Thoughts on the Market

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Morgan Stanley Research analyst Mark Schmidt and Investment Management's Craig Brandon discuss the heightened uncertainty in the U.S. municipal bonds market.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.For a full list of episode disclosures click here.----- Transcript -----Mark Schmidt: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mark Schmidt, Morgan Stanley's Head of Municipal Strategy.Craig Brandon: I'm Craig Brandon, Co-Director of Municipal Investments at Morgan Stanley Investment Management.Mark Schmidt: Today, let's talk about the biggest market you hardly ever hear about – municipal bonds, a $4 trillion asset class.It's Monday, May 5th at 10am in Boston.Mark Schmidt: If you've driven, flown, gone to school or turned on a tap, chances are munis made it happen. Although munis are late cycle haven, they were not immune to the latest bout of market volatility. Craig, why was April so tough?Craig Brandon: So, what we say in April, it was sort of the trifecta of things that happened that were a little different than other asset classes. The first thing that happened is we saw a significant increase in treasury rates – and munis are generally correlated to treasuries. We're a very high-quality asset class, that's viewed as a duration asset class. So, one thing we saw were rates going up. When we see rates going up, you generally see money coming out of the market, right? So, I think investors were a little bit impacted by the higher rates, the correlation to treasuries, the duration, and saw some flows out of the market.Secondly, what we saw is conversation about the tax exemption in Washington D.C. What that did is it caused muni issuers to pull their issuance forward. So, if you're an infrastructure issuer, you are issuing bonds in the next year to year and a half; you're going to pull that forward because if there's any risk of loss of the tax exemption, you want to get these bonds issued today. So that's basically what drives technicals. It's supply and demand. So, what we saw was a decrease in demand because of higher rates; an increase in supply because of issuance being pulled forward.And the third part of the trifecta we refer to is the conversations about the economy. So, I would put that, it's sort of a distant third, but there's still conversations about maybe credit weakness driven by a slowing economy.Mark Schmidt: Craig, your team has been through a lot of tough market cycles. Given your experience, how did the most recent selloff compare? And why was it not like 2008?Craig Brandon: I started my career back in 1998 during the long-term capital management crisis. I lived through 2008. I lived through the COVID crisis, and you know, really when I look at the crisis in 2008 – no banks went out of business three weeks ago, right? In 2008 we were really sitting on a trading desk wondering where this was going to end.You know, we had a number of meetings with our staff, over the last couple weeks explaining to them why it was different and how. Yes, there was some volatility here, but you could see that there was going to be an end to this, and this was not going to be a permanent restructuring of the market. So, I think we felt comfortable. It was very different than 2008 and it really felt different than COVID.Mark Schmidt: That's reassuring. But with economic growth set to slow sharply, how does your credit team think the fiscal health of America's state and local governments will hold up?Craig Brandon: Well, remember state and local governments, and when we're talking about munis, we're also talking about other infrastructure asset classes like water and sewer bonds. Like, you know, transportation, bonds, airports. We're talking about toll roads.They went into this with a very strong balance sheet, right? Remember, there was a lot of infrastructure money spent by the federal government during COVID to give issuers money to make it through COVID. There's still a lot of money on balance sheets. So, what we do is we're going into this crisis with a lot of cash on balance sheets, allowing issuers to be able to withstand some weakness in the economy and get through to the other side of this.Mark Schmidt: Not only do state and local governments have a lot of cash, but they're just not that impacted by tariffs, right? So why did muni yields perform worse than U.S. treasuries over the past couple of weeks?Craig Brandon: Right. It really… We're technically driven, right? The U.S. muni market is more retail driven than some other asset classes. Remember – investment grade corporates, treasury bonds, there's a lot of institutional buyers in those markets. In the municipal market, it's primarily retail driven.So, when you know, individual retail investors get nervous, they tend to pull money out of the market. So, what we saw was money coming out of the market. At the same time, we saw an individual increase in more bonds, which just led to very weak technicals, which when we see that it eventually reverses itself.Mark Schmidt: Now I almost buried the lede, right? Why invest in munis? Well, they're great credit quality, but they're also tax free. In fact, muni bonds have been exempt from federal taxes for over a century. You have a lot of experience putting together tax bills, and right now people are worried about tax reform. Do you think investors should be concerned?Craig Brandon: Listen. I'm not really losing a lot of sleep at night over the tax exemption. And I think there's other, you know, issues to worry about. Why do I say that?As you mentioned Mark, I spent the early years of my career working for the New York State Assembly Ways and Means Committee. I spent seven years negotiating budgets and what that did is it gave me a window – into how, you know, not only state budgets, but the federal budget gets put together.So, what it also showed me was the relationship between state and local elected officials and your representatives in Congress and your representatives in the Senate. So, I know firsthand that members of Congress and members of the Senate in Washington have very close relationships with members of the state legislatures, with governors, with mayors, with city council members, with school board members – who are all delivering the message that significantly higher financing costs that could potentially happen from the loss of the exemption, could be meaningful to them.And I think members of Congress and members of the Senate and Washington get it. They understand it because they were all there when it happened. The last time the muni exemption came under fire was back in 2012; and in 2012, a lot of members of Congress were in the state legislature back then, so they understand it.Mark Schmidt: That's reassuring because right now, tax equivalent yields in the muni market are 7 to 8 per cent. That's equal to or greater than the long run rate of return on the stock market. So, whether to invest in the muni market seems pretty straightforward. How to invest in the muni market? Well, with 50,000 issuers, that's a little complicated. How do you recommend investors get exposure to tax-free munis right now?Craig Brandon: Well, and that is a very common question. The muni market can be very confusing because there are just so many bonds out there. You know, over 50,000 issuers, there's over a million individual CUSIPs in the muni market.So as an individual investor, where do you start? There's different coupon structures, different call structures, different maturity structures, ratings. There's so many different variables that go into a decision in investing in muni bonds.I can make an argument that you could probably mimic the S&P 500 with 500 different stocks. But most muni indices are over 50,000 constituents. It's very difficult to replicate the muni market by yourself, which is why a lot of people, you know, they let professional money managers, do the investing for them. Whether you're looking at mutual funds, whether you're looking at separately managed accounts, whether you're looking at exchange traded fund ETFs, there's a lot of different ways to get exposure to the muni market. But with the huge amount of choices you have to make, I think a lot of individual investors would just let a professional with the experience do it.Mark Schmidt: And active managers let you customize portfolios to your unique tax situation and risk tolerance. So, Craig, a final question for you. How do munis fit into a diversified portfolio?Craig Brandon: Munis are generally the stable part of most people's portfolios. Remember, you don't have a choice of whether you're going to pay your taxes or not. You have to pay your taxes, you have to pay your water bill, you have to pay your power bill. You have to pay tolls on highways. You have to pay airport fees when you buy an airline ticket, right?It's not an option. So, because the revenue streams are so stable, you see most muni bonds rated AA or AAA. The default rate for rated munis is significantly below 1 per cent. It's something in the ballpark of about 0.2 per cent*. So, with such a low default rate – listen, we're technically driven, as I said. You see ups and downs in the market. But over a longer period of time, munis can give you generally stable returns, tax exempt income over the long term, and they're one of the more stable asset classes that you see in your overall portfolio.Mark Schmidt: That sounds boring, and I mean that in the best possible way. Craig, thanks so much for your time today.Craig Brandon: Thanks, Mark, happy to be hereMark Schmidt: And thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.*“US Municipal Bond Defaults and Recoveries, 1970-2021” – Moody's Investor ServicesDisclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. The returns referred to in the commentary are those of representative indices and are not meant to depict the performance of a specific investment.Risk ConsiderationsDiversification does not eliminate the risk of loss.There is no assurance that a portfolio will achieve its investment objective. Portfolios are subject to market risk, which is the possibility that the market values of securities owned by the portfolio will decline and that the value of portfolio shares may therefore be less than what you paid for them. Market values can change daily due to economic and other events (e.g., natural disasters, health crises, terrorism, conflicts, and social unrest) that affect markets, countries, companies or governments. It is difficult to predict the timing, duration, and potential adverse effects (e.g., portfolio liquidity) of events. Accordingly, you can lose money investing in a portfolio. Fixed-income securities are subject to the ability of an issuer to make timely principal and interest payments (credit risk), changes in interest rates (interest rate risk), the creditworthiness of the issuer and general market liquidity (market risk). In a rising interest-rate environment, bond prices may fall and may result in periods of volatility and increased portfolio redemptions. In a declining interest-rate environment, the portfolio may generate less income. Longer-term securities may be more sensitive to interest rate changes. An imbalance in supply and demand in the municipal market may result in valuation uncertainties and greater volatility, less liquidity, widening credit spreads and a lack of price transparency in the market. There generally is limited public information about municipal issuers. Income from tax-exempt municipal obligations could be declared taxable because of changes in tax laws, adverse interpretations by the relevant taxing authority or the non-compliant conduct of the issuer of an obligation and may subject to the federal alternative minimum tax.There is no guarantee that any investment strategy will work under all market conditions, and each investor should evaluate their ability to invest for the long-term, especially during periods of downturn in the market.A separately managed account may not be appropriate for all investors. Separate accounts managed according to the particular strategy may include securities that may not necessarily track the performance of a particular index. Please consider the investment objectives, risks and fees of the Strategy carefully before investing. A minimum asset level is required. For important information about the investment managers, please refer to Form ADV Part 2.The views and opinions and/or analysis expressed are those of the author or the investment team as of the date of preparation of this material and are subject to change at any time without notice due to market or economic conditions and may not necessarily come to pass.This material has been prepared on the basis of publicly available information, internally developed data and other third-party sources believed to be reliable. However, no assurances are provided regarding the reliability of such information and the Firm has not sought to independently verify information taken from public and third-party sources.This material is a general communication, which is not impartial and all information provided has been prepared solely for informational and educational purposes and does not constitute an offer or a recommendation to buy or sell any particular security or to adopt any specific investment strategy. The information herein has not been based on a consideration of any individual investor circumstances and is not investment advice, nor should it be construed in any way as tax, accounting, legal or regulatory advice. To that end, investors should seek independent legal and financial advice, including advice as to tax consequences, before making any investment decision.The Firm has not authorised financial intermediaries to use and to distribute this material, unless such use and distribution is made in accordance with applicable law and regulation. Additionally, financial intermediaries are required to satisfy themselves that the information in this material is appropriate for any person to whom they provide this material in view of that person's circumstances and purpose. The Firm shall not be liable for, and accepts no liability for, the use or misuse of this material by any such financial intermediary.This material may be translated into other languages. Where such a translation is made this English version remains definitive. If there are any discrepancies between the English version and any version of this material in another language, the English version shall prevail.The whole or any part of this material may not be directly or indirectly reproduced, copied, modified, used to create a derivative work, performed, displayed, published, posted, licensed, framed, distributed or transmitted or any of its contents disclosed to third parties without the Firm's express written consent. This material may not be linked to unless such hyperlink is for personal and non-commercial use. All information contained herein is proprietary and is protected under copyright and other applicable law.Eaton Vance is part of Morgan Stanley Investment Management. Morgan Stanley Investment Management is the asset management division of Morgan Stanley.DISTRIBUTIONThis material is only intended for and will only be distributed to persons resident in jurisdictions where such distribution or availability would not be contrary to local laws or regulations.MSIM, the asset management division of Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS), and its affiliates have arrangements in place to market each other's products and services. Each MSIM affiliate is regulated as appropriate in the jurisdiction it operates. MSIM's affiliates are: Eaton Vance Management (International) Limited, Eaton Vance Advisers International Ltd, Calvert Research and Management, Eaton Vance Management, Parametric Portfolio Associates LLC and Atlanta Capital Management LLC.This material has been issued by any one or more of the following entities:EMEA:This material is for Professional Clients/Accredited Investors only.In the EU, MSIM and Eaton Vance materials are issued by MSIM Fund Management (Ireland) Limited (“FMIL”). FMIL is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland and is incorporated in Ireland as a private company limited by shares with company registration number 616661 and has its registered address at 24-26 City Quay, Dublin 2, D02 NY 19, Ireland. Outside the EU, MSIM materials are issued by Morgan Stanley Investment Management Limited (MSIM Ltd) is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Registered in England. Registered No. 1981121. Registered Office: 25 Cabot Square, Canary Wharf, London E14 4QA.In Switzerland, MSIM materials are issued by Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc, London (Zurich Branch) Authorised and regulated by the Eidgenössische Finanzmarktaufsicht ("FINMA"). Registered Office: Beethovenstrasse 33, 8002 Zurich, Switzerland.Outside the US and EU, Eaton Vance materials are issued by Eaton Vance Management (International) Limited (“EVMI”) 125 Old Broad Street, London, EC2N 1AR, UK, which is authorised and regulated in the United Kingdom by the Financial Conduct Authority.Italy: MSIM FMIL (Milan Branch), (Sede Secondaria di Milano) Palazzo Serbelloni Corso Venezia, 16 20121 Milano, Italy. The Netherlands: MSIM FMIL (Amsterdam Branch), Rembrandt Tower, 11th Floor Amstelplein 1 1096HA, Netherlands. France: MSIM FMIL (Paris Branch), 61 rue de Monceau 75008 Paris, France. Spain: MSIM FMIL (Madrid Branch), Calle Serrano 55, 28006, Madrid, Spain. Germany: Germany: MSIM FMIL (Frankfurt Branch), Grosse Gallusstrasse 18, 60312 Frankfurt am Main, Germany (Gattung: Zweigniederlassung (FDI) gem. § 53b KWG). Denmark: MSIM FMIL (Copenhagen Branch), Gorrissen Federspiel, Axel Towers, Axeltorv2, 1609 Copenhagen V, Denmark.MIDDLE EASTDubai: MSIM Ltd (Representative Office, Unit Precinct 3-7th Floor-Unit 701 and 702, Level 7, Gate Precinct Building 3, Dubai International Financial Centre, Dubai, 506501, United Arab Emirates. Telephone: +97 (0)14 709 7158). This document is distributed in the Dubai International Financial Centre by Morgan Stanley Investment Management Limited (Representative Office), an entity regulated by the Dubai Financial Services Authority (“DFSA”). It is intended for use by professional clients and market counterparties only. This document is not intended for distribution to retail clients, and retail clients should not act upon the information contained in this document.This document relates to a financial product which is not subject to any form of regulation or approval by the DFSA. The DFSA has no responsibility for reviewing or verifying any documents in connection with this financial product. Accordingly, the DFSA has not approved this document or any other associated documents nor taken any steps to verify the information set out in this document, and has no responsibility for it. The financial product to which this document relates may be illiquid and/or subject to restrictions on its resale or transfer. Prospective purchasers should conduct their own due diligence on the financial product. If you do not understand the contents of this document, you should consult an authorised financial adviser.USNOT FDIC INSURED | OFFER NO BANK GUARANTEE | MAY LOSE VALUE | NOT INSURED BY ANY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY | NOT A DEPOSITLatin America (Brazil, Chile Colombia, Mexico, Peru, and Uruguay)This material is for use with an institutional investor or a qualified investor only. All information contained herein is confidential and is for the exclusive use and review of the intended addressee, and may not be passed on to any third party. This material is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute a public offering, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell for any product, service, security and/or strategy. A decision to invest should only be made after reading the strategy documentation and conducting in-depth and independent due diligence.ASIA PACIFICHong Kong: This material is disseminated by Morgan Stanley Asia Limited for use in Hong Kong and shall only be made available to “professional investors” as defined under the Securities and Futures Ordinance of Hong Kong (Cap 571). The contents of this material have not been reviewed nor approved by any regulatory authority including the Securities and Futures Commission in Hong Kong. Accordingly, save where an exemption is available under the relevant law, this material shall not be issued, circulated, distributed, directed at, or made available to, the public in Hong Kong. Singapore: This material is disseminated by Morgan Stanley Investment Management Company and may not be circulated or distributed, whether directly or indirectly, to persons in Singapore other than to (i) an accredited investor (ii) an expert investor or (iii) an institutional investor as defined in Section 4A of the Securities and Futures Act, Chapter 289 of Singapore (“SFA”); or (iv) otherwise pursuant to, and in accordance with the conditions of, any other applicable provision of the SFA. This publication has not been reviewed by the Monetary Authority of Singapore. Australia: This material is provided by Morgan Stanley Investment Management (Australia) Pty Ltd ABN 22122040037, AFSL No. 314182 and its affiliates and does not constitute an offer of interests. Morgan Stanley Investment Management (Australia) Pty Limited arranges for MSIM affiliates to provide financial services to Australian wholesale clients. Interests will only be offered in circumstances under which no disclosure is required under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the “Corporations Act”). Any offer of interests will not purport to be an offer of interests in circumstances under which disclosure is required under the Corporations Act and will only be made to persons who qualify as a “wholesale client” (as defined in the Corporations Act). This material will not be lodged with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.Japan:For professional investors, this document is circulated or distributed for informational purposes only. For those who are not professional investors, this document is provided in relation to Morgan Stanley Investment Management (Japan) Co., Ltd. (“MSIMJ”)'s business with respect to discretionary investment management agreements (“IMA”) and investment advisory agreements (“IAA”). This is not for the purpose of a recommendation or solicitation of transactions or offers any particular financial instruments. Under an IMA, with respect to management of assets of a client, the client prescribes basic management policies in advance and commissions MSIMJ to make all investment decisions based on an analysis of the value, etc. of the securities, and MSIMJ accepts such commission. The client shall delegate to MSIMJ the authorities necessary for making investment. MSIMJ exercises the delegated authorities based on investment decisions of MSIMJ, and the client shall not make individual instructions. All investment profits and losses belong to the clients; principal is not guaranteed. Please consider the investment objectives and nature of risks before investing. As an investment advisory fee for an IAA or an IMA, the amount of assets subject to the contract multiplied by a certain rate (the upper limit is 2.20% per annum (including tax)) shall be incurred in proportion to the contract period. For some strategies, a contingency fee may be incurred in addition to the fee mentioned above. Indirect charges also may be incurred, such as brokerage commissions for incorporated securities. Since these charges and expenses are different depending on a contract and other factors, MSIMJ cannot present the rates, upper limits, etc. in advance. All clients should read the Documents Provided Prior to the Conclusion of a Contract carefully before executing an agreement. This document is disseminated in Japan by MSIMJ, Registered No. 410 (Director of Kanto Local Finance Bureau (Financial Instruments Firms)), Membership: The Japan Securities Dealers Association, the Investment Trusts Association, Japan, the Japan Investment Advisers Association and the Type II Financial Instruments Firms Association.© 2025 Morgan Stanley. All rights reserved. 4459984 Exp. 19/02/2026

Despite news that the UK economy is set to slow due to uncertainty around US trade policy, our analysts Andrew Sheets and Bruna Skarica explain why they have a more optimistic outlook.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Bruna Skarica: And I'm Bruna Skarica, Chief UK Economist at Morgan Stanley.Andrew Sheets: Today we're going to talk about the United Kingdom and why, despite a downbeat outlook by many in the market, we remain more optimistic.It's Friday, May 2nd at 2pm in London.Bruna, it's great to talk to you again about the UK and not just because this is an unusual day in London where it's sunny and warm, and at the moment warmer than Los Angeles. You know, when discussing the UK, I do think you kind of need to take a step back. This is a country and an economy that's had a tough number of years where growth has been sub-trend, inflation's been higher, and a lot of assets have traded at a discount.So maybe just to give some context, talk to us a little bit about the last couple of years in the UK and the challenges the economy has faced.Bruna Skarica: Indeed, Andrew, I do think it's important to take a step back to appreciate just the amount of supply side shocks the UK has seen in recent years. First, between 2016 and 2020, of course, the country had to navigate Brexit negotiations. The elevated uncertainty kept a lid on business CapEx. In 2020, of course, as the rest of the world, we saw the lockdown and the pandemic. What followed were supply chain disruptions, and then, the European energy shock in 2022. I do want to zoom in on this final point because in its scale, the natural gas price surge in the UK was twice more of a hit to growth compared to the 1970s oil price shock.We've also seen a fair share of volatile market moves, most notably around the mini budget in the autumn of 2022. On top of all of this, the Bank of England into these supply side shocks had to hike interest rates to cap the inflation surge. And they went to above 5 per cent and have recently been relatively slower in reducing policy restrictiveness than most of its peers.So, when you tally all these factors up, it's really no surprise that the UK has seen an exceptionally weak post COVID recovery.Andrew Sheets: And that's continued right into this year. You know, I remember a lot of conversations with global investors heading into 2025, and again, the sentiment around the UK was kind of downbeat. Growth was pretty soft. Inflation was still high. Because inflation was high, interest rates here were still quite high. And so, you really had this, you know, unattractive mix of weak growth, high inflation, tight monetary policy. And then you could throw onto that, this uncertainty around the U.S. and trade. And you had a Trump administration that was adopting a more adversarial policy towards trade and towards Europe, which the UK was getting caught up in.So, you know – again, did I miss any of the challenges that the UK was facing, entering this year?Bruna Skarica: No, I think that's a great summary. First, at the end of last year, of course, the government faced some pretty tough decisions in the October budget, and they hiked a tax – a payroll tax really – in order to balance the books, which created somewhat subdued sentiment around the labor market this year.Now the labor market has been soft in the UK at the start of this year, but it did hold up a little bit better perhaps than the expectations from the end of last year. At the start of the year, we also saw the energy inflation forecast rise. So, that led to a more cautious tone by the Bank of England in February and March, as you mentioned. And now on the trade front, although we have a small manufacturing sector, we are a small open economy, we're a big beta to global growth dynamics.I would just like to mention here that one of the real bright spots of the UK economy in recent years have been services exports to the U.S., the kind of high-value-added white-collar services exports, which rose between 2019 and 2023 by 50 per cent. Now with the growth in the U.S. slowing and obviously the Euro area as well, UK growth will be affected too this year. We actually took our growth forecast down by around 30 basis points in our latest GDP revisions.Andrew Sheets: But Bruna, we're here to talk about the future and you know, I do think it's fair to say that going forward we think this picture is starting to look better. So, let's jump right into that. Across a number of specific points. Why do we think the UK story could look better as you look ahead?Bruna Skarica: Absolutely. I mean, the last point that I mentioned, I do think I want to put it in context. The trade related revisions in the UK are still less than what our colleagues in the euro area and the U.S. had undertaken in recent months on the back of the U.S. trade policy shifts. So, the UK does look a little bit like a relative winner there.Second, we now think that inflation can come down faster than both the Bank of England and the market expected at the beginning of the year. Commodities prices will do a fair bit of heavy lifting this year, but we do think that next year in particular, domestically generated inflation could slow fairly sharply as wage growth sticks around 3 to 3.5 per cent, which we think is fairly inflation target consistent.This all means the Bank of England should be able to cut more than the markets expect. We anticipate 125 basis point worth of cuts between May and November, and we think the terminal rate could fall to as low as 2 ¾. So, we think the neutral rate in the UK is between 2.5 to 3.5 per cent, and we do think the market still has a bit of adjustment to do in the sense of the pricing of the terminal rate one and two years ahead.The third point around fiscal policy I think is quite interesting. Fiscal policy has been in great focus in the UK in recent years. We had a big fiscal event in October. We had another fiscal event just now in March. The borrowing increase was less than what the market expected. Deficit projections are such that we are expecting deficit to fall from around 4.8 per cent this year to 3 per cent over the course of the next three years, and for debt to GDP ratio to remain at around 100 per cent of GDP. I would perhaps contrast that with France where our economist is expecting the deficit to remain north of 5 per cent over the course of the next two years.Finally, an important point to make is that the UK government amid trade shifts in the U.S. is looking for a closer relationship with the EU, or rather a trade reset with the EU. EU remains our closest trading partner and in the aftermath of Brexit, the current government has an ambition to improve trading in food and goods; and also to ensure that the UK is part of the European Defense Program, which would allow UK defense companies to partake in the defense and security path that the European Union presented in recent weeks. There is a summit being held on May 19th, and obviously the trade and corporation agreement is coming up for revision in 2026.So, we do think those relations between UK and the EU could become somewhat closer over the course of this year and next.But now a question from me, which is, what does all this mean on the strategy side? UK assets have obviously been quite unloved in recent years. Do you think that's about to change?Andrew Sheets: So again, I think it's pretty interesting that markets are anticipatory, and I think markets are pretty smart here. So, you've already seen the British pound, the currency do quite well. This year it's up against the dollar. You've seen the UK stock market do quite well. It's up about 5 per cent this year, despite the S&P 500 being down quite significantly.So, you're already seeing, I think, some signs that investors are warming up to the UK and you know, I do think that if our expectations play out, that could continue. You know, UK stocks do tend to be concentrated and slower growing, less exciting sectors. But their valuations are also less demanding. You know, the U.S. Stock Index trades at about 21 times next year's earnings. The UK stock market trades a little bit under 13 times next year's earnings.And I also think it's really important that if the Bank of England does cut interest rates more than the market expects, which again, as you discussed, is one of our expectations here at Morgan Stanley, that could be pretty supportive for the UK bond market, which continues to offer pretty high yields.Bruna, thanks for joining me for this conversation. It's always great to catch up with you.Bruna Skarica: My pleasure, Andrew. Thank you for the invite.Andrew Sheets: And thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Chief Korea and Taiwan Economist Kathleen Oh discusses Korea's recent pension reform and its implications for the country's rapidly aging population.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Kathleen Oh, Morgan Stanley's Chief Korea and Taiwan Economist. Today I'll revisit Korea's demographic emergency and how the recent pension reform is trying to address it.It's Thursday, May 1st, at 4pm in Hong Kong.Some of you may remember that I came on the show last fall to talk about the crisis-level demographic challenges in Korea. Korea officially became a super-aged society at the end of 2024. This means that more than 20 per cent of the population is 65 or older.In the face of its rapidly aging population and a fertility rate that has hit rock bottom, Korea is taking decisive action finally. The national assembly recently passed a landmark pension reform bill to amend the National Pension Act. This measure marks the first major change to its pension system in 18 years. And it's supposed to improve the pension fund's financial sustainability to prepare for a rapidly aging population that will only accelerate from here.The amendments include raising pension contribution rates and adjusting the income replacement ratio to 43 per cent. These changes aim to delay the depletion of the fund to 2064 to 2071, in an upside scenario. Without this reform, the fund would have been depleted by 2055, just 30 years later.This reform avoids having to sell the fund's financial assets by delaying depletion. It also assures pension-holders of the stability of future pension assets. And, last but not least, it increases the pension fund's capacity for financial investments, which could lead to higher returns.This is the first step towards making legislative, and therefore more structural changes to respond to the reality of a super-aged society. Moreover, it kicks off a sweeping reform agenda that includes the pension program, labor market, education system, and capital markets.It's also notable because the center-left Democratic Party of Korea and the conservative People Power Party were able to show bipartisan support and a public consensus to reach a deal, especially during the recent tumultuous political events that took place in Korea.That said, the reform also has some potentially negative economic impacts. Higher pension contributions could squeeze households' disposable income, putting mild but additional downward pressure on aggregate consumption and savings. Especially considering that as people age, they tend to consume less – and this can lead to a structural slowdown in private consumption.Despite Korea's challenges with an aging population, we're cautiously optimistic about its future – especially because [of] the recent rebound in the country's fertility rate. After marking a drop every year since 2015, it rebounded to 0.75 in 2024. While still far below the ideal replacement ratio of 2.1, this rebound is a small but certainly a positive sign.Looking ahead, Korea's working population is expected to decrease by 50 per cent in the next 40 years unless the country ensures a dramatic rebound in the fertility rate to 1.0 or higher by 2030. In the meantime, we expect further adjustments to the pension reform bill, we expect further discussions around lifting of retirement age, along with the labor market reform next in line on the economic front. The Korean government will continue to execute on its demographic policy agenda.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our analysts Michael Zezas and Rajeev Sibal unpack the significance of a little-discussed clause in the Trump administration's tariff policy, which suggests investors should think less about countries and more about products.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.Rajeev Sibal: And I am Rajeev Sibal, Senior Global Economist.Michael Zezas: Today we look through the potential escalation and de-escalation of tariff rates and discuss what the lasting impact of higher tariffs will be for companies and the economy.It's Wednesday, April 30th at 11am in New York.Rajeev Sibal: And 4pm in London.Michael Zezas: Last week during a White House News conference, President Trump announced that tariffs on goods from China will come down substantially, but it won't be zero. And this was after U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent made comments about high tariffs against China being unsustainable, according to some news reports.Now, some of this has been walked back, and there's further discussion of challenging negotiations with China and potential escalations if those negotiations don't go well. Meanwhile, Canadian voters elected a Liberal government, led by Mark Carney yesterday. That federal election played out against the backdrop of the U.S. proposing higher tariffs on its northern neighbors. So, Rajeev, amidst all this noise, what seems clear is that tariff levels will end up higher than where we started before President Trump took office. Though we don't exactly know how high they will be. What is it that investors need to understand about the economic impacts of higher tariffs just generically?Rajeev Sibal: So yeah, we do view that tariffs are going to structurally be higher than they were before the Trump administration. This has been a baseline of our outlook since last year. Now I think the challenge is figuring out where they're going to settle as you've highlighted. We do think that peak tariff was probably a couple weeks ago, when we were at the max pain threshold, vis-a-vis China and the rest of the world. We've since seen the reciprocal tariffs move to 10 per cent for everyone but China.China's clearly higher than 60 per cent today, but we do think that over time the implied rate to China will start to graduate and come down. If you look at the electronics exemption for example, that's a big step in getting the average tariff rate out of China lower. So, we think we're on a journey. We think we were past peak tariff pain in terms of level. But over the next few months, it's going to take some time and negotiation to figure out where we settle. And we are still looking to kind of our baseline outlook, that had been defined some time ago of a 10 per cent baseline with an elevated level on China, if you will.Michael Zezas: So, I think this is an important point, that there's a lot of back and forth about tariff levels, which countries are going to be levied on, to what degree, and to what products. But at the end of the day, we think there'll be more tariffs than where we started.Rajeev, you have a view on where investors should focus, in terms of what tariffs are durable. And maybe at the end of the day it'll be less about countries and more about products. Can you talk us through that?Rajeev Sibal: You know, on April 2nd when the Trump administration released the fact sheet about tariffs and reciprocal tariffs, there was a small clause in there that I think the market did not pay enough attention to, and which is becoming front and center now.And in that clause, they identified that a number of tariffs related to Section 232 would be exempted from reciprocal tariffs. And the notion is that country tariffs would evolve or shift into sector tariffs over time. And in the note that we recently published, we highlighted some of the legal mechanisms that may be at play here. There's still a lot of uncertainty as to how things will settle down, but what we do know is that legally speaking, country tariffs are coming through IEEPA, which is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act; whereas section and sector tariffs are coming through Section 232; and some of the other section structures that exist in U.S. trade law.And so, the experience of 2018 leaned a lot more to these sections than it did to IEEPA. And that was a guiding, I guess, mechanism for us, as we thought about what was happening in the current tariff structure. And the fact that the White House included this carve out, if you will, for Section 232 tariffs in their April 2nd fact sheet was a big lead indicator for us that, over time, there would be an increased shift towards sectors.And, so for us, we think the market should be focusing more in that direction. As we think about how this evolves over time, now that we've not completely de-escalated, but brought a materially lower tariff level and everywhere in the world except for China. The big variability is probably going to be in the sector tariffs now going forward.Michael Zezas: So, what sectors do you think are particularly in focus here?Rajeev Sibal: So, on the April 2nd fact sheet that the White House provided to countries and to the market, they specifically identified steel, aluminum, autos and auto parts as already having Section 232 tariffs. And we know that's true because those investigations had started in a prior Trump administration. And so, kind of the framework was already in place for them to execute those tariffs.The guidance then suggested that copper, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and lumber would also potentially fall under Section 232 tariffs in the future. And then there's been a range of indications as to what might be in play, so to speak, for Section 232.I know pharmaceuticals is at the top of the list of many investors, as are semiconductors. So, this is our kind of sample list, but we're pretty certain that this will evolve over time. But that's where we're starting.Michael Zezas: Okay, so pharmaceutical, semiconductors, automobile, steel, aluminum. It's a pretty substantial list. So, if that's the sort of end game landscape here – relatively elevated China tariffs, and then all of these products specific tariffs – what does an investor need to know about a company's options in this world? Can companies just rewire their supply chains around all of this? And you know, ultimately there's some temporary price pain. But once things are rewired around this, that should dissipate. Or are the decisions more difficult than that and that there has to be some cost passed through to the consumer or to the companies themselves – because this is just too many tariffs in too many places?Rajeev Sibal: Yeah, so I think the latter of your question – the difficulty – is really where we need to be thinking about what's happening here. If you think about the bigger picture, and you go back to the note that we collaborated on earlier in the year called Supply Chain Strain, we highlighted the complexity of moving factors of production and the extreme levels of investment that have required to shift factors of production.So, companies, if they're going to move a factory from country A to country B, have to make sure that country B has the institutional framework, that it has the capital, it has the labor input, and this is a big, big decision. So, as a company you're not going to make that decision to shift your investment or reconstruct productive facilities in a new country – until you understand the cost benefit analysis. And in order to understand the cost benefit analysis, you really need to know what the sector-based Section 232 tariff looks like in the end.If we remember back in 2018, the government tried to implement a wide range of tariffs. On average, it took about 250 days for each investigation to be completed. And that's a long timeframe. And so, I think what we're going through now, apart from automobiles and steel and aluminum where that process has kind of already been done, and we kind of have the framework of the tariffs and the new sectors, companies are going to have to wait for this investigation to take place so that they understand what the tariff level is. Because the tariff level is going determine the risk of actually shifting productive facilities. Or if you just kind of absorb the cost because the tariff isn't at a high enough level that it incentivizes the shift.And so, these are the changes that I think remain an open question and will be the focus of companies over the next few months as their sectors are exposed to tariffs.Michael Zezas: Right. So, what I think I'm hearing then, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that some of the focus on the China tariffs or the country level specific tariffs in the headlines – about they're moving up, they're moving down – might mask that at the end of the day, we're still dealing with considerably higher tariffs on a broad enough array of products; that it will mean difficult choices for companies and/or higher costs. And so therefore markets are still going to have to price some of the economic challenges around that.Rajeev Sibal: Yeah, I think that's absolutely right. And we've seen the market try to price some of this stuff at a country level context. But it's been hard. And, you know, even the headline tariff rate in the U.S. is really hard to pin down for the simple reason that we don't know if the Mexican and Canadian trade into the U.S. is compliant or non-compliant, and how that gets counted in the current structure of the tariff regime. And so, as these questions remain outstanding, markets are going to be volatile, trying to figure out where the tariff level is. I think that uncertainty at a country level then shifts to the sector level as we go through these investigations that we've been highlighting.Autos is a great example. We finished the investigation. We've implemented a Section 232 tariff, and we still don't know what the implied auto tariff rate is because we don't know how many parts in a car are compliant within existing free trade agreements of the United States; and if they're compliant or not really determines what the implied tariff level is for the U.S. And until companies can decide and give forward guidance and understand what their margins look like, I think markets are going to be in this guessing game.Michael Zezas: Yeah, and that certainly syncs up with our fixed income strategy views. The idea that yield curves will continue to steepen to deal with the uncertainty about U.S. trade policy and demand for dollars, as a consequence. That equity markets might be moving sideways as perhaps we priced in some of the first order effects of tariffs, but not necessarily the second order, potentially non-linear effects on the broader global economy. And unfortunately, the lingering uncertainties that you talk about implementation, they're going to be with us for awhile.Rajeev Sibal: Yeah, I think that's really fair. And our economics outlook mirrors that as well.Michael Zezas: Well, Rajeev, thanks for joining us today to help us sort through all of thisRajeev Sibal: Mike, thanks for having me on the podcast.Michael Zezas: And to all of you, thanks for listening. If you found this podcast helpful, let us know and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Commodities Strategist Martijn Rats discusses the ongoing volatility in the oil market and potential macroeconomic scenarios for the rest of this year.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley's Global Commodities Strategist. Today on the podcast – the uncertainty in the oil market and how it can play out for the rest of the year.It's Tuesday, April 29th, at 3pm in London.Now, notwithstanding the energy transition, the cornerstone of the world's energy system is still the oil market; and in that market, the most important price is the one for Brent crude oil. Therefore, fluctuations in oil prices can have powerful ripple effects on various industries and sectors, as well as on the average consumer who, of course, pays attention to gasoline prices at the pump. Now with that in mind, we are asking the question: what's been happening in the global oil market recently?Earlier this month, Brent crude oil prices dropped sharply, falling 12.5 per cent over just two trading sessions, from around 75 dollars a barrel to close to 65 dollar a barrel. That was primarily driven by two factors: first, worries about the impact of trade wars on the global economy and therefore on oil demand, after the Trump administration's announcement of reciprocal tariffs.Secondly, was OPEC's announcement that, notwithstanding all the demand uncertainty that this created, it would still accelerate supply growth, progressing not only with the planned production increases for May; but bring forward the planned production increases for June and July as well. Now you can imagine, when OPEC releases extra production whilst the GDP outlook is weakening, understandably, this weighs on the price of oil.Now to put things into context, two-day declines of 12.5 per cent are rare. The Brent futures market was created in 1988, and since then this has only happened 24 times, and 22 of those instances coincided with recessions. So therefore, some commentators have taken the recent drop as a potential sign of an impending recession.Now while Brent prices have recovered slightly from the recent lows, they're still very volatile as they continue to reflect the ongoing trade concerns, the economic outlook, and also a strong outlook for supply growth from OPEC and non-OPEC countries alike. The last few weeks have already seen unusually large speculator selling. So with that in mind, we suspect that oil prices will hold up in the near-term. However, we still see potential for further headwinds later in the year.In our base case scenario, we expect that demand growth will slow down to approximately 0.5 million barrels a day year-on-year by the second half of 2025, and that is down from an an initial estimate earlier in the year when were still forecasting about a million barrel a day growth over the same period. Now this slowdown – coupled with an increase in non-OPEC and OPEC supply – could result in an oversupply of the market of about a million barrels a day over the remainder of 2025. Now with that outlook, we believe that Brent prices could eventually drop further down into the low-$60s.That said, let's also consider a more bearish scenario. Oil demand has never grown continuously during recessions. So if tariffs and counter-tariffs tip the economy into recession, oil demand growth could also fall to zero. In such a situation, the surplus we're currently modeling could be substantially larger, possibly north of 1.5 million barrels a day. Now that would require non-OPEC production to slow down more severely to balance the market. In that scenario, we estimate that Brent prices may need to fall into the mid-$50s to create the necessary supply slowdown.On the flip side, there's also a bullish scenario where we and the market are all overestimating the demand impact. If oil demand doesn't slow down as much as we currently expect and OPEC were to revert quite quickly back to managing the supply side again, then inventories would still build but only slowly. Now in that case, Brent could actually return into the low-$70s as well.All in all, we would suspect that the twin headwinds of higher-than-expected trade tariffs and faster-than-expected OPEC+ quota increases will continue to weigh on oil prices in the months ahead. And so we have lowered our demand forecast for the second half of the year to just 0.5 million barrels a day, year-on-year. And we've also lowered our prices forecasts for 2026; we're now calling for $65 a barrel – that's $5 a barrel lower than we were forecasting before.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson discusses how market volatility over the last month will affect equity markets as earnings season begins.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley's CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today, I will discuss what to expect from Equity markets as we enter the heart of earnings season. It's Monday, April 28th at 11:30am in New York. So, let's get after it. The S&P 500 tested both the lower and upper ends of our 5000-5500 range last week, reinforcing the notion that we remain in a volatile trading environment. Incrementally positive news on a potential tariff deal with China and hope for a more dovish Fed lifted stocks into the end of the week, and the S&P 500 closed slightly above the upper end of our range. While a modest overshoot of 5500 can persist very short-term, a sustainable break above this level is dependent on developments that have yet to come to fruition. Those include a tariff deal with China that brings down the effective rate materially; a more dovish Fed; 10-year Treasury yields falling below 4 percent without recessionary risks increasing; and a clear rebound in earnings revisions. Bottom line, until we see clear positive shift in one or more of these factors, range trading is likely to continue with risks to the downside given that we are now at the top end of the range. A frequent question we're getting from clients is does the soft data matter for equities or is the market waiting for the hard data to make up its mind in terms of an upside or downside breakout above or below this range? Our view has been consistent that the most important macro data at this stage is from the labor market while the most important micro data are earnings revisions. Equities have already priced a meaningful slowdown in growth relative to expectations. What's not priced is a labor cycle or recession. While this risk has been reduced to some extent given the recent, more dovish tone shift on tariffs from the administration, it's far from extinguished. Until we see clear evidence over multiple months that the labor market remains solid, a recession will likely remain a coin toss. One soft data point to pay attention to this week that could move the market is the April ISM Manufacturing data on May 1st. Recall this series accelerated the August 2024 selloff ahead of a soft July payroll report. The most important takeaway from an equity strategy perspective is to stay up the quality curve. No matter what the hard data says, we remain in a late cycle backdrop where both quality and large cap relative outperformance should continue. While uncertainty remains higher than usual, defensives should continue to do well. However, given their relative outperformance over the past year, it also makes sense to pick spots in high quality cyclicals that have already discounted a material slowdown in both macro conditions and earnings. To be clear, this is not a blanket call on cyclicals; it's a selective, stock-specific one. More specifically, look for quality, cyclical stocks that are more de-risked based on what the stocks are pricing from a forward earnings growth standpoint. See our written research for stock screens. And from a global standpoint, we recommend favoring U.S. over international equities at this point as a weaker dollar should benefit U.S. relative earnings revisions, particularly versus Europe and Japan. Furthermore, less volatile earnings growth and a higher quality bias should benefit the U.S. on a relative basis in today's late cycle backdrop. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our U.S. and Asia economists Michael Gapen and Chetan Ahya discuss how tariff uncertainty is shaping their expectations for these economies over the second half of 2025.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript -----Michael Gapen: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist.Chetan Ahya: And I'm Chetan Ahya, Chief Asia Economist.Michael Gapen: Today we'll discuss some significant changes to our Asia growth forecast on the heels of tariffs. As well as how the U.S. economy is reacting to the changes in the global trading environment.It's Friday, April 25th at 8am in New York.Chetan Ahya: And 8pm in Hong Kong.Michael Gapen: So, Chetan, since the last time we were both on the show, it appears that we are headed towards at least some de-escalation of trade tensions. Just last week, you wrote in your report that the tariffs on China are too prohibitive for any trade to take place – and that you expected some dialing down of the escalatory action. And this week the administration started to talk about easing tariffs on China significantly.Considering all the events since April 2nd – and it's felt like a lot of events since April 2nd –where does it leave you in terms of how you are thinking about the outlook?Chetan Ahya: So, Mike, that's right. You know what we thought was that the current level of tariffs that the U.S. has on China and what China has on the U.S. means that effectively there are no transactions possibleBut look, even after those tariff rates are going down, we are still expecting it to be in the range of around 60 per cent. And that would still be relatively high level of tariffs. If I were just to translate this into what it means for the whole region? So, for the whole region, the weighted average tariff will still be around 32 per cent. And remember this number was close to 5 per cent in early January.So, we are talking about a huge amount of uncertainty related to this tariff path and the tariff level itself is going to remain somewhat high.And so, with that concern on uncertainty, we are expecting a region's investment growth to be affected significantly, taking down region's growth lower.Michael Gapen: So, Chetan, I was looking over your growth forecast and noticed that you have a sharp step down in growth from the second quarter of 2025 on. Can you walk us through these revisions in particular?Chetan Ahya: So yes, we have changed our forecast and what we are now seeing is in terms of growth path is that Asia's overall GDP growth will slow from 4.8 per cent that we saw in fourth quarter of last year, to around 3.6 per cent by fourth quarter of this year.And for comparable time period, China's growth will slow from 5.4 to 3.7 [per cent]. So that's another meaningful step down for ChinaMichael Gapen: What do you think Asian economies can do to counteract the impact from tariffs at this point?Chetan Ahya: So, we expect the policy makers in the region to take up both monetary and fiscal policy easing. But, you know, despite that policy easing effort, you will still see that meaningful growth drag. So, for China, we think it'll be the fiscal policy that will do the heavy lifting. Whereas for Asia ex-China is going to be more monetary policy that will do the heavy lifting.And in terms of the exact magnitude, we're expecting 50 to 150 basis points depending upon the economy in the region in form of rate cuts. And specifically on China; on the fiscal policy, we expect them to take up about 2.5 per cent of GDP increase in fiscal deficit in form of investment in infrastructure, as well as some programs for supporting consumption spending.Michael Gapen: So Chetan, it sounds like a lot of monetary and fiscal policy easing and support is coming from the Asian economies. But I guess the bottom line is that you don't think it would be sufficient to fully counteract the impact from tariffs. Is that right?Chetan Ahya: That's right Mike. And let me come to you now and get your thoughts on how you see the development of the tariffs, et cetera, affecting the U.S. economy. You've already recently characterized your view on the U.S. economy as still living on the edge. What's driving this view?Michael Gapen: It's a way that we were trying to communicate that, you know, we don't see the economy at the moment, falling into a recession, but we think it's close. If we thought that the effective tariff rate was going to stay where it was -- or where it is -- roughly around 18 per cent, then we would have a much more negative view on the outlook. And we do expect the effective tariff rate to come down for all the reasons that you suggested there. And there's openings for that, to happen. And that's where the conversation has been going in recent days.And so, I think there's a tension between how much uncertainty can be reduced on one hand. And then on the other hand, how quickly volumes in the economy, activity in the economy may slow. So, I think we're in a window here where – where we are in a race against time to bring the effective tariff rate lower, in order to keep the economy in recovery. So that was really my narrative here where living on the edge, where we're not projecting a recession, but we're close enough to one. That, it's almost a coin toss. And I think we need to backpedal here relatively quickly, or we could have much more negative effects on the economy.Chetan Ahya: And Mike, I remember that, in 2018, we did not see this kind of a reaction in the consumer confidence data, but we are seeing that in this cycle. And on top of it, we have this expectation that corporate confidence will also be weighed down by policy uncertainty. So how does this double whammy of weak confidence feature in your forecast?Michael Gapen: I think the key component or in, in this case two key components for the outlook for the economy – because it's relatively straightforward to try and project or pass through the direct effect of tariffs on consumer spending, real incomes and trade volumes. But what's really hard to understand here is what does a highly uncertain environment do to asset markets and business sentiment?So, the, the two channels here that you mentioned, consumer confidence and business confidence. These are kind of what might get you spill over effects, and a recession.So, for the consumer, what we're really focused on here is, yes. Stated confidence by households is weak, but they're still generally spending. And tariffs affect lower- and middle-income houses more than they do upper income households. So, we're really keyed in on: Do equity markets fall enough? Do we get a negative wealth shock on upper income consumers, where they decide, ‘Hey, I feel less wealthy, therefore I'm going to spend less than save more.'So, then the business sector delays spending and may even, you know, generate some layoffs; and recessions, as you know, happen when there's a lot of negative feedback loops in the economy. And so, this is what we're worried about.Chetan Ahya: Another interesting debate, that we as a team are having with the investors is about the Fed policy response. And so, Fed Chair Powell has said that tariffs would generate at least a temporary rise in inflation. How do you think the Fed will handle a tariff induced spike in inflation?Michael Gapen: So, there has been an evolution in the Fed's thought and thinking around how to handle tariffs. Given the dramatic increase in tariffs,, I think the Fed has to wait and they have to see the actual data come in.So, in our view, with inflation rising first and activity weakening later, you probably don't get any Fed cuts this year. And the Fed moves to rate cuts in 2026. If we're wrong in the economy, and, and it decelerates, and moves into a recession more quickly than we would anticipate, and the labor market deteriorates rapidly, then the Fed will ease.But what they're doing here is they're responding to a world where both sides of their mandate are getting worse. And they're going to respond to the one that's more offsides than the other. And in the short run, we think that'll be inflation. So, it means the Fed moves much later than markets currently expect.Chetan Ahya: In terms of the next set of data points or events that you're watching, uh, which can change your view on the growth outlook – what are you really, looking out for?Michael Gapen: Well, I think in the very short run, it's looking at all the inflation data and seeing whether or not the higher tariff rates are getting passed through to the final consumer. We think a little of that will show up in the April inflation data that's due out in the middle of May. That'll be mainly around autos. But then we think the May, June, and July data will begin to show much more increase in goods prices from the tariff pass through. So, we'll be kind of watching that to see whether the inflation impulse is as strong as we think it will be.Second, I think in the very short run, we'll be watching trade volumes. We'll be watching even, shipping container volumes.We'll be watching for blank sales where ships skip ports because there's just not any activity or demand. And then finally, I'd say employment, right? Obviously, expansion versus contraction and whether the economy will stay in expansion phase will be dependent on whether employment continues to grow. We'll get an early look on that. For the April employment data in early May. We don't think there'll be much negative imprint on April employment, but as we move into May, June, and July, we could see hiring slow down more rapidly.So, Chetan, that's what I would point to – just ascertaining the near-term inflation impulse, looking out for any sharp slowdown in trade volumes and whether or not the labor market holds up.Michael Gapen: Before we close, based on what I just described about the U.S. and also how you're thinking about the tariff situation, how would you differentiate the economies in your part of the world? I only have to deal with one. You have to deal with many. How would you differentiate between economies in your region right now?Chetan Ahya: So Mike, what we've tried to do is to think about this more from which economies are more trade oriented and which economies are less trade oriented. Because we are aware about the fact that there is going to be an overall trade slowdown for the region. And so, in that context, India and Australia are the ones we think will be, relatively less affected from this trade slowdown and global growth slowdown. Whereas more trade-oriented economies, which is, you know, the likes of Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Malaysia would be getting more affected.; The reality is that China is facing the maximum amount of tariffs within the region. And therefore we are building in a bit more growth slowdown in case of China, even while its trade orientation is a bit lower than Korea and Taiwan.Michael Gapen: Chetan, thanks for taking time to talk today.Chetan Ahya: Great speaking with you, Mike,Michael Gapen: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Our Co-Heads of Securitized Products Research Jay Bacow and James Egan explain how mortgage rates, tariffs and stock market volatility are affecting the U.S. housing market.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript -----Jay Bacow: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jay Bacow, co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley.James Egan: And I'm Jim Egan, the other co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley. And today we're here to talk about all of the headlines that we've been seeing and how they impact the U.S. housing market.It's Thursday, April 24th at 9am in New York.Jay Bacow: Jim, there are a lot of headlines right now. Mortgage rates have decreased about 60 basis points from the highs that we saw in January through the beginning of April. But since the tariff announcements, they've retraced about half of that move. Now, speaking of the tariffs, I would imagine that's going to increase the cost of building homes.So, what does all of this mean for the U.S. housing market?James Egan: On top of everything you just mentioned, the stock market is down over 15 per cent from recent peaks, so there is a lot going on these days. We think it all has implications for the U.S. housing market. Where do you want me to start?Jay Bacow: I think it's hard to have a conversation these days without talking about tariffs, so let's start there.James Egan: So, we worked on the impacts of tariffs on the U.S. housing market with our colleagues in economics research, and we did share some of the preliminary findings on another episode of this podcast a couple weeks ago. Since then, we have new estimates on tariffs, and that does raise our baseline expectation from about a 4 to 5 per cent increase in the cost of materials used to build a home to closer to 8 per cent right now.Jay Bacow: Now I assume at least some of that 8 per cent is going to get pushed through into home prices, which presumably is then going to put more pressure on affordability. And given the – I don't know – couple hundred conversations that you and I have had over the past few years, I am pretty sure affordability's already under a lot of pressure.James Egan: It is indeed. And this is also coming at a time when new home sales are playing their largest role in the U.S. housing market in decades. New home sales, as a percent of total, make up their largest share since 2006. New homes for sale – so now talking about the inventory piece of this – they're making up their largest share of the homes that are listed for sale every month in the history of our data. And that's going back to the early 1980s.Jay Bacow: And since presumably the cost of construction is much higher on a new home sale than an existing home sale, that's going to have an even bigger impact now than it has when we look to the history where new home sales were making up a much smaller portion of housing activity.James Egan: Right, and we're already seeing this impact come through on the home builder side of this, specifically weighing on home builder sentiment and single unit building volumes. Through the first quarter of this year, single unit housing starts are down 6 per cent versus the first quarter of 2024.Jay Bacow: All right. And we're experiencing a housing shortage already; but if building volumes are going to come down, then presumably that puts upward pressure on home prices. Now, Jim, you mentioned home builder sentiment. But there's got to be home buyer sentiment right now. And that can't feel very good given the sell off in equity markets and what that does with home buyer's ability to afford to put down money for down payment. So how does that all affect the housing market?James Egan: Now that's a question that we've been getting a lot over the past couple weeks. And to answer it, we took a look at all of the times that the stock market has fallen by at least 20 per cent over the past few decades.Jay Bacow: I assume when you looked at that, the answers weren't very good.James Egan: You know, it depends on the question. We identified 10 instances of at least a 20 per cent drawdown in equity markets over the past few decades. For eight of them, we have sufficient home price data. Outside of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), which you could argue was a housing led global recession, every other instance saw home prices actually climb during the equity market correction.Jay Bacow: So, people were buying homes during a drawdown in the equity market?James Egan: No home prices were climbing. But in every instance, and here we can go back a little bit further, sales declined during the drawdown. Now, once stock markets officially bottomed, sales climbed sharply in the following 12 months. But while stock prices were falling, so were sales.And Jay, at the top of this podcast, you mentioned mortgage rate volatility. That matters a lot here…Jay Bacow: Can you elaborate on why I said something so thoughtful?James Egan: Well, it's because you're a very thoughtful person. But why mortgage rate volatility matters here? While sales volumes fall in all instances, the magnitude of that decrease falls into two distinct camps. There are four of these roughly 10 instances, where the decrease in sales volumes is large; it exceeds 10 per cent. And again, one of those was that GFC – housing led global recession. But the other three all had mortgage rates increased by at least 200 basis points alongside the equity market selloff.Jay Bacow: So not only were people feeling less wealthy, but homes were getting more expensive. That just seems like a double whammy.James Egan: Bingo. And there were more instances where rates did actually decrease amid the equity market selloff. And while that didn't stop sales from falling, it did contain the decrease. In each of these instances, sales were virtually flat to down low single digits. So, call it a 3 or 4 per cent drop.Jay Bacow: All right, so that's a really good history lesson. What's going to happen now? We've been talking about the housing market being at almost trough turnover rates already for some time.James Egan: Right, so when we think about the view forward, and you talk about trough turnover rates, I've said some version of this statement on this podcast a few times…Jay Bacow [crosstalk]: You're saying it again…James Egan: … but there's some level of housing activity that has to occur regardless of where rates and affordability are. And coming into this year, we really thought we were at those levels. I'm not saying we don't still think that we're there, but if mortgage rates were to stay elevated like they are today as we're recording this podcast, amid this broader equity market volatility, we do think that could introduce a little bit more downside to sales volumes.Jay Bacow: All right, but if we've got this equity drawdown, then I feel like we've been getting other questions from homeowners' ability to pay for these mortgages – and delinquencies in the pipeline. Do you have anything to highlight there?James Egan: Yes, so I think one of the things we've also highlighted with respect to the unique situation that we're in in the US housing market is – just how low effective mortgage rates are on the outstanding universe versus the prevailing rate today.We've talked about the implications of the lock-in effect. But if we take a closer look on just how much bifurcation that's led to in terms of household mortgage payments as a share of income, depending on when you bought your house. If you bought your house back in 2016, your income, if we at least look at median income growth, is up in the interim.You probably refinanced in 2020 when mortgage rates came down. That monthly payment as a share of today's income, today's median household income, roughly 8.5 per cent. If you bought up the median priced home at prevailing rates in 2024, you're talking about a payment to income north of 26 per cent. When we look at performance from a mortgage perspective, we are seeing real delineations by vintage of mortgage origination – with mortgages before 2021, behaving a lot better than mortgages after 2021. So the 2022 to [20]24 vintages.I would highlight that losses and foreclosures, those remain incredibly contained. We expect them to stay that way. But when we think about all of this on a go forward basis, we do think that mortgage rate volatility is going to be important for sales volumes next year. But everything we talked about should lead to continued support for home prices. They're growing at 4 per cent year-over-year now. By the end of the year, maybe 2 to 3 per cent growth. So, a little bit of deceleration, but still climbing home prices.Jay Bacow: Interesting. So normally we talk about the housing market. It's location, location, location. But it sounds like the timing of when you bought is also going to impact things as well. Jim, always a pleasure talking to you.James Egan: Pleasure talking to you too, Jay. And to our listeners, thanks for listening. If you enjoy this podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Morgan Stanley's Head of European Consumer Staples, Sarah Simon, discusses why aging populations, wellness trends and Gen Z's moderation are putting pressure on the long-term outlook for alcoholic beverages.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Sarah Simon, Head of the European Consumer Staples team. Today's topic: Is America sobering up? Recent trends point to a national decline in alcohol use.It's Wednesday, April 23rd, at 2pm in London.Picture this: It's Friday night, and you're at a bar with friends. The drinks menu offers many options. A cold beer or glass of wine, sure. But how about a Phony Negroni. And your friends nod approvingly.This isn't just a passing trend – we believe it's a structural shift that's set to reshape the beverage industry. Overall alcohol consumption in volume terms has been relatively flat over the last decade in the U.S. - with spirits growing mid single digits in value terms and beer growing low single digits. But both categories are currently declining. The big debate is whether it's cyclical or structural. We acknowledge that the consumer is under pressure right now, but we equally see long term structural pressures that are starting to play out. There are three key factors behind this trend: increased moderation by younger drinkers, an ageing population, and then broader health and wellness trends. So let's talk first about Gen Z – those born between 1997 and 2012. They're drinking notably less than previous generations of the same age. In fact, today's 18-34 year-olds drink 30 per cent less than the same age group 20 years ago. And we think it's pretty unlikely they will catch up as they get older. This isn't a temporary blip caused by the after-effects of COVID-19 lockdowns or economic pressures. It's a long-term trend that predates both of these factors. And importantly this isn't the case of abstinence – as in the case of tobacco – but moderation. Younger generations are simply drinking less alcohol and allocating more of their beverage spending towards soft drinks. Secondly, developed market populations are ageing. If we look at population data, we see it's today's 45-55 year old age group that drinks the most alcohol; and has exhibited the highest growth in consumption and spending over the last 20 years. However, over the next 20 years, this cohort is likely to cut back on drinking due to physiological reasons as they age. The body simply becomes less able to metabolize alcohol, and there's much higher usage of prescription medication in the over 65 age group. And in just the same way that this cohort was growing faster than the population overall over the last 20 years – because of the higher birth rate in the late 60s and 70s – in future, the aging of these GenX-ers will drive outsized growth in the number of people aged over 75, who consume much less alcohol. And so, the result is a disproportionate impact on overall alcohol consumption. And on top of this, there's increased adoption of GLP-1 weight loss drugs that we've talked about previously. And increasingly negative perceptions of the health implications of alcohol – as the broader health and wellness trend takes hold. On the flip side, there's also a growing acceptance of non-alcoholic beverages, driven by better products and broader distribution. We expect low- and zero-alcohol alternatives to gain a larger share of the market as a result. And we think beer looks particularly well-positioned; it already accounts for about 85 per cent of the non-alcoholic market overall. And this year in the U.S., non-alcoholic beer has nearly doubled its share of U.S. beer retail sales, compared to where it was in 2021. Now it's still small, but the growth rate in the well over 20 per cent range, suggests that share gain will continue. Meanwhile, we're seeing more mocktails on menus and zero-alcohol beer on draft in pubs. All of this is further contributing to less stigma associated with not drinking alcohol. And all these trends add up to one conclusion, we think: earnings pressures on alcohol makers are not simply cyclical but structural. They have been underway even prior to COVID. And looking to the future, we think they're here to stay. So now, many more people can say cheers to that. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen to podcasts. And tell your friends about us too.

Our Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Serena Tang discusses the market's shifting perception of risk and what's behind some unusual patterns in fund flows among asset classes.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. No investment recommendation is made with respect to any of the ETFs or mutual funds referenced herein. Investors should not rely on the information included in making investment decisions with respect to those funds. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's Chief Cross-Asset Strategist. Today I want to look at how investors are playing defense amid elevated macro uncertainty.It's Tuesday, April 22, at 10am in New York.So, the last three weeks have brought intense volatility to global markets, and investors have had to reexamine their relationship with risk. Typically, in times like these, mutual fund and ETF flows from stocks into bonds serve as a clear gauge of investor defensiveness. But this pattern hasn't really been informative this time around.Instead, flows to gold – rather than bonds – have been the clearest evidence of flight-to-quality most recently. Between April 3rd and 11th almost US$5 billion went into gold ETFs globally, one of the strongest seven-day net flow stretches ever. There's been US$22 billion of net inflows to gold ETFs with assets under management totaling about US$250 billion year-to-date. Of the 10 days of the highest net inflows to gold ETFs over the last 20 years, three occurred in the last month.Cash also benefited from the dash to defensives, with over US$100bn flowing into money market funds year-to-date. And we expect that reallocating to cash will be a theme for the rest of the year for many reasons. For one, our U.S. economists expect no Fed cuts in 2025 and back-loaded cuts in 2026 following a projected surge in core PCE inflation from tariffs. This means that money market fund yields should stay higher for longer. And with investors seeing the wild gyrations in safe government bonds in recent weeks, money market funds' low volatility offer a strong risk/reward argument over holding Treasuries. For another, let's say our economists' base case is incorrect, and we do get steep cuts from the Fed sooner rather than later. That probably means we're on the brink of a recession; and in that situation, cash is king.You know what's been particularly surprising in the middle of this recent flight to quality? Outflows from high-grade US fixed income. These outflows are notable because U.S. Treasuries, Agency mortgages, and investment grade credit are usually seen as low-beta and defensives. But U.S. high-grade bonds saw net outflows of approximately US$1.4bn during the week of April 7th. These are the largest outflows since the pandemic; and we think that this trend can continue.So we need to ask ourselves if this is the end of American exceptionalism. And are we seeing a rotation from U.S. assets into rest-of-the-world?The answer may surprise you, but despite the outflows in U.S. bonds, there hasn't really been a persistent rotation out of U.S. risk assets and into rest-of-world markets. At least not a lot of evidence in the data yet. U.S. equity investors still have a strong home bias, and we've seen continued net buying from Japanese and euro area investors of foreign equities – at least some of which are U.S. equities. We think investors should stay defensive amid the current uncertainty. But figuring out what's actually defensive has been challenging. This recent turmoil in the global markets suggests that the investors' shifting idea of what's risky is a risk in itself. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Can the U.S. equity market break out of its expected range? Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson looks at whether the Trump administration's shifting tariff policy and Fed uncertainty will continue weighing down stocks.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley's CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today, I will discuss what it will take for the US equity market to break out of the 5000-5500 range. It's Monday, April 21st at 11:30am in New York.So, let's get after it.Last week, we focused on our view that the S&P 500 was likely to remain in a 5000-5500 range in the near term given the constraints on both the upside and the downside. First, on the upside, we think it will be challenging for the index to break through prior support of 5500 given the recent acceleration lower in earnings revisions, uncertainty on how tariff negotiations will progress and the notion that the Fed appears to be on hold until it has more clarity on the inflationary and growth impacts of tariffs and other factors. At the same time, we also believe the equity market has been contemplating all of these challenges for much longer than the consensus acknowledges. Nowhere is this evidence clearer than in the ratio of Cyclical versus Defensive stocks as discussed on this podcast many times. In fact, the ratio peaked a year ago and is now down more than 40 per cent.Coming into the year, we had a more skeptical view on growth than the consensus for the first half due to expectations that appeared too rosy in the context of policy sequencing that was likely to be mostly growth negative to start. Things like immigration enforcement, DOGE, and tariffs. Based on our industry analysts' forecasts, we were also expecting AI Capex growth to decelerate, particularly in the first half of the year when growth rate comparisons are most challenging. Recall the Deep Seek announcement in January that further heightened investor concerns on this factor. And given the importance of AI Capex to the overall growth expectations of the economy, this dynamic remains a major consideration for investors. A key point of today's episode is that just as many were overly optimistic on growth coming into the year, they may be getting too pessimistic now, especially at the stock level. As the breakdown in cyclical stocks indicate, this correction is well advanced both in price and time, having started nearly a year ago. Now, with the S&P 500 closing last week very close to the middle of our range, the index appears to be struggling with the uncertainty of how this will all play out.Equities trade in the future as they try to discount what will be happening in six months, not today. Predicting the future path is very difficult in any environment and that is arguably more difficult today than usual, which explains the high volatility in equity prices. The good news is that stocks have discounted quite a bit of slowing at this point. It's worth remembering the factors that many were optimistic about four-to-give months ago—things like de-regulation, lower interest rates, AI productivity and a more efficient government—are still on the table as potential future positive catalysts. And markets have a way of discounting them before it's obvious.However, there is also a greater risk of a recession now, which is a different kind of slowdown that has not been fully priced at the index level, in our view. So as long as that risk remains elevated, we need to remain balanced with our short-term views even if we believe the odds of a positive outcome for growth and equities are more likely than consensus does over the intermediate term. Hence, we will continue to range trade.Further clouding the picture is the fact that companies face more uncertainty than they have since the early days of the pandemic. As a result, earnings revisions breadth is now at levels rarely witnessed and approaching downside extremes assuming we avoid a recession. Keep in mind that these revisions peaked almost a year ago, well before the S&P 500 topped, further supporting our view that this correction is much more advanced than acknowledged by the consensus. This is why we are now more interested in looking at stocks and sectors that may have already discounted a mild recession even if the broader index has not. Bottom line, if a recession is averted, markets likely made their lows two weeks ago. If not, the S&P 500 will likely take those lows out. There are other factors that could take us below 4800 in a bear case outcome, too. For example, the Fed decides to raise rates due to tariff-driven inflation; or the term premium blows out, taking 10-year Treasury yields above 5 per cent without any growth improvement.Nevertheless, we think recession probability is the wildcard now that markets are wrestling with. In S&P terms, we think 5000-5500 is the appropriate range until this risk is either confirmed or refuted by the hard data – with labor being the most important. In the meantime, stay up the quality curve with your equity portfolio.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our analysts Michael Zezas and Erik Woodring discuss the ways tariffs are rewiring the tech hardware industry and how companies can mitigate the impact of the new U.S. trade policy.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Public Policy Research.Erik Woodring: And I'm Erik Woodring, Head of the U.S. IT Hardware team.Michael Zezas: Today, we continue our tariff coverage with a closer look at the impact on tech hardware. Products such as your smartphone, computers, and other personal devices.It's Thursday, April 17th at 10am in New York.President Trump's reciprocal tariffs announcements, followed by a 90 day pause and exemptions have created a lot of turmoil in the tech hardware space. People started panic buying smartphones, worried about rising costs, only to find out that smartphones may or may not be exempted.As I pointed out on this podcast before, these tariffs are also significantly accelerating the transition to a multipolar world. This process was already well underway before President Trump's second term, but it's gathering steam as trade pressures escalate. Which is why I wanted to talk to you, Erik, given your expertise.In the multipolar world, IT hardware has followed a China+1 strategy. What is the strategy, and does it help mitigate the impact from tariffs?Erik Woodring: Historically, most IT hardware products have been manufactured in China. Starting in 2018, during the first Trump administration, there was an effort by my universe to diversify production outside of China to countries friendly with China – including Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, India, and Thailand. This has ultimately helped to protect from some tariffs, but this does not make really any of these countries immune from tariffs given what was announced on April 2nd.Michael Zezas: And what do the current tariffs – recognizing, of course, that they could change – what do those current tariffs mean for device costs and the underlying stocks that you cover?Erik Woodring: In short, device costs are going up, and as it relates to my stocks, there's plenty of uncertainty. If I maybe dig one level deeper, when the first round of tariffs were announced on April 2nd, the cumulative cost that my companies were facing from tariffs was over $50 billion. The weighted average tariff rate was about 25 per cent. Today, after some incremental announcements and some exemptions, the ultimate cumulative tariff cost that my universe faces is about $7 billion. That is equivalent to an average tariff rate of about 7 per cent. And what that means is that device costs on average will go up about 5 per cent.Of course, there are some that won't be raised at all. There are some device costs that might go up by 20 to 30 per cent. But ultimately, we do expect prices to go up and as a result, that creates a lot of uncertainties with IT hardware stocks.Michael Zezas: Okay, so let's make this real for our listeners. Suppose they're buying a new device, a smartphone, or maybe a new laptop. How would these new tariffs affect the consumer price?Erik Woodring: Sure. Let's use the example of a smartphone. $1000 smartphone typically will be imported for a cost of maybe $500. In this current tariff regime, that would mean cost would go up about $50. So, $1000 smartphone would be $1,050.You could use the same equivalent for a laptop; and then on the enterprise side, you could use the equivalent of a server, an AI server, or storage – much more expensive. Meaning while the percentage increase in the cost will be the same, the ultimate dollar expense will go up significantly more.Michael Zezas: And so, what are some of the mitigation strategies that companies might be able to use to lessen the impact of tariffs?Erik Woodring: If we start in the short term, there's two primary mitigation strategies. One is pulling forward inventory and imports ahead of the tariff deadline to ultimately mitigate those tariff costs. The second one would be to share in the cost of these tariffs with your suppliers. For IT hardware, there's hundreds of suppliers and ultimately billions of dollars of incremental tariff costs can be somewhat shared amongst these hundreds of companies.Longer term, there are a few other mitigation strategies. First moving your production out of China or out of even some of these China+1 countries to more favorable tariff locations, perhaps such as Mexico. Many products which come from Mexico in my universe are exempted because of the USMCA compliance. So that is a kind of a medium-term strategy that my companies can use.Ultimately, the medium-term strategy that's going to be most popular is raising prices, as we talked about. But some of my companies will also leverage affordability tools to make the cost ultimately borne out over a longer period of time. Meaning today, if you buy a smartphone over two-year of an installment plan, they could extend this installment plan to three years. That means that your monthly cost will go down by 33 per cent, even if the price of your smartphone is rising.And then longer term, ultimately, the mitigation tool will be whether you decide to go and follow the process of onshoring. Or if you decide to continue to follow China+1 or nearshoring, but to a greater extent.Michael Zezas: Right. So, then what about onshoring – that is moving production capacity to the U.S.? Is this a realistic scenario for IT hardware companies?Erik Woodring: In reality, no. There is some small volume production of IT hardware projects that is done in the United States. But the majority of the IT hardware ecosystem outside of the United States has been done for a specific reason. And that is for decades, my companies have leveraged skilled workers, skilled in tooling expertise. And that has developed over time, that is extremely important. Tech CEOs have said that the reason hardware production has been concentrated in China is not about the cost of labor in the country, but instead about the number of skilled workers and the proximity of those skilled workers in one location. There's also the benefit of having a number of companies that can aggregate tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of workers, in a specific factory space. That just makes it much more difficult to do in the United States. So, the headwinds to onshoring would be just the cost of building facilities in the United States. It would be finding the skilled labor. It would be finding resources available for building these facilities. It would also be the decision whether to use skilled labor or humanoids or robots.Longer term, I think the decision most of my companies will have to face is the cost and time of moving your supply chain, which will take longer than three years versus, you know, the current presidential term, which will last another, call it three and a half years.Michael Zezas: Okay. And so how does all of this impact demand for tech hardware, and what's your outlook for the industry in the second half of this year?Erik Woodring: There's two impacts that we're seeing right now. In some cases, more mission critical products are being pulled forward, meaning companies or consumers are going and buying their latest and greatest device because they're concerned about a future pricing increase.The other impact is going to be generally lower demand. What we're most concerned about is that a pull forward in the second quarter ultimately leads to weaker demand in the second half – because generally speaking, uncertainty, whether that's policy or macro more broadly, leads to more concerns with hardware spending and ultimately a lower level of spending. So any 2Q pull forward could mean an even weaker second half of the year.Michael Zezas: Alright, Erik, thanks for taking the time to talk.Erik Woodring: Great. Thanks for speaking, Mike.Michael Zezas: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

The ever-evolving nature of the U.S. administration's trade policy has triggered market uncertainty, impacting corporate and consumer confidence. But our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets explains why he believes this volatility could present a silver lining for credit investors.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I'm going to talk about how high uncertainty can be a risk for credit, and also an opportunity.It's Wednesday, April 16th at 9am in New York.Markets year-to-date have been dominated by questions of U.S. trade policy. At the center of this debate is a puzzle: What, exactly, the goal of this policy is?Currently, there are two competing theories of what the U.S. administration is trying to achieve. In one, aggressive tariffs are a negotiating tactic, an aggressive opening move designed to be bargained down into something much, much lower for an ultimate deal.And in the other interpretation, aggressive tariffs are a new industrial policy. Large tariffs, for a long period of time, are necessary to encourage manufacturers to relocate operations to the U.S. over the long term.Both of these theories are plausible. Both have been discussed by senior U.S. administration officials. But they are also mutually exclusive. They can't both prevail.The uncertainty of which of these camps wins out is not new. Market strength back in early February could be linked to optimism that tariffs would be more of that first negotiating tool. Weakness in March and April was linked to signs that they would be more permanent. And the more recent bounce, including an almost 10 percent one-day rally last week, were linked to hopes that the pendulum was once again swinging back.This back and forth is uncertain. But in some sense, it gives investors a rubric: signs of more aggressive tariffs would be more challenging to the market, signs of more flexibility more positive. But is it that simple? Do signs of a more lasting tariff pause solve the story?The important question, we think, is whether all of that back and forth has done lasting damage to corporate and consumer confidence. Even if all of the tariffs were paused, would companies and consumers believe it? Would they be willing to invest and spend over the coming quarters at similar levels to before – given all of the recent volatility?This question is more than hypothetical. Across a wide range of surveys, the so-called soft data, U.S. corporate and consumer confidence has plunged. Merger activity has slowed sharply. We expect intense investor focus on these measures of confidence over the coming months.For credit, lower confidence is a doubled edged sword. To some extent, it is good, keeping companies more conservative and better able to service their debt. But if it weakens the overall economy – and historically, weaker confidence surveys like we've seen recently have indicated much weaker growth in the future; that's a risk. With overall spread levels about average, we do not see valuations as clearly attractive enough to be outright positive, yet.But maybe there is one silver lining. Long term Investment grade corporate debt now yields over 6 percent. As corporate confidence has soured, and these yields have risen, we think companies will find it unattractive to lock in high costs for long-term borrowing. Fewer bonds for sale, and attractive all-in yields for investors could help this part of the market outperform, in our view.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

As gold prices reach new all-time highs, Metals & Mining Commodity Strategist Amy Gower discusses whether the rally is sustainable.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ---- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Amy Gower, Morgan Stanley's Metals & Mining Commodity Strategist. Today I'm going to talk about the steady rise we've had in gold prices in recent months and whether or not this rally can continue. It's Tuesday, April 15th, at 2pm in London.So gold breached $3000/oz for the first time ever on 17th of March this year, and has continued to rise since then; but we would argue it still has room to run. First of all, let's look back at how we got here. So, gold already rallied 25 percent in 2024, which was driven largely by strong central bank demand as well as the start of the US Fed rate cutting cycle, and strong demand for bars and coins as geopolitical risk remained elevated. And arguably, these trends have continued in 2025, with gold up another 22 percent, and now rising tariff uncertainty also contributing. This comes in two ways – first, demand for gold as a safe haven asset against this current macro uncertainty. And second as an inflation hedge. Gold has historically been viewed by investors as a hedge against the impact of inflation. So, with the U.S. tariffs raising inflation risks, gold is seeing additional demand here too. But, of course, the question is: can this gold rally keep going? We think the answer is yes, but would caveat that in big market moves -- like the ones we have seen in recent weeks -- gold can also initially fall alongside other asset classes, as it is often used to provide liquidity. But this is often short-lived and already gold has been rebounding. We would expect this to continue with the price of gold to rise further to around $3500/oz by the third quarter of this year. There are three key drivers behind this projection: First, we see still strong physical demand for gold, both from central banks and from the return of exchange-traded funds or ETFs. Central banks saw what looks like a structural shift in their gold purchases in 2022, which has continued now for three consecutive years. And ETF inflows are returning after four years of outflows, adding a significant amount year-to-date, but still well below their 2020 highs, suggesting there's arguably much more room to go here. Second, macro drivers are also contributing to this gold price outlook. A falling U.S. dollar is usually a tailwind for commodities in general, as it makes them cheaper for non-dollar holders; while a stagflation scenario, where growth expectations are skewed down and inflation risks are skewed up, would also be a set-up where gold would perform well. And third, continued demand for gold as a safe-haven asset amid rising inflation and growth risks is also likely to keep that bar and coin segment well supported. And what would be the bullish risks to this gold outlook? Well, as prices rise, you tend to start ask questions about demand destruction. And this is no different for gold, particularly in the jewelry segment where consumers would go with usually a budget in mind, rather than a quantity of gold. And so demand can be quite price sensitive. Annual jewelry demand is roughly twice the size of that central bank buying and we already saw this fall around 11 percent year-on-year in 2024. So, we would expect a bit of weakness here. But offset by the other factors that I mentioned. So, all in all, a combination of physical buying, macro factors and uncertainty should be driving safe haven demand for gold, keeping prices on a rising trajectory from here. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson probes whether market confidence can return soon as long as tariff policy remains in a state of flux.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ---- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley's CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I'll be discussing last week's volatility and what to expect going forward.It's Monday, April 14th at 11:30am in New York.So, let's get after it.What a month for equity markets, and it's only halfway done! Entering April, we were much more focused on growth risks than inflation risks given the headwinds from AI Capex growth deceleration, fiscal slowing, DOGE and immigration enforcement. Tariffs were the final headwind to face, and while most investors' confidence was low about how Liberation Day would play out, positioning skewed more toward potential relief than disappointment.That combination proved to be problematic when the details of the reciprocal tariffs were announced on April 2nd. From that afternoon's highs, S&P 500 futures plunged by 16.5 per cent into Monday morning. Remarkably, no circuit breakers were triggered, and markets functioned very well during this extreme stress. However, we did observe some forced selling as Treasuries, gold and defensive stocks were all down last Monday. In my view, Monday was a classic capitulation day on heavy volume. In fact, I would go as far as to say that Monday will likely prove to be the momentum low for this correction that began back in December for most stocks; and as far back as a year ago for many cyclicals. This also means that we likely retest or break last week's price lows for the major indices even if some individual stocks have bottomed. We suspect a more durable low will come as early as next month or over the summer as earnings are adjusted lower, and multiples remain volatile with a downward bias given the Fed's apprehension to cut rates – or provide additional liquidity unless credit or funding markets become unstable. As discussed last week, markets are now contemplating a much higher risk of recession than normal – with tariffs acting as another blow to an economy that was already weakening from the numerous headwinds; not to mention the fact that most of the private economy has been struggling for the better part of two years. In my view, there have been three factors supporting headline GDP growth and labor markets: government spending, consumer services and AI Capex – and all three are now slowing.The tricky thing here is that the tariff impact is a moving target. The question is whether the damage to confidence can recover. As already noted, markets moved ahead of the fundamentals; and markets have once again done a better job than the consensus in predicting the slowdown that is now appearing in the data. While everyone can see the deterioration in the S&P 500 and other popular indices, the internals of the equity market have been even clearer. First, small caps versus large caps have been in a distinct downtrend for the past four years. This is the quality trade in a nutshell which has worked so well for reasons we have been citing for years — things like the k-economy and crowding out by government spending that has kept the headline economic statistics higher than they would have been otherwise. This strength has encouraged the Fed to maintain interest rates higher than the weaker cohorts of the economy need to recover. Therefore, until interest rates come down, this bifurcated economy and equity markets are likely to persist. This also explains why we had a brief, yet powerful rally last fall in low quality cyclicals when the Fed was cutting rates, and why it quickly failed when the Fed paused in December. The dramatic correction in cyclical stocks and small caps is well advanced not only in price, but also in time. While many have only recently become concerned about the growth slowdown, the market began pricing it a year ago.Looking at the drawdown of stocks more broadly also paints a picture that suggests the market correction is well advanced, but probably not complete if we end up in a recession or the fear of one gets more fully priced. This remains the key question for stock investors, in my view, and why the S&P 500 is likely to remain in a range of 5000-5500 and volatile – until we have a more definitive answer to this specific question around recession, or the Fed decides to circumvent the growth risks more aggressively, like last fall.With the Fed saying it is constrained by inflation risks, it appears likely to err on the side of remaining on hold despite elevated recession risk. It's a similar performance story at the sector and industry level, with many cohorts experiencing a drawdown equal to 2022. Bottom line, we've experienced a lot of price damage, but it's too early to conclude that the durable lows are in – with policy uncertainty persisting, earnings revisions in a downtrend, the Fed on hold and back-end rates elevated. While it's too late to sell many individual stocks at this point, focus on adding risk over the next month or two as markets likely re-test last week's lows. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Head of Corporate Credit Research analyzes the market response to President Trump's tariff reversal and explains why rallies do not always indicate an improvement in the overall environment.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ---- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I'm going to talk about the historic gains we saw this week in markets, and what they may or may not tell us. It's Friday April 11th at 2pm in London. Wednesday saw the S&P 500 gain 9.5 percent. It was the 10th best day for the U.S. equity market in the last century. Which raises a reasonable question: Is that a good thing? Do large one-day gains suggest further strength ahead – or something else? This is the type of Research question we love digging into. Pulling together the data, it's pretty straightforward to sort through those other banner days in stock market history going back to 1925. And what they show is notable. I'm now going to read to you when those large gains occurred, in order of the gains themselves. The best day in market history, March 15th 1933, when stocks soared over 16 per cent? It happened during the Great Depression. The 2nd best day, Oct 30th 1929. During the Great Depression. The 3rd best day – Great Depression. The fourth best – the first trading day after Germany invaded Poland in 1939 and World War 2 began. The 5th best day – Great Depression. The 6th Best – October 2008, during the Financial Crisis. The 7th Best – also during the Financial Crisis. The 8th best. The Great Depression again. The 9th best – The Great Depression. And 10th best? Well, that was Wednesday. We are in interesting company, to say the least. Incidentally, we stop here in the interest of brevity; this is a podcast known for being sharp and to the point. But if we kept moving further down the list, the next best 20 days in history all happen during either COVID, the 1987 Crash, a Recession, or a Depression. So why would that be? Why, factually, have some of the best days in market history occurred during some of the very worst of possible backdrops. In some cases, it really was a sign of a buying opportunity. As terrible as the Great Depression was – and as the grandson of a South Dakota farmer I heard the tales – stocks were very cheap at this time, and there were some very large rallies in 1932, 1933, or even 1929. During COVID, the gains on March 24th of 2020, which were associated with major stimulus, represented the major market low. But it can also be the case that during difficult environments, investors are cautious. And they are ultimately right to be cautious. But because of that fear, any good news – any spark of hope – can cause an outsized reaction. But it also sometimes doesn't change that overall challenging picture. And then reverses. Those two large rallies that happened in October of 2008 during the Global Financial Crisis, well they both happened around hopes of government and central bank support. And that temporarily lifted the market – but it didn't shift the overall picture. What does this mean for investors? On average, markets are roughly unchanged in the three months following some of these largest historical gains. But the range of what happens next is very wide. It is a sign, we think, that these are not normal times, and that the range of outcomes, unfortunately, has become larger. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.