about 2.5 million barrels per day in April through June to about 0.7 million in July and August. U.S. gasoline and diesel inventories are already well below five-year seasonal lows. China is already on track for five consecutive months of unusually low crude buying for April through August delivery. But that starts to raise the probability that Chinese buyers return for September barrels. Buying for September typically starts mid to late June.Now, oil is trading like the disruption is nearly over. But at the same time, the physical system is telling a slower story. Prices may look calm on the screen, but the bottleneck is in tankers, storage tanks, wells, and crews.Our Brent forecasts remain $110 per barrel for the second quarter and about $100 a barrel for the third quarter. We recently raised our estimates for the fourth quarter to $95 and the first quarter of 2027 to $85 a barrel, and expect a return to $80 eventually thereafter.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.

Chief Fixed Income Strategist Vishy Tirupattur takes a look at how credit markets are adapting to fund the new phase of AI capex.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Today – The critical question behind the AI-driven capex cycle that is front and center for markets year to date. How is credit market financing this ecosystem evolving? It's Wednesday June 3rd at 2 pm in New York. When we first discussed the role of credit markets in financing the AI and data center build-out around the middle of last year, the direction of travel was clear. Realizing the transformative potential of AI requires unprecedented levels of capex. What has really surprised us since is the scale and speed of that spending, both of which have exceeded our expectations by a wide margin. The upward revision to capex expectations has been dramatic. A year ago, we projected the combined capex of the five large hyperscalers at roughly $450 billion in both 2026 and 2027. After the first quarter earnings reports, Morgan Stanley's internet equity analysts, led by Brian Nowak, now expect hyperscaler capex of roughly $800 billion in 2026 and $1.2 trillion in 2027. One data point really captures the surge in the underlying demand for compute. According to OpenRouter, the global weekly token usage, which is a key proxy for compute, has risen by roughly 350 percent since early January, increasing from about 6 trillion tokens to 28 trillion tokens. Credit channels for financing this capex have not only been broader and deeper than we anticipated, spanning public and private markets, but have seen remarkable in the structural innovation that is blurring the lines between public and private markets. Over $200bn of public AI-related issuance across the different credit channels has happened just in the first five months of this year. We had previously assumed unsecured issuance would be limited by the scale of the largest non-financial issuers, confined to investment grade credit only, and largely USD denominated. Instead, some hyperscaler issuance has now far exceeded even the largest telecom names; funding has expanded well beyond USD into EUR, GBP, CHF, JPY and CAD markets. The issuer base has also broadened to include data center REITs and neoclouds, particularly in the high-yield market. The scope of financing has also widened beyond the data center shells themselves. GPU financing, which we assumed would be funded entirely through equity capital, has begun to migrate into credit markets. Funding is now coming through broadly syndicated loans and asset based financing, with ABS structures not far behind. Structural innovation illustrates how rapidly the credit ecosystem is adapting to the complexities of demands of AI-driven capex. Financings that combine elements of project finance, tranching, and residual value guarantees, along with high-yield issuance backed by hyperscaler guaranteed leases – these are innovations that we have never seen before. These structures have expanded the investor base, reduced the funding frictions, and further blurred traditional boundaries – between both corporate and project finance, and public and private credit markets. At the same time, physical, operational, and political constraints are beginning to shape the pace and the composition of the AI infrastructure build-out – and, by extension, the demand for financing. Grid access, power generation equipment, skilled labor, and permitting delays are emerging as significant constraints. These are compounded by political and regulatory frictions at the local, national, and international level. As power availability becomes a gating factor, the AI build-out is likely to pull energy infrastructure financing more tightly into the orbit of AI infrastructure financing. The clear takeaway is this. The capex requirements underpinning AI infrastructure are expanding exponentially, and with them the role of credit markets in financing this build-out. Along the way, there will be winners and losers, periods of adjustment, and a range of physical, financial, and political constraints that shape outcomes on the margin. But the broader trajectory is certain. The scale, duration, and strategic importance of AI infrastructure investment mean that financing of this will remain a defining theme for credit markets and credit investors for years to come. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets takes a closer look at potential investment paths when markets appear increasingly synchronized around a few macro themes.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, how to square a market that is both highly correlated, and highly divergent, at the same time. It's Tuesday, June 2nd, at 3pm London. A market of one. That may be a way that you hear investing described these days, and strictly speaking, it's accurate. Stocks and bonds, the two big asset classes that form the bulk of most investors' portfolios, are moving in unusual lockstep. Stocks are rising when yields fall, and vice versa, with the most consistency in over 20 years. And both, perhaps unsurprisingly, are moving in close relationship with the price of oil. At this point, it all seems pretty clear. The Iran conflict is a big deal for markets, representing the largest disruption to global energy supply in history. Of course, stocks and bonds, and oil are all moving together based on the perception of how this enormous issue resolves. In doing so, they suggest that the conflict still remains quite important, even as markets appear quite strong. Just as we can measure the extent to which stocks, bonds, and commodity prices move together, we can also track how individual stocks move relative to each other. And so, are stocks also rising and falling together like we see with these big asset classes? No. In fact, without exaggeration, it is the complete opposite. There are a few ways to measure how the individual stocks within, say, the S&P 500, are moving relative to one another. But all of them say the same thing. Day to day, stocks are moving with unusual dispersion and independence. At the same time that the relationship between stocks and bonds is the tightest in over 20 years, the relationship between stocks within the S&P 500 – to each other – is the lowest. If Iran is the factor driving the tight linkage that we discussed between stocks and bonds, Artificial Intelligence may be the culprit behind the opposite effect when we get down into individual companies. The perception that some companies will be incredible beneficiaries of AI, while others will be left behind, would explain at least part of the divergent performance. And so would an attention gap; with so much focus and positioning in AI sensitive names, other parts of the market can quickly feel forgotten, and thus move more independently. Indeed, while the S&P 500 is back near all-time highs, the market's advance-decline line, a measure of how many stocks are going up versus going down, is lower than where it was in late February or mid-April. We see a few implications to all of this. First, while stocks and bonds are closely linked for the moment, we think that this correlation would flip under more significant energy market stress. Were the price of oil to spike to our Commodity team's bear case, of $130-$150/bbl, we think yields would start to fall as the market would turn more concerned about the effect of all of this on growth. So, while the diversification of bonds has been disappointing so far, we do think that it will improve and materialize when it really matters. In equities, this dispersion means that stock selection can allow one to stand out from the overall market. Indeed if one considers themselves a stock picker, low correlation between stocks is exactly the market that you would hope to have. And it also means that many individual names may not be as heady as the broad market levels would imply. As discussed on this program recently, my colleague Mike Wilson and our U.S. Equity Strategy team expects U.S. stock performance to broaden out from here. 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. Also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

Our U.S. Hardlines, Broadlines and Food Retail Analyst Simeon Gutman explains how affordability and new shopping habits are changing how Americans choose and care for their pets.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Simeon Gutman: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Simeon Gutman, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Hardlines, Broadlines and Food Retail Analyst. Today: the state of the pet economy, or as we lovingly call it, the “petriarchy.” It's Monday, June 1st, at 10am in New York.Hey Sammy, who wants to go on a walk? If you have a pet, you probably know the routine. You go in for one bag of food. Then you remember the treats, the medicine, the grooming appointment. Maybe the toy they definitely do not need. And then the vet bill you hope is not around the corner. Pets are family. But family has gotten more expensive. That's the big shift in the U.S. pet economy. The emotional bond is still powerful. About two-thirds of dog and cat owners strongly agree their pet is an important member of the family. More than one-third say they would take on debt to pay for a pet's medical expenses. Today, the growth story in the pet industry has changed. After an extraordinary post-pandemic run, it has entered a slower, more mature phase. We see growth settling around 4 percent, down from nearly 9 percent annually from 2019 to 2025. That doesn't mean the market is shrinking. We still see total U.S. pet spending rising from about [$]200 billion in 2025 to more than [$]240 billion by 2030. But the easy growth days look behind us. The industry now has to work harder for each dollar. Affordability sits at the center of this story. A pet may start as an emotional decision, but it quickly becomes a line item in the household budget. Overall pet ownership remains above pre-COVID levels, at about 67 percent, but it has slipped from the 2024 high. That pressure shows up most clearly among younger consumers for whom cost has become the top barrier. And consumers are adapting. When pet food prices rise, shoppers stock up on sale items, compare prices online and in-store, and in some cases trade down. Still, pet food remains resilient. Almost all owners plan to keep spending the same or spend more on pet food over the next six months. The bigger change is that services continue to take share from products, with veterinary care at the center. Services accounted for just over 40 percent of pet industry spending in 2025, and we see that moving higher by 2030. Food and toys still matter, but healthcare, prescriptions, diagnostics and routine care are becoming a bigger part of the wallet. That brings us to vets – who remain the most trusted source of pet care information, cited by nearly 60 percent of owners. Younger pet owners still rely on vets, but they also turn more to online sources, friends, relatives and even store personnel. About three-quarters of owners visited a vet in the past six months, but average visits fell to under two, which is down from just over two in 2024. This points to a more cautious consumer, especially around routine care. We also see a subtle shift in the kinds of pets people choose. Cat ownership has moved higher versus pre-COVID levels, while dog ownership among younger adults has pulled back from its 2024 peak. That shift is not surprising, given that cats typically come with lower overall spending than dogs. Shopping habits are changing as well. Online pet product shopping has grown a lot since 2019, but its share of wallet has leveled off at roughly one-third. The next leg of digital growth may come less from simply moving store purchases online and more from subscriptions, pharmacy, healthcare and broader pet care ecosystems. So where does that leave the pet economy? Pet owners are certainly not walking away from their animals. But they are making more practical choices, watching prices more closely, and deciding where convenience, health and value fit into the same budget. 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.

Commercial real estate debt is now one of the market's most avoided asset classes. Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets explains why there may be an opportunity to invest in those securities.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, why commercial real estate debt could be overlooked and undervalued. It's Friday, May 29th at 2pm in London. Bond yields have risen this year, and it's attracting strong flows into fixed income markets. The problem is that all of that demand is narrowing the risk premium that one receives. Spreads on U.S. mortgage bonds are richer than 89 percent of observations over the last 20 years. Spreads on the U.S. high yield market, well, they're richer than 96 percent of the time. And spreads on U.S. investment grade, it's 99 percent. We live in a world where the risk premium on most bonds is very low versus history, but there are exceptions. One is debt backed by commercial mortgages or so-called CMBS. Spreads here, notably and unusually, are significantly higher than the long run average. It is a market that we like. Commercial property is largely comprised of lending against office buildings, apartments, retail complexes, and industrial sites like warehouses. The first three have faced major challenges over the last five years. Office values have slumped as investors feared more people working from home. Apartments have suffered from significant supply in building, conceived in a low-rate world as this has come online. And retail has faced long-run concern about the trend of more online shopping. And the rise of interest rates, well, that's loomed over everything. A building, in a lot of ways, is a lot like a bond, promising a dependable stream of rents over time. When an investor can get that stream of cash flows from the bond market, commercial property prices must adjust lower to remain competitive. These challenges are material, but they are also not new. Indeed, investors may recall that fears around commercial property peaked way back in early 2023 following significant rate hikes by the Federal Reserve. Back then, there were widespread fears that commercial property weakness would ricochet back and threaten the banking system. Three years later, those worst fears have not been realized. And while defaults and restructurings have happened, overall commercial property fundamentals are beginning to pick back up. Commercial property transaction volumes increased 27 percent in the U.S. in the first quarter relative to a year prior; and prices are rising, up about 5 percent over the same period. The amount of commercial real estate debt being originated is up about 40 percent over the last year – a sign that lenders are coming back. And the number of commercial deals that are becoming distressed and unable to pay their bills, they just saw their first quarterly decline since all of those problems in early 2023. Part of this recovery in the commercial real estate market may be explained by U.S. growth, which continues to be resilient, and some of it mirrors other cycles. When rates rose and commercial lending markets weakened, the construction of new properties really slowed down. It takes several years to build a building, and so it's only now that the impact of everything that was not built is starting to be felt. With less supply coming online, the value of existing property is better supported, especially relative to the more elevated risk premiums on offer for its debt. 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 Deputy Global Head of Research Michael Zezas explains why the recent U.S.-China summit may have eased near-term risks, without changing the bigger picture for investors.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Deputy Global Head of Research. Today, we're talking about what investors should take away from the recent U.S.-China summit. It's Thursday, May 28th at 10:30am in New York. It's been two weeks since the much-anticipated U.S.-China summit, where Presidents Trump and Xi met to discuss a wide array of issues in their relationship. Understandably, investors were watching carefully. The relationship between the two countries and its potential impact on global economic conditions has been a driver of markets at key intervals. Brinksmanship around the trade relationship has been particularly noteworthy. In 2025, the level of tariffs substantially influenced macro markets, and export restrictions for semiconductors and rare earths drove volatility in key equity sectors such as tech hardware. Coming into the summit, the two countries had found a tenuous equilibrium, with the policy volatility of last year giving way to an uneasy calm this year. So, did the summit change anything? As best we can tell, not really. Some modest progress was made in lower sensitivity areas, but investors shouldn't confuse that with a durable reset in relations. The summit, in our view, points to a more managed relationship, not a fundamentally stable one. Here's what investors should keep in mind. At the risk of stating the obvious, the concrete public policy choices of each country matter a lot from here. President Trump emphasized renewed investment in the U.S.-China relationship. That's good. Talking beats not talking. But the bigger issue is what happens next. So far, we haven't seen broad language around joint efforts to establish trade and investment cooperation boards translated into workable arrangements; which if they materialized might hint at a more stable relationshipSo, net-net for investors, the summit is best understood as a continuation of the status quo, not a pivot. It may reduce near-term tail risks, which is sufficient to support the many other positive drivers pushing equity markets higher. But it does not eliminate the structural forces behind U.S.-China competition. That means we'll keep tracking this relationship as an economic and markets catalyst and keep you in the loop. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen. And share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

As AI changes the video game industry, Matt Cost, from Morgan Stanley's U.S. Internet team, takes us through the game play and what could drive the next level of engagement.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matt Cost, from Morgan Stanley's U.S. Internet team. Today – how new AI tools are reshaping the video game industry. It's Wednesday, May 27th, at 10am in New York. We've all done it at some point. You think you'll open your phone for just a few minutes. But end up in a game, a match, or a virtual world for much longer than you planned. Now, that window of attention is at the heart of one of the biggest battles in entertainment. Americans over 15 years old spend about 22 minutes per day playing games – that's more than they spend socializing, playing sports, or reading. And the next big shift in gaming may stem from who gets to create games and how they do it. We expect consumers to spend more than $275 billion on video games in 2026. And the industry is reinvesting over $50 billion of that into game development and operations. But AI could cut that by nearly half. Today, making a major game is expensive, slow, and labor-intensive. A typical AAA title – the gaming equivalent of a studio blockbuster – can cost hundreds of millions of dollars and take four years to build. More than 90 percent of that cost is people: so that's developers, designers, artists, writers and many more. But AI could change that math. New tools could increase productivity multiple times over, helping smaller teams do more in less time. Even after accounting for AI compute and asset-generation expense, we think that cost savings could exceed 40 percent. That's over $100 million per game project. Across the industry, that could generate savings of roughly $22 billion. But that money won't just go straight to profits. Increased competition may erode those savings. And studios might put more money into marketing in response. So, AI could still meaningfully shift value across the gaming ecosystem.The positives are clear. AI can speed up coding, asset creation, testing, and many other processes that are manual today. That'll let studios spend less time on repetitive work and more time on higher-value creative tasks. But it's tough for newcomers to level up. AI does open the door for new players, but we think the industry looks more insulated from near-term disruption than the market fears – especially for companies with strong IP and advantages in live operations, data, and distribution. AI can help generate worlds, characters, and digital assets, but great gameplay is harder. Gameplay is the feel, the challenge, the feedback, and the fun. Models still struggle to measure that, let alone deliver it consistently. Live operations are another moat for established gaming companies. Many successful games don't end at launch. Teams run them for years through updates, events, and passionate communities. That skill is hard to copy. And often it determines whether a game becomes a lasting franchise or fades quickly. So gradual integration of AI looks more likely than overnight replacement. Finally, the largest opportunity may still be on the horizon. Beyond lowering the cost of making today's games, AI could unlock entirely new types of interactive experiences that didn't exist until now. And the game industry has been through this process before, when new technologies like smartphones changed games forever. But ultimately, the prize is still the same: building something that people can't stop playing.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Chief Asia Economist Chetan Ahya looks at why spending not only on AI, but also on energy and defense, could drive Asia's strongest industrial cycle in decades.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia Economist. Today – why Asia is headed toward its strongest industrial cycle since the mid-2000s. It's Tuesday, May 26th, at 2pm in Hong Kong. The market narrative in Asia has been narrowly – almost exclusively – focused on artificial intelligence. But AI is just one aspect of a much broader shift across the region. We think Asia is entering an industrial supercycle. And this is being driven by a sustained rise in capital expenditures across AI, energy, defense and [the] broader industrial sector. The numbers behind this are substantial. We forecast Asia's total investment could rise from about $11 trillion today to $16 trillion by 2030. So this implies a 7 percent annual growth rate over the next five years, which is triple the pace of the past two years, making it quite significant. And for the high growth sector such as AI, energy, defense and broader industrial sector we expect capex to grow at an even faster runrate of about 16 percent a year. Now let's talk about the drivers. No doubt, the first big driver behind this momentum is AI. Asia needs to invest more in AI infrastructure. At the same time, Asian chipmakers and memory producers are lifting capex to meet demand of U.S. hyperscalers for building data centres. The second driver is energy. Asia needs to invest in the energy sector for three reasons – for powering AI, energy transition and energy security. The power demand for AI compute is growing exponentially. On top of that, economies are having to shift towards renewables, and that needs more investment in grids, storage, and power generation equipment. Moreover, the recent geopolitical tensions have made energy security a bigger policy priority, especially for Asia which is dependent on imported energy. The third driver is defense. Now, even before the recent escalation in the Middle East, defense budgets across Asia were moving higher. This year, China has planned their defense spending to grow at a pace faster than its GDP growth. Meanwhile, India has raised budgetary allocations for defense capex by 18 percent this year. At the same time, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan are aiming to lift their combined defense spending from about 1.7 percent of GDP to 3 percent. The fourth driver is broader industrial sector investment. Every economy in the region is working to secure their supply chains and focused more on onshoring of critical inputs for their domestic production. So what does this mean for Asia? The region stands to reap the benefits of a rise in capex [spending] twice over. First, the increase in Asia's capex will fuel its industrial cycle. Second, you have to consider [that] Asia is the world's production house. And as rest of the world is increasing capex investment in the areas I identified earlier, Asia benefits from feeding this global demand. Already, the evidence of a strong industrial cycle is visible. We prefer to look at capital goods imports as a proxy for capex. And that has been growing at an impressive rate of 27 percent on a year-over-year basis in dollar terms. Industrial production [growth] is nearing a four-year high. And non-tech exports, which are important from industrial production perspective, have staged a strong recovery since the fourth quarter of last year. So which Asian economies will benefit? As such, all of them. But China, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan are the biggest beneficiaries because they are meeting both domestic and export demands. On the other hand, India's industrial sector benefits primarily from its own domestic capex cycle. The pickup in Asia's industrial production is pushing industrial commodities prices higher, helping Australia and Indonesia, the two biggest commodity exporters in the region. This next chapter of Asia's growth story will filter through – from capex to jobs and income growth, and then through to the consumer. That's why this is not just an AI story. It will become a broader economic recovery across the region. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

The conclusion of our two-part episode from Morgan Stanley and MUFG's Japan Summit looks at structural shifts in Japan's economy and Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi's strategic growth agenda.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. This is Part 2 of our podcast from the Japan Summit.It's Friday, May 22nd at 8 am in Tokyo.I might stick with equities for just a minute, and Sho, just to dig deeper into the equity market. Jonathan expressed some of the bullishness. Anything you want to elaborate on where the real strong conviction on this positive view about Japanese equities is coming from?And then just as a warning, I'm going to come back to you and ask, if you're wrong, where could you be wrong? Because again, I think where we add value most to clients is not just giving a clear view, but also pressure testing that view.Sho Nakazawa: Our constructive view on Japan equities comes down to one simple point. Three structural changes are still continuing. So, the first is shifting macro environment. The combination of stable inflation and wage growth is a kind of phenomenon we have not seen, at least in my lifetime. It changes corporates and households' behavior, especially in terms of balance sheet management.And then secondly, the corporates profit improvements. We do not see it as a cyclical recovery. We see it as a structural change. As in the past, Japan corporates heavily relied on cost-cutting amid a deflationary environment. But today, price pass-through is improving, and the Japan corporates are becoming better positioned in growth profit in nominal growth environment.The third is corporate governance reform. Awareness of the capital efficiency has clearly increased. We continue to see share buybacks, dividends increase, and a portfolio restructuring as well. And on top of that, the Takaichi administration has made growth investment and crisis management investment as well.Of course, the Middle East situation is a source of noise. But structurally is a supporting factor for Japan equities secular bear market, which is a view Jonathan has held for very long time, has actually becoming stronger.But let me say that if I'm wrong, maybe I should be more bullish. In fact, the two key drivers here, if we assess the bear case scenario on Japan equities…So, one key driver should be the upside come from the investors constructive view on the Japan fiscal efficiency. And on a micro level, the corporate behavior changing faster than market expects. If we assess the recent rise in long-term yields, it reflect the concern to the Japan fiscal position and that BoJ behind the curve.It would weigh on the Japan equity valuation because it raises cost of capital and it weighs on the Japan equity valuation. But on the other hand, [the] Japanese government will disclose its basic policy in June. And if it could include a credible plan to improve Japan's fiscal positions, perhaps under Japan version of DOGE, which is led by Financial Minister Katayama-san, I think it could alleviate the excessive concern toward the Japan's fiscal position, and it [could] lower the cost of capital on Japan equities.You know, micro level, the corporates behavior is already changing, as I mentioned. But there's still plenty, you know, space for Japan corporates to utilize non-cash generating assets such as cash and deposit, which is equivalent to 60 percent of GDP. The ratio is far higher than our global peers.So, if Japan corporates move further to capital efficiency or portfolio restructuring or use some excess capital, I think there should be additional room for Japan equity market to re-rate higher.Seth Carpenter: All right. So, if you're wrong, it's insufficient bullishness. That's a great place to be.So, so Koichi, Jonathan and Sho are bullish on equities. And so, do you expect big shift in capital flows, and would that drive further appreciation of the currency? How do you think about the global investors' view of Japan? And what it means for capital flows on the one hand, and the value of the currency on the other?Koichi Sugisaki: As for the capital flows, I think under this fresh regime, what's the notable change among the Japanese financials? That they are shifting away from the fixed income product, I mean, like JGBs.Given the current attractive yields, you maybe wonder[ing] why the banking sectors buy the JGBs. But according to the recent disclosures, they have not purchased the JGBs much because their lending activity performed very well. So, as far as their lending activity have performed well, they have no incentive to make money in the securities investment.You know, their lending activity have accelerated thanks to the corporate CapEx investment to improve the productivity amidst the labor shortages in Japan. Once the banking sector starts to see some slowdown or some symptom of the lending activity to slow down, in such a case, they are quickly shifted to the securities investment and the JGB market will change the world.But so far, you know, lending growth [has] accelerated much. You know, the April lending growth is around 6 percent on the year-on-year basis, very strong. So, I think the banking sector still not have a[n] incentive to buy the JGBs.As for the lifers, [the] case is much more serious, I think. Because of the younger ages shifting towards the equities to defend the asset, particularly under the new NISA scheme [which] was launched in 2024. The younger peoples basically allocate their asset to the equities rather than the saving type of the products.Which means that the lifers are struggling to make, to gather the new monies. And this means that the demand for the long-term JGB to shrink. And the Japan lifers already filled the duration this much by 2023 to prepare for the new regulations starting from this fiscal year. Now, fortunately, they already finished the duration this much, this type of operation by 2023. But the yield [has] gone up from 2024, thanks to the BoJ's normalization.So, under such conditions, they are now struggling to the high market loss on the long-term JGBs. And some of lifers are now facing the impairment loss accounting. That actually [makes] lifers a net seller of the long-term JGBs rather than the buyers.Seth Carpenter: Okay, super helpful. Okay, we focused a lot on near-term developments, the energy shock, first quarter GDP. But we can think about a longer-term growth scenario. And there, I think AI comes in at times. Chetan, you've talked about the near-term super cycle, and I think there's a near-term aggregate demand side to AI, but over the longer term, maybe it's more supply.When I think about where growth is going, though, I also think about shifts in the strategy for policy. So maybe Yamaguchi-san, you can talk to me a bit on your take of Prime Minister Takaichi's policies. What do we think is likely to get announced? When? How do you see it affecting the long-term growth outlook for Japan?Takeshi Yamaguchi: [The] Japanese government publishes growth strategy report and the basic policy on fiscal management or honebuto policy in June every year. But I think this year's, you know, documents will be pretty important because these are the first documents under the Takaichi administration.And these documents will set the direction of economic policy by Takaichi-san, Sanae Takaichi. Or Sanae-nomics. Compared with Abenomics, I think Takaichi-san focuses more on the supply side issues, you know, supply domestic investment. While Abenomics focused more on the exit from deflation, focusing on demand side policy, particularly, you know, monetary easing.In the growth strategy report, the focus will be strategic investment in 17 strategic areas, including AI, especially, you know, AI robotics, semiconductors, defense and space, cybersecurity, and content industry and so on.Another important point of Sanaeconomic system, there's overlap between these strategic investment areas and national securities. The government will also update its defense strategy by the end of this year, and there'll be a increase in the defense budget target. The focus will be a lot on, you know, I think, dual use technologies, and also resilience of supply chains going ahead.Another important point is, I think there will be a change in the budget formation process. I think, under deflation there's effectively cap on non-social security spending. But I think this government will likely allocate budget, you know, for multi-investment. So, I think the budget process will be more flexible. And they put more emphasis on the initial budget rather than the supplementary budget.So, I think, these documents will be pretty important to monitor going ahead. But overall, I think, the government – yes, they do care about the market conditions. They will likely avoid massive, you know, expansion. But I think a slight expansion, especially in the area of strategic investment is likely to happen.Seth Carpenter: Very helpful. Alright, that's the end of the panel. Thank you very much to my colleagues. And this is where I have to shift back into podcast mode to say thank you for listening. And if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please share it with a colleague or friend today. Thank you very much, everybody.

Recorded live at the Morgan Stanley and MUFG Japan Summit, our Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research Seth Carpenter led a discussion on Asia's exposure to the energy shock and Japan's bullish outlook.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 on today's episode, we're bringing you a live taping direct from Morgan Stanley and MUFG's Japan Summit to discuss the macroeconomic overlook. And, in particular, Japan's moment: reflation, reform, and the case for a structural re-rating. I am joined by Chetan Ahya, our Chief Asia Economist; Takeshi Yamaguchi, our Chief Japan Economist; Jonathan Garner, our Chief Asia and EM Equity Strategist; Koichi Sugisaki, who is our Head of Japan Macro Strategy; and Sho Nakazawa, who is our Japan Equity Strategist. Seth Carpenter: I will say we have just collectively published our mid-year outlook. So twice a year, Morgan Stanley Macro Research puts together our forecast. We take the time to debate with each other, to pressure test our views on the outlook for the next year and a half to two years. And I have to say this version of the outlook process may have been the most difficult one that I can remember. And in no small part because one of the key fundamental drivers of the outlook globally for growth, for inflation is oil, oil prices. And the swings there have been pretty dramatic. And so, as a result, we put a lot of effort into not just our baseline forecast, but also scenarios and the ways in which our baseline forecast could be wrong. But Chetan, let me start with you. Tell us a little bit about the exposure in Asia to, to the energy shock. Chetan Ahya: So Seth, you're right. Asia is one of the more exposed part of the world. But I would say that we've been surprised in the way this energy shock has been managed. One is, of course, at the global level, two big swings happened. US exports increased dramatically by 3.8 million barrels per day. Just to give you perspective, global consumption of oil is about 100 million barrels, so it's simple math in terms of how big this number was. And then China parallelly also reduced its imports by 3.5 million barrels. So, we had a 7 million barrel swing from a global oil demand balance perspective.And, secondly, as far as gas is concerned, that is where actually we were more concerned about Asia because Asia was very dependent on Middle Eastern gas. And on that front, China single-handedly has bailed out the region. So, China cut its gas imports by about 45 percent, and that had at least avoided the shortages that we were worried about. We can manage oil prices, but shortages is something very difficult to manage. So that's at the global level. And within the region, what every economy did is to switch to an alternative source of fuel, whether it is electricity generated through coal or other renewable sources. And particularly that happened in China and India, which are the two big importers of fuel in the region.And then additionally, what we also saw is that everybody managed the fuel price increase quite well. So, on an average, if I look at the stats as of today, only about 25 to 30 percent of the underlying fuel price increase has been passed on to the consumer. So, the governments are taking it, so there is a burden on the fiscal front that is building up. But as far as the consumers are concerned, this has been a help, and therefore you have not seen a big spike in inflation across the region. Seth Carpenter: Okay. So, a lot of comments about Asia in general. Let's go more specific to here in Japan. And so, Yamaguchi-san, you were an early adopter of the Japan reflation view. If we go back a year, two years, three years, you were probably more optimistic, more bullish about growth in the market than consensus. More recently, you've been a little bit more cautious about where growth is going. And so, can you tell us a little bit first why you're a bit more cautious now relative to where I suspect the market is? And then when it comes to the energy shock, how do you see it playing out with the Japanese economy? And should we worry about it derailing this whole reflation trade? Takeshi Yamaguchi: We think Japanese underlying economic fundamentals remain resilient in the sense that, you know, nominal GDP recovery will continue as a trend. But for this year, I think there's a, you know, short-term slowdown, both in terms of real GDP growth and nominal GDP growth, due to the terms of a trade shock. So far, you know, thanks to the government energy subsidies and Japan's relatively large strategic oil reserves, the direct impact on households has been limited. But we are already seeing a big increase in producer prices in the April data. It jumped to 4.9 percent {year-over-year], and we expect this producer price index will continue to go up due to the higher oil prices, but also because of the NAFTA-related supply side, you know, disruptions in areas, you know, such as, you know, construction materials, plastic products, and industrial solvents and so on. That said, we still believe that, you know, underlying economic fundamentals remain resilient in the sense that there's a structural labor shortage. So, wage growth may somewhat slow, but still I think a solid, you know, base up increase will continue next year, especially among young workers. Also, I think this structural tight labor market [is] encouraging companies to step up labor-saving investment. And, I think, together with government's initiatives for domestic investment, I think, domestic CapEx will also likely remain resilient. So, this year for nominal GDP growth, we expect, you know, slightly negative growth due to the terms of trade loss. But the next year, we are expecting above 4 percent nominal GDP growth. So, the overall, you know, story remains unchanged despite the short-term headwinds. Seth Carpenter: Okay. So fundamental story remains unchanged. We're pretty optimistic, but it's a matter of long term versus short term Jonathan, let me turn to you. Equity markets are generally optimistic, I would say, these days, but there is a bit of a divergence between views on equities here in Asia, between Japan on the one hand, and EM overall. In the mid-year outlook, you have expressed a preference for Japanese equities over EM. Can you talk a little bit about that view? Why that preference? Are there sectors or specific stocks that matter more? How are you thinking about this sort of allocation across equity markets for you in Asia? Jonathan Garner: So, certainly, as Seth indicated and Chetan and Yamaguchi-san said, it's really an environment where the sector call, particularly the CapEx, super cycle call should drive portfolios. And that naturally leads you in Asia more to North Asia, where Japan is very richly endowed in beneficiaries of the CapEx super cycle. And obviously markets like Korea and Taiwan, and much less so to South Asia, where the larger markets are much more populated by consumer and services stocks. So, in our portfolio, we're essentially overweight capital spending, underweight the consumer. And when you look at the Japan market, one of the things that my colleague Daniel Blake has done a lot of work is, is the sort of thematic exposures that exist within our coverage. The four core Morgan Stanley research themes of multipolar world, AI, tech diffusion, future of energy and societal shifts, they map into about 75 percent by stock number of our coverage for the Japan market, and they're quite nicely distributed across the stock coverage. Obviously, some stocks have more than one aspect to them. And that is highly advantageous and much more advantageous than in fact any other large market. Europe of course, doesn't have AI, tech diffusion, or it largely lacks the beneficiaries, the upstream beneficiaries. The US has legacy, sort of, software service, business models and consumer exposure. Now, it's not to say that all is sort of rosy in the garden. There are large auto OEMs here in Japan where the earnings numbers are challenged. So, it's all about the kind of the dispersion that's going on within the portfolio. But just on the base case targets, 4300 for topics, that's set by Nakazawa-san and myself. It's about 12 percent upside in the base. In the two weeks since we published the report, EM has fallen back somewhat, so there's about 8 percent upside to our EM target. But on a kind of risk-adjusted bull-bear skew, bear in mind that EM is much more skewed in terms of the earnings drivers of that market. Essentially, if you strip Korea and Taiwan out, there's no earnings growth in EM right now. You would ultimately have to favor Japan. So, Japan should be at the core of any Asia portfolio at the moment. Seth Carpenter: And can you just give us a little insight as to what you're seeing about how the market is or maybe is not pricing the threat from the energy shock? What are you seeing in equity markets, top line, down into sectors? Do you think there's enough concern? Do you think there's room for that to get, sort of, rerated just on the energy shock situation? Jonathan Garner: So, what you're seeing is that anything that is consumer-related is really struggling in terms of revisions. I think there are six different subcomponents of the consumer that we can track. Every single one of them has downgrades. And the upgrades are in energy, upstream energy, which isn't that well represented in Japan. There are a couple of names. In materials, really across the board. In semis and IT across the board, and broadly, tech hardware. And then in the defense capital goods space. And that dispersion in revisions within the Japan market or within Asia as a whole is something that I've never seen before.It does maybe to some extent question the resilience of the consumer in terms of the way that the numbers are being downgraded. So, I'll just leave that hanging a little bit. Seth Carpenter: Alright, thank you very much to my colleagues. And this is where I have to shift back into podcast mode to say thank you for listening. And if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please share it with a colleague or friend today. Thank you very much everybody. Voice: That was Part 1 of a special two-part episode from Morgan Stanley and MUFG's Japan Summit. Join us tomorrow for Part 2 of the conversation.

Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets and Chief UK Economist Bruna Skarica discuss why they see a more constructive UK outlook than markets do, despite energy, fiscal and political risks.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. Bruna Skarica: And I'm Bruna Skarica, Morgan Stanley's Chief UK Economist. Andrew Sheets: Today, the debate around growth and debt in the United Kingdom. It's Wednesday, May 20th at 2pm in London. Bruna, I'm so glad you could join us today because I actually really did want to talk about what's going on here in the United Kingdom. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that this is the country where you hear some of the strongest divergence of opinions. Pessimists point to political uncertainty, vulnerability to oil prices from the Strait of Hormuz, and rising bond yields. And yet, UK growth this year has been pretty good. Inflation is set to come down, and the currency's been pretty stable, hardly the stuff of big instability. So, Bruna, I was hoping you could help us set the scene. Let's start with how you see the economy. Bruna Skarica: I actually think your framing is perfect. For the past five years, there has been a striking divergence of opinion on the UK, which I do think mimics to a degree some of the divisions on the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee. The question really is – has the country underwent structural changes in the past decade of supply-side shocks such that its potential growth is very low, perhaps as low as 1 percent on the year. And has the inflationary process shifted in such a way that, for example, we need much higher jobless rate in order to generate enough economic slack to get inflation down to 2 percent? Or the other question is, has the UK just had a unique string of external shocks amplified perhaps by domestic policy choices, which mean that we have seen a prolonged period of low growth and high inflation – but again, without major structural changes. We are in the more constructive structural camp. I actually think that's probably Morgan Stanley's biggest out of consensus call in the UK. In recent years in particular, we have seen quite robust CapEx. And last year, actually very healthy private sector productivity gains. When you adjust for accurate labor market data, UK's private sector productivity growth is just under 2 percent as of the end of 2025, actually not too far off from the U.S. But for these good structural trends to persist and continue to improve, we do need a more supportive cyclical environment. And there, unfortunately, given the rise in oil prices, it's hard to be overly constructive about growth and inflation in the UK this year. We've downgraded our growth forecasts to around 1 percent over [20]26 and [20]27, and we have lifted our inflation projections by around 150 basis points at their peak to a peak of around 3.5 percent later in the year. Andrew Sheets: So, Bruna, how much does the price of oil or the price of natural gas matter for this outlook, especially as the Strait of Hormuz remains effectively shut? Bruna Skarica: It does matter a fair bit. We use Morgan Stanley's commodity team's forecasts in our own scenario analyses for the UK economy. Now, their base case still sees a gentle decline in oil prices this year, which leads to outcomes I've already mentioned. The activity flatlines from the second quarter, we have a rise in inflation from April onwards, but we don't have a recession. However, if we fail to see any movement lower in oil, and as you rightly pointed out, natural gas prices as well; or if we even saw a move higher over the summer, we do think that risks of a recession would be quite pronounced in the second half of the year. UK consumers are already in for a year of flat real disposable income growth. Higher prices of food and energy than in our base case could result in even lower discretionary spending growth than what we're already modeling. And if the Bank of England had to hike rates in this inflationary scenario, we think they would act twice in this kind of a scenario. We also have these tight financial conditions which would weigh on household spending. Andrew Sheets: So, Bruna, I think that's a great segue into that out-of-consensus call that we have on the Bank of England. You know, the market is expecting the Bank of England to raise interest rates. We think that they'll be on hold. And if you take a step back, it's a view that, kind of, puts the UK and the Bank of England a little bit between the Federal Reserve, which we think is going to be lowering rates over the next twelve months modestly, and the European Central Bank, which we think will raise rates in the near term. Could you talk a bit more about why you think it will remain on hold? And why you differ from what the market's seeing? Bruna Skarica: Yeah, absolutely. So, in our base case, the one where we do see a bit of a decline in oil and gas prices over the course of this year, we think the Bank of England remains on hold. It's important to remember that they were about to cut rates, prior to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. So, there is a bit of restrictiveness there in the starting stance, which we think can just be maintained for a longer period of time than would've otherwise been the case. And so, for the Bank of England to avoid having to tighten rates. Now, with respect to the market, I think it's fair to say that the market price is a probability-weighted outcome, where there is some chance, a non-negligible one, that the Bank of England will have to hike rates aggressively if oil prices were to rise from here. To give you a bit of clarity here, bank's own analyses suggests that in a scenario where oil prices were to rise towards $130 per barrel and stay there for a few months, the bank could hike rates by four times. Now, it's interesting that in this scenario, the bank actually doesn't forecast a recession. Now, we think that in the case of such elevated commodity prices, as I've already mentioned, we would certainly see high inflation, potentially as high as 6 percent, but also recessionary impulses. So, even in the scenario of elevated oil prices, we think the bank could only deliver around two hikes. And so, this kind of probability-weighted outcome that we have, which differs a little bit from our model case, even that is actually fairly lower than what the market is pricing. So, I think that's maybe one of the main differences that we have versus the market. The market is expecting a repeat of 2022, so elevated inflation with growth just about holding on. We disagree that's possible because there's far less scope for a fiscal response to shield growth from an inflationary external shock. Andrew Sheets: But Bruna, maybe I'll take even a bigger step back here because to borrow a British phrase, it almost seems like some of these debates over oil prices are kind of small beer compared to these two big questions around the UK. Which are, you know, concerns over a lack of productivity growth and concerns that the UK economy is just, kind of, poorly positioned over the long term – especially in the wake of Brexit and concern over the fiscal situation. And this idea that, well, government debt is historically high for the UK, concern that that will continue. And I think it's no exaggeration to say that when you talk to investors about the UK, those are often, kind of, two of the big questions that hang over the debate. So, your brief thoughts on both of those issues. And again, where you think the market might be potentially surprised? Bruna Skarica: So, one of the most interesting things when I talk to clients is when I mention some of these statistics around measured cyclical productivity growth last year, they're often very, very surprised. And we do think it's more important to talk about this because there is evidence, I would say nascent evidence, that UK is benefiting from the AI tailwind. We are seeing more CapEx adoption. We are seeing slower hiring, but more resilient growth, which, as I say, results in cyclical productivity growth that looks very robust, especially in UK's historical context. In the last ten years, of course, UK's productivity growth has been very lackluster. So, over the course of this year, I think that's actually my primary focus to see how much of this uplift in productivity last year is cyclical and perhaps will dissipate over 2026 with the slowdown in growth. And how much of it was actually structural. Now, in terms of the fiscal question, you know, one thing that's interesting to mention is the UK is, per IMF calculations, in the middle of the most severe fiscal consolidation amongst its G7 peers. Medium-term fiscal plans deliver a decline in deficit to below 2 percent of GDP by 2030. Again, this is hard to square with gilt yields where they currently stand. So, it's fair to say that the market is just more focused on the risks of delivery. For example, departmental spending settlements look challenging to deliver. Ministry of Defense is looking for a [£]30 billion top-up to its budgets. Labor backbenchers have recently come out seeking for a bit more capital expenditure. Political volatility is high. We are actually quite confident around our 2026 fiscal forecasts. We're looking for a deficit at 4 percent. But when it comes to 2027, I think it's fair to say that risks here really depend on the political trajectory with risks skewed, I think, towards a slightly higher deficit than around 3.5 percent, which we have in our base case. Andrew Sheets: But Bruna, just to be very direct, is it fair to say that for investors who are very concerned about productivity growth in the UK, you'd argue that that actually could be a bit better than people are expecting as capital deepens? And that for investors afraid of the fiscal trajectory, that actually could be one of the best fiscal trajectories In the G7? Bruna Skarica: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, one of our recent outlook titles was “Everything is Relative,” and that's exactly the point that we always try to make with the UK. It seems like it has a lot of idiosyncratic fiscal problems, but I would say a lot of its fiscal challenges are very similar to other DM countries – demographic aging, slowing in potential GDP growth. And when it comes to productivity growth, I'm not trying to argue that we're likely to see UK's potential GDP growth in excess of 2 percent anytime soon. However, we do think that the picture is actually much better in terms of productivity growth than perhaps what the average market participants think is the case. Andrew Sheets: Finally, Bruna, just a word on politics. I'm mindful that we have a global audience. And for those less steeped in the latest UK news, what's been happening? And what are the developments that investors are watching out for? Bruna Skarica: Yeah, absolutely. So, we had local elections in the UK in early May, and they delivered quite sizable losses for the governing Labour Party. Since then, a number of Labour MPs, Members of Parliament, just under 100 of them, called on Prime Minister Starmer to resign. Now, challenging a Labour leader and a prime minister in this case is not an easy process to trigger.However, Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham is now looking to enter the House of Commons. He will be contesting a by-election, most likely on June 18th. I would say that's the key date to watch out for from here. Andy Burnham has previously said UK politicians should be less focused on the bond market, but perhaps it's worth reiterating. More recently, he said he supports the current fiscal rules, which of course require debt-to-GDP ratio to be on the declining trajectory over the next five years. Now, Andrew, for you, what stands out in the pricing of the UK story? Andrew Sheets: Well, Bruna, I really think this is the country where across everything that we look at, there's the biggest gap, I think, between kind of conventional wisdom and what we at Morgan Stanley are forecasting.The market's conventional wisdom is that productivity growth is going to be very weak and very bad. That's not what you see in the numbers and is in our forecast. The market thinks the government finances are very weak. As you mentioned, relative to the G7, they're on a pretty good trajectory and at a pretty good level. And I think this is also a market where you have some interesting risk premium. I mean, again, we talk a lot in this podcast about how little risk premium there is in a lot of different asset classes. That's not the case in the UK. The government bond market, in our view, is offering a lot of risk premium to take on the risk of owning the government debt. And, you know, one example of that is, you know, you look at what interest rate is implied on a UK 10-year government bond 10 years from now. It's implying that yield is 6.6 percent. That's a very high yield, especially if you think that growth is going to be weak in this country. So, I think it's a really interesting macro story. It's one certainly where we at Morgan Stanley differ, and where there's some risk premium on offer. So, I'm so glad you could join us today to dig into it in more detail. Bruna Skarica: Absolutely. Thank you so much for the invite. Andrew Sheets: And 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.

Despite recent pressure on stocks, our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson argues that earnings and AI's impact remain stronger than many investors appreciate.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 our bullish mid-year outlook and why stocks have been under pressure more recently. It's Tuesday, May 19th at 1:30 pm in New York. So, let's get after it. Every cycle has a moment when investors become so focused on the last risk that they miss the next opportunity. I think we're in one of those moments right now. The first half of this year has had a familiar feel to it. The market weakened under the surface well before the headlines got loud, investors discovered the new risks after prices had already moved, and sentiment got worse just as the forward setup was getting better. In other words, it's déjà vu all over again – but with some important twists. The biggest twist is where we are in the cycle. Last year, we were still coming out of the tail end of a rolling recession. Today, we're in a rolling recovery and that is still underappreciated. This matters, because it changes how we should interpret the correction earlier this year and a powerful rally. In the first quarter, many investors looked at the S&P 500's less-than-10 percent price decline and concluded the market was complacent. I think that really misses the point. Roughly half of the Russell 3000 saw drawdowns of 20 percent or more, and the S&P 500 forward Price Earnings multiple fell by 18 percent from its peak as forward earnings continued to rise. That is not complacency. That is a market doing what it does best – discounting risk before the narrative catches up. And those risks were not small. We had private credit concerns, and a major debate around AI disruption to labor markets as well as a new war that drove oil prices up by 100 percent. In many of the areas most directly exposed to these risks, the market delivered 40 percent-plus corrections. So the provocative question I would ask now is this: what if the biggest risk from here is not being too bullish, but being too cautious after the market has already done the work? We address these questions in our recently published mid-year outlook. Specifically, we raised our 12 month S&P 500 price target to 8,300 based solely on higher earnings forecasts. In fact, we assume some further valuation compression. We raised our S&P 500 EPS by approximately 5 percent as operating leverage from the rolling recovery, AI adoption, fiscal support and a capex cycle that continues to broaden. That earnings point is critical. In prior cycles when oil shocks ended the business cycle, earnings were already decelerating or contracting outright before the shock hit. Today, the opposite is happening. Earnings are accelerating from already strong levels. First-quarter median S&P 500 earnings surprise was 6 percent, the strongest in four years; and earnings revisions breadth has moved back up to 22 percent from just 5 percent at the start of reporting season. That is a very different backdrop than the traditional late-cycle oil shock playbook. AI is another area where I think the consensus has evolved. The labor market disruption narrative has moved faster than the actual implementation. The enterprise application layer is still early, and for now, AI looks more like a margin tailwind than a labor-market wrecking ball. Companies are running leaner, hiring less, and beginning to quantify real benefits rather than simply firing everyone. While true adoption of this technology is likely to be slower than anticipated, the apprehension to over-hire is real and that is driving higher profitability in an indirect way. Monetary policy and liquidity are still the main risks to this bull market rising unimpeded. With the Fed becoming less dovish and liquidity needs rising, interest rates are on the rise and the equity-rate correlation is negative again. The 4.5 percent level on the 10-year Treasury remains important for valuations. We don't need Fed cuts for the equity market to work. History suggests that when earnings growth is strong and the Fed is on hold, returns can still be very solid. The real risk is liquidity – whether the Fed and Treasury underestimates how much capital the private economy now needs to fund investment and recovery.Ultimately, the Fed and Treasury have tools to address these liquidity needs and they have been using them aggressively this year. However, these provisions can ebb and flow and we are currently in a window where it's going to ebb, leaving stocks vulnerable in the short term. If the correction persists, investors should use that as an opportunity to add exposure to the parts of the market that benefit from a rolling recovery, specifically Industrials, Financials, Consumer Discretionary Goods. The breadth of the earnings and capex cycle remains under-appreciated, not to mention the recovery from the rolling recession that ended with Liberation Day a year ago. The bottom line is simple. The correction earlier this year was more significant than most appreciate in terms of valuation and the earnings story is only getting better. The path won't be smooth, so use any corrections to position for the continued broadening in earnings that we believe will continue.Just remember, by the time the evidence feels obvious, the opportunity is usually gone. 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! And I wish my wife a happy birthday.

Our Global Head of Banks and Diversified Finance Research Betsy Graseck explains how digital assets could reshape market infrastructure and how money moves, without overthrowing wholesale banking.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Betsy Graseck: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Betsy Graseck, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Banks and Diversified Finance Research.Today, we are looking out to 2030 to estimate what we expect the impact of digital assets could be on global wholesale banking.It's Monday, May 18th at 3:30 PM in New York.We live in a world where money can move instantly. A payment or transfer can happen in a matter of minutes, if not seconds, in real time. But much of the financial system runs on older networks for moving cash and securities. These networks are what the industry calls rails. We expect clients will be looking for faster settlement across global banking services, driving the industry to adopt digital asset rails over the next decade.We see three key drivers pushing this today. Number one, market support is out there for fintechs, which is increasing their competitiveness. Number two, global legislation and regulation is clarifying requirements for enabling digital asset services led by the U.S. with the Genius Act in 2025, and with the forward motion being made on the Clarity Act in 2026. The third driver of digital asset transformation is that exchanges are extending hours and moving towards offering 24/7 capabilities over the next several years.Now, we expect digital assets will have two major impacts on global wholesale banks. First, as banks lean into servicing crypto assets, we see the potential for an additional $1.5 [billion] to $8 billion in revenues in 2030, which adds up to 1 percent to our global wholesale banks revenue forecast of $770 billion in 2030.Second, impact on global wholesale banks is a risk. There is risk when money is in motion, and money could be set in motion as clients migrate revenues from traditional asset rails to digital asset rails. We anticipate this could impact $21 billion to $82 billion of revenues in 2030, primarily in cross-border payments, liquidity management, collateral management, businesses.Now, while this transformation is likely to impact the industry over the next decade as more services go digital, we expect several catalysts in the second half will focus investor attention on these changes now. What are those catalysts? Number one, Clarity Act. The Clarity Act passing Congress would open up the door for wholesale banks to service crypto asset class more holistically.Second catalyst, the DTCC, which is a major infrastructure player for securities markets in the U.S. The DTCC will be adding tokenized products in the fall of 2026. And then lastly, Nasdaq and NYSE are planning to extend trading hours on December 6th, 2026, to 23 hours by five days a week.Now, what should investors make of all of this? Number one critical to understand how the investments that you have today are positioned for this transformation. Are managements protecting their strengths by developing capabilities for an ecosystem increasingly run on digital rails?Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Serena Tang explains why investors should stay constructive in 2026, even as oil prices and geopolitics add volatility.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: our mid-year market outlook across regions and asset classes.It's Friday, May 15th, at 10am in New York.If you've winced at the gas pump, hesitated before booking a flight, or checked your 401(k) a little more often than usual, you already understand the forces driving markets now. Energy prices and geopolitics are creating real uncertainty. But underneath that uncertainty, companies are still investing, earnings are still holding up, and AI is becoming one of the biggest spending cycles in the global economy.That's why our message for the rest of 2026 is – be constructive, not complacent.Let's start with the constructive part. Across markets, macro and micro fundamentals support risk assets. In the U.S., growth should hold up. For investors, this suggests favoring stocks over core fixed income and developed-market equities — especially the U.S. – in particular. Our U.S. Equity Strategist's S&P 500 target for mid-2027 stands at 8,300, supported by expected earnings growth of 23 percent in 2026 and 12 percent in 2027. The momentum in returns is coming from improving earnings.Now, a striking data point: the median S&P 500 company delivered a 6 percent earnings surprise in the first quarter – the strongest in four years. Earnings revisions breadth also improved sharply.AI explains a major part of that strength. It has become a capital spending story – and increasingly, a credit market story. A year ago, we projected combined capex for the biggest hyperscalers at around [$]450 billion in both 2026 and 2027. Now, that estimate has moved to roughly [$]800 billion in 2026 and [$]1.16 trillion in 2027. AI infrastructure – data centers, power, chips, networks – should shape equities, credit, rates and even commodities for years to come.But here's where the not complacent part matters.There's another side to the AI boom. Building all those data centers, chips, power systems and networks requires significant investment. And companies won't fund all of it with cash. Many will borrow. That means more corporate bonds coming to market, especially from high-quality U.S. companies. Even if those companies look financially healthy, investors may demand better terms when they have so many new bonds to choose from. So, AI can support earnings, but it can also put some pressure on credit markets.Energy prices also pose major risk. Our base case assumes de-escalation and a gradual reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, but the range of possible outcomes looks unusually wide. Oil prices and the duration of the Middle East supply shock are the single largest variable in our outlook. Higher oil effectively acts like a tax on consumers and businesses alike.That's why we recommend a balanced allocation with a risk-on tilt: overweight equities, underweight core fixed income, and hold other fixed income, commodities and cash at benchmark weight. Within equities, we favor the U.S. because earnings look strong and the risk-reward looks better than in other regions. Europe and Japan also offer upside, but Europe has more exposure to energy disruptions, and emerging markets lack a broad macro and micro narrative despite pockets of strength.This is all to say the cycle has not run out of road. But the road looks bumpier, narrower and more energy-sensitive than it looked a few months ago.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Strategy Seth Carpenter gives his midyear outlook, highlighting why AI investment and U.S. consumers remain key growth engines amid energy shocks.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. Today, I want to talk about our mid-year outlook that was just published. It's Thursday, May 14th at 10am in New York. Oil, AI, and the consumer now sit at the center of our global economic outlook. With AI and the consumer driving economic momentum in the U.S., the key question is whether the energy shock stays manageable or changes the path for inflation, central banks, and recession risks. We have had and maintain a fundamentally constructive view on global growth, but the energy shock brings unusually high uncertainty. It boosts inflation, it weighs on growth, and it widens the range of outcomes. We forecast global real GDP growth at 3.2 percent in 2026 and 3.4 percent in 2027. That is relative to about 3.5 percent in 2025. So, in our baseline, growth slows modestly this year and then stabilizes and recovers. Writing a forecast is always hard but knowing what to assume about oil prices is even harder than ever now. Our base case assumes that crude returns to about $90 a barrel by the end of this year and declines further in 2027. If, and I do mean if, that happens, the global economy can likely absorb the shock. But if the current situation persists and we do not see a normalization of shipments of oil, it could spell recession. That scenario probably sees oil prices surge through $150 a barrel, but more importantly, we could shift from a price shock to a volume shock. The big risk is physical shortages and supply chain disruptions because it's not just energy, it's also petrochemical inputs to manufacturing and other items. Higher prices slow activity; shortages can stop it. Exposure to the energy shock differs sharply across regions. Among the major economies, China looks the least exposed. Europe is the most exposed, and the U.S. sits in between. China built up substantial stockpiles of oil, and part of why the global oil market has not seen higher oil prices so far is that China has cut back on those imports dramatically. Europe, on the other hand, typically faces faster energy passthrough, meaning energy prices show up much more quickly in household bills, business costs, and ultimately inflation. And Europe is a net importer of energy, so the consideration goes beyond oil to include natural gas. The U.S. is a net exporter of petroleum products, but U.S. consumers will feel the pinch at the gas pump. But even with that in mind, U.S. growth continues to support global growth, thanks largely to strong AI-related capital spending and consumer spending that's being buoyed by the top end of the wealth distribution. We expect that momentum to continue and then ultimately to broaden out. And so we forecast U.S. real GDP growth at about 2.25 in 2026 but rising to about 2.5 percent in 2027. Both of those are up from the 2.1 percent we saw last year. And AI CapEx sits at the center of this U.S. outlook. It includes data centers, power infrastructure, information processing equipment, software. Over time, we think this investment momentum is part of what allows a broadening out of business investment beyond AI. That said, the energy shock has triggered global inflation. We're looking for global headline inflation to rise notably almost to 3 percent in 2026 before coming back off in 2027. But while oil and gas prices are pushing headline inflation higher, the pass-through to core, depending on the economy, seems to remain mostly limited. By 2027, we look for those effects to fade. And combined with somewhat slower growth this year, underlying inflation should soften again. As inflation risks have moved higher, though, central banks have generally become less accommodative. We expect the Fed to now stay on hold all the way through 2026, and then if inflation really does come down, to be able to cut twice in the first half of 2027. We're looking for the ECB to hike twice this year as it grapples with this energy-led inflation, but then reverse course next year in 2027. The Bank of Japan, which had already been hiking policy, probably is set to continue that gradual hiking path. Looking forward to the second half of this year though, global growth still does have a foundation, and the U.S. is a big part of that. AI investment and consumer spending are all what's driving the economy for now. But the energy outlook will determine how bumpy that path gets. Thanks for listening. And if you enjoy this show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore goes through the main topics on the table during the meeting between Presidents Trump and Xi: Taiwan, tariffs and the Iran conflict.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 expectations heading into the U.S.-China summit this week and what investors should be watching. It's Wednesday, May 13h at 11am in Copenhagen. Despite the importance of the upcoming summit, we think expectations for tangible progress should remain relatively modest. Reporting ahead of the meeting indicates that the discussions will focus on trade, Taiwan arms sales, and the U.S.-Iran conflict. Across the board, our base case remains an extension of the current truce with limited areas of relaxation. That's probably enough to support modest upside for risk assets in China, but likely short of the kind of breakthrough needed for a material re-rating in risk premia. Let's start with trade. We think the discussion here is likely to skew toward phase one style commitments rather than structural policy shifts. That could include additional Chinese purchases in sectors like agriculture and aerospace, or things like high-level trade and investment pledges. Or even limited tariff relief in key areas designed to demonstrate cooperation but without fundamentally changing the competitive dynamic between the two countries. What we don't expect is a meaningful unilateral tariff reduction from the U.S. side heading into the summit. Remember, China still faces an effective tariff rate of around 30 percent, and it benefited the most of all our trading partners when the Supreme Court struck down the IEEPA tariffs earlier this year. As we noted at the time, that lowered its effective rate by roughly 7 percentage points. Secondly, we think the administration continues to view higher tariff levels on China versus other trading partners as a strategic imperative. Said differently, the administration appears committed to maintaining some degree of structural separation between China and other trading allies like Europe, Japan, and South Korea. We think that means a large-scale tariff reset is unlikely in the wake of the summit or in the lead up. On Taiwan, we also see limited room for meaningful policy change. President Trump has publicly referenced Taiwan arms sales in recent comments, but we think a major concession from China would be needed for a meaningful departure from many years of U.S. policy precedent. The third issue on the agenda is the Iran conflict and the Strait of Hormuz. Reopening the strait is likely the area of greatest uncertainty heading into the summit. The extent to which the U.S. will ask for China's help on this front and whether or not that request will be granted remains a key unknown. But there's also a technology dimension here worth watching closely. While public reporting indicates that export controls are likely not formally part of the talks, we see a possibility that the discussion could occur, in particular in the context of rare earth relaxations from China's side. Concessions on rare earth controls likely require some corresponding U.S. flexibility on advanced semiconductor exports, given the chips for rare earths equilibrium that we think underpins the strategic bilateral relationship. We think that's largely what's disincentivized both sides from escalating in recent months. So, what should markets watch most closely? Aside from tangible trade arrangements or a formal extension of the truce, we think the tone will be crucial. Language around technology cooperation or an agreement to continue negotiating will be critical in assessing how both sides plan on managing the relationship moving forward. Remember, this event is one of several potential meetings this year, so symbolic commitments toward broader structural concessions in the future could matter. For now, we think the most likely outcome is continued stabilization rather than a transformational reset. That's still constructive for markets at the margin, but probably not enough to eliminate the geopolitical overhang that continues to shape investor positioning globally.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 the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Our U.S. Healthcare Analyst Erin Wright discusses how health tracking and preventive diagnostics could influence healthcare costs and different industries, from fitness to retail.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Erin Wright, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Healthcare Services Analyst. Today – the emergence of the self-directed patient and its implications. It's Tuesday, May 12th at 10am in New York. A blood test ordered from your phone. A wearable that tracks your sleep or nudges you to move, recover, hydrate, or rethink last night's dinner. Preventive health is moving out of the clinic and into everyday life. And that shift is becoming an investable theme. In essence, healthcare is moving from reactive to proactive. Instead of waiting for symptoms, more consumers are using lab tests, wearables, imaging, and digital tools to spot some these risks earlier. And this shift reaches well beyond healthcare. On our estimates, the U.S. spends about [$]3.4 trillion annually on chronic diseases, including lost economic productivity. About [$]1.4 trillion of 2024 spend was tied to preventable disease. So the big investment question is: can earlier detection and behavior change bend the cost curve? We think expanded preventive testing, screening, and monitoring can help avoid roughly [$]200 billion to [$]800 billion of U.S. healthcare spend by 2050. That assumes preventive testing reduces preventable disease costs by about 10% to 30% based on our analysis. Direct-to-consumer lab testing lets people order lab tests directly, often online, without starting with a traditional doctor visit. We see this as a roughly $4 billion U.S. market, which has more than doubled since 2021. And it's no longer niche. Our AlphaWise survey found that about 34% of respondents completed a voluntary wellness lab test in the past three years. Among users, the average was 3.2 tests, suggesting this is not just a one-time behavior. The most common test was a general health profile, used by about 45 percent of recent testers. Wearables are the other part of the story. Our survey found that 41 percent of respondents currently use a wearable or fitness device, while another 22 percent are interested in getting one. More importantly, people are acting on the data. 34 percent of wearable users today regularly change behaviors or decisions based on their device, and 52 percent even sometimes do so, based on our survey. That creates a feedback loop. A wearable might flag poor sleep. A lab test might show elevated glucose. A digital health tool might suggest changes to diet or exercise, or follow-up care. Over time, prevention starts to feel less like an annual event and more like a daily habit. The sector implications are broad. In healthcare, more testing may initially actually increase utilization as people follow up on results. But over time, earlier detection could obviously support lower-cost of care and better chronic disease management. That also aligns with value-based care, where providers and payers are rewarded for better outcomes and lower total costs, not just simply more services. In consumer sectors, better health tracking could shape food choices, reduce demand for some indulgent categories, and support products tied to hydration, lower sugar, protein, and functional benefits. Fitness may also benefit as gyms evolve from just workout destinations into broader wellness platforms, with recovery and coaching, and preventive health services layered in. Imaging is another emerging area, as screening shifts from reactive diagnostics toward earlier disease detection. Of course, there is some risk that these health tracking and consumer-driven diagnostics trends could still prove to be a wellness craze rather than the new normal. Out-of-pocket costs, privacy concerns, inconsistent interpretations, and limited repeat testing are all real issues. But consumers are clearly taking more control of their health and increasingly asking, “What can I learn before I get sick?” 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 the economic theory behind the unwavering spending on AI infrastructure.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 uniquely price insensitive development.It's Monday, May 11th at 2pm in London.Elasticity is one of the first concepts that they teach in economics, and for good reason.It's the idea that our sensitivity to the price of something differs from item to item. If the price of pizza goes up, for example, you may decide to go out for burgers. But if the price for something essential, like electricity, or deeply desired, like tickets to see your favorite artist perform; well, if those go up a lot, you're probably going to complain, but also end up paying anyway.This latter category is what we would call inelastic. The demand for these items holds up even as the price increases, and maybe if the price increases quite a bit. And that is becoming very relevant as we all debate the AI build-out.It's not an exaggeration that the investment in AI, chips, power, and datacenters is at the center of many market conversations. It's supporting U.S. growth despite a sharp slowdown in job creation. It's supporting stock market earnings, even as uncertainty over the Iran conflict continues to percolate.Part of this importance is just the sheer size of this build-out. We estimate about $800 billion of investment by large U.S. technology companies this year, almost double their spending last year and triple their spending in 2024. But it's not just the size, it's the idea that this investment may happen almost whatever the cost.Specifically, we're looking at a desire by multiple large companies to build out large AI infrastructure all at the same time, and that's increased the price of these components. The copper needed to wire together that data center? Well, it's up about 40 percent in the last year. A gas turbine to power it? Up 50 percent. The memory to run it? It's up 150 to 300 percent over the last year alone. And yet, despite these extremely large price increases, the demand to build in AI has been accelerating.Our forecasts for 2026 spending have been consistently revised higher. And that $800 billion that we think is spent this year is set to be dwarfed by $1.1 trillion of estimated spending in 2027, based on the view of my Morgan Stanley colleagues.This idea of inelasticity or price insensitivity extends even to the costs of financing the spending. Debt costs for these companies have increased this year, and yet they continue to issue at a record pace.A quick aside as to why all this spending may be price insensitive or inelastic. AI is seen by these companies as, without exaggeration, maybe the most important technology in a decade. These companies have financial resources and the patience to wait it out, and they see gains to those who can figure out AI technology, even if the winner is not yet clear.The inelastic nature of the AI theme is a classic good news, bad news story. To the positive, it suggests real commitment to this technology and that spending won't easily be shaken by outside events. That should help buttress overall growth and should also support earnings this year – a core view of Mike Wilson and our U.S. equity strategy team.But there are also risks. It remains to be seen what returns can be generated from all of this historic investment. Robust demand for items, even as their price goes up, may cause those prices to increase even further. That's inflation happening at a time when core inflation measures are already well above the Federal Reserve's target. And if companies are less sensitive to the cost of their borrowing to fund AI, well, other companies could find their cost dragged wider in sympathy.We continue to expect record supply and modest widening in the U.S. corporate bond market.Thank you, as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And tell a friend or colleague about us today.