Thoughts on the Market

An extended U.S. government shutdown raises the risk for weaker growth potential. Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy Michael Zezas suggests key checkpoints that investors should keep in mind.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: Three checkpoints we're watching for as the U.S. government shutdown continues. It's Wednesday, October 8th at 10:30am in New York. The federal government shutdown in the United States has crossed the one week mark. But if you're watching the markets, you might be surprised at how calm everything seems. Stocks are steady. Bond yields haven't moved much, and volatility's low. It's more or less the scenario my colleague Ariana and I had talked about in anticipation of the impasse in Washington. We'd noted the potential for uncertainty for investors and market reaction depending on how long the shutdown would last. So that raises a big question: what, if anything, about this government shutdown could shake investor confidence and start moving markets? The question is worth considering. Prediction markets now suggest the most likely outcome is that the government shutdown will not end for at least another week. And as we've seen in past shutdowns, the longer it drags on, the more likely it is to matter. That's because risks to the economic outlook start to accumulate, and investors eventually have to start pricing in a weaker growth outlook. There's a few checkpoints we're watching for – for when investors might start feeling this way. First, the missed paycheck for furloughed federal workers. The first instance of this comes in a few days. Less pay naturally means less spending. Studies suggest that spending among affected workers can drop by two to four percent during a shutdown. That's not huge for GDP at first; but it's a sign the shutdown is having effects beyond Washington, DC. Second, this time might be different because of potential layoffs. The administration has hinted that agencies could move to permanently cut staff — something we haven't seen before. Unions have already said they'd challenge that in court. But if those actions start, or even if legal uncertainty grows around them, it could raise the economic stakes. Third, we're watching for real disruptions to economic activity resulting from the shutdown. The last shutdown ended when air traffic in New York was curtailed due to a shortage of air traffic controllers. We're already seeing substantial air traffic delays across the country. More substantial delays or ground halts obviously impede economic activity related to travel. And if such actions don't coincide with signals from DC of progress in negotiating a bill to reopen the government, investors' concern could grow. So here's the bottom line: markets may be right to stay calm — for now. But the longer this shutdown lasts, the more likely one of these pressure points pushes investors to rethink their optimism. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review and tell your friends about the podcast. We want everyone to listen.

Our Fixed Income Strategist Vishy Tirupattur explains how changes in the yield curve are affecting markets such as insurance, Treasury yields and mortgage rates.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 – How the shape of the yield curve has affected credit and housing markets, and the risk of changes to the curve and its implications. It's Tuesday, October 7th at 1pm in New York. The shape of the yield curve plays a pivotal role in financial markets. It influences everything from credit conditions to housing and mortgage dynamics. And you've been hearing on this show for some time about more Fed rate cuts coming. Our economists expect 25 basis point rate cuts at the next three meetings – that is October, December and January. And then two more in April and July of next year. What does this mean to the shape of the curve? Our high conviction call has been that investors should position for a steeper yield curve. Why does the curve matter? It's not just a macro signal. It's a transmission mechanism that shapes pricing, risk appetite, and sector flows. Take life insurers, for example. A steeper curve has turbocharged demand for fixed annuity products, which in turn drives flows into spread assets like corporate and securitized credit. Insurance demand has become a powerful technical in credit markets. This year's steepening has been led by falling front-end yields. For example, 2-year Treasuries are down about 60 basis points, significantly outpacing the 40 basis point drop in 10-year yields and just 5 basis point drop in 30-year yields. That front-end move reflects shifting rate expectations and offers relief to highly leveraged issuers who rely on short-term funding. But longer-dated yields remain sticky, keeping all-in borrowing costs elevated. That is good for insurers – and the sale of fixed annuity products – but acts as a brake on overall issuance, helping keep credit spreads tight despite macro uncertainty. That said, not all markets benefit. Mortgage rates, which track longer yields more closely than the fed funds rate, have actually risen 25 to 30 basis points since the easing cycle began in September of 2024. That's a headwind for affordability. While a steeper curve may support lending and future housing supply, it's not helping today's buyers. A flatter curve with lower long-end yields would offer more meaningful relief—but that is clearly not our base case. Bottom line: Rate cuts matter, but the shape of the curve may matter more. A steeper curve is a tailwind for credit but a headwind for housing. And a reminder that not all markets move in sync. 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 strategists Daniel Blake and Tim Chan discuss how Asia is adapting to multipolar world dynamics, tech innovation and longevity trends to create new opportunities for global investors.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript ----- Daniel Blake: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Daniel Blake, Morgan Stanley's Asia Equity and Thematic Strategist. Tim Chan: And I'm Tim Chan, Morgan Stanley Head of Asia Sustainability Research and Thematic Strategist Daniel Blake: Today, how Asia is reshaping its development strategy, corporate governance, and capital markets to lead globally. It's Monday, October 6th at 8am in Singapore. Tim Chan: And it's also 8am in Hong Kong. Daniel Blake: Asia is experiencing a number of dramatic changes that are reshaping industries, even entire economies. Deglobalization, supply chain shifts, frenetic investment in AI and looming disruption from the adoption of the technology, rapid energy transformation, and the transition to super aged populations as longevity drives investment in innovative healthcare and better nutrition are just some of the overarching themes. Asia's transformation is a story every global investor needs to follow and look for opportunities in. Tim Chan: So, what are the overarching themes, when you look at Asia Pacific? For example, what are the key themes that you're seeing in terms of driving the equity return and the market trend that you're seeing? Daniel Blake: We're approaching the Asia thematic opportunity from the framework of a competitive reinvention. It's competitive because this is deeply rooted in the cultural and business norms across much of the region, which has had an export focus through the modernization process in Japan, and more broadly with the emergence of the Asia Tigers. But we're seeing this competition really stepping up another notch. As countries look at how they can take market share in emerging technologies, and also this overarching competition between the U.S. and China, which sits at the heart of the multipolar world theme we've been laying out in recent years. We're also seeing a reinvention of development strategies of corporate governance frameworks and of capital markets to try to better improve the financial supply chain, to see the capital raising the capital allocation process improved and ultimately drive better returns for an aging population. So, Tim, you've been very focused on the corporate governance improvements that were seen in much of the region. Take us through what you think is most compelling and most important for investors to note. Tim Chan: I think governance reforms is a really key thing for Asia Pacific. Take an example in Japan, in the past we have done some correlation analysis between the major governance factors and what are driving the return. What we have found is that, first of all, there is a significant alpha potential from online companies with leading governance metrics and also companies that may improve their governance metrics over time. So, if we look at the independence of board of directors as an example. There is a positive correlation between the total return and also the independence in Japan market. And overall, we are seeing a major government improvement. As Daniel you have mentioned, China, Korea, India, and Singapore, and Japan as well – all these markets together account for over 70 percent of the market cap in MS Asia Pacific in index. So that's why, we think the governance reform is really driving the return of Asia Pacific as a whole. Daniel, after talking about the governance reform and capital market reform, I know multipolar level is also a key theme for Asia Pacific. So, what you are seeing in terms of multipolar level in Asia Pacific? Daniel Blake: So, the multipolar world theme has come back to the foreground in 2025 as trade tensions have risen, as deal making has been struck or attempted. And we've seen the concept of weaponized interdependence really being proven out in the second quarter of 2025, as China has been in recent years, implementing frameworks for export controls and leverage these quite effectively. So economic security initiatives have come back to the focus for investors. Over recent years, we've seen a number being set up across the region, including Japan's Economic Security Promotion Act, the Self-Reliant India framework, and South Korea's Supply Chain Stabilization Act, as well as Australia's National Reconstruction Fund. So, we see a number of investment opportunities flowing from these reforms. Ultimately the critical mineral and permanent magnet supply chain is very much in focus, but we're also expecting to see semi localization. So, semiconductor localization efforts are continuing to drive investment and activity. Naturally, defense has been a key area of focus for investors in 2025, and overall we see defense spending rising in Asia from 600 U.S. billion dollars in 2024 to [$]1 trillion in 2030.So, Tim, the energy security theme fits as part of this overall future of energy theme that you've been exploring with the team. How do you see this intersection with the multipolar world and what are the key investment opportunities? Tim Chan: For the future of energy, I think the energy story is really at the core of Asia multipolar world positioning. Take an example, we are seeing for Southeast Asia, the region is importing gas from U.S., and then also Korea and Japan are also trying to export their nuclear technology to the Western world as well. I think all these have a part to play in the multipolar world; but at the same time, they are also crucial for these countries to meet their own energy target and strategy. In Asia Pacific, when we look at the future of energy, there are a few driving force[s]. One is the very strong growth of renewable energy. Take an example, in India, we are seeing a huge CapEx going into the renewable energy sector and solar sector as well. China is already the biggest market in solar panel. Then also Korea and Japan are developing their nuclear capacity as well. And as I have mentioned, they also export their nuclear technology to the Western world. So, I would say, these Asian countries are balancing the multipolar world priorities with their future of energy target as well. And then there were also lots of opportunities between these dynamics; I will highlight two examples. One is a nuclear renaissance thesis that we have written extensively in the past two years. We have highlighted Japan and Korea being the key beneficiaries under this multipolar world and future of energy dynamics. And then the other would be the gas globalization in Southeast Asia or ASEAN region, where we see opportunities in the gas distributor, gas infrastructure in Southeast Asia. And then gas is going to be much more important when it comes to the energy, security and transition agenda in Southeast Asia region. So we are seeing lots of development in the future of energy in Asia Pacific. But when it comes to the other big theme that is AI. Asia Pacific is also a leader in a global AI race. So, Danny, what are the most reputable trend that you're seeing on a national or regional level? On tech diffusion and AI in Asia Pacific? Daniel Blake: So, the concept of competitive reinvention also is useful in understanding Asia's response to AI and technology diffusion. So, we've seen China in particular, looking to strengthen its position in the development phase of new technologies. And we're also seeing on the export competition front, more incentives to compete for the next phase of supply chain diversification. We're also seeing the emerging class of China MNCs that are sitting at the heart of our China Emerging Frontiers research. And another key area of discussion and research for us is understanding China's unique AI path. Where we're seeing more of a focus on policy makers and corporates playing to strengths in terms of power, data and talent, given the shortages of compute, and at the same time wanting to pursue a localization strategy over the medium term. On the technology front, we think the India stack is also still underappreciated as a digital enabler of opportunities in the New India. And then more broadly, we are looking for companies that we see in Asia that will prove to be AI adoption leaders. So, this underpins a really another key work stream for us in identifying opportunities from AI and tech diffusion into the region. So, Tim, how about when we turn to the theme of longevity, what are the key investment opportunities you see in Asia Pacific? Tim Chan: First of all, let's look at China. So, China is entering a super age society and by 2030, China's elderly population will hit 260 million. So that is a big number, which accounts for 18 percent of the population. And Japan as well, and Korea as well. Korea is already entering the super aged society. And then there have been reform program on healthcare, financial system pension and labor market in order to support these, old aging population. And for Japan, the focus is really on not just living longer but also living more healthy. Take an example, we have done some reports on the healthy food industry in Japan. And how different companies are providing affordable, healthy food to consumer. And we think that will create opportunities for investor, if they would like to look into longevity as a theme. Overall, we are seeing new market in healthcare, pharmaceutical, and affordable healthy food, as well as the reform in the wealth management and pension system that will create opportunities in the financial market as well. And the longevity economy and or the silver economy is becoming a big theme for Asia Pacific for a long time to come. Daniel Blake: Tim, thanks for taking the time to talk. Tim Chan: Yeah, great speaking with you, Daniel. Daniel Blake: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Have you ever wondered -- How much do I really need to retire early and am I on track? How do I balance all of my financial goals? How can I help my children be financially secure? Tune into Season 3 of What Should I Do With My Money, hosted by Morgan Stanley Wealth Management's Jamie Roô to hear real-life stories about these and other big financial questions.

Our China Healthcare Analyst Jack Lin discusses how China's biotech surge is reshaping healthcare, investment and innovation worldwide.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript ----- Jack Lin: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jack Lin, from Morgan Stanley's China Healthcare Team. Today, the boom in China biotech – and how it's not just a headline for China-focused investors, but a story that touches all of us. It is Friday, October 3rd at 2pm in Hong Kong. Many people might not realize this but some of the next generation healthcare innovation is being developed far from Silicon Valley and Wall Street. The medicines you rely on, treatment plans that could shape your family's future, even investment opportunity that can grow your savings. They are all increasingly influenced by China's rapidly evolving biotech sector, which is transitioning from traditional generics manufacturing into the global innovation ecosystem. In fact, China's biotech industry is set to become a major player in the global innovation ecosystem. By 2040, we project China's originated assets could represent about a third of U.S. FDA approvals – up dramatically from just 5 percent today. And the question isn't if China's biotech will matter, but how global patients could benefit; and how consumers and investors worldwide might engage with its impact.What's driving this transformation? Three key components are driving the globalization of China originated drug innovations: cost, accessibility, and innovation quality. Lower cost in China's biotech sector enables more efficient development. Clinical trial quality is improving with regulatory pathways becoming more streamlined, promoting accessibility of China innovation for global markets. Finally, innovation in China's biotech sector is gaining momentum with more regionally developed medicines now eyeing market approval from leading overseas agencies like the U.S. FDA and EMA.This is all to say China is on track to become a key force on the global biotech stage. That said, right now we're also at a crossroads moment as geopolitical tensions between U.S. and China pose potential risks to the flow of innovation. Despite these uncertainties, we see a likely outcome of co-opetition, a blend of competition and collaboration, as global pharma grapples with the dual imperatives of innovation and resilience. Of course, this rapid evolution brings both opportunities and challenges. It's prompting stakeholders around the world to rethink their strategies and collaborations in this shifting landscape of global medical innovation. As the China biotech industry evolves, the choices made by investors, policy makers, and healthcare communities, both within China and globally, will determine the therapies of the future. It is truly a dynamic space, and we'll continue to bring you updates. Thanks for listening to our thoughts on the market. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review, wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleagues today.

Our Chief China Equity Strategist Laura Wang discusses how China's new approach to economic development is transforming domestic industries and reshaping the global investment landscape.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Laura Wang, Morgan Stanley's Chief China Equity Strategist.Today – a consequential shift in China's economic policy is set to reshape domestic markets and send ripples across the global economy.It's Thursday, October 2nd at 2pm in Hong Kong.If you're an investor, it's important to understand China's new approach to economic development. The government's policies to drive a recovery from an economic slump are changing the rules of competition, profitability and growth. This affects Chinese companies, and in turn global supply chains and investment flows.Let's start with the term involution – what is it? In China, involution describes a cycle of excessive competition—think companies fighting for market share by slashing prices, ramping up production, and eroding profits, often to the point where nobody wins. The government's anti-involution campaign is a direct response to this problem.What factors prompted the launch of this anti-involution initiative? Since 2021, China has faced mounting deflationary pressures—falling prices, a housing market slump, and a surge in manufacturing investment that led to overcapacity. The September 2024 policy pivot began to address these issues, and in mid-2025 the government launched a more targeted anti-involution campaign. This phase focuses on reducing excessive competition and restoring pricing power through market-based consolidation.As we assess the potential effectiveness of China's anti-involution policy, our base case projects China's return on equity (ROE) to reach 13.3 percent by 2030, up from a cycle low of 10 percent in May 2024 and 11.6 percent by July 2025. In a bullish scenario, decisive reforms and demand-side stimulus could push ROE as high as 16.3 percent.We also expect earnings growth to accelerate, with our base case showing an annual growth rate (CAGR) of 7.6 percent in 2025, rising to 11.1 percent by 2027. We forecast valuations to normalize towards 12–13x forward price-to-earnings, in line with emerging market peers, but this could re-rate higher if reforms succeed.In terms of investment opportunities, we believe the EV Batteries industry will benefit the most from the Chinese government's anti-involution efforts. It's got strong policy support, cutting-edge technology, and a market that's consolidating fast—meaning the days of low-quality and excess capacity are fading. We're seeing a shift toward long-term, sustainable growth. Steel and Cement are industries where the state has a strong hand and capacity controls are well established. These factors help stabilize the market and open the door for steady gains. Finally, Airlines. While the industry has faced persistent losses, there isn't a[n] oversupply of seats, and regulatory coordination is strong. With the right reforms, Airlines could be poised for a significant turnaround.The sectors best positioned to benefit from China's anti-involution strategy are more domestically oriented. But this policy is bound to have global implications. And the ripples will likely extend to global supply chains, especially in Materials, Chemicals and Autos.Looking ahead, the pace and success of anti-involution will depend on further structural reforms, demand-side support, and the ability to digest industrial credit risks gradually. The upcoming 15th Five-Year Plan could bring more clarity on tax, social welfare, and local government incentives.So, what should investors be paying attention to? China's anti-involution campaign is more than a policy tweak—it's a recalibration of how the country balances growth, innovation, and sustainability. The key is to track sector-level reforms, watch for signs of consolidation, and focus on companies with strong fundamentals and policy tailwinds.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

In the second of a two-part episode, Morgan Stanley's chief economists talk about their near-term U.S. outlook based on tariffs, labor supply and the Fed's response. They also discuss India's path to strong economic growth.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript ----- Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. Yesterday I sat down with my colleagues, Mike Gapen, Chetan Ahya and Jens Eisenschmidt, who cover the U.S., Asia, and Europe respectively. We talked about... Well, we didn't get to the U.S. We talked about Asia. We talked about Europe. Today, we are going to focus on the U.S. and maybe one or two more economies around the world. It's Wednesday, October 1st at 10am in New York. Jens Eisenschmidt: And 4pm in Frankfurt. Chetan Ahya: And 10 pm in Hong Kong. All right, gentlemen. So yesterday we talked a lot about China, the anti-involution policy, and what's going on with deflation there. Talked a little bit about Japan and what the Bank of Japan is doing. We shifted over to Europe and what the ECB is doing there – there were lots of questions about deflation, disinflation, whether or not inflation might actually pick up in Japan. So, [that] was all about soft inflation. Mike, let me put you on the spot here, because things are, well, things are a little bit different in the U.S. when it comes to inflation. A lot of attention on tariffs and whether or not tariffs are going to drive up inflation. Of course, inflation, the United States never got back to the Fed's target after the COVID surge of inflation. So, where do you see inflation going? Is the effect of tariffs – has that fully run its course, or is there still more entrained? How do you see the outlook for inflation in the U.S.? Michael Gapen: Yeah, certainly a key question for the outlook here. So, core PCE inflation is running around 2.9 percent. We think it can get towards 3, maybe a little above 3 by year end. We do not think that the economy has fully absorbed tariffs yet; we think more pass through is coming. The President just announced additional tariffs the other day. We had them factored into our baseline. I think it's fair to say companies are still figuring out exactly how much they can pass through to consumers and when. So, I think the year-on-year rate of inflation will continue to move higher into year end. Hit 3 percent, maybe a little bit above. The key question then is what happens in 2026. Is inflation driven by tariffs transitory – the famous T word; and the year-on-year rate of inflation will come back down? That's what the Fed's forecast thinks; we do as well. But as everyone knows, the Fed has started to ease policy to support the labor market. The economy has performed pretty well, so there's a risk maybe that inflation doesn't come down as much next year. Seth Carpenter: Alright, so tariffs are clearly a key policy variable that can affect inflation. There's also been immigration restriction, to say the least, and what we saw coming out of COVID – when people were reluctant to go back to work, and businesses were reporting lots of shortages of workers – is that in certain services industries, we saw some pressure on prices. So, tariffs mostly affect consumer goods prices. Is there a contribution from immigration restriction onto overall inflation through services? Michael Gapen: I think the answer is yes; and I hesitate there because it's hard to see it in real time. But it is fair to say the average immigrant in the U.S. is younger. They have higher rates of labor force participation. They tend to reside in lower income households. So, they're labor supply heavy in terms of their effect on the economy. And yes, they tend to have larger relative presence in construction and manufacturing. But in terms of numbers, a lot of immigrants work in the service sector, as you note. And services inflation has been to the upside lately, right? So, the surprise has been that goods inflation maybe hasn't been as strong. The pass through from tariffs has been weaker. But in terms of upside surprises in inflation, it's common services and in many cases, non-housing related services. So, I'd say there's maybe some nascent signs that immigration controls may be keeping services prices firmer than thought. But may be hard to tie that directly at the moment. So, it's easier to say I think immigration controls may prevent inflation from coming down as much next year. It's not altogether clear how much they're pushing services inflation up. I think there's some evidence to support that, and we'll have to see whether that continues. Seth Carpenter: Alright, so we're seeing higher costs and higher prices from tariffs. We're seeing less labor supply when it comes to immigration. Those seem like a recipe for a big slowdown in growth, and I think that's been your forecast for quite some time – is that the U.S. was going to slow down a lot. Are we seeing that in the data? Is the U.S. economy slowing down or is everything just fine? How are you thinking about it? And what's the evidence that there's a slowdown and what are maybe the counterarguments that there's not that much of a slowdown? Michael Gapen: Well, I think that the data doesn't support much of a slowdown. So yes, the economy did moderate in the first half of the year. I think the smart thing to do is average through Q1 and Q2 outcomes [be]cause there was a lot of volatility in trade and inventories. If you do that, the economy grew at about a 1.8 percent annualized rate in the first half of the year, down from about 2.5 percent last year. So, some moderation there, but not a lot. We would argue that that probably isn't a tariff story. We would've expected tariffs and immigration policies to have greater downward pressure on growth in the second half of the year. But to your question, incoming data in the third quarter has been really strong, and we're tracking growth somewhere around 3 percent right now.So, there's not a lot of evidence in hand at present that tariffs are putting significant downward pressure on growth. Seth Carpenter: So those growth numbers that you cite are on spending, which is normally the way we calculate things like GDP, consumption spending. But the labor market, I mean, non-farm payroll reports really have been quite weak. How do you reconcile that intellectual tension on the one hand spending holding up? On the other hand, that job creation [is] pretty, pretty weak. Michael Gapen: Yeah. I think the way that we would reconcile it is when we look at the data for the non-financial corporate sector, what appears to be clear is that non-labor costs have risen and tariffs would reside in that. And the data does show that what would be called unit non-labor costs. So, the cost per unit of output attributable to everything other than labor that rose a lot. What corporates apparently did was they reduced labor costs. And they absorbed some of it in lower profitability. What they didn't do was push price a lot. We'll see how long this tension can go on. It may be that corporates are in the early stages of passing through inflation, so we will see more inflation further out in a slowdown in spending. Or it may be that corporates are deciding that they will bear most of the burden of the tariffs, and cost control and efficiencies will be the order of the day. And maybe the Fed is right to be worried about downside risk to employment. So, I reconcile it that way. I think corporates have absorbed most of the tariff shock to date, and we're still in the early stages of seeing whether or not they will be able to pass it along to consumers. Seth Carpenter: All right, so then let's think about the Fed, the central bank. Yesterday, I talked to Chetan about the Bank of Japan. There reflation is real. Talked to Jens yesterday about the ECB where inflation has come down. So, those other developed market economies, the prescriptions for monetary policy are pretty straightforward. The Fed, on the other hand, they're in a bit of a bind in that regard. What do you think the Fed is trying to achieve here? How would you describe their strategy? Michael Gapen: I would describe their strategy as a recalibration, which is, I think, you know, technical monetary policy jargon for – where their policy stance is now; is not correct to balance risks to the economy. Earlier this year, the Fed thought that the primary risk was to persistent inflation. Boy, the effective tariff rate was rising quickly and that should pass due to inflation. We should be worried about upside risk to inflation. And then employment decelerated rapidly and has stayed low now for four consecutive months. Yes, labor supply has come down, but there's also a lot of evidence that labor demand has come down. So, I think what the Fed is saying is the balance of risks have become more balanced. They need to worry about inflation, but now they also need to worry about the labor market. So having a restrictive policy stance in their mind doesn't make sense. The Fed's not arguing – we need to get below neutral. We need to get easy. They're just saying we probably need to move in the direction of neutral. That will allow us to respond better if inflation stays firm or the labor market weakens. So, a recalibration meaning, you know, we think two more rate cuts into year end get a little bit closer to neutral, and that puts them in a better spot to respond to the evolving economic conditions. Seth Carpenter: All right. That makes a lot of sense. We can't end a conversation this year about the Fed, though, without touching on the fact that the White House has been putting a lot of pressure on the Federal Reserve trying to get Chair Powell and his committee to push interest rates substantially lower than where they are now. Michael Gapen: You've noticed? Seth Carpenter: I've noticed. From my understanding, a lot of people in markets have noticed as well. There's been some turnover among policy makers. We have a new member of the Board of Governors of the Fed. This discussion about Federal Reserve independence. How do you think about it? Is Chair Powell changing policy based on political pressure? Michael Gapen: I don't think so. I think there's enough evidence in the labor market data to support the Fed's shift in stance. We have certainly highlighted immigration controls, what they would mean for the labor force. And how that means even a slowing, growing economy could keep the unemployment rate low. But it's also fair to say labor demand has come down. If labor demand were still very strong, you might see job openings higher, you might see vacancies higher. You may even see faster wage growth. So, I think the Fed's right to look at the labor market and say, ‘Okay, on the surface, it looks like a no hire, no fire labor market. We can live with that, but there are some layoffs underneath. There are signs of weakness. Slack is getting created slowly.' So, I think the Fed has solid ground to stand on in terms of shifting their view. But you're right, that looking forward into 2026 with the end of Powell's term as chair and likely turnover in other areas of the board. Whether the Fed maintains a conventional reaction function or one that's perhaps more politically driven remains an open question – and I think is a risk for investors. Seth Carpenter: I want to change things up a lot here. Chetan, yesterday you and I talked about China. We talked about Japan. Two really big economies that I think are well known to investors.Another economy in Asia that you cover is India. For a long time, we have said India was going to be the fastest growing major economy in the world. Do you still see it to be the case? That India's got a really bright growth outlook? And in the current circumstance with tariffs going on, how do you think India is fairing vis-a-vis U.S. tariffs? Chetan Ahya: So yes, Seth, we are still optimistic about India's growth outlook. Having said that, you know, there are two issues that the economy has been going through. Number one is that the domestic demand had slowed down because of previous tightening of fiscal and monetary policies. And at the same time, we have now seen this trade tensions, which will slow global trade. But also, directly India will be affected by the fact that the U.S. has imposed 50 percent tariff on close to 60 percent of India's exports to the U.S. So, both these issues are affecting the outlook in the near term. We still don't have clarity on what happens on trade tensions, but what we have seen is that the government has really worked quite hard to get the economy going from domestic demand perspective. And so, they have taken up three sets of policy actions. They have reduced household income tax. The central bank has cut interest rates because inflation has been in control. And at the same time, they have now just recently announced reduction in Goods and Services Tax, which is akin to like consumption tax. And so, these three policy actions together we think will drive domestic demand growth from the fourth quarter of this year itself. It will still be not back up to strong growth levels. And for that we still need that solution to trade policy uncertainty. But I think there will be a significant recovery coming up in the next few months. Seth Carpenter: All right. Thanks for that, Chetan. It's such an interesting story going on there in India. Well, Michael, Chetan, thank the three of you for joining me today in this conversation. And to the listeners, thank you for listening. If you enjoy this show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.

Morgan Stanley's chief economists discuss how policymakers in China, Japan and the European Union are addressing slower growth, deflation or the return of inflationary pressures. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript ----- Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist.Well, a lot has changed since the second quarter and the last time we did one of these around the world economics roundtable. After an extended pause, the United States Federal Reserve started cutting rates again. Europe's recovery is showing, well, some mixed signals. And in Asia, there's once again increasing reliance on policy support to keep growth on track.Today for the first part of a two-part conversation, I'm going to engage with Chetan Ahya, our Chief Asia economist, and Jens Eisenschmidt, our Chief Europe economist, to really get into a conversation about what's going on in the economy around the world.It's Tuesday, September 30th at 10am in New York.Jens Eisenschmidt: And 4pm in Frankfurt.Chetan Ahya: And 10pm in HongSeth Carpenter: So, it's getting to be the end of the third quarter, and the narrative around the world is still quite murky from my perspective. The Fed has delivered on a rate cut. The ECB has decided that maybe disinflation is over. And in Asia, China's policymakers are trying to lean in and push policy to right the wrongs of deflation in that economy.I want to get into some of the real hard questions that investors around the world are asking in terms of what's going on in the economy, how it's working out, and what we should look for. So, Chetan, if I can actually start with you. One of the terms that we've heard a lot coming out of China is the anti-involution policy.Can you just lay out briefly for us, what do we mean when we say the anti-involution policy in China?Chetan Ahya: Well, the anti-evolution policy is a response to China's excess capacity and persistent deflation challenge. And in China's context, involution refers to the dynamic where producers compete excessively, resulting in aggressive price cuts and diminishing returns on capital employed. And look, at the heart of this deflation challenge is China's approach of maintaining high real GDP growth with more investment in manufacturing and infrastructure when aggregate demand slows. And in the past few years, policy makers push for investment in manufacturing and infrastructure to offset the sharp slow down in property sector.And as a result, a number of industry sectors now have large excess capacities, explaining this persistent deflationary environment. And after close to two and a half years of deflation, policy makers are recognizing that deflation is not good for the corporate sector, households and the government. And from the past experience, we know that when policymakers in China signal a clear intention, it will be followed up by an intensification of policy efforts to cut capacity in select sectors. However, we think moving economy out of deflation will be challenging. These supply reduction efforts may be helpful but will not be sufficient on their own. And this time for a sustainable solution to deflation problem, we think a pivot is needed – supporting consumption via systematic efforts to increase social welfare spending, particularly targeted towards migrant workers in urban China and rural poor. But we are not optimistic that this solution will be implemented in scale.Seth Carpenter: So that makes sense because in the past when we've been talking about the issue of deflation in China, it's essentially this mismatch between the amount of demand in the economy not being sufficient to match the supply. As you said, you and your team have been thinking that the best solution here would be to increase demand, and instead what the policymakers are doing is reducing supply.So, if you don't think this change in policy, this anti-evolution policy is sufficient to break this deflation cycle – what do you see as the most likely outcome for economic growth in China this year and next?Chetan Ahya: So, this year we expect GDP growth to be around 4.7 percent, which implies that in the back half of the year you'll see growth slowing down to around 4.5 percent because we already grew at 5.2 in the first half. And, going forward we think that, you know, you should be looking more at normal GDP growth set because as we just discussed deflation is a key challenge.So, while we have real GDP growth at 4.7 for 2025, normal GDP growth is going to be 4 percent. And next year, again, we think normal GDP growth will be in that range of 4 percent.Seth Carpenter: That whole spiral of deflation – it's sort of interesting, Japan as an economy has broken that sort of stagnation or disinflation spiral that it was in for 25 years. We've been writing for a long time about the reflation story going on in Japan. Let me ask you, our forecast has been that the reflationary dynamic is there. It's embedded, it's not going away anytime. But, on the other hand, we basically see the Bank of Japan as on hold, not just for the rest of this year, but for all of next year as well.Can you let us know a little bit about what's going on with Japan and why we don't think the Bank of Japan might raise interest rates anytime soon?Chetan Ahya: So, Seth, at the outset, we think BoJ needs still some more time to be sure that we are on that virtuous cycle of rising prices and wages. Yes, both prices and wages have gone up. But it is very clear from the data that a large part of this rise in prices can be attributed to currency depreciation and supply side factors, such as higher energy prices earlier, and food prices now. And similarly, currency depreciation has also played a role in lifting corporate profits, which then has allowed the corporate sector to increase wages.So, if you look at the drivers to rise in prices and wage growth as of now, we think that demand has not really played a big role. To just establish that point, if you look at Japan's GDP, it's just about 1 percent higher than pre-COVID on a real basis. And if you look at Japan's consumption, real consumption trend, it's still 1 percent below pre-COVID levels.So, we think BoJ still needs more time. And just to add one more point on this. BoJ is also conscious about what tariffs will do to Japan's exports, and economy; and therefore, they want to wait for some more time to see the evidence that demand also picks up before they take up a policy rate hike.Seth Carpenter: So, one economy in deflation and policy is probably not enough to prevent it. Another economy that's got reflation, but a very cautious central bank who wants to make sure it continues. Jens, let's pivot now to Europe because at the last policy meeting, President Lagarde of the ECB said pretty, pretty strongly that she thinks the disinflationary process in Europe has come to an end. And that the ECB is basically on hold at this point going forward.Do you agree with her assessment? Do you think she's got it right? You think she's got it wrong? How could she be wrong, if she's wrong? And what's your outlook for the ECB?Jens Eisenschmidt: Yeah, there a ton of questions here. I think I was also struck by the statement as you were. I think there is probably – that's at least my interpretation – a reference here to – Okay, we have come down a long way in terms of inflation in the Euro area. Rather being at 10 percent at some point in the past and now basically at target. And we think; I mean, we just got the data actually, for September in. It's more or less in line with what we had expected up again to 2.3. But that's really it. And then from here it's really down.Very good reasons to believe this will be the case. We have actually inflation below target next year, and the ECB agrees. So that's why I think she can't have made reference to what Liza had because the ECB itself is predicting that inflation from here will fall. So, I think it's really probably rather description of the way traveled. And then there may be some nuances here in the policy prescription forward.So, for now we think inflation will undershoot the target. And we think this undershoot has good chances to extend well into the medium term. So that's the famous 2027 forecast. The ECB in its last installment of the forecast in September doesn't disagree. Or it's actually, in theory at least, in agreement because it has a 1.9 here for 2027. So, it's also below target.But when asked about that at the press conference, the President said, yes, it's actually, very close to 2. So, it really cannot be really distinguished here. So, from that perspective, policy makers probably want to wait it out. In particular for the October meeting, which is not a forecast meeting, we don't expect any change.And then the focus of attention is really on the December meeting with the new forecast. What will 2028 show in their forecast for inflation? And will the 1.9 in [20]27 actually be rather 1.8? In which case I think the discussion on further cuts will heat up. We have a cut for December, and we have another one for March.Seth Carpenter: Of course, very often one of the things that drives inflation is overall economic growth and a key determinant of economic growth tends to be fiscal policy. And there we've got two big economies very much in the headlines right now. Germany, on the one hand, with plans to increase spending both on infrastructure and on defense spending. And then France, who's seen lots of instability, shall we say, with the government as they try to come up with a plan for fiscal consolidation.So, with those two economies in mind, can you walk us through what is the fiscal outlook for Germany, in particular? Is it going to be enough to stimulate overall growth in Europe? And then for France, are they going to be able to get the fiscal consolidation that they're looking for? How do you see those two economies evolving in terms of fiscal policy?Jens Eisenschmidt: Yeah, it's of course neither black or white, as you know. I think here we really look into the German case specifically, as the clear case where fiscal stimulus will happen. It may just not happen as quickly, and it's a very trade open economy. So, it's very much exposed to the current headwinds coming out of China for one. Or also U.S. tariffs. So, from that we conclude our net-net is actually, yes, there is textbook fiscal stimulus. So, basically domestic demand replacing less foreign demand.So that's fine, but just not enough. We see essentially better growth in Germany, but that's more cyclically driven. But it was; it just would not be enough for what you would normally think given the size of the fiscal stimulus, which is enormous. But it will also take some time, this fiscal stimulus to unfold.On the other side in France, as you rightly ask, how much consolidation are we going to get? I think the answer has to be very likely less than what the last – or the previous Prime Minister has had planned. So, all in all, that gets us into a situation of a country that lacks a clear economic policy structure, a clear governance structure; tries to – on a very fragile parliamentary majority – tries to consolidate the budget. Probably gets less consolidation going forward than what would be desirable. And, you know, here is sort of – not really...It's been muddling through a little bit. This is probably a good description of the approach here in France, and we actually have on the lack of a clear economic policy agenda and still some fiscal consolidation. We have actually lackluster growth in France for this year and next.Seth Carpenter: Okay, so what I'm hearing you saying is inflation seems likely to come down and probably undershoot their target causing President Lagarde and the ECB to reconsider how many cuts they're going to do. And then growth probably isn't going to be as stimulated by fiscal policy as I think lots of people in markets are hoping for.Chetan, Jens, thanks for joining us.And to the listeners, thank you for listening. Be sure to turn in tomorrow where I'm going to put Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist on the hot seat, talk about the U.S. and maybe one or two more economies around the world.And if you enjoy this show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.

Despite large deficits, booming capital expenditures and a looser regulatory environment, the Fed appears poised to cut rates further to support the slowing labor market. This could set the stage for a level of corporate risk-taking not seen since the 1990s.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, a look at the forces that could heat up corporate activity in 2026 – if the labor market can hold up.It's Monday, September 29th at 2pm in London.Bill Martin, a former chairman of the Federal Reserve in the 50's and 60's, famously joked that “it was the Fed's job to take away the punch bowl just when the party is getting good.” That quote seems relevant because a host of trends are pointing to a pretty lively scene over the next 12 months. First, the U.S. government is spending significantly more than it's taking in. This deficit running at about 6.5 percent of the size of the whole economy is providing stimulus. It's only been larger during the great financial crisis, COVID and World War II. It's punch. Next to the corporate sector. As you've heard us discuss on this podcast, we here at Morgan Stanley think that AI related spending could amount to one of the largest waves of investment ever recorded – dwarfing the shale boom of the 2010s and the telecommunication spending of the late 1990s. Importantly, we think this spending is ramping up right now. Morgan Stanley estimates that investments by large tech companies will increase by 70 percent this year, and between 2024 and 2027, we think this spending is going to go up by two and a half times. Note that this doesn't even account for the enormous amount of power and electricity infrastructure that's going to be need to be built to support all this. Hence more economic punch. Finally, there's a deregulatory push. My bank research colleagues believe that lower capital requirements for U.S. banks could boost their balance sheet capacity by an additional $1 trillion in risk weighted terms. And a more supportive regulatory environment for mergers should help activity there continue to grow. Again, more punch.Heavy government spending, heavy corporate spending, more bank lending and risk taking capacity. And what's next from the Federal Reserve? Well, they're not exactly taking the punch away. We think that the Fed is set to cut rates five more times to a midpoint of two and 7/8ths. The Fed's supportive efforts are based on a real fear that labor markets are already starting to slow, despite the other supportive factors mentioned previously. And a broad weakening of the economy would absolutely warrant such support from the Fed. But if growth doesn't slow – large deficits, booming capital expenditure, a looser regulatory environment, and now Fed rate cuts – would all support even more corporate risk taking possibly in a way that we haven't seen since the 1990s. For credit, that boom would be preferable to a sharp slowing of the economy, but it comes with its own risks.Expect talk of this scenario next year to grow if economic data does hold up.Thanks as always for listening. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen, and also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

Our Global Head of Thematic and Fixed Income Research Michael Zezas and our U.S. Public Policy Strategist Ariana Salvatore unpack the market and economic implications of a looming government shutdown.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. Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, U.S. Public Policy Strategist. Michael Zezas: Today, our focus is once again on Washington – as the U.S. government fiscal year draws to a close and a potential government shutdown hangs in the balance.It's Friday, September 26th at noon in New York. Ariana we're just four days away from the end of the month. By October 1st, Congress needs to have a funding agreement in place, or we risk a potential shutdown. To that point, Democrats and Republicans seem far apart on the deal to avoid a shutdown. What's the state of play? Ariana Salvatore: Right now, Republicans are pushing for what's called a clean continuing resolution. That's a bill that would keep funding levels flat while putting more time on the clock for negotiators to hammer out full fiscal year appropriations. And the CR they're proposing lasts until November 21st. Democrats, conversely, are seeking to tie government funding to legislative compromise in other areas, including the enhanced Obamacare or ACA subsidies, and potential spending cuts to Medicaid from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which Republicans signed earlier this year. Remember, even though Republicans hold a majority in both chambers, this has to be a bipartisan agreement because of exactly how thin those margins of control are. But Mike, it seems as we get closer, investors are asking more infrequently whether or not a shutdown is happening – and are more interested in how long it could potentially last. What are we thinking there? Michael Zezas: So, it's hard to know. Shutdowns typically last a few days, but sometimes there are short as a few hours, sometimes as long as a few weeks. Historically, shutdowns tend to end when the economic risk, and therefore the attached political risk gets real. So, consider the 35-day shutdown under President Trump in this first term. The compromise that ended it came quickly after there was an air traffic stoppage at New York's LaGuardia Airport – when 10 air traffic controllers who weren't being paid failed to show up for work. So, we think the more relevant question for investors is what it all means for economic activity. Our economists have historically argued that a government shutdown takes something like 0.1 percent off of GDP every single week it's happening. However, once employees go back to work, a lot of times that effect fades pretty quickly. Now it's important to understand that this time around there could be a wrinkle. The Trump administration is talking about laying employees off on a durable basis during the shutdown. And that's something that maybe would have more of a lasting economic impact. It's hard to know how credible that potential is. There would almost certainly be court challenges, but it's something we have to keep our eye on that could create a more meaningful economic consequence. Ariana Salvatore: That's right. And there are also some really important indirect macroeconomic effects here. Like delayed data releases. Much of the federal workforce, to your point, will not be working through a shutdown – which could impede the collection and the release of some key data points that matter for markets like labor and inflation data, which come from BLS, the Bureau of Labor Statistics. So, assuming we're in this scenario with a longer-term shutdown. Obviously, we're going to see an increase in uncertainty, especially as investors are looking toward each data print for guidance on what the Fed's next move might be. What do we expect the market reaction to all of this to be? Michael Zezas: Well, the obvious risk here is that markets might have to price in some weaker growth potential. So, you could see treasury yields fall. You could see equity markets wobble; be a bit more volatile. It could be that those effects are temporary, though. And that volatility could easily be amplified by having to price risk in the market without the data you were talking about, Ariana. So, investors could overreact to anecdotal signals about the economy or underweight some real risks that they're not seeing. So, that's why even a short shutdown can have outsized market effects. Well, Ariana, thanks for taking the time to talk.Ariana Salvatore: Great speaking with you, Mike. Michael Zezas: And to our audience, thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you get this podcast and tell your friends about it. We want everyone to listen.

Our Co-Head of Securitized Products Research James Egan joins our Chief Economic Strategist Ellen Zentner to discuss the recent challenges facing the U.S. housing market, and the path forward for home buyers and investors. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript ----- James Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm James Egan, U.S. Housing Strategist and Co-Head of Securitized Products Research for Morgan Stanley. Ellen Zentner: And I'm Ellen Zentner, Chief Economic Strategist and Global Head of Thematic and Macro Investing at Morgan Stanley Wealth Management. James Egan: And today we dive into a topic that touches nearly every American household, quite literally. The future of the U.S. housing market. It's Thursday, September 25th at 10am in New York. So, Ellen, this conversation couldn't be timelier. Last week, the Fed cut interest rates by 25 basis points, and our chief U.S. Economist, Mike Gapen expects three more consecutive 25 basis point cuts through January of next year. And that's going to be followed by two more 25 basis point cuts in April and July. But mortgage rates, they're not tied to fed funds. So even if we do get 6.25 bps cuts by the end of 2026, that in and of itself we don't think is going to be sufficient to bring down mortgage rates, though other factors could get us there.Taking all that into account, the U.S. housing market appears to be a little stuck. The big question on investors' minds is – what's next for housing and what does that mean for the broader economy? Ellen Zentner: Well, I don't like the word stuck. There's no churn in the housing market. We want to see things moving and shaking. We want to see sellers out there. We want to see buyers out there. And we've got a lot of buyers – or would be buyers, right? But not a lot of sellers. And, you know, the economy does well when things are moving and shaking because there's a lot of home related spending that goes on when we're selling and buying homes. And so that helps boost consumer spending. Housing is also a really interest rate sensitive sector, so you know, I like to say as goes housing, so goes the business cycle. And so, you don't want to think that housing is sort of on the downhill slide or heading toward a downturn [be]cause it would mean that the entire economy is headed toward a downturn. So, we want to see housing improve here. We want to see it thaw out. I don't like, again, the word stuck, you know. I want to see some more churn. James Egan: As do we, and one of the reasons that I wanted to talk to you today is that you are observing all of these pressures on the U.S. housing market from your perspective in wealth management. And that means your job is to advise retail clients who sometimes can have a longer investment time horizon. So, Ellen, when you look at the next decade, how do you estimate the need for new housing units in the United States and what happens if we fall short of these estimated targets? Ellen Zentner: Yeah, so we always like to say demographics makes the world go round and especially it makes the housing market go round. And we know that if you just look at demographic drivers in the U.S. Of those young millennials and Gen Z that are aging into their first time home buying years – whether they're able to immediately or at some point purchase a home – they will want to buy homes. And if they can't afford the homes, then they will want to maybe rent those single-family homes. But either way, if you're just looking at the sheer need for housing in any way, shape, or form that it comes, we're going to need about 18 million units to meet all of that demand through 2030. And so, when I'm talking with our clients on the wealth management side, it's – Okay, short term here or over the next couple of years, there is a housing cycle. And affordability is creating pressures there. But if we look out beyond that, there are opportunities because of the demographic drivers – single family rentals, multi-family. We think modular housing can be something big here, as well. All of those solutions that can help everyone get into a home that wants to be. James Egan: Now, you hit on something there that I think is really important, kind of the implications of affordability challenges. One of the things that we've been seeing is it's been driving a shift toward rentership over ownership. How does that specific trend affect economic multipliers and long-term wealth creation? Ellen Zentner: In terms of whether you're going to buy a single-family home or you're going to rent a single-family home, it tends to be more square footage and there's more spending that goes on with it. But, of course, then relatively speaking, if you're buying that single family home versus renting, you're also going to probably spend a lot more time and care on that home while you're there, which means more money into the economy. In terms of wealth creation, we'd love to get the single-family home ownership rate as high as possible. It's the key way that households build intergenerational wealth. And the average American, or the average household has four times the wealth in their home than they do in the stock market. And so that's why it's very important that we've always created wealth that way through housing; and we want people to own, and they want to own. And that's good news. James Egan: These affordability challenges. Another thing that you've been highlighting is that they've led to an internal migration trend. People moving from high cost to lower cost metro areas. How is this playing out and what are the economic consequences of this migration? Ellen Zentner: Well, I think, first of all, I think to the wonderful work that Mark Schmidt does on the Munis team at MS and Co. It matters a great deal, ownership rates in various regions because it can tell you something about the health of the metropolitan area where they are. Buying those homes and paying those property taxes. It can create imbalances across the U.S. where you've got excess supply maybe in some areas, but very tight housing supply in others. And eventually to balance that out, you might even have some people that, say, post-COVID or during COVID moved to some parts of the country that have now become very expensive. And so, they leave those places and then go back to either try another locale or back to the locale they had moved from. So, understanding those flows within the U.S. can help communities understand the needs of their community, the costs associated with filling those needs, and also associated revenues that might be coming in. So, Jim, I mentioned a couple of times here about single family renting, and so from your perch, given that growing number of single-family rentals, how is that going to influence housing strategy and pricing? James Egan: It is certainly another piece of the puzzle when we look at like single family home ownership, multi-unit rentership, multi-unit home ownership, and then single family rentership. Over the past 15 years, this has been the fastest growing way in which kind of U.S. households exist. And when we take a step back looking at the housing market more holistically – something you hit on earlier – supply has been low, and that's played a key role in keeping prices high and affordability under pressure. On top of that, credit availability has been constrained. It's one of the pillars that we use when evaluating home prices and housing activity that we do think gets overlooked. And so even if you can find a home to buy in these tight inventory environments, it's pretty difficult to qualify for a mortgage. Those lending standards have been tight, that's pushed the home ownership rate down to 65 percent. Now, it was a little bit lower than this, after the Great Financial Crisis, but prior to that point, this is the lowest that home ownership rates have been since 1995. And so, we do think that single family rentership, it becomes another outlet and will continue to be an important pillar for the U.S. housing market on a go forward basis. So, the economic implications of that, that you highlighted earlier, we think that's going to continue to be something that we're living with – pun only half intended – in the U.S. housing market. Ellen Zentner: Only half intended. But let me take you back to something that you said at the beginning of the podcast. And you talked about Gapen's expectation for rate cuts and that that's going to bring fed funds rate down. Those are interest rates, though that don't impact mortgage rates. So how do mortgage rates price? And then, how do you see those persistently higher mortgage rates continuing to weigh on affordability. Or, I guess, really, what we all want to know is – when are mortgage rates going to get to a point where housing does become affordable again? James Egan: In our prior podcast, my Co-Head of Securitized Products Research, Jay Bacow and myself talked about how cutting fed funds wasn't necessarily sufficient to bring down mortgage rates. But the other piece of this is going to be how much lower do mortgage rates need to go? And one of the things we highlighted there, a data point that we do think is important. Mortgage rates have come down recently, right? Like we're at our lowest point of the year, but the effective rate on the outstanding market is still below 4.25 percent. Mortgage rates are still above 6.25 percent, so the market's 200 basis points out of the money. One of the things that we've been trying to do, looking at changes to affordability historically. What we think you really need to see a sustainable growth in housing activity is about a 10 percent improvement in affordability. How do we get there? It's about a 5.5 percent mortgage rate as opposed to the 6 1/8th to 6.25 where we were when we walked into this recording studio today. We think there will be a little bit response to the move in mortgage rates we've already seen. Again, it's the lowest that rates have been this year, and there have been some… Ellen Zentner: Are those fence sitters; what we call fence sitters? People that say, ‘Oh gosh, it's coming down. Let me go ahead and jump in here.' James Egan: Absolutely. We'll see some of that. And then from just other parts of the housing infrastructure, we'll see refinance rates pick up, right? Like there are borrowers who've seen originations over the course of the past couple years whose rates are higher than this. Morgan Stanley actually publishes a truly refinanceable index that measures what percentage of the housing market has at least a 25 basis point incentive to refinance. Housing market holistically after this move? 17 percent? Mortgages originated in the last two years, 61 percent of them have that incentive. So, I think you'll see a little bit more purchase activity. Again, we need to get to 5.5 percent for us to believe that will be sustainable. But you'll also see some refinance activity as well, right? Ellen Zentner: Right, it doesn't mean you get absolutely nothing and then all of a sudden the spigot opens when you get to 5.5 percent. Anecdotal evidence, I have a 2.7 percent 30-year mortgage and I've told my husband, I'm going to die in this apartment. I'm not moving anywhere. So, I'm part of the problem, Jim. James Egan: Well, congratulations to you on the mortgage… Ellen Zentner: Thank you. I wasn't trying to brag, But yes, it feels like, you know, your point on perspective folks that are younger buyers, you know, are looking at the prevailing mortgage rate right now and saying, ‘My gosh, that's really high.' But some of us that have been around for a lot longer are saying, ‘Really, this is fine.' But it's all relative speaking. James Egan: When you have over 60 percent of the mortgage market that has a rate below 4.5 percent, below 4 percent, yes, on a long-term basis, mortgage rates don't look particularly high. They're very high relative to the past 15 years, and to your point on a 2.7 percent mortgage rate, there's no incentive for you... Or there's limited incentive for you to sell that home, pay off that 2.7 percent mortgage rate, buy a new home at higher prices, at a much higher mortgage rate. That has – I know you don't like the word stuck – but it has been what's gotten this housing market kind of mired in its current situation. Price is very protective. Activity pretty low. Ellen Zentner: Jim, we've been talking about all the affordability issues and so let's set mortgage rates aside and talk about policy proposals. Are there specific policies that could also help on the affordability front? James Egan: So, there's a number of things that we get questions about on a pretty regular basis. Things like GSE reform, first time home buyer tax credits, things that could potentially spur supply. And look, the devil is in the details here. My colleague, Jay Bacow, has done a lot of work on GSE reform and what we're really focusing on there is the nature of the guarantee as well as the future of regulation and capital charges. For instance, U.S. banks own approximately one-third of the agency mortgage-backed securities market. Any changes to regulatory capital as a result of GSE reform, that could have implications for their demand, and that's going to have implications on mortgage rates, right? First time home buyer tax credits. We have seen those before – the spring of 2008 to 2010, and if we use that as a case study, we did see a temporary rise in home sales and a pause in the pace with which home prices were falling. But the effects there were temporary. Sales and prices wouldn't hit their post housing crisis lows until after those programs expired. Ellen Zentner: Right. So, you were incentivized to buy the house. You get the credit; you buy the house. But then unbeknownst to any economist out there, housing valuations continued to fall. James Egan: You could argue that it maybe pulled some demand forward. And so, you saw a lot of it concentrated and then the absence of that demand afterwards. And then on the supply side, there are a number of different programs we have touched on, some of them in these podcasts in the past. And then some of those questions become what needs to go through Congress, what is more kind of local municipality versus federal government. But look, the devil's in the details. It's an incredibly interesting housing market. Probably one that's going to be the source of many podcasts to come. So, Ellen, given all these challenges facing the U.S. housing market. Where do you see the biggest opportunities for retail investors? Ellen Zentner: So, in our recent note Housing in the Next Decade, we took a look at single family renting; you and I have talked about how that's likely to still be in favor for some time. REITs with exposure to select U.S. rental markets; what about senior housing? That is something that you've done deep research on, as well. Senior and affordable housing providers, home construction and materials companies. What about building more sustainable homes with a good deal of the climate change that we're seeing. And financial technology firms that offer flexible financing solutions. So, these are some of the things that we think could be in play as we think about housing over the long term. James Egan: Ellen, thank you for all your insights. It's been a pleasure to have you on the podcast. And I guess there's a key takeaway for investors here. Housing isn't just about where we live, it's about where the economy is headed. Ellen Zentner: Exactly. Always a pleasure to be on the show. Thanks, Jim. James Egan: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy, Michael Zezas, examines growth in IPOs and M&A amid greater certainty around trade, immigration and regulation.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, let's talk about how changes in U.S. policy are shaping the markets in 2025—and why we're seeing a pickup in capital markets activity. It's Wednesday, September 24th at 10:30am in New York. At the start of this year, one thing investors agreed on was that with President Trump back in office, U.S. policy would shift in big ways. But there was less agreement about what those changes would mean for the economy and markets. Our team built a framework to help investors track changes in trade, fiscal, immigration, and regulatory policy – focusing on the sequencing and severity of these choices. That lens remains useful. But now, 250 days into the administration, we think it's more valuable to look at the impacts of those shifts, the durable policy signals, and how markets are pricing it all. Let's start with policy uncertainty. It is still high, but it's come down from the peaks we saw earlier this year. For example, the White House has made deals with key trading partners, which means tariff escalation is on pause for now. Of course, things could change if those partners don't meet their commitments, but any fallout may take a while to show up. Even if courts challenge new tariffs, the administration has ways to bring them back. And with Congress divided, most big policy moves are coming from the executive branch, not lawmakers. With policy changes slowing down, it's worth reflecting on a new durable consensus in Washington. For years, both parties mostly agreed on lowering trade barriers and keeping the government out of private business. But it seems that's changed. Industrial policy—where the government takes a more active role in shaping industries—is now a key part of U.S. strategy. Tariffs that started under Trump stayed under Biden, and even current critics focus more on how tariffs are applied than whether they should exist at all. You see this shift in areas like healthcare, energy, and especially technology. Take semiconductors. The CHIPS act under Biden aimed to build a secure domestic supply chain while Trump's approach includes licensing fees on exports to China and considering more government stakes in companies.So, why is capital markets activity picking up then? There are several drivers. First, less uncertainty about policy means companies feel more confident making big decisions. Earlier this year, activity like IPOs and mergers was unusually low compared to the size of the economy. But corporate balance sheets are strong—companies have plenty of cash, and private investors are looking to put money to work. Add in new needs for investment driven by artificial intelligence and technology upgrades, and you get a recipe for more deals. Our corporate clients have told us that having a smaller range of possible policy outcomes helped them move forward with strategic plans. Now, we're seeing the results: IPOs are up 68 percent year-on-year, and M&A is up 35 percent. Those numbers are coming off low levels, so the pace may slow, but we expect growth to continue for a while. This all syncs up with other trends in the market. For example, we continue to see steeper yield curves and a weaker dollar. Why? Well, trade policy is likely to stay restrictive. The fiscal policy trajectory appears locked in as the President and Congress have already made the fiscal choices that they prefer. And the Federal Reserve appears willing to tolerate more inflation risk in order to support growth. That means the dollar could keep falling and longer maturity bond yields could be sticky, even as shorter maturity yields decline to reflect the more dovish Fed. As always, it's important to watch how these trends interact with the broader economy, and that will be important to how we start deliberating on our outlook for 2026. We'll keep analyzing and share more with you as we go. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review and tell your friends about the podcast. We want everyone to listen.

Our Head of India Research Ridham Desai and leaders from Morgan Stanley Investment Management Arjun Saigal and Jitania Kandhari discuss how India's promising macroeconomic trajectory and robust capital markets are attracting more interest from global investors. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript ----- Ridham Desai: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ridham Desai, Morgan Stanley's Head of India Equity Research and Chief India Equity Strategist. Today, the once in a generation investment opportunities Morgan Stanley sees in India. Joining me in the studio, Arjun Saigal, Co-Head of Morgan Stanley Investment Management at India Private Equity, and Jitania Khandari, Morgan Stanley Investment Management, Head of Macros and Thematic Research for EM Public Equity. It's Tuesday, September 23rd at 4pm in Mumbai. Jitania Kandhari: And 6:30am in New York. Ridham Desai: Right now, India is already the world's fourth largest economy, and we believe it's on track to becoming the third largest by the end of this decade. If you've been following our coverage, you know, Morgan Stanley has been optimistic about India's future for quite some time. It's really a perfect storm – in a good way. India has got a growing young workforce, steady inflation, and is benefiting from some big shifts in the global landscape. When you put all of that together, you get a country that's set up for long-term growth. Of course, India is also facing pressure from escalating tariffs with the U.S., which makes this conversation even more timely. Jitania, Arjun, what are the biggest public and private investment opportunities in India that you'd highlight. Jitania Kandhari: I'd say in public equities there are five broad thematic opportunities in India. Financialization of savings and structurally lower credit costs; consumption with an aspirational consumer and a growing middle-class; localization and supply chain benefits as a China +1 destination; digitization with the India stack that is helping to revolutionize digital services across industries; and CapEx revivals in real estate and industrials, especially defense and electrification. Arjun Saigal: I will just break down the private markets into three segments. The first being the venture capital segment. Here, it's generally been a bit of hit or miss; some great success stories, but there've also been a lot of challenges with scale and liquidity. Coming to the large cap segment, this is the hundred million dollars plus ticket size, which attracts the large U.S. buyout funds and sovereign wealth funds. Here target companies tend to be market leaders with scale, deep management strength, and can be pretty easily IPO-ed. And we have seen a host of successful PE-backed IPOs in the space. However, it has become extremely crowded given the number of new entrants into the space and the fact that regional Asia funds are allocating more of their dollars towards India as they shift away from China. The third space, which is the mid-market segment, the $50- to $100 million ticket size is where we believe lies the best risk reward. Here you're able to find mid-size assets that are profitable and have achieved market leadership in a region or product. These companies have obvious growth drivers, so it's pretty clear that your capital's able to help accelerate a company's growth path. In addition, the sourcing for these deals tends to be less process driven, creating the ability to have extended engagement periods, and not having to compete only on price. In general, it's not overly competitive, especially when it comes to control transactions. Overall, valuations are more reasonable versus the public markets and the large cap segment. There are multiple exit routes available through IPO or sale to large cap funds. We're obviously a bit biased given our mid-market strategy, but this is where we feel you find the best risk reward. Ridham Desai: Jitania, how do these India specific opportunities compare to other Emerging Markets and the developed world? Jitania Kandhari: I will answer this question from two perspectives. The macro and the markets. From a macro perspective, India, as you said, has better demographics, low GDP per capita with catchup potential, low external vulnerability, and relatively better fiscal dynamics than many other parts of the world.It is a domestic driven story with a domestic liquidity cycle to support that growth story. India has less export dependency compared to many other parts of the emerging and developed world, and is a net oil importer, which has been under pressure actually positively impacting commodity importers. Reforms beginning in 2017 from demonetization, GST, RERA and other measures to formalize the economy is another big difference. From a market standpoint, it is a sectorally diversified market. The top three sectors constitute 50 percent in India versus around 90 percent in Taiwan, 66 percent in Brazil, and 57 percent overall in EM. Aided by a long tail of sectors, India screens as a less concentrated market when compared to many emerging and developed markets. Ridham Desai: And how do tariffs play into all this? Jitania Kandhari: About 50 percent of exports to the U.S. are under the 50 percent tariff rate. Net-net, this could impact 30 to 80 basis points of GDP growth.Most impacted are labor intensive sectors like apparel, leather, gems and jewelry. And through tax cuts like GST and monetary policy, government is going to be able to counter the first order impacts. But having said that, India and U.S. are natural partners, and hence this could drag on and have second order impacts. So can't see how this really eases in the short term because neither party is too impacted by the first order impacts. U.S. can easily replace Indian imports, and India can take that 30 basis point to 50 basis points GDP impact. So, this is very unlike other trade deals where one party would have been severely impacted and thus parts were created for reversals. Ridham Desai: What other global themes are resonating strongly for India? And conversely, are there themes that are not relevant for investing in India? Jitania Kandhari: I think broadly three themes globally are resonating in India. One is demographics with the growing cohort of millennials and Gen Z, leading to their aspirations and consumption patterns. India is a large, young urbanizing population with a large share in these demographic cohorts. Supply chain diversification, friend-shoring, especially in areas like electronics, technology, defense, India is an integral part of that ecosystem. And industrials globally are seeing a revival, especially in areas like electrification with the increased usage of renewables. And India is also part of that story given its own energy demands. What are the themes not relevant for investing in India is the aging population, which is one of the key themes in markets like North Asia and Eastern Europe, where a lot of the aging population drivers are leading to investment and consumption patterns. And with the AI tech revolution, India has not really been part of the AI picks and shovels theme like other markets in North Asia, like Korea, Taiwan, and even the Chinese hardware and internet names. Globally, in selected markets, utilities are doing well, especially those that are linked to the AI data center energy demand; whereas in India, this sector is overregulated and under-indexed to growth. Ridham Desai: Arjun, how does India's macro backdrop impact the private equity market in particular? Arjun Saigal: So, today India has scale, growth, attractive return on capital and robust capital markets. And frankly, all of these are required for a conducive investment environment. I also note that from a risk lens, given India being a large, stable democracy with a reform-oriented government, this provides extra comfort of the country being an attractive place to invest. You know, we have about $3 billion of domestic money coming into the stock market each month through systematic investment plans. This tends to be very stable money, versus previously where we relied on foreign flows, which were a lot more volatile in nature. This, in turn, makes for some very attractive PE exits into the public markets. Ridham Desai: Are there some significant intersections between the public and private equity markets? Arjun Saigal: You know, it tends to be quite limited, but we do see two areas. The first being pre-IPO rounds, which have been taking place recently in India, where we do see listed public funds coming into these pre-IPO rounds in order to ensure a certain minimum allocation in a company. And secondly, we do see that in certain cases, PE investors have been selectively making pipe investments in sectors like financial services, which have multiple decade tailwinds and require regular capital for growth. Unlike developed markets, we've not seen too many take private deals being executed in India due to the complex regulatory framework. This is perhaps an area which can open up more in the future if the process is simplified. Ridham Desai: Finally, as a wrap up, what do you both think are the key developments and catalysts in India that investors should watch closely? Arjun Saigal: We believe there are a couple of factors, one being repeat depreciation. Historically this has been at 2.5 to 3 percent, and unfortunately, it's been quite expensive to hedge the repeat. So, the way to address this is to sort of price it in. The second is full valuations. India has never been a cheap market, but in certain pockets, valuations of listed players are becoming quite concerning and those valuations in turn immediately push up prices in the large ticket private market space. And lastly, I would just mention tariffs, which is an evolving situation. Jitania Kandhari: I would add a couple more things. Macro equilibrium in India should be sustained – as India has been in one of the best positions from a macroeconomic standpoint. Private sector CapEx is key to drive the next leg of growth higher. Opportunities for the youth to get productively employed is critical in development of an economy. And India has always been in a geopolitical sweet spot in the last few years, and with the tariff situation that needs some resolution and close monitoring. All of this is important for nominal growth, which ultimately drives nominal earnings growth in India that are needed to justify the high valuations. Ridham Desai: Arjun, Jitania, thank you both for your insights. Arjun Saigal: Great speaking with you Ridham. Jitania Kandhari: Thank you for having us on the show. Ridham Desai: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Our CIO Mike Wilson joins U.S. Equity strategist Andrew Pauker to answer frequently asked questions about their latest economic outlook, including how U.S. equities are transitioning to a new bull market. 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 we're going to try something a little different. I have my colleague, Andrew Pauker from the U.S. Equity Strategy Team here to discuss some of the client questions and feedback to our views. It's Monday, September 22nd at 11:30am in New York. So, let's get after it. Andrew, we constantly deal with client questions on our views. More recently, the questions have been focused on our view that we've transitioned from a rolling recession to a rolling recovery in a new bull market. Secondarily, it's about the tension between the equity market's need for speed and how fast the Fed will actually cut rates. Finally, why is accelerating inflation potentially good for equities? Where do you want to start? Andrew Pauker: Mike, in my conversations with clients, the main debate seems to be around whether the labor cycle and earnings recession are behind us or in front of us. Walk us through our take here and why we think the rolling recession ended with Liberation Day and that we're now transitioning to an early cycle backdrop. Mike Wilson: So, just to kind of level set, you know, we've had this view that – and starting in 2022 with the payback and the COVID demand. And from the pull forward – that began, what we call, a rolling recession. It started with the technology sector and consumer goods, where the demand was most extreme during the lockdowns. And then of course we've had recessions in housing, manufacturing, and other areas in commodities. Transportation. It's been very anemic growth, if any growth at all, as the economy has been sort of languishing. And what's been strong has been AI CapEx, consumer services, and government. And what we noticed in the first quarter, and we actually called for this almost a year ago. We said now what we need is a government recession as part of the finishing move. And in fact, Doge was the catalyst for that. We highlighted that back in January, but we didn't know exactly how many jobs were lost from Doge's efforts in the first quarter. But we got that data recently. And we saw an extreme spike, and it actually sort of finished the rolling recession. Even AI CapEx had a deceleration starting in the summer of 2024. Something else that we've been highlighting and now we're seeing pockets of weakness even in consumer services. So, we feel like the rolling recession has rolled through effectively the entire economy. In addition to the labor data that now is confirming – that we've had a pretty extreme reduction in jobs, and of course the revisions are furthering that. But what we saw in the private sector is also confirming our suspicions that the rolling recession's over. The number one being earnings revision breath, something we've written about extensively. And we've rarely seen this kind of a V-shaped recovery coming out of Liberation Day, which of course was the final blow to the earnings revisions lower because that made companies very negative and that fed through to earnings revisions. The other things that have happened, of course, is that Doge, you know, did not continue laying people off. And also, we saw the weaker dollar and the AI CapEx cycle bottom in April. And those have also affected kind of a more positive backdrop for earnings growth. And like I said before, this is a very rare occurrence to see this kind of a V-shape recovery and earnings revision breaths. The private economy, in fact, is finally coming out of its earnings recession, which has been in now for three years. Andrew Pauker: And I would just add a couple of other variables as well in terms of evidence that we're seeing the rolling recovery take hold, and that Liberation Day was kind of the punctuation or the culmination of the rolling recession, and we're now transitioning to an early cycle backdrop. So, number one, positive operating leverage is causing our earnings models to inflect sharply higher here. Median stock EPS growth, which had been negative for a lot of the 2022 to 2024 period is now actually turning positive. It's currently positive 6 percent now. The rolling correlation between equity returns and inflation break evens is also now significantly positive. That's classic early cycle. That's something we saw, you know, post COVID, post GFC And then lastly, just in terms of the market internals and kind of what, you know, under the surface, the equity market is telling us. So, the cyclical defensive ratio was down about 50 percent into the April lows. That's now up 50 percent from Liberation Day and is kind of breaking the downtrend that began in April of 2024. So, in addition to the earnings revisions V-shaped recovery that you mentioned, Mike. Those are a couple of other variables as well that are confirming that we're moving towards an early cycle backdrop and that the ruling recovery is commencing. Okay. So, we had the FOMC meeting. As expected the Fed delivered a 25 basis point cut. Mike, what's your read on the meeting as it relates to equities and the reaction function? Mike Wilson: Yeah, I mean this is really what we expected along with the consensus. We didn't have a different view that the Fed would give us 50. They gave us 25, and some people have characterized this as sort of a hawkish cut and very different than what we saw a year ago when the Fed kicked off that part of the rate cutting cycle with 50 basis points because they probably were worried a bit more about the labor market than they were about inflation. But you know, ultimately we think the labor data is going to get worse or the payroll data will prove to be worse because of the delay between the Doge layoffs and when those folks can file for unemployment insurance, which should be in October. And it's that delayed data that will then get the Fed cutting in earnest, which is what's necessary for the full rotation to kind of the lower quality parts of the market. So, while you're right that we've seen cyclicals perform, they haven't performed in the same way that we've seen prior cycles, like in 2020 or [20]08-[20]09, because the Fed hasn't cut. They're very far behind the curve. If you buy into our thesis that, you know, we had a rolling recession, we had an employment cycle, and they should be much more generous here. So that tension between the Fed's delay to get ahead of the curve and the market's need for speed to get there sooner and more deliberately – is where we think that, you know, we have to wait for that to occur to get the full rotation to the lower quality, kind of really cyclical parts of the market. Andrew Pauker: Okay, so let's talk about the back end of the yield curve a little bit and why that's important for stocks. In my dialogue with investors, there's a lot of focus here, just given what happened last fall when the Fed cut at the front end and the back end of the yield curve move higher. How should market participants think about this dynamic? Mike Wilson: Yeah, I mean, I think this is an unknown known, if you will, because we saw this last fall. Where the Fed cut 100 basis points and the back end of the 10-year and 30-year Treasury market sold off. That's the first time we've ever seen that in history, where the Fed cuts that aggressively and the backend moves out. And this is a function of just all the fiscal imbalances and the debt issues that we face. And this is not a new issue. So, I think it remains to be seen if the bond market is going to be comfortable with the Fed not ignoring the 2 percent target – but you know, letting it run hot. As we've said, we think ultimately, they will have to let it run hot and they will, because that's what we need to have a chance at getting out of the debt problem. And so that sort of risk is still out in the future. I have less concern about that more recently because of the way the backend of the bond market has traded. But it's something that we need to keep in the back of our mind. If yields were to go back to 4.50, which is our key level, then that would be a problem as long as we're below, you know, sort of 4.50 and we're well below that now we're close to 4, I don't think this is a problem at all. Andrew Pauker: Yeah. One of the points that our colleague in rate strategy Matt Hornbach has highlighted is that the difference between now and the fourth quarter of last year when we saw that dynamic play out was that, you know, the bond market was very focused on the uncertainty around the fiscal situation. You know, we were going into an election, there was a fair amount of uncertainty around what Trump would do from a fiscal standpoint.And now, that is a known known, you know. We have the One Big Beautiful Bill signed into law. We know what the deficit impact is, so there is more clarity for the bond market on that front. So that is one key difference now versus last fall and why we may not see the same kind of reaction in the rates market. Mike, you brought up, kind of, run it hot, which was the title of our note from a couple of weeks ago. I just wanted to get your take on why some inflation coming back is actually a positive for equities and why actually the deceleration that we've seen in inflation over the last couple years is one reason why earnings for small cap indices, for instance, have deteriorated so much. And so, for in this environment where the Fed is perhaps a bit more tolerant of inflation in 2026, why that's actually a positive for equities. Mike Wilson: This is just an underappreciated sort of factoid that we actually identified back in 2020 and [20]21 as well. That when inflation is accelerating, that's a sign that pricing power is pretty good. And we actually see broader earnings. In fact, the best year for earnings, not just small caps, but the – call it the equal weighted S&P 500 was 2021. And that was the year where obviously inflation was really getting out of control. That was just pure profit for a lot of these businesses. And so – earnings will be better. Our call over the next 12 months is not about multiples or the Fed so much, but that we think earnings are going to end up being better than people expect because (a) we've been through this three-year earnings recession. There's a ton of pent-up demand. Okay? And now inflation is reaccelerating as demand comes back. And that is actually going to fall to the bottom line. So not only is that good for stocks, okay, but it's actually, it's also why the equity risk premium can be lower. Because if you want to hedge that risk of inflation moving higher, well then you should be willing to accept a lower equity risk premium relative to what is actually a pretty good base rate for 10-year yields, close to 2 percent on a real basis. So, you know, that's why the equity risk premium can stay low and why stocks can accrue at a, you know, pretty high PE multiple as these earnings come through better than expected. And one of the reasons is that inflation actually is accelerating in some of these areas where it's been deflationary. Andrew Pauker: Lastly, Mike, you know, you brought this up briefly. I want to address rotations under the surface of the market. We took off our large cap buys a few weeks ago, and as you mentioned, kind of signaled our intention – to get more constructive on small caps later this year in the fourth quarter. Can you specifically kind of walk through the signpost that we're waiting for before pressing the long, small cap trade here? Mike Wilson: Yeah, I mean, we've probably… This is probably one of the areas we've done a really good job of just, you know, staying away from the fray. Meaning that, you know, we've been underweight small caps for really four years, and they've underperformed that entire time. I think the thing that we've been really patient about is just waiting for the Fed to lower rates to a level that's more conducive for these businesses that (a) need to obviously recap themselves, but then the cost of capital is just too high. So that's number one. But , at the end of the day, I mean, that should translate into better earnings revisions and that also has lagged. So, it's a combination of the two. The Fed getting ahead of the curve, which I would define as fed funds at least equal to two-year Treasury yields, but hopefully below two-year Treasury yields. Right now, we're about 60-65 basis points still above two-year yields . And then the second one is this ‘earnings your vision breadth on a relative basis. Small over large. It is trying to turn up now. It's been in a straight downtrend really for the last, you know, four years. And so those two together will affect a more robust relative outperformance. And just to be clear, small caps have done really well since Liberation Day, okay. So, in absolute terms, it's been great. It's just the relative trade has not really worked yet. That's where we're going to leave this conversation. Thanks for speaking with me, Andrew, to explain some of the thinking behind our calls. To our listeners, thanks for tuning in. I hope you found it informative and useful, and let us know what you think by leaving us a review. If you think Thoughts on the Market is worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out.

With this week's announcement of a rate cut and further cuts in the offing, the Fed seems willing to let the U.S. economy run a little hot. Our Head of Corporate Credit explain why this could give an unexpected boost to the European bond market. 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 – a Fed that looks willing to let the economy run hot, and why this could help the case for credit overseas. It's Friday, September 19th at 2pm in London. Earlier this week, the Federal Reserve lowered its target rate by a quarter of a percent, and signaled more cuts are on the way. Yet as my colleagues Michael Gapen and Matt Hornbach discussed on this program yesterday, this story is far from straightforward. The Fed is lowering interest rates to support the economy despite currently low unemployment and elevated inflation. The justification for this in the Fed's view is a risk that the job market may be set to weaken going forward. And so, it's better to err on the side of providing more support now; even if that support raises the chances that inflation could stay somewhat higher for somewhat longer. Indeed, the Fed's own economic projections bear out this willingness to err on the side of letting the economy run a bit hot. Relative to where they were previously, the Fed's latest assessment sees future economic growth higher, inflation higher, and unemployment lower. And yet, in spite of all this, they also see themselves lowering interest rates faster. If the labor market is really set to weaken – and soon – the Fed's shift to provide more near-term support is going to be more than justified. But if growth holds up, well, just think of the backdrop. At present, we have bank loan growth accelerating, inflation that's elevated, government borrowing that's large, stock valuations near 30-year highs, and credit spreads near 30-year lows. And now the Fed's going to lower interest rates in quick succession? That seems like a recipe for things to heat up pretty quickly. It's also notable that the Fed's strategy is not necessarily shared by its cross-Atlantic peers. Both the United Kingdom and the Euro area also face slowing labor markets and above target inflation. But their central banks are proceeding a lot more cautiously and are keeping rates on hold, at least for the time being. A Fed that's more tolerant of inflation is bad for the U.S. dollar in our view, and my colleagues expect it to weaken substantially against the euro, the pound, and the yen over the next 12 months. And for credit, an asset that likes moderation, a U.S. economy increasingly poised between scenarios that look either too hot or too cold is problematic. So, just maybe we can put the two together. What if a U.S. investor simply buys a European bond? The European market would seem less inclined to these greater risks of conditions being too hot or too cold. It gives exposure to currencies backed by central banks that are proceeding more cautiously when faced with inflation. With roughly 3 percent yields on European investment grade bonds, and Morgan Stanley's forecast that the euro will rise about 7 percent versus the dollar over the next year, this seemingly sleeping market has a chance to produce dollar equivalent returns of close to 10 percent. For U.S. investors, just make sure to keep the currency exposure unhedged. Thank you as always for listening. If you find Thoughts to the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

On Wednesday, the Fed announced its first rate cut in nine months. While the reduction was widely expected, our Global Head of Macro Strategy Matthew Hornbach and Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen explain the data that markets and the Fed are watching.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: Our topic today is the Fed's first quarter percent rate cut in 2025. We're here to discuss the implications and the path forward. It's Thursday, September 18th at 10am in New York. So, Mike, the Fed concluded its meeting on Wednesday. What was the high-level takeaway from your perspective?Michael Gapen: So, I think there's two main points here. There's certainly more that we can discuss, but two main takeaways for me are obviously the Fed is moving because it sees downside risk in the labor market.So, the August employment data revealed that the hiring rate took a large step down and stayed down, right. And the Fed is saying – it's a curious balance in the labor market. We're not quite sure how to assess it, but when employment growth slows this much, we think we need to take notice.So, they're adjusting their view. We'll call it risk management 'cause that's what Powell said. And saying there's more risk of worse outcomes in the labor market, keeping a restricted policy stance is inappropriate, we should cut. So that's part one. I think he previewed all of that in Jackson Hole. So, it was largely the same, but it's important to know why the Fed's cutting. The second thing that was interesting to me is as much as he, Powell in this case, tried to avoid the idea that we're on a preset path. That, you know, policy is always data dependent and it's always the meeting-to-meeting decision – we know that. But it does feel like if you're recalibrating your policy stance because you see more downside risk to the labor market, they're not prepared to just do once and go, ‘Well, maybe; maybe we'll go again; maybe we won't.' The dot plots clearly indicate a series of moves here. And when pressed on, well, what's a 25 basis point rate cut going to do to help the labor market, Powell responded by, well, nothing. 25 basis points won't really affect the macro outcome, but it's the path that that matters. So, I do think; and I use the word recalibration; Powell didn't want to use that. I do think we're in for a series of cuts here. The median dot would say three, but maybe two; two to three, 75 basis points by year end. And then we'll see how the world evolves. Matthew Hornbach: So, speaking of the summary of economic projections, what struck you as being interesting about the set of projections that we got on Wednesday? And how does the Fed's idea of the path into 2026 differ from yours?Michael Gapen: Yeah. Well, it was a lot about downside risk to the labor market. But what did they do? They revised up growth. They have the unemployment rate path lower in the outer years of their forecast than they did before, so they didn't revise down this year. But they revised down subsequent years, and they revised inflation higher in 2026. That may seem at odds with what they're doing with the policy rate currently.But my interpretation of that is, you know, the main point to your question is – they're more tolerant of inflation as the cost or the byproduct of needing to lower rates to support the labor market. So, if this all works, the outlook is a little stronger from the Fed's perspective. And so, what's key to me is that they are… You know, the median of the forecast, to the extent that they align in a coherent message, are saying, we're going to have to pay a price for this in the form of stronger inflation next year to support the labor market this year. So that means in their forecast – cuts this year, but fewer cuts in 2026 and [20]27. And how that differs from our forecast is we're not quite as optimistic on the Fed, as the Fed is on the economy. We do think the labor market weakens a little bit further into 2026. So, you get four consecutive rate cuts upfront, again, inclusive of the one we got on Wednesday. And then you get two additional cuts by the middle of 2026. So, we're not quite as optimistic. We think the labor market's a little softer. And we think the Fed will have to get closer to neutral, right? Powell said we're moving “in the direction of neutral.” So, he's not committing to go all the way to neutral. And we're just saying we think the Fed ultimately will have to do that, although they're not prepared to communicate that now.Matthew Hornbach: One of the things that struck me as interesting about the summary of economic projections was the unemployment rate projection for the end of this year. So, the way that the Fed delivers these projections is they give you a number on the unemployment rate that represents the average unemployment rate in the fourth quarter of the specified year. And in this case, the median FOMC participant is projecting that the unemployment rate will average 4.5 percent. And that's what we're forecasting as well, I believe. And so, what struck me as interesting is that with an average unemployment rate of 4.5 percent in the fourth quarter of the year, which is up about 0.2 percent from today's unemployment rate of 4.3 – the Fed is only projecting one additional rate cut in 2026. And I'm curious, do you think that if we in fact get to the end of this year, and it looks like the unemployment rate has averaged about 4.5 percent – do you expect the Fed to continue to forecast only one rate cut in 2026?Michael Gapen: Yeah, I think that's… Um. The short answer is no. I think that's a challenging position to be in. And by that, I mean, in addition to that unemployment rate forecast where it's 4.5 percent for the average of the fourth quarter, which could mean December's as high as 4.6; we don't know what their monthly forecast is.But that would mean the unemployment rate's risen about a half a percentage point from its lows a few months ago. And they have inflation rising to 3 percent. Core PCE is already 2.9. So, inflation is about where it is today; [it's] a touch firmer. But the unemployment rate has moved higher. And so, what I would say is they haven't seen a lot of evidence by December that inflation's coming back down, and the labor market has stabilized.So, this is why we think they will be more likely to get to a neutral-ish or something closer to neutral in 2026 than they're prepared to communicate now. So, I think that's a good point. So, Matt, if I could turn it back to you, I would just like first to ask you about the general market reaction. The 25 basis point cut was universally expected. So really all the potentially new news was then about the forward path from here. So how did markets reply to this? Yields did initially sell off a bit, but they generally came back. What's your assessment of how the market took the decision?Matthew Hornbach: Yeah, so the initial five, 10 minutes after the statement and summary of economic projections is released, everybody's digesting all of the new information. And generally speaking, investors tend to see what they want to see initially in all of the materials. So initially we had yields coming down a bit, the yield curve steepened a bit. But then about half an hour later, it became clear – just right before the press conference had started; it became clear to people that actually this delivery in the documentation was a bit more moderate in terms of the forward look. That it was a fairly balanced assessment of where things are and where things may be heading.And that in the end, the Fed, while it does want to bring interest rates lower, at least in the modal case, that it is still not particularly concerned about downside risks to activity, I should say, than it is concerned about upside risks to inflation. It very much seems a balanced assessment of the risks. And I think as a result, the market balanced out its initial euphoria about lower rates with a moderation of that view. So, interest rates ended up moving slightly higher towards the end of the day. But then, the next day they came back a bit. So, I think, it was a bit more of a steady as they go assessment from markets in the end.Michael Gapen: And do you see markets as maybe changing their views on whether you know, it is a recalibration in the stance, therefore we should expect consecutive cuts? Or is the market now thinking, ‘Hey, maybe it is meeting by meeting.' And what about the Fed's forecast of its terminal rate versus the market's forecast of the terminal rate. So, what happened there?Matthew Hornbach: Indeed. Yeah. So, in terms of how market prices are incorporating the idea that the Fed may cut at consecutive meetings through the end of the year, I think markets are generally priced for an outcome about in line with that idea. But of course, markets, and investors who trade markets, have to take into consideration the upcoming dataset and with the Fed so data dependent; so, meeting by meeting in terms of their decisions – it could certainly be the case that the next employment report and/or the next inflation report could dissuade the committee from lowering rates again, at the end of October when the Fed next meets. So, I think the markets are, as you can expect, not going to fully price in everything that the Fed is suggesting. Both because the Fed may not end up delivering what it is suggesting; it might, or it may deliver more. So, the markets are clearly going to be data dependent as well. In terms of how the market is pricing the trough policy rate for the Fed – it does expect that the Fed will take its policy rate below where the summary of economic projections is suggesting. But that market pricing is more representative I think of a risk premium to the expectations of investors, which generally are in line or end up moving in line with the summary of economic projections over time. So, given that the Fed has changed the economic projections and the forecast for policy rates, investors probably also end up shifting a bit in terms of their own expectations. So, with that, Mike, I will bid you adieu until we speak again next time – around the time of the October FOMC meeting. So, thanks for taking the time to talk.Michael Gapen: Great speaking with you, Matt,Matthew Hornbach: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Original Release Date: August 21, 2025From China's rapid electric vehicle adoption to the rise of robotaxis, humanoids, and flying vehicles, our analysts Adam Jonas and Tim Hsiao discuss how AI is revolutionizing the global auto industry.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript ----- Adam Jonas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Adam Jonas. I lead Morgan Stanley's Research Department's efforts on embodied AI and humanoid robots. Tim Hsiao: And I'm Tim Hsiao, Greater China Auto Analyst. Adam Jonas: Today – how the global auto industry is evolving from horsepower to brainpower with the help of AI. It's Thursday, August 21st at 9am in New York. Tim Hsiao: And 9pm in Hong Kong. Adam Jonas: From Detroit to Stuttgart to Shanghai, automakers are making big investments in AI. In fact, AI is the engine behind what we think will be a $200 billion self-driving vehicle market by 2030. Tim, you believe that nearly 30 percent of vehicles sold globally by 2030 will be equipped with Level 2+ smart driving features that can control steering, acceleration, braking, and even some hands-off driving. We expect China to account for 60 percent of these vehicles by 2030. What's driving this rapid adoption in China and how does it compare to the rest of the world? Tim Hsiao: China has the largest EV market globally, and the country's EV sales are not only making up over 50 percent of the new car sales locally in China but also accounting for over 50 percent of the global EV sales. As a result, the market is experiencing intense competition. And the car makers are keen to differentiate with the technological innovation, to which smart driving serve[s] as the most effective means. This together with the AI breakthrough enables China to aggressively roll out Level 2+ urban navigation on autopilot. In the meantime, Chinese government support, and cost competitive supply chains also helps. So, we are looking for China's the adoption of Level 2+ smart driving on passenger vehicle to reach 25 percent by end of this year, and 60 percent by 2030 versus 6 percent and 17 percent for the rest of the world during the same period. Adam Jonas: How is China balancing an aggressive rollout with safety and compliance, especially as it moves towards even greater vehicle automation going forward? Tim Hsiao: Right. That's a great and a relevant question because over the years, China has made significant strides in developing a comprehensive regulatory framework for autonomous vehicles. For example, China was already implementing its strategies for innovation and the development of autonomous vehicles in 2022 and had proved several auto OEM to roll out Level 3 pilot programs in 2023. Although China has been implementing stricter requirements since early this year; for example, banning terms like autonomous driving in advertisement and requiring stricter testing, we still believe more detailed industry standard and regulatory measures will facilitate development and adoption of Level 2+ Smart driving. And this is important to prevent, you know, the bad money from driving out goods. Adam Jonas: One way people might encounter this technology is through robotaxis. Now, robotaxis are gaining traction in China's major cities, as you've been reporting. What's the outlook for Level 4 adoption and how would this reshape urban mobility? Tim Hsiao: The size of Level 4+ robotaxi fleet stays small at the moment in China, with less than 1 percent penetration rate. But we've started seeing accelerating roll out of robotaxi operation in major cities since early this year. So, by 2030, we are looking for Level 4+ robotaxis to account for 8 percent of China's total taxi and ride sharing fleet size by 2030. So, this adoption is facilitated by robust regulatory frameworks, including designated test zones and the clear safety guidance. We believe the proliferation of a Level 4 robotaxi will eventually reshape the urban mobility by meaningfully reducing transportation costs, alleviating traffic congestion through optimized routing and potentially reducing accidents. So, Adam, that's the outlook for China. But looking at the global trends beyond China, what are the biggest global revenue opportunities in your view? Is that going to be hardware, software, or something else? Adam Jonas: We are entering a new scientific era where the AI world, the software world is coming into far greater mental contact, and physical contact, with the hardware world and the physical world of manufacturing. And it's being driven by corporate rivalry amongst not just the terra cap, you know, super large cap companies, but also between public and private companies and competition. And then it's being also fueled by geopolitical rivalry and social issues as well, on a global scale. So, we're actually creating an entirely new species. This robotic species that yes, is expressed in many ways on our roads in China and globally – but it's just the beginning. In terms of whether it's hardware, software, or something else – it's all the above. What we've done with a across 40 sectors at Morgan Stanley is to divide the robot, whether it flies, drives, walks, crawls, whatever – we divide it into the brain and the body. And the brain can be divided into sensors and memory and compute and foundational models and simulation. The body can be broken up into actuators, the kind of motor neuron capability, the connective tissue, the batteries. And then there's integrators, that kind of do it all – the hardware, the software, the integration, the training, the data, the compute, the energy, the infrastructure. And so, what's so exciting about this opportunity for our clients is there's no one way to do it. There's no one region to do it. So, stick with us folks. There's a lot of – not just revenue opportunities – but alpha-generating opportunities as well. Tim Hsiao: We are seeing OEMs pivot from cars to humanoids and the electric vertical takeoff in the landing vehicles or EVOTL. Our listeners may have seen videos of these vehicles, which are like helicopters and are designed for urban air mobility. How realistic is this transition and what's the timeline for commercialization in your view? Adam Jonas: Anything that can be electrified will be electrified. Anything that can be automated will be automated. And the advancement of the state of the art in robotaxis and Level 2, Level 3, Level 4+ autonomy is directly transferrable to aviation. There's obviously different regulatory and safety aspects of aviation, the air traffic control and the FAA and the equivalent regulatory bodies in Europe and in China that we will have to navigate, pun intended. But we will get there. We will get there ultimately because taking these technologies of automation and electronic and software defined technology into the low altitude economy will be a superior experience and a vastly cheaper experience. Point to point, on a per person, per passenger, per ton, per mile basis. So the Wright brothers can finally get excited that their invention from 1903, quite a long time ago, could finally, really change how humans live and move around the surface of the earth; even beyond, few tens of thousands of commercial and private aircraft that exist today. Tim Hsiao: The other key questions or key focus for investors is about the business model. So, until now, the auto industry has centered on the car ownership model. But with this new technology, we've been hearing a new model, as you just mentioned, the shared mobility and the autonomous driving fleet. Experts say it could be major disruptor in this sector. So, what's your take on how this will evolve in developed and emerging markets? Adam Jonas: Well, we think when you take autonomous and shared and electric mobility all the way – that transportation starts to resemble a utility like electricity or water or telecom; where the incremental mile traveled is maybe not quite free, but very, very, very low cost. Maybe only; the marginal cost of the mile traveled may only just be the energy required to deliver that mile, whether it's a renewable or non-renewable energy source. And the relationship with a car will change a lot. Individual vehicle ownership may go the way of horse ownership. There will be some, but it'll be seen as a nostalgic privilege, if you will, to own our own car. Others would say, I don't want to own my own car. This is crazy. Why would anyone want to do that? So, it's going to really transform the business model. It will, I think, change the structure of the industry in terms of the number of participants and what they do. Not everybody will win. Some of the existing players can win. But they might have to make some uncomfortable trade-offs for survival. And for others, the car – let's say terrestrial vehicle modality may just be a small part of a broader robotics and then physical embodiment of AI that they're propagating; where auto will just be a really, really just one tendril of many, many dozens of different tendrils. So again, it's beginning now. This process will take decades to play out. But investors with even, you know, two-to-three or three-to-five-year view can take steps today to adjust their portfolios and position themselves. Tim Hsiao: The other key focus of the investor over the market would definitely be the geopolitical dynamics. So, Morgan Stanley expects to see a lot of what you call coopetition between global OEMs and the Chinese suppliers. What do you mean by coopetition and how do you see this dynamic playing out, especially in terms of the tech deflation? Adam Jonas: In order to reduce the United States dependency on China, we need to work with China. So, there's the irony here. Look, in my former life of being an auto analyst, every auto CEO I speak to does not believe that tariffs will limit Chinese involvement in the global auto industry, including onshore in the United States. Many are actively seeking to work with the Chinese through various structures to give them an on-ramp to move onshore to produce their, in many cases, superior products, but in U.S. factories on U.S. shores with American workers. That might lead to some, again, trade-offs. But our view within Morgan Stanley and working with you is we do think that there are on-ramps for Chinese hardware, Chinese knowhow, and Chinese electrical vehicle architecture, but while still being sensitive to the dual-purpose AI sensitivities around software and the AI networks that, for national security reasons, nations want to have more control over. And I actually am hopeful and seeing some signs already that that's going to happen and play out over the next six to 12 months. Tim Hsiao: I would say it's clear that the road ahead isn't just smarter; it's faster, more connected, and increasingly autonomous. Adam Jonas: That's correct, Tim. I could not agree more. Thanks for joining me on the show today. Tim Hsiao: Thanks, Adam. Always a pleasure. Adam Jonas: And to our listeners, thanks for listening. Until next time, stay human and keep driving forward. 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 Michelle Weaver and Adam Jonas join analyst Christopher Snyder to discuss the most important themes that emerged from the Morgan Stanley Annual Industrials Conference in Laguna Beach.Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Thematic Strategist.Christopher Snyder: I'm Chris Snyder, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Multi-Industry Analyst. Adam Jonas: And I'm Adam Jonas, Morgan Stanley's Embodied AI Strategist.Michelle Weaver: We recently concluded Morgan Stanley's annual industrials conference in Laguna Beach, California, and wanted to share some of the biggest takeaways.It's Tuesday, September 16th at 10am in New York.I want to set the stage for our conversation. The overall tone at the conference was fairly similar to last year with many companies waiting for a broader pickup. And I'd flag three different themes that really emerged from the conference. So first, AI. AI is incredibly important. It appeared in the vast majority of fireside conversations. And companies were talking about AI from both the adopter and the enabler angle. Second theme on the macro, overall companies remain in search of a reacceleration. They pointed to consistently expansionary PMIs or a PMI above 50, a more favorable interest rate environment and greater clarity on tariffs as the key macro conditions for renewed momentum. And then the last thing that came up repeatedly was how are companies going to react to tariffs? And I would say companies overall were fairly constructive on their ability to mitigate the margin impact of tariffs with many talking about both leveraging pricing power and supply chain shifts to offset those impacts. So, Chris, considering all this, the wait for an inflection came up across a number of companies. What were some of your key takeaways on multis, on the macro front? Christopher Snyder: The commentary was stable to modestly improving, and that was really consistent across all of these companies. There are, you know, specific verticals where things are getting better. I would call out data center as one. Non-res construction, as another one, implant manufacturing as one. And there were certain categories where we are seeing deterioration – residential HVAC, energy markets, and agriculture.But we came away more constructive on the cycle because things are stable, if not modestly improving into a rate cut cycle. The concern going in was that we would hear about deteriorating trends and a rate cut would be needed just to stabilize the market. So, we do think that this backdrop is supportive for better industrial growth into 2026.We have been positive on the project or CapEx side of the house. It feels like strength there is improving. We've been more cautious on the short cycle production side of the house. But we are starting to see signs of rate of change. So, when we look into [20]26 and [20]27, we think U.S. industrials are poised for decade high growth. Michelle Weaver: You've had a thesis for a while now that U.S. reshoring is going to be incredibly important and that it's a $10 trillion opportunity. Can you unpack that number? What are some recent data points supporting that and what did you learn at the conference? Christopher Snyder: Some of the recent data points that support this view is U.S. manufacturing construction starts are up 3x post Liberation Day. So, we're seeing companies invest. This is also coming through in commercial industrial lending data, which continues to push higher almost every week and is currently at now record high levels. So, there's a lot of reasons for companies not to invest right now. There's a lot of uncertainty around policy. But seeing that willingness to invest through all of the uncertainty is a big positive because as that uncertainty lifts, we think more projects will come off the sidelines and be unlocked. So, we see positive rate of change on that. What I think is often lost in the reassuring conversation is that this has been happening for the last five years. The U.S. lost share of global CapEx from 2000 when China entered the World Trade Organization almost every year till 2019 when Trump implemented his first wave of tariffs. Since then, the U.S. has taken about 300 basis points of global CapEx share over the last five years, and that's a lot on a $30 trillion CapEx base. So, I think the debate here should be: Can this continue? And when I look at Trump policy, both the tariffs making imports more expensive, but also the incentives lowering the cost of domestic production – we do think these trends are stable. And I always want to stress that this is a game of increments. It's not that the U.S. is going to get every factory. But we simply believe the U.S. is better positioned to get the incremental factory over the next 20 years relative to the prior 20. And the best point is that the baseline growth here is effectively zero. Michelle Weaver: And how does power play into the reshoring story? AI and data centers are generating huge demand for power that well outstrip supply. Is there a risk that companies that want to reshore are not able to do so because of the power constraints?Christopher Snyder: It's a great question. I think it's part of the reason that this is moving more slowly. The companies that sell this power equipment tend to prioritize the data center customers given their scale in magnitude of buying. But ultimately, we think this is coming and it's a big opportunity for U.S. power to extend the upcycle.Manufacturing accounts for 26 percent of the electricity in the country. Data center accounts for about 5 percent. So, if the industrial economy returns to growth, there will be a huge pull on the grid; and I view it as a competitive advantage. If you think about the future of U.S. manufacturing, we're simply taking labor out and replacing it with electricity. That is a phenomenal trade off for the U.S. And a not as positive trade off for a lot of low-cost regions who essentially export labor to the world. I'm sure Adam will have more to say about that. Michelle Weaver: And Adam, I want to bring robotics and humanoid specifically into this conversation as the U.S.' technological edge is a big part of the reshoring story. So how do humanoids fit into reshoring? How much would they cost to use and how could they make American manufacturing more attractive? Adam Jonas: Humanoid robots – we're talking age agentic robots that make decisions from themselves autonomously due to the dual purpose in the military. You know, dual purpose aspect of it makes it absolutely necessary to onshore the technologies.At the same time, humanoid robots actually make it possible to onshore those technologies. Meaning you need; we're not going to be able to replicate manufacturing and onshore manufacturing the way it's currently done in China with their environmental practices and their labor – availability of affordable cheap human labor.Autonomous robots are both the cause of onshoring. And the effect of onshoring at the same time, and it's going to transform every industry. The question isn't so much as which industry will autonomous robots, including humanoids impact? It's what will it not.And we have not yet been able to find anything that it would. When you think about cost to use – we think by 2040 we get to a point where to Chris's point, the marginal cost of work will be some factor of electricity, energy, and some depreciation of that physical plant, or the physical robot itself. And we come up with a, a range of scenarios where centered on around $5 per hour. If that can replace two human workers at $25 an hour, that can NPV to around $200,000 of NPV per humanoid. That's discounting back 15 years from 2040.Michelle, there's 160 million people in the U.S. labor market, so if you just substituted 1 percent of that or 1.6 million people out of the U.S. Labor pool. 1.6 million times $200,000 NPV; that's $320 billion of value, which is worth, well, quite a lot. Quite a lot of money to a lot of companies that are working on this. So, when we get asked, what are we watching, well, in terms of the bleeding edge of the robot revolution, we're watching the Sino-U.S. competition. And I prefer to call it competition. And we're also watching the terra cap companies, the Mag 7 type companies that are quite suddenly and recently and very, very significantly going after physical AI and robotics talent. And increasingly even manufacturing talent. So again, to circle back to Chris's point, if you want evidence of reshoring and manufacturing and advanced manufacturing in this country, look at some of these TMT and tech and AI companies in California. And look at, go on their hiring website and watch all the manufacturing and robotics people that they're trying to hire; and pay a lot of money to do so. And that might be an interesting indicator of where we're going.Michelle Weaver: I want to dig in a little bit more there. We're seeing a lot of the cutting-edge tech coming out of China. Is the U.S. going to be able to catch up?Adam Jonas: Uh, I don't know. I don't know. But I would say what's our alternative. We either catch up enough to compete or we're up for grabs. OK?I would say from our reading and working closely with our team in China, that in many aspects of supply chain, manufacturing, physical AI, China is ahead. And with the passage of time, they are increasingly ahead. We estimate, and we can't be precise here, that China's lead on the U.S. would not only last three to five years, but might even widen three to five years from now. May even widen at an accelerating rate three to five years from now.And so, it brings into play is what kind of environment and what kind of regulatory, and policy decisions we made to help kind of level the playing field and encourage the right kind of manufacturing. We don't want to encourage trailing edge, Victorian era manufacturing in the U.S. We want to encourage, you know, to skate to where the puck is going technology that can help improve our world and create a sustainable abundance rather than an unsustainable one. And so, we're watching China very, very closely. It makes us a little bit; makes me a little bit kind of nervous when we – if we see the government put the thumb on the scale too much.But it's invariably going to happen. You're going to have increased involvement of whichever administration it is in order to kind of set policies that can encourage innovation, education of our young people, repurposing of labor, you know. All these people making machines in this country now. They might get, there may be a displacement over a number of years, if not a generation.But we need those human bodies to do other things in this economy as well. So, we; I don't want to give the impression at all in our scenarios that we don't need people anymore. Michelle Weaver: What are the opportunities and the risks that you see for investors as robotics converges with this broader U.S. manufacturing story? Adam Jonas: Well, Michelle, we see both opportunities and risks. There are the opportunities that you can measure in terms of what portion of global GDP of [$]115 trillion could you look at. I mean, labor alone is $40 trillion.And if you really make humanoid that can do the work of two workers, guess what? You're not going to stop at [$]40 trillion. You're going to go beyond that. You might go multiple beyond that. Talking about the world before AI, robotics and humanoid is like talking about the world before electricity. Or talking about business before the internet. We don't think we're exaggerating, but the proof will be in the capital formation. And that's where we hope we can be of assistance to our clients working together on a variety of investment ideas. But the risks will come and it is our professional responsibility, if not our moral responsibility, to work with our partners across research to talk about those risks. Michelle, if we have labor displacement, go too quickly, there's serious problems. And if you don't, if you don't believe me, go look at, look at you know, the French Revolution or the Industrial Revolution, or Age of Enlightenments. Ages of scientific enlightenment frequently cohabitate times of great social and political turmoil as well. And so, we think that these risks must be seen in parallel if we want to bring forth technologies that can make us more human rather than less human. I'm sorry if I'm coming across as a little preachy, but if you studied robots and labor all day long, it does have that effect on you. So, Michelle, how do you see innovation priorities changing for industrials and investors in this environment?Michelle Weaver: I think it's huge as we're seeing AI and technology broadly diffuse across different segments of the market, it's only becoming more important. About two-thirds of companies at the conference mentioned AI in some way, shape, or form. We know that from transcripts. And we're seeing them continue to integrate AI into their businesses. They're trying to go beyond what we've just seen at the initial edge. So, for example, if I think about what was going on within AI adoption a couple years ago, it was largely adding a chat bot to your website that's then able to handle a lot of customer service inquiries. Maybe you could reduce the labor there a little bit. Now we're starting to see a lot more business specific use cases. So, for example, with an airline, an airline company is using AI to most optimally gate different planes as they're landing to try and reduce connection times. They know which staff needs to go to another flight to connect, which passengers need to move to another flight. They're able to do that much more efficiently. You're seeing a lot on AI being adopted within manufacturing to make manufacturing processes a lot more seamless. So, I think innovation is only going to continue to become more important to not only industrials, but broadly the entire market as well.Clearly the industry is being shaped by adaptability, collaboration, and a focus on innovation. So, Chris, Adam, thank you both for taking the time to talk. Adam Jonas: Always a pleasure. Michelle.Christopher Snyder: Thank you for having us on. Michelle Weaver: And to our listeners, thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen to the show and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

For investors looking to make sense of housing-related assets amidst changes in Fed policy stance, our co-heads of Securitized Product Research Jay Bacow and James Egan offer their perspective on mortgage rates and the market.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript ----- James Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley.Jay Bacow: I'm Jay Bacow, the other co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley.Today we're talking about the Fed, mortgage rates and the implications to the housing market.It's Monday, September 15th at 11:30am in New York.Now Jim, the Fed is meeting on Wednesday, and both our economists and the market are expecting them to cut rates in this meeting – and continue to cut rates at least probably two more times in 2025, and multiple times in 2026. We've talked a lot about the challenges and the affordability in the U.S. homeowners' market, in the U.S. mortgage market.Before we get into what this could help [with] the affordability challenges, how bad is that affordability right now?James Egan: Sure. And as we've discussed on this podcast in the past, one of the biggest issues with the affordability challenges in the U.S. housing market specifically is how it's fed through to supply issues as the lock-in effect has kept homeowners with low 30-year mortgage rates from listing their homes.But just how locked in does the market remain today? The effective rate on the outstanding mortgage market, kind of the average of the mortgages outstanding, is below 4.25 percent. The prevailing rate for 30-year mortgages today is still over 6.25 percent, so we're talking about two full percentage points, 200 basis points outta the money.Jay Bacow: And that seems like a lot. Has it been that way in the past?James Egan: If we look at roughly 40 years of data ending in 2022, the market was only 100 basis points outta the money for eight individual quarters. The most it was ever out of the money was 135 basis points. We have now been more than 200 basis points out of the the money for three entire years, 12 consecutive quarters. So, this is very unprecedented in the past several decades.But Jay, our economists are calling for Fed cuts, the market's pricing in Fed cuts. How much lower is the mortgage rate going for these affordability equations?Jay Bacow: We actually don't think that the Fed cutting rates necessarily is going to cause the mortgage rate to come down at all. And one way we can think about this is if we look at it, the Fed has already cut rates 100 basis points over the past year, and since the Fed has cut rates 100 basis points in the past year, the mortgage rate is 25 basis points higher.James Egan: Okay, so if I'm not going to be looking at Fed funds for the path of mortgage rates going forward, I have two questions for you.One, what part of the Treasury term structure should I be looking at? And two, you talked about the market pricing in Fed cuts from here. What is the market saying about where those rates will be in the future?Jay Bacow: So, mortgage rates are much more sensitive to the belly of the Treasury curve. Call it the 5- and 10-year portions than Fed funds. They have a little bit of sensitivity to the third year note as well. And when we think about what the market is expecting those portions of the Treasury curve to do, I apologize, I'm going to have to nerd out. Fortunately, being a nerd comes very naturally to me.If you look at the spread between the 5- and the 10-year portion of the treasury curve, 10 years yield about 50 basis points more than the 5-year note. So, you think about it, an investor could buy a 10-year note now. Or they could buy a 5-year note now and then another 5-year note in five years, and they should expect to get the same return if they do either one.So, if they buy the 10-year note right now at 50 basis points above where the 5-year note is. Or they buy the 5-year note, right now, the 5-year note in five years would have to yield 100 basis points above to get the average to be the same. Well, if the 5-year note in five years is 100 basis points above where the 5-year note is right now, mortgage rates are also probably going to be higher in five years.James Egan: Okay, so that's not helping the affordability issues. What can be done to lower mortgage rates from here?Jay Bacow: Well, going back to my inner nerd, if you brought the 5- and 10-year Treasury yields down, that would certainly be helpful. But mortgage rates aren't just predicated on where the Treasury yields are.There's also a risk premium on top of that. And so, if the mortgage originators can sell those loans to other investors at a tighter spread, that would also help bring the rate down. And there are things that can be done on that front. So, for instance, if the capital requirements for investors to own those mortgages go down, that would certainly be helpful.You could try to incentivize investors in a number of different ways, that's one front. But in reality, a lot of these fees are already sort of stuck in place. So, there's only so much that can be done.Now, Jim, let's suppose. I am wrong. I've been wrong in the past. A lot of times with you. I thought the Patriots were gonna beat the Giants in both Super Bowls. Somehow Eli Manning proved me wrong.However, if the mortgage rate does come down, how much does it have to come down for housing activity to start picking up?James Egan: So, this is a question we get asked roughly six to seven times a day…Jay Bacow: How did Eli Manning beat the Patriots?James Egan: How far mortgage rates have to come down in order to really get housing sales started again. And because of the backdrop of today's housing and mortgage markets that we laid out at the top of this podcast, it's really difficult to empirically point to a mortgage rate and calculate this is where rates have to fall to.So, what we have been doing instead is looking at historic periods of affordability improvement, and seeing how much do we need to get that affordability ratio down to get a sustainable growth in sales volumes from here.Jay Bacow: All right. And how much do we have to get that affordability ratio down?James Egan: So, a sustainable increase; historically, we've needed about a 10 percent improvement in the affordability ratio…Jay Bacow: Alright, help me out here. I think about mortgage payments as more of a function of the rate level. So, if we're in the context of like 6.25, 6.5 right now, how far does the mortgage rate need to drop to get a 10 percent improvement? Assuming that there's no change in borrower's income or home prices.James Egan: In that world, we think you need about 100 basis point move. It would take the 30-year mortgage rate to call it, 5.5 percent.Jay Bacow: All right, so if mortgage rates go to 5.5 percent, then we're going to immediately see housing activity pickup.James Egan: That is not exactly what we're saying. What we've seen is the 10 percent improvement is enough to get sustainable growth in sales volumes. A year after you start to see that real improvement, the contemporaneous moves can be up, they can be down. Given what our economists are saying for the labor market going forward, what they're saying for growth in the United States, we do think you can see a little bit of contemporaneous growth.If you start to see that 100 basis point move in mortgage rates now, we think you'll get about a 5 percent increase in purchase volumes as we move through 2026 with the potential for upward inflection in 2027 from that 5 percent growth number – again, if we get that move in mortgage rates.Jay Bacow: Alright, so we expect the Fed to cut rates about 150 basis points over the next year and a half. It doesn't necessarily have to bring the mortgage rate down. But if the mortgage rate does go down to in the context of 5.5 percent, we should start to get a pickup in housing activity maybe the year after that.Jim, always a pleasure talking to you.James Egan: Pleasure talking to you too, Jay. And to all of you regularly hearing us out, thank you for listening to another episode of Thoughts on the Market.Jay Bacow: Please leave us a review or a like wherever you get this podcast and share your Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.James Egan: Go smash that subscribe button.

Online crime is accelerating, making cybersecurity a fast-growing and resilient investment opportunity. Our Cybersecurity and Network and Equipment analyst Meta Marshall discusses the key trends driving this market shift.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Meta Marshall, Morgan Stanley's Cybersecurity and Network and Equipment Analyst. Today – the future of digital defense against cybercrime. It's Friday, September 12th, at 10am in New York.Imagine waking up to find your bank account drained, your business operations frozen, or your personal data exposed – all because of a cyberattack. Today, cybersecurity isn't an esoteric tech issue. It impacts all of us, both as consumers and investors. As the digital landscape grows increasingly complex, the scale and severity of cybercrime expand in tandem. This means that even as companies spend more, the risks are multiplying even faster. For investors, this is both a warning and an opportunity.Cybersecurity is now a $270 billion market. And we expect it to grow at 12 percent per year through 2028. That's one of the fastest growth rates across software. And here's another number worth noting: Chief Information Officers we surveyed expect cybersecurity spending to grow 50 percent faster than software spending as a whole. This makes cybersecurity the most defensive area of IT budgets—meaning it's least likely to be cut, even in tough times.This hasn't been lost on investors. Security software has outperformed the broader market, and over the past three years, security stocks have delivered a 58 percent return, compared to just 22 percent for software overall and 79 percent for the NASDAQ. We expect this outperformance against software to continue as AI expands the number of ways hackers can get in and the ways those threats are evolving.Looking ahead, we see a handful of interconnected mega themes driving investment opportunities in cybersecurity. One of the biggest is platformization – consolidating security tools into a unified platform. Today, major companies juggle on average 130 different cyber security tools. This approach often creates complexity, not clarity, and can leave dangerous gaps in protection particularly as the rise of connected devices like robots and drones is making unified security platforms more important than ever.And something else to keep in mind: right now, security investments make up only 1 percent of overall AI spending, compared to 6 percent of total IT budgets—so there's a lot of room to grow as AI becomes ever more central to business operations. In today's cybersecurity race, it's not enough to simply pile on more tools or chase the latest buzzwords. We think some of the biggest potential winners are cybersecurity providers who can turn chaos into clarity. In addition to growing revenue and free cash flow, these businesses are weaving together fragmented defenses into unified, easy-to-manage platforms. They want to get smarter, faster, and more resilient – not just bigger. They understand that it's key to cut through the noise, make systems work seamlessly together, and adapt on a dime as new threats emerge. In cybersecurity, complexity is the enemy—and simplicity is the new superpower. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Chief Asia Economist Chetan Ahya discusses how the evolving trade relationship between India and China could redefine global supply chains and unlock new investment opportunities.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia Economist. Today – one of the most important economic relationships of our time: India and China. And what the future may hold. It's Thursday, September 11th at 2 pm in Hong Kong.Trade dynamics between India and China are evolving rapidly. They are not just shaping their own futures. They are influencing global supply chains and investment flows. India's trade with China has nearly doubled in the last decade. India's bilateral trade deficit with China is its largest—currently at U.S. $120 billion. On the flip side, China's trade surplus with India is the biggest among all Asian economies. We expect this trade relationship to deepen given economic imperatives. India needs support on tech know-how, capital goods and critical inputs; and China needs to capitalize on growth opportunities in the second largest and fastest growing EM. Let's explore these issues in turn. India needs to integrate itself into the global value chain. And to do that, India needs Foreign Direct Investment from China, much like how China's rise was fueled by Foreign Direct Investment from the U.S., Europe, Japan, and Korea, which brought the technology and expertise. For India, easing restrictions on Chinese FDI could be a game-changer, enabling the transfer of tech know-how and boosting manufacturing competitiveness. Now, China is the world's manufacturing powerhouse. It accounts for more than 40 percent of the global value chain—far ahead of the U.S. at 13 percent and India at just 4 percent. The global goods trade is increasingly focused on products higher up the value chain—think semiconductors, EVs, EV batteries, and solar panels. And China is the top global exporter in six of eight key manufacturing sectors. To put it quite simply, any economy that is looking to increase its participation in global value chains will have to increase its trade with China. For India, this means that it must rely on Chinese imports to meet its increasing demand for capital goods as well as critical inputs that are necessary for its industrialization. In fact, this is already happening. More than half of India's imports from China and Hong Kong are capital goods—i.e. machinery and equipment needed for manufacturing and infrastructure investment. Industrial supplies make [up] another third of the imports, highlighting India's dependence on China for critical inputs. From China's perspective, India is the second largest and fastest-growing emerging market. And with U.S.-China trade tensions persisting, China is diversifying its exports markets, and India represents a significant opportunity. One way Chinese companies can capture this growth opportunity is to invest in and serve the domestic market. Chinese mobile phone companies have already been doing this and whether this can broaden to other sectors will depend on the opening up of India's markets. To sum up, India can leverage on China's strengths in manufacturing and technology while China can utilize India's vast market for exports and investment.However, there's a caveat: geopolitics. While economic imperatives point to deeper trade and investment ties, political developments could slow progress. Investors should watch this space closely and we will keep you updated on key developments. 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 Metals & Mining Commodity Strategist Amy Gower discusses her bullish outlook for gold and what the metal's rally in 2025 says about inflation, central banks, and global risk.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, we're talking about gold, a metal that's more than just a safe haven for investors, and what it tells us about the global economy and markets right now.It's Wednesday, September 10th, at 3pm in London. Gold has always been the go-to asset in times of uncertainty. But in 2025, its role is evolving. Investors are watching gold not just as a hedge against inflation, but as a barometer for everything from central bank policy to geopolitical risk. When gold prices move, it's often a sign that something big is happening beneath the surface.Gold and silver have both already clocked up hefty year-to-date gains of 39 and 42 percent respectively. So, what's been driving this rally? Well, several factors stand out. For one, central banks are on track for another year of strong buying, with gold now representing a bigger share of central bank reserves than treasuries for the first time since 1996. This is a strong vote of confidence in gold's long-term value. Also, gold-backed Exchange-Traded Funds, or ETFs, saw inflows of $5 billion in August alone, with the year-to-date inflows the highest on record outside of 2020, signaling renewed interest from institutional investors too. With inflation still above target in many major economies, gold's appeal has been surprisingly resilient despite being a non-yielding asset. And investors are betting that central banks may soon have to cut rates, which could further boost gold prices. In fact, from here we see around 5 percent further upside to gold by year end to $3800/oz which would be a new all-time high. But there is one important wrinkle to consider. Keep in mind that while precious metals, especially gold, are primarily seen as a hedge and safe haven in times of macro uncertainty, jewelry is a big chunk of the overall precious metals market. It accounts for 40 percent of gold demand and 34 percent of silver demand. And right now how jewelry demand will evolve remains an unknown. In fact, jewelry demand is already showing signs of weakness. Second-quarter gold jewelry demand was the worst since the third quarter of 2020 as consumers reacted to high prices. Nonetheless, gold was able to hold onto its January-April gains, and silver continued to grind higher, supported by strong demand from the solar industry as well. However, until recently, the two metals were lacking catalysts for further gains. Now though this is changing, with both gold and silver poised to benefit from expected Fed rate cuts. Our economists expect the Fed to cut rates at the September meeting, for the first time since December 2024. And if we look back to the 1990s, on average gold and silver prices have risen 6 and 4 percent respectively in the 60 days following the start of a Fed rate-cutting cycle as lower yields make it easier for non-yielding assets to compete. Our FX strategists also expect further dollar weakness, which should ease some of the price pressures for holders of non-USD currencies, while India's imports of gold and silver already showed signs of improvement in July. The country is looking also to reform its Goods and Services tax, which could free up purchasing power for gold and silver ahead of festival and wedding season. Gold does tend to outperform after Fed rate cuts, and we would keep the preference for gold over silver, but our outlook for both metals remains positive. Of course, precious metals are not risk-free. Prices can be volatile, and if central banks surprise the market with higher interest rates, gold in particular could lose some of its luster. But for now, both gold and silver should continue to shine. 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.

Many Americans struggle with the rising cost of healthcare. Analysts Terence Flynn and Erin Wright explain how AI might bend the cost curve, from Morgan Stanley's 23rd annual Global Healthcare Conference in New York.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Terence Flynn: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Terence Flynn, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Biopharma Analyst.Erin Wright: And I'm Erin Wright, U.S. Healthcare Services Analyst.Terence Flynn: Thanks for joining us. We're actually in the midst of the second day of Morgan Stanley's annual Global Healthcare Conference, where we hosted over 400 companies. And there are a number of important themes that we discussed, including healthcare policy and capital allocation.Now, today on the show, we're going to discuss one of these themes, healthcare spending, which is one of the most pressing challenges facing the U.S. economy today.It is Tuesday, September 9th at 8am in New York.Imagine getting a bill for a routine doctor's visit and seeing a number that makes you do a double take. Maybe it's $300 for a quick checkup or thousands of dollars for a simple procedure.For many Americans, those moments of sticker shock aren't rare. They are the reality.Now with healthcare costs in the U.S. higher than many other peer countries on a percentage of GDP basis, it's no wonder that everyone – not just investors – is asking; not just, ‘Why is this happening?' But ‘How can we fix it?' And that's why we're talking about AI today. Could it be the breakthrough needed to help rein in those costs and reshape how care is delivered?Now I'm going to go over to you, Erin. Why is U.S. healthcare spending growing so rapidly compared to peer countries?Erin Wright: Clearly, the aging population in the U.S. and rising chronic disease burden here are clearly driving up demand for healthcare. We're seeing escalating demand across the senior population, for instance. It's coinciding with greater utilization of more sophisticated therapeutics and services. Overall, it's straining the healthcare system.We are seeing burnout in labor constraints at hospitals and broader health systems overall. Net-net, the U.S. spent 18 percent of GDP on healthcare in 2023, and that's compared to only 11 percent for peer countries. And it's projected to reach 25 to 30 percent of GDP by 2050. So, the costs are clearly escalating here.Terence Flynn: Thanks, Erin. That's a great way to frame the problem. Now, as we think about AI, where does that come in to help potentially bend the cost curve?Erin Wright: We think AI can drive meaningful efficiencies across healthcare delivery, with estimated savings of about [$]300 to [$]900 billion by 2050.So, the focus areas include here: staffing, supply chain, scheduling, adherence. These are where AI tools can really address some of these inefficiencies in care and ultimately drive health outcomes. There are implementation costs and risks for hospitals, but we do think the savings here can be substantial.Terence Flynn: Great. Well, let's unpack that a little bit more now. So, if you think about the biggest cost buckets in hospitals, where can AI help out?Erin Wright: The biggest cost bucket for a hospital today clearly is labor. It represents about half of spend for a hospital. AI can optimize staffing, reduce burnout with a new scribe and some of these scribe technologies that are out there, and more efficient healthcare record keeping. I mean, this can really help to drive meaningful cost savings.Just to add another discouraging data point for you, there's estimated to be a shortage of about 10,000 critical healthcare workers in 2028. So, AI can help to address that. AI tools can be used across administrative functions as well. That accounts for about 15 to 20 percent of spend for a hospital. So, we see substantial savings as well across drugs, supplies, lab testing, where AI can reduce waste and improve adherence overall.Terence Flynn: Great. Maybe we'll pivot over to the managed care and value-based care side now. How is AI being used in these verticals, Erin?Erin Wright: For a healthcare insurer – and they're facing many challenges right now as well – AI can help personalize care plans. And they can support better predictive analytics and ultimately help to optimize utilization trends. And it can also help to facilitate value-based care arrangements, which can ultimately drive better health outcomes and bend the cost curve. And ultimately that's the key theme that we're trying to focus on here.So, I'll turn it over to you, Terence, now. While hospitals and payers could see notable benefits from AI, the biopharma side of the equation is just as critical here. Especially when it comes to long-term cost containment. You've been closely tracking how AI is transforming drug development. What exactly are you seeing?Terence Flynn: Yeah, a number of key constituents are leaning in here on AI in a number of different ways. I'd say the most meaningful way that could help bend the cost curve is on R&D productivity. As many people probably know, it can take a very long time for a drug to reach the market anywhere from eight to 10 years. And if AI can be used to improve that cycle time or boost the probability of success, the probability of a drug reaching the market – that could have a meaningful benefit on costs. And so, we think AI has the potential to increase drug approvals by 10 to 40 percent. And if that happens, you can ultimately drive cost savings of anywhere from [$]100 billion to [$]600 billion by 2050.Erin Wright: Yeah, that sounds meaningful. How do you think additional drug approvals lead to meaningful cost savings in the healthcare system?Terence Flynn: Look, I mean, high level medicines at their best cure disease or prevent people from being admitted to a hospital or seeking care to doctor's office. Equally important medicines can get people out of the hospital quicker and back to contributing or participating in society. And there's data out there in the literature showing that new drugs can reduce hospital stays by anywhere from 11 to 16 percent.And so, if you think about keeping people out of hospitals or physician offices or reducing hospital stays, that really can result in meaningful savings. And that would be the result of more or better drugs reaching the market over the next decades.Erin Wright: And how is the FDA now supporting or even helping to endorse AI driven drug development?Terence Flynn: If companies are applying for more drug approvals here as a result of AI discovery capabilities without modernization, the FDA could actually become the bottleneck and limit the number of drugs approved each year.And so, in June, the agency rolled out an AI tool called Elsa that's looking to improve the drug review timelines. Now, Elsa has the potential to accelerate these timelines for new therapies. It can take anywhere from six to 10 months for the FDA to actually approve a drug. And so, these AI tools could potentially help decrease those timelines.Erin Wright: And are you actually seeing some of these biopharma companies actually investing in AI talent?Terence Flynn: Yes, definitely. I mean, AI related job postings in our sector have doubled since 2021. Companies are increasingly hiring across the board for a number of different, parts of their workflow, including discovery, which we just talked about. But also, clinical trials, marketing, regulatory – a whole host of different job descriptions.Erin Wright: So, whether it's optimizing hospital operations or accelerating drug discovery, AI is emerging as a powerful lever here – to bend the healthcare cost curve.Terence Flynn: Exactly. The challenge is adoption, but the potential is transformative. Erin, thanks so much for taking the time to talk with us.Erin Wright: Great speaking with you, Terence.Terence Flynn: And thanks everyone 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's CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson discusses the outlook for U.S. stocks after Friday's nonfarm payroll data reinforced the thesis of a transition from a rolling recession to a rolling recovery.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 Friday's Payroll report and what it means for equities. It's Monday, Sept 8th at 11:30am in New York. So let's get after it. The heavily anticipated nonfarm payroll report on Friday supports our view that the labor market is weak. However, this is old news to the equity market as we have been discussing for months. First, the labor market data is perhaps the most backward-looking of all the economic series. Second, it's particularly prone to major revisions that tend to make the current data unreliable in real time, which is why the National Bureau of Economic Research typically declares a recession started at a time when most were unaware we were in one. Furthermore, history suggests these revisions are pro-cyclical, meaning they get more negative going into a recession and then more positive once the recovery's begun. It appears this time is no different. Indeed, Friday's revisions were better than last month's by a wide margin suggesting the labor market bottomed in the second quarter. This insight adds support to our primary thesis on the economy and markets that I have been maintaining for the past several years. More specifically, I believe a rolling recession began in 2022 and finally bottomed in April with the tariff announcements made on “Liberation Day.” After the initial phase of this rolling recession, that was led by a payback in Covid pull-forward demand in tech and consumer goods, other sectors of the economy went through their own individual recessions at different times. This is a key reason why we never saw the typical spike in the metrics used to define a traditional recession, although the revisions data is now revealing it more clearly. The historically significant rise in immigration post-covid and subsequent enforcement this year have also led to further distortions in many of these labor market measures. While we have written about these topics extensively over the past several years, Friday's weak labor report provides further evidence of our thesis that we are now transitioning from a rolling recession to a rolling recovery. In short, we're entering a new cycle environment and the Fed cutting interest rates will be key to the next leg of the new bull market that began in April. Central to our view is the notion that the economy has been much weaker for many companies and consumers over the past 3 years than what the headline economic statistics like nominal GDP or employment suggest. We think a better way to measure the health of the economy is earnings growth, and breadth; as well as consumer and corporate confidence surveys. Perhaps the simplest way to determine if an economy is doing well or not is to ask: is it delivering prosperity broadly? On that score, we think the answer is “no” given the fact that earnings growth has been negative for most companies over the past 3 years. The good news is that growth has finally entered positive territory the past 2 quarters. This coincides with the v-shaped recovery in earnings revisions breadth we have been highlighting for months. We think this supports the notion that the worst of the rolling recession is behind us and likely troughed in April. As usual, equity markets got this right and bottomed then, too. Now, we think a proper rate cutting cycle is likely and necessary for the next leg of this new bull market. Given the risk that the Fed may still be focused on inflation more than the weakness in the lagging labor market data, rate cuts may materialize more slowly than what equity investors want. Combined with some signs that liquidity may be drying up a bit as both corporate and Treasury issuance increases, it would not surprise me if equity markets go through some consolidation or even a correction during the seasonally weak time of the year. Should that happen, we would be buyers of that dip and likely even consider moving down the quality curve in anticipation of a more dovish Fed and coordinated action with the Treasury. Bottom line, a new bull market for equities began with the trough in the rolling recession that began in 2022. It's still early days for this new bull which means dips should be bought. 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!

9月5日金曜日発表の非農業部門雇用者数は、米国経済がローリング・リセッションからローリング・リカバリーに移行しているとの見方を裏付ける内容でした。では、米国株は今後どうなるのか。弊社の最高投資責任者兼米国チーフ株式ストラテジスト、マイク・ウィルソンが見通しをお話しします。このエピソードを英語で聴く。トランスクリプト 「市場の風を読む」（Thoughts on the Market）へようこそ。このポッドキャストでは、最近の金融市場動向に関するモルガン・スタンレーの考察をお届けします。本日は、先日発表された雇用統計と、米国株にとってのその意味について、弊社の最高投資責任者兼米国チーフ株式ストラテジストのマイク・ウィルソンがお話しします。このエピソードは9月8日 にニューヨークにて収録されたものです。英語でお聞きになりたい方は、概要欄に記載しているURLをクリックしてください。大いに注目されていた9月5日金曜日発表の非農業部門雇用者数は、労働市場は弱いという弊社の見立てを裏付ける内容でした。しかし、弊社は何ヵ月も前からこのことを論じており、株式市場にとっては言わば古いニュースです。第1に、ひょっとしたら雇用統計は最も後ろ向きな、つまり過去に目を向けている経済指標かもしれません。第2に、この統計は大幅に改定されることが特に多く、リアルタイムでは最新のデータが当てにならない傾向があります。全米経済研究所(NBER)が景気後退の始まりを宣言するころには、ほとんどの人が景気後退期にあることを意識しなくなっているのが普通であるのはそのためです。また過去の実績からは、非農業部門雇用者数の改定がプロシクリカルであることがうかがえます。景気後退に向かっている局面では下方修正の幅が大きくなりがちで、景気回復が始まれば上方修正の幅が大きくなりがちだという意味です。今回もこのパターンに沿っているように見えます。実際、金曜日の改定は前月のそれより大幅に良い内容であり、労働市場が第2四半期に「底を打った」ことを示唆しています。このことは、私が何年も前からお話ししている、景気と市場に対する弊社の基本的な説を裏書きしてくれます。 具体的に言えば、米国では2022年に「ローリング・リセッション」が始まり、今年4月の「解放の日」に相互関税が発表されたことをもってようやく底を打ったと私は考えています。このローリング・リセッションの初期段階は、新型コロナによるハイテク製品や消費財の需要前倒しの反動が主導する形で進みましたが、やがて他のセクターもそれぞれ異なるタイミングで不況に突入していきました。従来型のリセッションの判定に用いられる指標で典型的な変化が観察されなかったのに、今になってそれらの改定値で変化がより明確になっているのは、それが主な理由です。新型コロナ後に移民の流入が歴史的な大幅増になったことと、今年になってその取り締まりが行われていることも、労働市場の多くの指標をさらにゆがめることになりました。弊社はここ数年、こうした話題を広く取り上げてきましたが、金曜日に発表された弱い雇用統計は、米国経済がローリング・リセッションから「ローリング・リカバリー」に移行しつつあるという弊社の説を裏付ける証拠だと言えます。つまり、景気は新たな循環に入りつつあり、4月に始まった新しい強気相場が今後どこまで続くかについてはFRBの利下げがカギを握ることになるでしょう。弊社の見解で何よりも重要なのは、過去3年間の景気は多くの企業や消費者にとって、GDPや雇用のような総合的な経済統計が示唆するものよりはるかに弱かったということです。景気の強さを測る際には、消費者や企業の景況感調査に加え、企業の利益成長とその広がり方に着目する方がよいと弊社ではみています。ひょっとしたら、景気の良し悪しを判断する最もシンプルな方法は、今の景気は幅広い層に繁栄をもたらしているのかと問うことかもしれません。この物差しに照らして言うなら、答えは「ノー」だと弊社では考えます。ここ3年間はほとんどの企業で利益がマイナス成長になっているからです。ただ、良い知らせがあります。過去2四半期では、この利益成長がようやくプラスに転じているのです。そして同時に、ここ数ヵ月間弊社が強調してきたように、企業の業績見通しのV字回復も広がりを見せています。このことも、ローリング・リセッションが最悪期を脱したこと、おそらく「谷」は4月だったことを裏付けていると思われます。株式市場はいつものようにこれを正確に把握し、底を打ったのです。さて、これから本物の利下げサイクルが始まる公算が大きく、この新たな強気相場が続くためにはそのような利下げが必要だと弊社ではみています。ただ、FRBは遅行指標である労働市場のデータの弱さよりもインフレの方をまだ重視している可能性があり、利下げは株式投資家の願望よりも緩やかなペースで進むことになるかもしれません。また、企業と財務省の両方が資金調達を増やすために流動性資金が少し干上がるかもしれない兆しもあることから、株価が軟調になりやすい季節に相場が一服したり、さらに進んで調整したりしても、私は驚かないでしょう。もしそうなったら、弊社なら押し目買いに入るでしょうし、FRBがさらにハト派的になることや財務省と連携することも見込んで、クオリティで劣る銘柄にも物色の幅を広げることすら検討するかもしれません。結論を申し上げれば、2022年に始まったローリング・リセッションの底打ちをもって、株式市場では新しい強気相場が始まりました。この相場はまだ初期段階にあり、株価の下落には押し目買いで臨むべきです。最後までお聴きいただきありがとうございました。今回も「市場の風を読む」Thoughts on the Market 、お楽しみいただけたでしょうか？もしよろしければ、この番組について、ご友人や同僚の皆さんにもシェアいただけますと幸いです。

Our G10 FX Market Strategist Andrew Watrous challenges the prevailing market view on the U.S. dollar, reaffirming the relevance of Morgan Stanley's "dollar smile" framework. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Watrous, G10 FX Strategist at Morgan Stanley. Today – a look at how the US dollar behaves under different global growth circumstances. And why – contrary to the views of some observers – we think the dollar still smiles.It's Friday, September 5, at 10 AM in New York.We've been talking a good amount on this show about the US dollar – not just as a currency, but as the cornerstone of the global financial system. As the world's reserve currency, its movements ripple across markets everywhere. The trajectory of the dollar affects everything from your portfolio's performance to the cost of your next international vacation.Let's start with the “dollar smile,” which is a framework Morgan Stanley FX strategists developed back in 2001, to explain how the dollar behaves under different global growth scenarios.Picture a smile-shaped curve: On the lefthand side, the dollar rises, goes up, when global growth is concerningly weak as nervous investors flock to US assets as a safe haven. On the right side of the smile, when US growth outperforms growth in the rest of the world, capital flows into the US, boosting the dollar. In the middle of the curve – which is the bottom of the smile – the dollar weakens, goes down, when growth is robust around the world and synchronized globally. In that environment - middle of the smile - investors seek riskier assets which weighs on the dollar - in part because they could borrow in dollars and invest outside the US.It's kind of a simple framework, right? But here's the twist: some investors argue that the left side of the smile might be broken. In other words, they say that the dollar no longer rises if people are really worried about global growth.They say that if the US itself is the source of the growth shock -- whether it's political uncertainty or trade wars -- the dollar shouldn't benefit. Or that the rise in US interest rates, which makes it more expensive to borrow in the US and invest abroad, or changes in the structure of global asset holdings, might mean that growth scares won't lead to an inflow to the US and a dollar bid.We disagree with those challenges to the dollar smile framework.To quantify the dollar smile, in order to test whether it still works, we started by using Economic Surprise Indices. These indices measure how actual economic data compares to forecasts.We found that when growth in the US and outside the US are both surprisingly weak - in other words they're much weaker than forecasted - the dollar rises on average about 0.8% per month over the past 20 years. Then on the right side of the dollar smile, when US growth really outperforms expectations, but growth outside the US underperforms expectations, the dollar goes up even more—about 1.1% on average per month. And in the middle of the dollar smile, during synchronized global growth, the dollar tends to decline on average a little bit, about 0.1% on average per month.The question is, does that framework, does that pattern still hold up today?We think it does for a few different reasons. In 2018 and 2019, despite trade tensions and US policy uncertainty playing a big role in driving global growth concerns, the dollar strengthened during periods of poor global growth. In other words, the lefthand side of the dollar smile worked back then, even though the concerns were driven by US factors.And in June 2025, when geopolitical tensions spiked between Israel and Iran, and growth concerns became elevated - the dollar surged. Investors fled to safety, and the dollar delivered.It's true that in April 2025, the dollar dipped initially after the first tariff announcements. But then it fell even more after those tariff hikes were paused, despite a rebound in stocks. Growth concerns were mitigated and the dollar went down. So this episode I think wasn't really a breakdown of the smile. What weighed on the dollar this spring was policy unpredictability in the US, which led investors to reduce their exposure to US assets, rather than concerns about global growth.So these episodes, I think, show that the dollar can still act as a safe haven, despite changing patterns of global asset ownership, the rise in US interest rates, and even when the US itself is the source of global concerns.Now, setting aside the framework, it's important to note that the US dollar dropped about 11% against other currencies in the first half of this year. This was the biggest decline in more than 50 years and it ended a 15-year bull cycle for the US dollar. Moreover, we think that the dollar will continue to weaken through 2026 as the Fed cuts interest rates and policy uncertainty remains elevated.Still, even with all that, we think our framework holds. When markets wobble, remember this: the dollar will probably greet volatility with a smile.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets discusses the scenarios markets may face in September and for the rest of the year, as the Federal Reserve weighs interest rate cuts amidst slowing job growth and persistent inflation. 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, the narrow economic path the markets face as we come back from summer.It's Thursday, September 4th at 2:00 PM in London.September is a month of change and one of my favorite times of the year. The weather gets just a little crisper. Kids go back to school. Football, both kinds, are back on tv. And financial markets return from the summer in earnest, quickly ramping back up to full speed. This year, September brings a number of robust debates that we'll be covering on this podcast, but chief among these might be exactly how strong or not investors actually want the economy to be.You see, at the moment, the Federal Reserve is set to lower interest rates, and they're set to do that even though inflation in the US is still well above target and it's moving higher. That's unusual and it's made even more unusual in the context of financial conditions being very easy and the US government borrowing a historically large amount of money.The Fed's reason to lower interest rates despite strong markets, elevated inflation and high budget deficits, is the concern that the US labor market is weakening. And this fear is not unfounded. US job growth has recently slowed sharply. In 2023 and 2024, the US was adding on average about 200,000 jobs every month. But this year job growth has been less than half that amount, just 85,000 per month. And the most recent data's even worse. Tomorrow brings another important update. But here's the rub: the Fed, in theory, is lowering rates because the labor market is weaker. Markets would like those lower rates, but investors would not like a significantly weaker economy.And this logic is born out pretty starkly in history. When the Fed is lowering interest rates as growth holds up, that represents some of the best ever market environments, including the mid 1990s. But when the Fed lowers rates as the economy weakens, well, that represents some of the worst. So as the leaves start to turn and the air gets a little chilly, this is the fine line that markets face coming back into September. Weaker data for the labor market would make it easier to justify Fed cuts, but would make the broader backdrop more historically challenging. Stronger data could make the Fed look offsides, committing to lower interest rates despite high and rising inflation, easy financial conditions, and what would be a still resilient economy. And that could unleash even more aggressiveness and animal spirits.Stock markets might like that aggressiveness, but neither outcome is great for credit. And so by process of elimination, our market is hoping for something moderate, belt high, and over the middle of the plate. Our economists forecast for this Friday's jobs report for about 70,000 jobs, and a stable unemployment rate would fit that moderate bill. But for this month and now for the rest of the year, we'll be walking a narrow economic path.Thank you 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.

Fed Chair Jay Powell's speech at Jackson Hole underscored the central bank's new focus on managing downside growth risks. Michael Zezas, our Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy, talks about how that shift could impact markets heading into 2026. 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: What a subtle shift in the Fed's reaction function could mean for markets into year-end.It's Wednesday, September 3rd at 11am in New York.Last week, our U.S. economics team flagged a subtle but important shift in U.S. monetary policy. Chair Jay Powell's speech at Jackson Hole underscored that the Fed looks more focused on managing downside growth risks and, consequently, a bit more tolerant on inflation.As you heard Michael Gapen and Matthew Hornbach discuss last week – our colleagues expect this brings forward another Fed cut into September, kicking off a quarterly pace of 25 basis-point moves. But while this is a meaningful change in the timing of Fed rate cuts, this path would only result in slightly lower policy rates than those implied by the futures market, a proxy for the consensus of investors.So what does it mean for our views across asset classes? In short, our central case is for mostly positive returns across fixed income and equities into year-end. But the Fed's increased tolerance for inflation is a new wrinkle that means investors are likely to experience more volatility along the way.Consider U.S. government bonds. A slower economy and falling policy rates argue for lower Treasury yields. But if investors grow more convinced that the Fed will tolerate firmer inflation, the curve could steepen further, with the risk of longer maturity yields falling less, or potentially even rising.Or consider corporate bonds. Our economic growth view is “slower but still expanding,” which generally bodes well for corporate balance sheets and, thus, the pricing of credit risk. That combined with lower front-end rates suggests a solid total return outlook for corporate credit, keeping us constructive on the asset class. But of course, if long end yields are moving higher, it would certainly cut against overall returns potential.Finally, consider the stock market. The base case is still constructive into year-end as U.S. earnings hold firm, and recent tax cuts should further help corporate cash flows. However, if long bonds sell off, this could put the rally at risk – at least temporarily, as my colleague Mike Wilson has highlighted; given that higher long-end yields are a challenge to the valuation of growth stocks.The risk? A repeat of the early-April dynamic where a long-end sell-off pressures valuations.Could we count on a shift in monetary policy to curb these risks? Or another public policy shift such as easing tariffs or Treasury adjusting its bond issuance plans? Possibly. But investors should understand this would be a reaction to market conditions, not a proactive or preventative shift. So bottom line, we still see many core markets set up to perform well, but the sailing should be less smooth than it has been in recent months.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review and tell your friends about the podcast. We want everyone to listen.

Our Co-Heads of Securitized Products Research Jay Bacow and James Egan explain why the macro backdrop could be changing in favor of agency mortgages after the Fed's annual meeting in Jackson Hole. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Jay Bacow: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jay Bacow, Co-Head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley. James Egan: And I'm Jim Egan, the other Co-Head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley. Jay Bacow: Today we're here to talk about why mortgages offer value after Jackson Hole. It's Tuesday, September 2nd at 2pm in New York. James Egan: So, Jay, let's start with the big picture after Jackson Hole, the Fed seems like it's leaning towards cutting rates in a steady, almost programmatic fashion. And in prior episodes of Thoughts on the Market, you've heard different strategists at Morgan Stanley talk about the potential implications there.But for mortgages, what does this mean? Jay Bacow: Well, it takes a lot of the uncertainty out of the market, and that's a big deal. One of the worst-case scenario[s] for agency mortgages – that the investors are buying not mortgages that homeowners have – would've been the Fed staying on hold for much longer than expected. With that risk receding, the backdrop for investors owning agency mortgages feels a lot more supportive. And when we look at high quality assets, we think mortgages look like the cheapest option. Jim, you mentioned some of the previous strategists that come on Thoughts on the Market. Our Global Head of Corporate Credit Strategy, Andrew Sheets had highlighted recently how credit spreads are trading at basically the tights of the past 20 years. Mortgages are basically at the average level of the past 20 years. It seems attractive to us. James Egan: And that relative value really does matter. Investors are looking for places to earn yield without taking on too much credit risk. Mortgages, particularly agency mortgages with government guarantee there, they offer that balance. Jay Bacow: Right. And it's not just that balance, but when we think about what goes into the asset pricing, the supply and demand picture makes a big difference. And that we think is changing. One of the reasons that mortgages have underperformed corporate credit is that when you look at the composition of the buyers, the two largest holders of mortgages are the Fed and domestic banks. The Fed's obviously going to continue to run their portfolio down, but domestic banks have also been on the sidelines. And that's meant that money managers, and to a lesser extent overseas, have had to be the largest buyers. But we think that could change. James Egan: Right, with more clarity on Fed policy, banks in particular may get more comfortable adding mortgages to their balance sheets, though the exact timing depends on regulatory developments. REITs might also find this more compelling? Jay Bacow: Right. If the Fed's cutting rates, the front end is going to be lower, and that's going to mean that the incentive to move out of cash should be higher, and that's going to help both banks and likely REITs. But then there's also the supply side.Net issuance of conventional mortgage has been negative this year. That's obviously good. And some of the other technicals are improving as well. Vols are trading better, and all of this just contributes to a healthier landscape. James Egan: Right. And another thing that we've talked about when discussing mortgage valuations is the importance of volatility. If you're buying mortgages, you're inherently short rate volatility – and volatility has come down meaningfully since last year, even if it's still above pre-COVID norms. Lower volatility supported for mortgage valuations, especially when paired with a Fed that's cutting rates steadily. Though Jay, some of that already in the price? Jay Bacow: Yeah, look. We didn't say mortgages were cheap. We just said mortgages are trading at the long-term averages. But in an environment where stocks are near the all time high and credits near the tights of the past 20 years, we do see that value. And the Fed cutting rates, as we said, should incentivize investors to move out of cash and into securities. Now, there are risks when valuations and other asset classes are as tight or as high as they are. You could see risk assets broadly underperform and mortgages are a risk asset. So, if credit widens, mortgages would not be immune. James Egan: And timing is important here too, right? Especially we think about banks coming back if they wait for full clarity on Basel III proposals – that could be delayed. On top of that, there's prepayment risk… Jay Bacow: Yeah, if rates rally, then speeds could pick up and investors are going to demand more compensation. But summing it up. Mortgages look wide to alternative asset classes. The demand picture we think is going to improve, and more clarity around the Fed's path is going to be supportive as well. All of that we think makes us feel confident this is an environment that mortgages should do well. It's not about a snap tighter and spread, it's more about getting paid carry in an environment where spreads can grind in over time. But Jim, we like mortgages. It's been a pleasure talking to you. James Egan: Pleasure talking to you too, Jay, and to all of you regularly hearing us out. Thank you for listening to another episode of Thoughts on the Market. Please leave a review or a like wherever you get this podcast and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. Jay Bacow: Go smash that subscribe button.

In the second of a two-part episode, our Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen and Global Head of Macro Strategy Matthew Hornbach talk about how Treasury yields and the U.S. dollar could react to the possible Fed rate path.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. Yesterday we talked about Michael's reaction to the Jackson Hole meeting last week, and our assessment of the Fed's potential policy pivot. Today my reaction to the price action that followed Chair Powell's speech and what it means for our outlook for the interest rate markets and the U.S. dollar. It's Friday, August 29th at 10am in New York, Michael Gapen: Okay, Matt. Yesterday you were in the driver's seat asking me questions about how Chair Powell's comments at Jackson Hole influenced our views around the outlook for monetary policy. I'd like to turn it back to you, if I may. What did you make of the price action that followed the meeting? Matthew Hornbach: Well, I think it's safe to say that a lot of investors were surprised just as you were by what Chair Powell delivered in his opening remarks. We saw a fairly dramatic decline in short-term interest rates, taking the two-year Treasury yield down quite a bit. And at the same time, we also saw the yield curve steepen, which means that the two-year yield fell much more than the 10-year yield and the 30-year bond yield fell. And I think what investors were thinking with this surprise in mind is just what you mentioned earlier – that perhaps this is a Fed that does have slightly more tolerance for above target inflation. And so, you can imagine a world in which, if the Fed does in fact cut rates, as you're forecasting, or more aggressively than you're forecasting, amidst an environment where inflation continues to run above target. Then you could see that investors would gravitate towards shorter maturity treasuries because the Fed is cutting interest rates and typically shorter-term Treasury yields follow the Fed funds rate up or down. But at the same time reconsider their love of duration and taking duration risk. Because when you move out the yield curve in your investments and you're buying a 10-year bond or a 30-year bond, you are inherently taking the view that the Fed does care about inflation and keeping it low and moving it back to target. And if this Fed still cares about that, but perhaps on the margin slightly less than it did before, then perhaps investors might demand more compensation for owning that duration risk in the long end of the yield curve. Which would then make it more difficult for those long-term yields to fall. And so, I think what we saw on Friday was a pretty classic response to a Federal Reserve speech in this case from the Chair that was much more dovish than investors had anticipated going in. The final thing I'd say in this regard is the following Monday, when we looked at the market price action, there wasn't very much follow through. In other words, the Treasury market didn't continue to rally, yields didn't continue to fall. And I think what that is telling you is that investors are still relatively optimistic about the economy at this point. Investors aren't worried that the Fed knows something that they don't. And so, as a result, we didn't really see much follow through in the U.S. Treasury market on the following Monday. So, I do think that investors are going to be watching the data much like yourself, and the Fed. And if we do end up getting worse data, the Treasury market will likely continue to perform very well. If the data rebounds, as you suggested in one of your alternative scenarios, then perhaps the Treasury rally that we've seen year-to-date will take a pause. Michael Gapen: And if I can follow up and ask you about your views on the trough of any cutting cycle. We have generally been projecting an end to the easing cycle that's below where markets are pricing. So, in general, a deeper cutting cycle. Could some of that – the market viewpoint of greater tolerance for inflation be driving market prices vis-a-vis what we're thinking? Or how do you assess where the market prices, the trough of any cutting cycle, versus what we're thinking at any point in time? Matthew Hornbach: So, once you move beyond the forecastable horizon, which you tell me… Michael Gapen: About three days … Matthew Hornbach: Probably about three days. But, you know, within the next couple of months, let's say. The way that the market would price a central bank's likely policy path, or average policy path, is going to depend on how investors are thinking about the reaction function of the central bank. And so, to the extent that it becomes clear that the central bank, the Fed, is increasingly tolerant of above target inflation in order to ensure that the balance of risks don't become unbalanced, let's say. Then I think you would expect to see that show up in a lower market price for the policy rate at which the Fed eventually stops the easing cycle, which would presumably be lower than what investors might have been thinking earlier. As we kind of make our way from here, closer to that trough policy rate, of course, the data will be in the driver's seat. So, if we saw a scenario in which the economic activity data rebounded, then I would say that the way that the market is pricing the trough policy rate should also rebound. Alternatively, if we are trending towards a much weaker labor market, then of course the market would continue to price lower and lower trough policy rates. Michael Gapen: So, Matt, with our new baseline path for Fed policy with quarterly rate cuts starting in September through the end of 2026, how has your view changed on the likely direction and path for Treasury yields and the U.S. dollar? Matthew Hornbach: So, when we put together our quarterly projections for Treasury yields, of course we link them very closely with your forecast for Fed policy, activity in the U.S. economy, as well as inflation. So, we will likely have to modify slightly the exact way in which we get down to a 4 percent 10-year yield by the end of this year, which is our current forecast, and very likely to remain our forecast going forward. I don't see a need at this point to adjust our year-end forecast for 10-year Treasury yields. When we move into 2026, again here we would also likely make some tweaks to our quarterly path for 10-year Treasury yields. But at this point, I'm not inclined to change the year end target for 2026. Of course, the end of 2026 is a lifetime away it seems from the current moment, given that we're going to have so much to do and deal with in 2026. For example, we're going to have a midterm election towards the end of the year, we will have a new chair of the Federal Reserve, and there's going to be a lot for us to deal with. So, in thinking about where are 10-year yield is going to end 2026, it's not just about the path of the Fed funds rate between now and then. It's also the events that occur, that are much more difficult to forecast than let's say the 10-year Treasury yield itself is – which is also very difficult to forecast. But it's also about by the time we get to the end of 2026, what are investors going to be thinking about 2027? You know, that is really the trick to forecasting. So, at this point, we're not inclined to change the levels to which we think Treasury yields will get to. But we are inclined to tweak the exact quarterly path. Michael Gapen: And the U.S. dollar? Matthew Hornbach: , We have been U.S. Dollar bears since the beginning of the year, and the U.S. dollar has in fact lost about 10 percent of its value relative to its broad set of trading partners. We do think that the dollar will continue to lose value over the course of the next 12 to 18 months. The exact quarterly path, we may have to tweak somewhat because also the dollar is not just about the Fed path. It's also about the path for the ECB, and the path for the Bank of England, and the path for the Bank of Japan, etcetera. But in terms of the big picture? The big picture is that the dollar should de continue to depreciate in our view. And that's what we'll be telling our investors.So, Mike, thanks for taking the time to talk. Michael Gapen: Great speaking with you, Matt. Matthew Hornbach: And thanks for listening. We look forward to bringing you another episode around the time of the September FOMC meeting where we will update our views once again. 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.

In the first of a two- part episode, our Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen and Global Head of Macro Strategy Matthew Hornbach discuss the outcome of the Jackson Hole meeting and the outlook for the U.S. economy and the Fed rate path during the rest of the year. 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: Last Friday, the Jackson Hole meeting delivered a big surprise to markets. Both stocks and bonds reacted decisively.Today, the first of a two-part episode. We'll discuss Michael's reaction to Chair Powell's Jackson Hole comments and what they mean for his view on the outlook for monetary policy. Tomorrow, the outlook for interest rate markets and the US dollar. It's Thursday, August 28th at 10am in New York. So, Mike, here we are after Jackson Hole. The mood this year felt a lot more hawkish, or at least patient than what we saw last week. And Chair Powell really caught my attention when he said, “with policy and restrictive territory, the baseline outlook for the shifting balance of risks may warrant adjusting our policy stance.” That line has been on my mind ever since. So, let's dig into it. What's your gut reaction?Michael Gapen: Yeah, Matt, it was a surprise to me, and I think I would highlight three aspects of his Jackson Hole comments that were important to me. So, I think what happened here, of course, is the Fed became much more worried about downside risk to the labor market after the July employment report, right? So, at the July FOMC meeting, which came before that report, Powell had said, ‘Well, you know, slow payroll growth is fine as long as the unemployment rate stays low.' And that's very much in line with our view. But sometimes these things are easier said than done. And I think the July employment report told them perhaps there's more weakness in the labor market now than they thought.So, I think the messaging here is about a shift towards risk management mode. Maybe we need to put in a couple policy rate cuts to shore up the labor market. And I think that was the big change and I think that's what drove the overall message in the statement. But there were two other parts of it that I think were interesting, you know. From the economist's point of view, when the chair explicitly writes in a speech that ‘the economy now may warrant adjustments in our policy stance,' right? I mean, that's a big deal. It suggests that the decision has been largely made, and I think anytime the Fed is taking a change of direction, either easing or tightening, they're not just going to do one move. So, they're signaling that they're likely prepared to do a series of moves, and we can debate about what that means. And the third thing that struck me is right before the line that you mentioned he did qualify the need to adjust rates by saying, well, whatever we do, we should, “Proceed cautiously.” So, a year ago, as you recall, the Fed opened up with a big 50 basis point rate cut, which was a surprise. And cut at three successive meetings. So, a hundred basis points of cuts over three meetings, starting with a 50 basis point cut. I think the phraseology ‘proceeds carefully' is a signal to markets that, ‘Hey, don't expect that this time around.' The world's different. This is a risk management discussion. And so, we think, two rate cuts before year end would be most likely. Maybe you get three. But I don't think we should expect a large 50 basis point cut at the September meeting. So those would be my thoughts. Downside risk to the labor market – putting this into words says something important to me. And the ‘proceed cautiously' language I think is something markets also need to take into account.Matthew Hornbach: So how do you translate that into a forecasted path for the Fed? I mean, in terms of your baseline outlook, how many rate cuts are you forecasting this year? And what about in 2026?Michael Gapen: Right. So, we previously; we thought what the Fed was doing was leaning against risks that inflation would be persistent. They moved into that camp because of how fast tariffs were going up and the overall level of the effective tariff rate. So, we thought they would stay on hold for longer and when they move, move more rapidly. What they're saying now in a risk management sense, right; they still think risk to inflation is to the upside, but the unemployment rate is also to the upside. And they're looking at both of those as about equally weighted. So, in a baseline outlook where the Fed's not assuming a recession and neither are we, you get a maybe a dip in growth and a rise in inflation. But growth recovers and inflation comes down next year. In that world, and with the idea that you're proceeding cautiously, they're kind of moving and evaluating, moving and evaluating.So, I think the translation here is: a path of quarterly rate cuts between now and the end of 2026. So, six rate cuts, but moving quarterly, like September and December this year; March, June, September, and December next year; which would take us to a terminal target range of 2.75 to 3. So rather than moving later and more rapidly, you move earlier, but more gradually. That's how we're thinking about it now.Matthew Hornbach: And that's about a 25 basis point upward adjustment to the trough policy rate that you were forecasting previously…Michael Gapen: That's right. So, the prior thought was a Fed that moves later may have to cut more, right? Because you're – by holding policy tighter for longer – you're putting more downward weight on the economy from a cyclical perspective. So, you may end up cutting more to essentially reverse that in 2026. So, by moving earlier, maybe a Fed that moves a little earlier, cuts a little less.Matthew Hornbach: In terms of the alternative outcomes. Obviously, in any given forecast, things can go not as expected. And so, if the path turns out to be something other than what you're forecasting today, what would be some of the more likely outcomes in your mind?Michael Gapen: Yeah, as we like to say in economics, we forecast so we know where we're wrong. So, you're right, the world can evolve very differently. So just a couple thoughts. You know, one, now that we're thinking the Fed does cut in September, what gets them not to cut? You'd need a – I think, a really strong August employment report; something around 225,000 jobs, which would bring the three-month moving average back to around 150, right. That would be a signal that the May-June downdraft was just a post Liberation Day pothole and not trend deterioration in the labor market. So that, you know, would be one potential alternative. Another is – although we've projected quarterly paths in this kind of nice gradual pace of cuts, we could get a repeat of last year where the Fed cuts 50 to 75 basis points by year end but realizes the labor market has not rolled over. And then we get some tariff pass through into inflation. And maybe residual seasonality and inflation in Q1. And then the Fed goes on hold again, then cuts could resume later in the year. And I also think in the backdrop here, when the Fed is saying we are easing in a risk management sense and we're easing maybe earlier than we otherwise would – that suggests the Fed has greater tolerance for inflation. So, understanding how much tolerance this Fed or the next one has for above target inflation, I think could influence how many rate cuts you eventually get in in 2026. So, we could even see a deeper trough through greater inflation tolerance. And finally, of course, we're not out of the woods with respect to recession risk. We could be wrong. Maybe the labor market is trend weakening and we're about to find that out. Growth is slowing. Growth was about 1.3 percent in the first half of the year. Final sales is softer. Of course, in a recession alternative scenario, the Fed's probably cutting much deeper, maybe down to 1 50 to 175 on the funds rate.So, I mean, Matt, you make a good point. There's still many different ways the economy can evolve and many different ways that the Fed's path for policy rates can evolve.Matthew Hornbach: Well, that's a good place to bring this Part 1 episode to an end. Tune in tomorrow, for my reaction to the market price action that followed Chair Powell's speech -- and what it means for our outlook for interest rate markets and the U.S. dollar.Mike, thanks for taking the time to talk.Michael Gapen: Great speaking with you, Matt. Matthew Hornbach: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets discusses why a potential start of monetary easing by the Federal Reserve might be a cause for concern for credit 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 – could interest rate cuts by the Fed unleash more corporate aggressiveness? It's Wednesday, August 27th at 2pm in London. Last week, the Fed chair, Jerome Powell hinted strongly that the Central Bank was set to cut interest rates at next month's meeting. While this outcome was the market's expectation, it was by no means a given.The Fed is tasked with keeping unemployment and inflation low. The US unemployment rate is low, but inflation is not only above the Fed's target, it's recently been trending in the wrong direction. And to bring inflation down the Fed would typically raise interest rates, not lower them. But that is not what the Fed appears likely to do; based importantly on a belief that these inflationary pressures are more temporary, while the job market may soon weaken. It is a tricky, unusual position for the Fed to be in, made even more unusual by what is going on around them. You see, the Fed tries to keep the economy in balance; neither too hot or too cold. And in this regard, its interest rate acts a bit like taps on a faucet. But there are other things besides this rate that also affect the temperature of the economic water. How easy is it to borrow money? Is the currency stronger or weaker? Are energy prices high or low? Is the equity market rising or falling? Collectively these measures are often referred to as financial conditions. And so, while it is unusual for the Federal Reserve to be lowering interest rates while inflation is above its target and moving higher, it's probably even more unusual for them to do so while these other governors of economic activity, these financial conditions are so accommodative. Equity valuations are high. Credit spreads are tight. Energy prices are low. The US dollar is weak. Bond yields have been going down, and the US government is running a large deficit. These are all dynamics that tend to heat the economy up. They are more hot water in our proverbial sink. Lowering interest rates could now raise that temperature further. For credit, this is mildly concerning, for two rather specific reasons. Credit is currently sitting with an outstanding year. And part of this good year has been because companies have generally been quite conservative, with merger activity modest and companies borrowing less than the governments against which they are commonly measured. All this moderation is a great thing for credit. But the backdrop I just described would appear to offer less moderation. If the Fed is going to add more accommodation into an already easy set of financial conditions, how long will companies really be able to resist the temptation to let the good times roll? Recently merger activity has started to pick up. And historically, this higher level of corporate aggressiveness can be good for shareholders. But it's often more challenging to lenders. But it's also possible that the Fed's caution is correct. That the US job market really is set to weaken further despite all of these other supportive tailwinds. And if this is the case, well, that also looks like less moderation. When the Fed has been cutting interest rates as the labor market weakens, these have often been some of the most challenging periods for credit, given the risk to the overall economy. So much now rests on the data what the Fed does and how even new Fed leadership next year could tip the balance. But after significant outperformance and with signs pointing to less moderation ahead, credit may now be set to lag its fixed income peers. Thank you as always for listening. If you find Thoughts to the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

Our analysts Adam Jonas and Alex Straton discuss how tech-savvy young professionals are influencing retail, brand loyalty, mobility trends, and the broader technology landscape through their evolving consumer choices. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Adam Jonas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Adam Jonas, Morgan Stanley's Embodied AI and Humanoid Robotics Analyst. Alex Straton: And I'm Alex Straton, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Softlines Retail and Brands Analyst. Adam Jonas: Today we're unpacking our annual summer intern survey, a snapshot of how emerging professionals view fashion retail, brands, and mobility – amid all the AI advances.It is Tuesday, August 26th at 9am in New York.They may not manage billions of dollars yet, but Morgan Stanley's summer interns certainly shape sentiment on the street, including Wall Street. From sock heights to sneaker trends, Gen Z has thoughts. So, for the seventh year, we ran a survey of our summer interns in the U.S. and Europe. The survey involved more than 500 interns based in the U.S., and about 150 based in Europe. So, Alex, let's start with what these interns think about fashion and athletic footwear. What was your biggest takeaway from the intern survey? Alex Straton: So, across the three categories we track in the survey – that's apparel, athletic footwear, and handbags – there was one clear theme, and that's market fragmentation. So, for each category specifically, we observed share of the top three to five brands falling over time. And what that means is these once dominant brands, as consumer mind share is falling – and it likely makes them lower growth margin and multiple businesses over time. At the same time, you have smaller brands being able to captivate consumer attention more effectively, and they have staying power in a way that they haven't necessarily historically. I think one other piece I would just add; the rise of e-commerce and social media against a low barrier to entry space like apparel and footwear means it's easier to build a brand than it has been in the past. And the intern survey shows us this likely continues as this generation is increasingly inclined to shop online. Their social media usage is heavy, and they heavily rely on AI to inform, you know, their purchases.So, the big takeaway for me here isn't that the big are getting bigger in my space. It's actually that the big are probably getting smaller as new players have easier avenues to exist. Adam Jonas: Net apparel spending intentions rose versus the last survey, despite some concern around deteriorating demand for this category into the back half. What do you make of that result? Alex Straton: I think there were a bit conflicting takes from the survey when I look at all the answers together. So yes, apparel spending intentions are higher year-over-year, but at the same time, clothing and footwear also ranked as the second most category that interns would pull back on should prices go up. So let me break this down. On the higher spending intentions, I think timing played a huge role and a huge factor in the results. So, we ran this in July when spending in our space clearly accelerated. That to me was a function of better weather, pent up demand from earlier in the quarter, a potential tariff pull forward as headlines were intensifying, and then also typical back to school spending. So, in short, I think intention data is always very heavily tethered to the moment that it's collected and think that these factors mean, you know, it would've been better no matter what we've seen it in our space. I think on the second piece, which is interns pulling back spend should prices go up. That to me speaks to the high elasticity in this category, some of the highest in all of consumer discretionary. And that's one of the few drivers informing our cautious demand view on this space as we head into the back half. So, in summary on that piece, we think prices going higher will become more apparent this month onwards, which in tandem with high inventory and a competitive setup means sales could falter in the group. So, we still maintain this cautious demand view as we head into the back half, though our interns were pretty rosy in the survey. Adam Jonas: Interesting. So, interns continue to invest in tech ecosystems with more than 90 percent owning multiple devices. What does this interconnectedness mean for companies in your space? Alex Straton: This somewhat connects to the fragmentation theme I mentioned where I think digital shopping has somewhat functioned as a great equalizer in the space and big picture. I interpret device reliance as a leading indicator that this market diversification likely continues as brands fight to capture mobile mind share. The second read I'd have on this development is that it means brands must evolve to have an omnichannel presence. So that's both in store and online, and preferably one that's experiential focus such that this generation can create content around it. That's really the holy grail. And then maybe lastly, the third takeaway on this is that it's going to come at a cost. You, you can't keep eyeballs without spend. And historical brick and mortar retailers spend maybe 5 to 10 percent of sales on marketing, with digital requiring more than physical. So now I think what's interesting is that brands in my space with momentum seem to have to spend more than 10 percent of sales on marketing just to maintain popularity. So that's a cost pressure. We're not sure where these businesses will necessarily recoup if all of them end up getting the joke and continuing to invest just to drive mind share. Adam, turning to a topic that's been very hot this year in your area of expertise. That's humanoid robots. Interns were optimistic here with more than 60 percent believing they'll have many viable use cases and about the same number thinking they'll replace many human jobs. Yet fewer expect wide scale adoption within five years. What do you think explains this cautious enthusiasm? Adam Jonas: Well actually Alex, I think it's pretty smart. There is room to be optimistic. But there's definitely room to be cautious in terms of the scale of adoption, particularly over five years. And we're talking about humanoid robots. We're talking about a new species that's being created, right? This is bigger than just – will it replace our job? I mean, I don't think it's an exaggeration to ask what does this do to the concept of being human? You know, how does this affect our children and future generations? This is major generational planetary technology that I think is very much comparable to electricity, the internet. Some people say the wheel, fire, I don't know. We're going to see it happen and start to propagate over the next few years, where even if we don't have widespread adoption in terms of dealing with it on average hour of a day or an average day throughout the planet, you're going to see the technology go from zero to one as these machines learn by watching human behavior. Going from teleoperated instruction to then fully autonomous instruction, as the simulation stack and the compute gets more and more advanced. We're now seeing some industry leaders say that robots are able to learn by watching videos. And so, this is all happening right now, and it's happening at the pace of geopolitical rivalry, Sino-U.S. rivalry and terra cap, you know, big, big corporate competitive rivalry as well, for capital in the human brain. So, we are entering an unprecedented – maybe precedented in the last century – perhaps unprecedented era of technological and scientific discovery that I think you got to go back to the European and American Enlightenment or the Italian Renaissance to have any real comparisons to what we're about to see. Alex Straton: So, keeping with this same theme, interns showed strong interest in household robots with 61 percent expressing some interest and 24 percent saying they're very or extremely interested. I'm going to take you back to your prior coverage here, Adam. Could this translate into demand for AI driven mobility or smart infrastructure? Adam Jonas: Well, Alex, you were part of my prior coverage once upon a time. We were blessed with having you on our team for a year, and then you left me… Alex Straton: My golden era. Adam Jonas: But you came back, you came back. And you've done pretty well. So, so look, imagine it's 1903, the Wright Brothers just achieved first flight over the sands at Kitty Hawk. And then I were to tell you, ‘Oh yeah, in a few years we're going to have these planes used in World War I. And then in 1914, we'd have the first airline going between Tampa and St. Petersburg.' You'd say, ‘You're crazy,' right? The beauty of the intern survey is it gives the Morgan Stanley research department and our clients an opportunity to engage that surface area with that arising – not just the business leader – but that arising tech adopter. These are the people, these are the men and women that are going to kind of really adopt this much, much faster. And then, you know, our generation will get dragged into it eventually. So, I think it says; I think 61 percent expressing even some interest. And then 24 [percent], I guess, you know… The vast majority, three quarters saying, ‘Yeah, this is happening.' That's a sign I think, to our clients and capital market providers and regulators to say, ‘This won't be stopped. And if we don't do it, someone else will.' Alex Straton: So, another topic, Generative AI. It should come as no surprise really, that 95 percent of interns use that tool monthly, far ahead of the general population. How do you see this shaping future expectations for mobility and automation? Adam Jonas: So, this is what's interesting is people have asked kinda, ‘What's that Gen AI moment,' if you will, for mobility? Well, it really is Gen AI. Large Language Models and the technologies that develop the Large Language Models and that recursive learning, don't just affect the knowledge economy, right. Or writing or research report generation or intelligence search. It actually also turns video clips and physical information into tokens that can then create and take what would be a normal suburban city street and beautiful weather with smiling faces or whatever, and turn it into a chaotic scene of, you know, traffic and weather and all sorts of infrastructure issues and potholes. And that can be done in this digital twin, in an omniverse. A CEO recently told me when you drive a car with advanced, you know, Level 2+ autonomy, like full self-driving, you're not just driving in three-dimensional space. You're also playing a video game training a robot in a digital avatar. So again, I think that there is quite a lot of overlap between Gen AI and the fact that our interns are so much further down that curve of adoption than the broader public – is probably a hint to us is we got to keep listening to them, when we move into the physical realm of AI too. Alex Straton: So, no more driving tests for the 16-year-olds of the future... Adam Jonas: If you want to. Like, I tell my kids, if you want to drive, that's cool. Manual transmission, Italian sports cars, that's great. People still ride horses too. But it's just for the privileged few that can kind of keep these things in stables. Alex Straton: So, let me turn this into implications for companies here. Gen Z is tech fluent, open to disruption? How should autos and shared mobility providers rethink their engagement strategies with this generation? Adam Jonas: Well, that's a huge question. And think of the irony here. As we bring in this world of fake humans and humanoid robots, the scarcest resource is the human brain, right? So, this battle for the human mind is – it's incredible. And we haven't seen this really since like the Sputnik era or real height of the Cold War. We're seeing it now play out and our clients can read about some of these signing bonuses for these top AI and robotics talent being paid by many companies. It kind of makes, you know, your eyes water, even if you're used to the world of sports and soccer, . I think we're going to keep seeing more of that for the next few years because we need more brains, we need more stem. I think it's going to do; it has the potential to do a lot for our education system in the United States and in the West broadly. Alex Straton: So, we've covered a lot around what the next generation is interested in and, and their opinion. I know we do this every year, so it'll be exciting to see how this evolves over time. And how they adapt. It's been great speaking with you today, Adam. Adam Jonas: Absolutely. Alex, thanks for your insights. And to our listeners, stay curious, stay disruptive, and we'll catch you next time. 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.

Opinions by market pundits have been flying since Fed Chair Powell's remarks at Jackson Hole last week, leaving the door open for interest rate cuts as soon as in September. Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains his continued call for a bullish outlook on U.S. 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 on the podcast I'll be discussing the Fed's new signaling on policy and what it means for stocks. It's Monday, August 25th at 11:30am in New York. So, let's get after it. Over the past few months, the markets started to anticipate a Fed pivot to a more dovish stance this fall. More specifically, the bond market started to price in a very high likelihood for the Fed to start cutting interest rates again in September. Equities have taken their cues from this signaling in the bond market by trading higher through most of the summer – despite lingering concerns about tariffs, international conflicts and valuation. I have remained bullish throughout this period given our focus on historically strong earnings revisions and the view that the Fed's next move would be to cut rates even if the timing remained uncertain. Last week, the Fed held its annual symposium in Jackson Hole where they typically discuss near term policy intentions as well as larger considerations for their strategic policy framework. We learned two key things. First, the Fed seems closer to cutting rates in September than the last time Chair Powell spoke publicly. This change also comes after a week in which the markets were left wondering if he would remain more hawkish until inflation data confirmed what markets have already figured out. Clearly, Powell leaned more dovish. And with markets a bit nervous going into his speech on Friday morning, equities rallied sharply the rest of the day. Second, the Fed also indicated that it will no longer target average inflation at 2 percent. Instead, it will make 2 percent the target at all times. This means the Fed will not tolerate inflation above or below target to manage the average like it did in 2021-22. It also suggests a more hawkish Fed should the economy recover more strongly than is currently expected or inflation reaccelerates. From my standpoint, this is bullish for stocks over the next few weeks and markets can now fully anticipate Fed cuts in September. However, I see a few risks for September and October worth thinking about as the S&P 500 approaches our longstanding 6500 target. The first risk is the Fed decides to not cut after all because either growth is better or inflation is higher than expected. That would be worth a small correction in stocks given the high likelihood of a cut that is now priced in. The second risk is the Fed cuts but the bond market decides it's being too carefree about inflation and longer term bonds sell off. A sharp rise in 10-year Treasury yields would likely elicit a bigger correction in stocks until the Treasury and Fed regain control. Here's the important message I want to leave you with. A major bear market ended in April, and a new bull market began. It's rare for new bull markets to last only four months and more likely they last one-to-two years, at a minimum. What that means is that any dips we get this fall are likely to be buying opportunities for longer term investors. What gives us even more confidence in that statement is that earnings revisions continue to move sharply higher. The Fed uses economic data to make its decisions and that data is generally backward looking. Equity investors look at company data and guidance which is forward looking. This fact alone explains the wide divergence between equity prices and Fed decisions, which tend to be late and after equity markets have already figured out what's going to happen rather than what's in the past. Bottom line, I remain bullish on the next 12 months given what companies and equity markets are telling us. 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!

Credit spreads are at the lowest levels in more than two decades, indicating health of the corporate sector. However, our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets highlights two forces investors should monitor moving forward.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 – what to make of credit spreads as they hit some of their lowest levels in over 20 years? And what could change that? It's Friday, August 22nd at 2pm in London. The credit spread is the difference between the higher yield an investor gets for lending to a company relative to the government. This difference in yield is a reflection of perceived differences in risk. And bond investors spend a lot of time thinking, debating, and trading what they think it should be. It increases as the rating of a company falls and usually increases for bonds with longer maturities relative to shorter ones. The reason one invests in credit is to hopefully pick up some extra yield relative to buying a government bond and do so without taking too much additional risk. The challenge today is that these spreads are very low – or tight, in market parlance. In the U.S. corporate bonds with Investment Grade ratings only pay about three-quarters of a percent more than U.S. government bonds of the same maturity. It's a similar difference between the yield on companies in Europe and the yield on German debt, the safest benchmark in Europe. And so, in the U.S. these are the lowest spread levels since 1998, and in Europe, they're the lowest levels since 2007. The relevant question would seem to be, well, what changes this? One way of thinking about valuations in investing – and spreads are certainly a measure of valuation – is whether levels are so extreme that there's not really any precedent for them being sustained for an extended period of time. But for credit, this is a tricky argument. Spreads have been lower than their current levels. They were that way in the mid 1990s in the U.S., and they were that way in the mid 2000s in Europe, and they stayed that way for several years. And if we go back even further in time to the 1950s? Well, it looks like U.S. spreads were lower still. Another way to think about risk premiums – and spreads are also certainly a measure of risk premium – is: does it compensate you for the extra risk? And again, even with spreads quite low, this is tricky. Only making an extra three-quarters of a percent to invest in corporate bonds feels like a pretty miserly amount to both the casual observer and yours truly, a seasoned credit professional. But when we run the numbers, the extra losses that you've actually experienced for investing in Investment Grade bonds over time relative to governments, it's actually been about half of that. And that holds up over a relatively long period of time. And so, while spreads are very low by historical standards, extreme valuations don't always correct quickly. They often need another force to impact them. With credit currently benefiting from strong investor demand, good overall yields, and a better borrowing trajectory than governments, we'd be watching two dynamics for this to change. First weaker growth than we have at the moment would argue strongly that the risk premium and corporate debt needs to be higher. While the levels have varied, credit spreads have always been significantly wider than current levels in a U.S. recession; and that's looking out over a century of data. And so, if the odds of a recession were to go up, credit, we think, would have to take notice. Second, the fiscal trajectory for governments is currently worse than corporates, which argues for a tighter than normal corporate spread. And the recent U.S. budget bill only further reinforced this by increasing long-term borrowing for the U.S. government, while extending corporate tax cuts to the private sector. But the risk would be that companies start to take these benefits and throw caution to the wind and start to borrow more again – to invest or buy other companies. We haven't seen this type of animal spirit yet. But history would suggest that if growth holds up, it's usually just a matter of time. Thank you as always for listening. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, please let us know by leaving a review wherever you found us. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

From China's rapid electric vehicle adoption to the rise of robotaxis, humanoids, and flying vehicles, our analysts Adam Jonas and Tim Hsiao discuss how AI is revolutionizing the global auto industry.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Adam Jonas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Adam Jonas. I lead Morgan Stanley's Research Department's efforts on embodied AI and humanoid robots. Tim Hsiao: And I'm Tim Hsiao, Greater China Auto Analyst. Adam Jonas: Today – how the global auto industry is evolving from horsepower to brainpower with the help of AI. It's Thursday, August 21st at 9am in New York. Tim Hsiao: And 9pm in Hong Kong. Adam Jonas: From Detroit to Stuttgart to Shanghai, automakers are making big investments in AI. In fact, AI is the engine behind what we think will be a $200 billion self-driving vehicle market by 2030. Tim, you believe that nearly 30 percent of vehicles sold globally by 2030 will be equipped with Level 2+ smart driving features that can control steering, acceleration, braking, and even some hands-off driving. We expect China to account for 60 percent of these vehicles by 2030. What's driving this rapid adoption in China and how does it compare to the rest of the world? Tim Hsiao: China has the largest EV market globally, and the country's EV sales are not only making up over 50 percent of the new car sales locally in China but also accounting for over 50 percent of the global EV sales. As a result, the market is experiencing intense competition. And the car makers are keen to differentiate with the technological innovation, to which smart driving serve[s] as the most effective means. This together with the AI breakthrough enables China to aggressively roll out Level 2+ urban navigation on autopilot. In the meantime, Chinese government support, and cost competitive supply chains also helps. So, we are looking for China's the adoption of Level 2+ smart driving on passenger vehicle to reach 25 percent by end of this year, and 60 percent by 2030 versus 6 percent and 17 percent for the rest of the world during the same period. Adam Jonas: How is China balancing an aggressive rollout with safety and compliance, especially as it moves towards even greater vehicle automation going forward? Tim Hsiao: Right. That's a great and a relevant question because over the years, China has made significant strides in developing a comprehensive regulatory framework for autonomous vehicles. For example, China was already implementing its strategies for innovation and the development of autonomous vehicles in 2022 and had proved several auto OEM to roll out Level 3 pilot programs in 2023. Although China has been implementing stricter requirements since early this year; for example, banning terms like autonomous driving in advertisement and requiring stricter testing, we still believe more detailed industry standard and regulatory measures will facilitate development and adoption of Level 2+ Smart driving. And this is important to prevent, you know, the bad money from driving out goods. Adam Jonas: One way people might encounter this technology is through robotaxis. Now, robotaxis are gaining traction in China's major cities, as you've been reporting. What's the outlook for Level 4 adoption and how would this reshape urban mobility? Tim Hsiao: The size of Level 4+ robotaxi fleet stays small at the moment in China, with less than 1 percent penetration rate. But we've started seeing accelerating roll out of robotaxi operation in major cities since early this year. So, by 2030, we are looking for Level 4+ robotaxis to account for 8 percent of China's total taxi and ride sharing fleet size by 2030. So, this adoption is facilitated by robust regulatory frameworks, including designated test zones and the clear safety guidance. We believe the proliferation of a Level 4 robotaxi will eventually reshape the urban mobility by meaningfully reducing transportation costs, alleviating traffic congestion through optimized routing and potentially reducing accidents. So, Adam, that's the outlook for China. But looking at the global trends beyond China, what are the biggest global revenue opportunities in your view? Is that going to be hardware, software, or something else? Adam Jonas: We are entering a new scientific era where the AI world, the software world is coming into far greater mental contact, and physical contact, with the hardware world and the physical world of manufacturing. And it's being driven by corporate rivalry amongst not just the terra cap, you know, super large cap companies, but also between public and private companies and competition. And then it's being also fueled by geopolitical rivalry and social issues as well, on a global scale. So, we're actually creating an entirely new species. This robotic species that yes, is expressed in many ways on our roads in China and globally – but it's just the beginning. In terms of whether it's hardware, software, or something else – it's all the above. What we've done with a across 40 sectors at Morgan Stanley is to divide the robot, whether it flies, drives, walks, crawls, whatever – we divide it into the brain and the body. And the brain can be divided into sensors and memory and compute and foundational models and simulation. The body can be broken up into actuators, the kind of motor neuron capability, the connective tissue, the batteries. And then there's integrators, that kind of do it all – the hardware, the software, the integration, the training, the data, the compute, the energy, the infrastructure. And so, what's so exciting about this opportunity for our clients is there's no one way to do it. There's no one region to do it. So, stick with us folks. There's a lot of – not just revenue opportunities – but alpha-generating opportunities as well. Tim Hsiao: We are seeing OEMs pivot from cars to humanoids and the electric vertical takeoff in the landing vehicles or EVOTL. Our listeners may have seen videos of these vehicles, which are like helicopters and are designed for urban air mobility. How realistic is this transition and what's the timeline for commercialization in your view? Adam Jonas: Anything that can be electrified will be electrified. Anything that can be automated will be automated. And the advancement of the state of the art in robotaxis and Level 2, Level 3, Level 4+ autonomy is directly transferrable to aviation. There's obviously different regulatory and safety aspects of aviation, the air traffic control and the FAA and the equivalent regulatory bodies in Europe and in China that we will have to navigate, pun intended. But we will get there. We will get there ultimately because taking these technologies of automation and electronic and software defined technology into the low altitude economy will be a superior experience and a vastly cheaper experience. Point to point, on a per person, per passenger, per ton, per mile basis. So the Wright brothers can finally get excited that their invention from 1903, quite a long time ago, could finally, really change how humans live and move around the surface of the earth; even beyond, few tens of thousands of commercial and private aircraft that exist today. Tim Hsiao: The other key questions or key focus for investors is about the business model. So, until now, the auto industry has centered on the car ownership model. But with this new technology, we've been hearing a new model, as you just mentioned, the shared mobility and the autonomous driving fleet. Experts say it could be major disruptor in this sector. So, what's your take on how this will evolve in developed and emerging markets? Adam Jonas: Well, we think when you take autonomous and shared and electric mobility all the way – that transportation starts to resemble a utility like electricity or water or telecom; where the incremental mile traveled is maybe not quite free, but very, very, very low cost. Maybe only; the marginal cost of the mile traveled may only just be the energy required to deliver that mile, whether it's a renewable or non-renewable energy source. And the relationship with a car will change a lot. Individual vehicle ownership may go the way of horse ownership. There will be some, but it'll be seen as a nostalgic privilege, if you will, to own our own car. Others would say, I don't want to own my own car. This is crazy. Why would anyone want to do that? So, it's going to really transform the business model. It will, I think, change the structure of the industry in terms of the number of participants and what they do. Not everybody will win. Some of the existing players can win. But they might have to make some uncomfortable trade-offs for survival. And for others, the car – let's say terrestrial vehicle modality may just be a small part of a broader robotics and then physical embodiment of AI that they're propagating; where auto will just be a really, really just one tendril of many, many dozens of different tendrils. So again, it's beginning now. This process will take decades to play out. But investors with even, you know, two-to-three or three-to-five-year view can take steps today to adjust their portfolios and position themselves. Tim Hsiao: The other key focus of the investor over the market would definitely be the geopolitical dynamics. So, Morgan Stanley expects to see a lot of what you call coopetition between global OEMs and the Chinese suppliers. What do you mean by coopetition and how do you see this dynamic playing out, especially in terms of the tech deflation? Adam Jonas: In order to reduce the United States dependency on China, we need to work with China. So, there's the irony here. Look, in my former life of being an auto analyst, every auto CEO I speak to does not believe that tariffs will limit Chinese involvement in the global auto industry, including onshore in the United States. Many are actively seeking to work with the Chinese through various structures to give them an on-ramp to move onshore to produce their, in many cases, superior products, but in U.S. factories on U.S. shores with American workers. That might lead to some, again, trade-offs. But our view within Morgan Stanley and working with you is we do think that there are on-ramps for Chinese hardware, Chinese knowhow, and Chinese electrical vehicle architecture, but while still being sensitive to the dual-purpose AI sensitivities around software and the AI networks that, for national security reasons, nations want to have more control over. And I actually am hopeful and seeing some signs already that that's going to happen and play out over the next six to 12 months. Tim Hsiao: I would say it's clear that the road ahead isn't just smarter; it's faster, more connected, and increasingly autonomous. Adam Jonas: That's correct, Tim. I could not agree more. Thanks for joining me on the show today. Tim Hsiao: Thanks, Adam. Always a pleasure. Adam Jonas: And to our listeners, thanks for listening. Until next time, stay human and keep driving forward. 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 already priced in a Fed cut, given the mixed economic data in the July labor and CPI prints. Our Global Economist Arunima Sinha makes the case for why we're standing by our baseline call for a higher bar for a rate cut. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript ----- Arunima Sinha: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Arunima Sinha, Global Economist at Morgan Stanley. Today – our evaluation of the Fed's policy path following the July CPI print, and the broader implications for other central banks. It's Wednesday, August 20th at 2pm in New York. Our baseline call has been that the Fed will remain on hold this year, and last week's CPI print has not changed that view. As we have noted, average tariff rates are still ramping up given the implementation delays, and so their cumulative effect on prices could be more lagged. Within the CPI print, tariff exposed goods other than apparel and autos continued to be firm. The surprise came in services inflation, which showed a reversal led by the uptick in airfares and hotel prices, which had been running in deflationary territory for much of this year. Some of the pushback against our view on inflation stepping up over the summer due to tariffs was that services disinflation could compensate. But as this print showed, that is unlikely to be the case. While we expect services inflation to continue to moderate, we think that services disinflation in the first half of [20]25 was exaggerated by weakness and volatile competence; and both core CPI and core PCE inflation are still at their pace from last year. So further acceleration in goods inflation from tariff effects over the summer would still see inflation remaining well above the Fed's target. After the July U.S. employment and CPI reports, the bar for the Fed to stay on hold in September is clearly higher. So, what are the risks to our call? The road goes back to how the data and the Fed's reaction function will evolve over ahead of the September meeting. The August jobs report will be important. If it is a solid employment report, with a sequential acceleration in payrolls and the unemployment rate around 4.2 to 4.3 percent, then the Fed could likely look through the weakness in the May and June prints – attributing the slowdown to the uncertainty following Liberation Day and not representative of the underlying trend. If, however, there were to be a sharp drop off in the hiring pace, which is currently not being indicated by other job market indicators such as jolts or claims, then the Fed could take the view that the labor market is much weaker than anticipated and restart easing. There is also the possibility of a cut from a risk management perspective. Even with inflation running well above target, the Fed could take the July employment report as a clear signal of downside risk to the labor market and start the easing cycle. Messaging from Fed officials has so far been mixed, with some taking signal from the jobs data and others remaining less worried with the unemployment rate remaining low. Outside the U.S., central bank trajectories remain tightly linked to both the Fed's path and the evolving U.S. growth outlook. Recent labor market data have introduced downside risks to our ECB and BoJ calls. In Europe, if Euro strength persists and U.S. recession risks rise, our euro area economists see a reduced risk to their September easing baseline. In Japan, the Bank of Japan remains cautious. Stronger U.S. data could tilt the balance toward a rate hike later this year – though October remains a high hurdle, making December or beyond more plausible. That said, if the U.S. economy slows in line with our forecast, the likelihood of further BoJ tightening diminishes reinforcing our base case – the BoJ staying on hold through end of 2026. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Chief Fixed Income Strategist Vishy Tirupattur brings in Vishwas Patkar, Head of U.S. Credit Strategy, and Carolyn Campbell, Head of Consumer and Commercial ABS Research, to explain our high conviction on the role of credit markets in data center financing. 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. Vishwas Patkar: I'm Vishwas Patkar, Head of U.S. Credit Strategy. Carolyn Campbell: And I'm Carolyn Campbell, Head of Consumer and Commercial ABS Research. Vishy Tirupattur: Today we'll talk about the feedback – and pushback – we've received on the data center financing note we wrote a few weeks ago. It's Tuesday, August 19th at 10am In New York. In the week since we published a report on bridging the data center financing gap, we were met with a wide range of investors to discuss the key takeaways from our report. We projected that meeting the data center demand requires something like $3 trillion of capital expenditure by 2028. And we projected that about half of this funding will come from hyperscaler cash flows, but the rest financed through different channels of the credit markets. So, Vishwas, some of the skeptics invoke comparisons to prior CapEx cycles, particularly the late 1990s telecom boom that did not quite end well. How would you respond to that skepticism? Vishwas Patkar: The 1990s telecom CapEx cycle certainly came up in a lot of our meetings. It was the last time we arguably saw CapEx cycle of this magnitude. I think the counter to this is that there are some very important differences versus what we saw then versus what we expect. Most importantly, the CapEx cycle back then was largely financed on corporate balance sheets, and we saw pretty significant uptake in debt issuance and leverage. Also, through the 1990s, the names, the companies that were spending were mid- to low-credit quality and not cash rich. That's very different from the hyperscalers that are in the center of the AI spending. And these companies are very cash rich, and their credit ratings range all the way from AAA to high A. So very much at the top end of the spectrum. In addition, we are quite optimistic about AI monetization, both the timeline and the magnitude. Some of this has also already been validated through second quarter earnings. We also think financing will be done through multiple channels going forward and it won't largely flow through to corporate debt. In fact, corporate debt issuance is actually a pretty small number of how we think this [$]3 trillion number will be met. And you know, the private credit piece, that we have talked about a lot in this report; we think it's likely to be skewed towards IG ratings, in many cases backed by contractual cash flows from credit worthy tenants. So, the risk, in some ways, could come from the sub investment grade non-hyperscaler type tenants. And that's an important theme to be watching. But by and large, this cycle is very different in our view from the late 1990s. Vishy Tirupattur: So, Carolyn, another pushback, is that the market will be overbuilt and won't be able to refinance in say, five years… Carolyn Campbell: Yeah, Vishy. This is a really big concern, particularly for securitized credit investors. We're starting to see some of the ABS and CMBS deals look to refinance even this year, and that will pick up as time goes on and these deals hit their five-year maturities. However, the biggest challenge to building new data centers in the U.S. today is access to power. Our equity research colleagues have identified a 45-gigawatt power bottleneck in the U.S., and we think this should keep the market structurally undersupplied of power and slow down the pace of construction, really limiting that overbuild risk. Thus, we expect that the churn and the vacancy rates will actually remain quite low in the medium term. And so, while it's a concern that in the long run that these data centers will decline in value; for now we don't see that to be a primary concern. Vishy Tirupattur: Carolyn, another concern we heard is that the investor demand will not keep pace with the supply, particularly in securitized credit. We also heard about the tenant quality, that tenant quality is a major concern in underwriting these deals. So how would you respond to those two points? Carolyn Campbell: Right. I mean, within ABS and CMBS, we don't think supply is really the limiting factor. We think it will come on the demand side for why we think that this market will grow to about [$]150 billion by 2028.However, our discussions with investors and the data that we've seen suggest that while there are a few big accounts that have been active in the ABS and CMBS space so far, many have yet to allocate meaningfully – preferring perhaps even other esoterics so far. And so, we think that as the supply grows, so too will the number of accounts and the size within which they're participating. That being said, the market is already starting to price in a higher risk of tenant weakness. We started to see deals with a lower proportion of IG or greater exposure to AI names price meaningfully wider than those deals that are almost entirely IG and are more for collocation and enterprise. Ultimately there will be winners and losers in this new AI industry. And so, the diversification across region and across tenant type, exposure to residual cloud and enterprise businesses, and the proportion of IG and non-AI tenants in these deals will be very important as we assess the risks of ABS and CMBS deals. Vishy Tirupattur: Vishwas, any way we cut it, the scale of investment here is pretty large. Would this scale of investment divert capital away from public credit? Vishwas Patkar: I certainly think that's a possibility, and maybe even a risk over time – but probably skewed towards the back half of our forecast horizon, which goes through 2028. I think with the public credit market, the next few quarters' supply should be largely manageable, and demand has been and should stay quite strong. But if you look a few quarters out, insurance demand has been very critical to what's supporting credit markets right now. If interest rates go lower, some of these insurance inflows could slow down. And we've also talked about insurance allocations that are shifting towards private and securitized credit at the expense of corporate credit. So, slowly, you could say supply needs rise. You know, we have about [$]800 billion of financing that needs to be met by private credit while inflow slow down. So, I wouldn't view this as a fundamental risk for public credit, but certainly a reason why credit spreads may not stay as tight as they are, over a period of time. Vishy Tirupattur: So ultimately, our projections are based on the transformative potential for AI and the role of data center financing to enable that. This is a high conviction view. As we have said elsewhere, we are not too wedded to the specific size estimates in the broad constellation of financing channels. The point we want to drive home here is that credit markets will play a major role in enabling AI driven technology fusion. As always, they will be winners and losers, but data center financing as a theme for credit investors is here to stay.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our analysts Tim Chan and Mayank Maheshwari discuss how nuclear power and natural gas are reshaping Asia's evolving energy mix, and what these trends mean for sustainability and the future of energy. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Tim Chan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Tim Chan, Morgan Stanley's Head of Asia Sustainability Research.Mayank Maheshwari: And I am Mayank Maheshwari, the Energy Analyst for India and Southeast Asia.Tim Chan: Today – a major shift in global energy. We are talking about nuclear power, gas adoption, and what the future holds.It's Monday, August 18th at 8am in Hong Kong.Mayank Maheshwari: And it's 8am in Singapore.Tim Chan: Nuclear power is no longer niche; it's a megatrend. It was once seen as controversial and capital intensive. But now nuclear power is stepping into the spotlight—not just for decarbonization, but for energy security. Global investment projections in this sector are now topping more than $2 trillion by 2050. This is fueled by a growing appetite from major tech companies for clean, reliable 24/7 energy. More specifically, Asia is emerging as the epicenter of capacity growth, and that's where your coverage comes in, Mayank.With the rising consumption of electricity, how does nuclear energy adoption stack up in your universe?Mayank Maheshwari: Tim, it's a fascinating world on power right now that we are seeing. Now the tight global power markets perspective is key on why there is so much investor and policymaker attention to nuclear power.Nuclear fuels accounted for about a tenth of the power units produced globally. However, they are almost a fifth of the global clean power generation. Now, power consumption is at another tripping point, and this is after tripling since 1980s. To give you a perspective, Tim, 25 trillion units of power were consumed worldwide last year, and we see this growing rapidly at a 25 percent pace in the next five years or so. And if you look at consumption growth outside of China, it's even faster at 2.5x for the rest of the decade when compared to the last decade.Now policy makers need energy security and hence, nuclear is getting a lot more attention. In Asia, while China, Korea, and Japan have been using nuclear energy to power the economy, the rest of Asia, it has been more an ambition – with India being the only country making progress last decade. Southeast Asia still has a lot more coal, and nuclear remains an ambition as technology acceptance by public and regulatory framework remains a key handicap. We do, however, see policy makers in Singapore, Vietnam, and Malaysia looking at nuclear fuels more seriously now, with SMRs also being discussed.Tim Chan: That is a really interesting perspective, Mayank. So, you have been bullish on the Asia gas adoption story. So, how do you think gas and nuclear will intersect in this region?Mayank Maheshwari: I think nuclear and natural gas, like all of the fuel stem, will complement each other. However, the long gestation to put nuclear capacity makes gas a viable alternative for energy security. As I was telling you earlier, policy makers are definitely focusing on it. As you know, the last big increase in focus in nuclear fuels also happened in the 1970s oil shock, again when energy security came into play.Global natural gas consumption has more than doubled in the last three decades, and it's set to surprise again with AsiaPac's consumption pretty much set to rise at twice the pace versus what right now expectations are by the street. In this age of electrification and AI adoption, natural gas is definitely emerging as a dependable and an affordable fuel of the future to power everything from automobiles to humanoids, biogenetics, to AI data centers, and even semiconductor production, which is getting so much focus nowadays.We expect global consumption to rise again after not growing this decade for natural gas. As Asia's natural gas adoption rises and grows at 5 percent CAGR 2024-2030; with consumption for gas surprising in China, India, and Japan. So, all the large economies are seeing this big increases, especially versus expectations.The region will consume 70 percent of the globally traded natural gas by 2030. So that's how important Asia will be for the world. And while global gas glut is well flagged, especially coming out of the U.S., Asia's ability to absorb this glut is not very well appreciated.Tim, having said that, nuclear energy is clearly getting more interest globally and is often debated in sustainability circles. How do you see its role evolving in sustainability frameworks as well as green taxonomies?Tim Chan: On sustainability, one thing to talk about is exclusion. That is really important for many sustainable sustainability investors. And when it comes to exclusion for nuclear power, only 2.3 percent of global AUM now exclude nuclear power. And then, that percentage is lower than alcohol, military contracting and gambling. And the exclusion rate is also different dependent on the region. Right now, European investors have the highest exclusion rate but have reduced the nuclear exclusion from 10.9 percent to 8.4 percent as of December last year. And North American and Asian exclusion rates are very, very low. Just 0.3 percent and 0.6 percent respectively.So, this exclusion in North America and Asia are minimal. The World Bank has also lifted, its decades long ban on financing nuclear project, which is important because World Bank can provide capital to fund the early stage of nuclear plant project or construction.And finally, on green finance. The EU, China and Japan have incorporated the nuclear power into their green taxonomies. So that means in some circumstances, nuclear project can be considered as green.Mayank Maheshwari: Now we have talked about AI and its need for power on this show. Nuclear power has a significant role to play in that equation, with hyperscalers paying premium for nuclear power. How does this support the investment case for nuclear utilities?Tim Chan: Yeah, so that depends on the region; and then different region we have different dilemmas. So, let's talk about U.S. first. In the U.S. we are seeing nuclear power is commanding a premium of approximately around $30-$50 per megawatt hour – above the market rate. So, when it comes to this price premium, we do think that will support the nuclear utilities in the U.S. And then in the report we highlighted a few names that we believe the current stock price haven't really priced in this premium in the market.And then for other regions, it depends on the region as well. So, Mayank, you have talked about Southeast Asia. Southeast Asia right now, given the lack of nuclear pipeline and then also the favorable economies of gas, we are not seeing that sort of premium yet in the Southeast Asia. We are also not seeing that premium in the Europe and in China as well, given that right now this sort of premium is mainly a U.S. exclusive situation. So dependent on the region, we are seeing different opportunities for nuclear utilities when it comes to the price premium.Mayank Maheshwari: Definitely Tim, I think the price premiums are dependent on how tight these power markets in each of the geographies are. But like, how does nuclear fit into broader energy mix alongside renewables and natural gas for you?Tim Chan: So, all these are really important. For nuclear power, investors really appreciate the clean and reliable, and for the 24x7 nature of the energy supply to support their operations and sustainability goals. And then nuclear is also important to bring the power additionality, which means nuclear is bringing truly new energy generation rather than simply utilizing a system or already planned capacity. We are seeing that sort of additionality in the new nuclear project and also the SMR in future as well.So, for natural gas, that is also important. As Mayank you have mentioned, natural gas money adds as a bridge field to provide flexibility to the grid. And then in the U.S., it is currently the primary near-term solution for powering AI and data center to increase the electricity supply due to its speed to the market and reliability. And natural gas is suspected to meet immediate demand, while longer term solutions like nuclear projects and also SMR are developed.And finally, renewable energy is also important. It represents the fastest growing and increasingly cost competitive energy source. They also dominate the new capacity additions as well. But for renewable energy, it also requires complimentary technology such as battery ESS to adjust intermittency issues.So, Mayank we have talked so much about nuclear, and back to you on natural gas. You are really bullish on natural gas. So how and where do you think are the best way to play it?Mayank Maheshwari: As you were kind of talking about the intersection and diffusion between nuclear, natural gas and the renewable markets, what you're seeing is that our bullishness on consumption of natural gas is basically all about how this diffusion plays out. Consumption on natural gas will rise much quicker than most fuels for the rest of the decade, if you think about numbers – making it more than just a transition fuel.Hence, Morgan Stanley research has a list of 75 equities globally to play the thematic of this diffusion, and it is happening in the power markets. These equities are part of the natural gas adoption and the powering AI thematic as well. So, these include the equipment producers on power, the gas pipeline players who are basically supporting the supply of natural gas to some of these pipelines. Hybrid power generation companies which have a good mix of renewables, natural gas, a bit of nuclear sometimes. And infrastructure providers for energy security.So, all these 75 stocks are effective playing at the intersection of all these three thematics that we are talking about as Morgan Stanley research. It is clear that nuclear renaissance, Tim, isn't just about reactors. It's about rethinking energy systems, sustainability, and geopolitics.Tim Chan: Yes, and the last decade will be defined by how we balance ambition with execution. Nuclear together with gas and renewables will be central to Asia's energy future. Mayank, thanks for taking the time to talk,Mayank Maheshwari: Great speaking to you, Tim.Tim Chan: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Original Release Date: July 11, 2025As U.S. retailers manage the impacts of increased tariffs, they have taken a number of approaches to avoid raising prices for customers. Our Head of Corporate Strategy Andrew Sheets and our Head of U.S. Consumer Retail and Credit Research Jenna Giannelli discuss whether they can continue to do so.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.Jenna Giannelli: And I'm Jenna Giannelli, Head of U.S. Consumer and Retail Credit Research.Andrew Sheets: And today on the podcast, we're going to dig into one of the biggest conundrums in the market today. Where and when are tariffs going to show up in prices and margins?It's Friday, July 11th at 10am in New York.Jenna, it's great to catch up with you today because I think you can really bring some unique perspective into one of the biggest puzzles that we're facing in the market today. Even with all of these various pauses and delays, the U.S. has imposed historically large tariffs on imports. And we're seeing a rapid acceleration in the amount of money collected from those tariffs by U.S. customs. These are real hard dollars that importers – or somebody else – are paying. Yet we haven't seen these tariffs show up to a significant degree in official data on prices – with recent inflation data relatively modest. And overall stock and credit markets remain pretty strong and pretty resilient, suggesting less effect.So, are these tariffs just less impactful than expected, or is there something else going on here with timing and severity? And given your coverage of the consumer and retail sectors, which is really at the center of this tariff debate – what do you think is going on?Jenna Giannelli: So yes, this is a key question and one that is dominating a lot of our client conversations. At a high level, I'd point to a few things. First, there's a timing issue here. So, when tariffs were first announced, retailers were already sitting on three to four months worth of inventory, just due to natural industry lead times. And they were able to draw down on this product.This is mostly what they sold in 1Q and likely into 2Q, which is why you haven't seen much margin or pricing impact thus far. Companies – we also saw them start to stock up heavily on inventory before the tariffs and at the lower pause rate tariffs, which is the product you referenced that we're seeing coming in now. This is really going to help mitigate margin pressure in the second quarter that you still have this lower cost inventory flowing through.On top of this timing consideration, retailers – we've just seen utilizing a range of mitigation measures, right? So, whether it's canceled or pause shipments from China, a shifting production mix or sourcing exposure in the short run, particularly before the pause rate on China. And then really leaning into just whether it's product mix shifts, cost savings elsewhere in the PNL, and vendor negotiations, right? They're really leaning into everything in their toolbox that they can.Pricing too has been talked about as something that is an option, but the option of last resort. We have heard it will be utilized, but very tactically and very surgically, as we think about the back half of the year. When you put this all together, how much impact is it having? On average from retailers that we heard from in the first quarter, they thought they would be able to mitigate about half of the expected tariff headwind, which is actually a bit better than we were expecting.Finally, I'll just comment on your comment regarding market performance. While you're right in that the overall equity and credit markets have held up well, year-to-date, retail equities and credit have fared worse than their respective indices. What's interesting, actually, is that credit though has significantly outperformed retail equities, which is a relationship we think should converge or correct as we move throughout the balance of the year.Andrew Sheets: So, Jenna, retailers saw this coming. They've been pulling various levers to mitigate the impact. You mentioned kind of the last lever that they want to pull is prices, raising prices, which is the macro thing that we care about. The thing that would actually show up in inflation.How close are we though to kind of running out of other options for these guys? That is, the only thing left is they can start raising prices?Jenna Giannelli: So closer is what I would say. We're likely not going to see a huge impact in 2Q, more likely as we head into 3Q and more heavily into the all-important fourth quarter holiday season. This is really when those higher cost goods are going to be flowing through the PNL and retailers need to offset this as they've utilized a lot of their other mitigation strategies. They've moved what they could move. They've negotiated where they could, they've cut where they could cut. And again, as this last step, it will be to try and raise price.So, who's going to have the most and least success? In our universe, we think it's going to be more difficult to pass along price in some of the more historically deflationary categories like apparel and footwear. Outside of what is a really strong brand presence, which in our universe, historically hasn't been the case.Also, in some of the higher ticket or more durable goods categories like home goods, sporting goods, furniture, we think it'll be challenging as well here to pass along higher costs. Where it's going to be less of an issue is in our Staples universe, where what we'd put is less discretionary categories like Beauty, Personal Care, which is part of the reason why we've been cautious on retail, and neutral and consumer products when we think about sector allocation.Andrew Sheets: And when do you think this will show up? Is it a third quarter story? A fourth quarter story?Jenna Giannelli: I think this is going to really start to show up in the third quarter, and more heavily into the fourth quarter, the all-important holiday season.Andrew Sheets: Yeah, and I think that's what's really interesting about the impact of this backup to the macro. Again, returning to the big picture is I think one of the most important calls that Morgan Stanley economists have is that inflation, which has been coming down somewhat so far this year is going to pick back up in August and September and October. And because it's going to pick back up, the Federal Reserve is not going to cut interest rates anymore this year because of that inflation dynamic.So, this is a big debate in the market. Many investors disagree. But I think what you're talking about in terms of there are some very understandable reasons, maybe why prices haven't changed so far. But that those price hikes could be coming have real macroeconomic implications.So, you know, maybe though, something to just close on – is to bring this to the latest headlines. You know, we're now back it seems, in a market where every day we log onto our screens, and we see a new headline of some new tariff being announced or suggested towards countries. Where do you think those announcements, so far are relative to what retailers are expecting – kind of what you think is in guidance?Jenna Giannelli: Sure. So, look what we've seen of late; the recent tariff headlines are certainly higher or worse, I think, than what investors in management teams were expecting. For Vietnam, less so; I'd say it was more in line. But for most elsewhere, in Asia, particularly Southeast Asia, the rates that are set to go in effect on August 1st, as we now understand them, are higher or worse than management teams were expecting.Recall that while guidance did show up in many flavors in the first quarter, so whether withdrawn guidance or lowered guidance. For those that did factor in tariffs to their guide, most were factoring in either pause rate tariffs or tariff rates that were at least lower than what was proposed on Liberation Day, right?So, what's the punchline here? I think despite some of the revisions we've already seen, there are more to come. To put some numbers around this, if we look at our group of retail consumer cohort, credits, consensus expectations for calling for EBITDA in our universe to be down around 5 percent year-over-year. If we apply tariff rates as we know them today for a half-year headwind starting August 1st, this number should be down around 15 percent year-over-year on a gross basis…Andrew Sheets: So, three times as much.Jenna Giannelli: Pretty significant. Exactly. And so, while there might be mitigation efforts, there might be some pricing passed along, this is still a pretty significant delta between where consensus is right now and what we know tariff rates to be today – could imply for earnings in the second half.Andrew Sheets: Jenna, thanks for taking the time to talk.Jenna Giannelli: My pleasure. Thank you.Andrew Sheets: And thank you as always for your time. If you find Thoughts to the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

The market thinks the Fed is likely to cut rates come September. Morgan Stanley economists disagree. Our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets explains our viewpoint and presents three scenarios for corporate credit. 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 – the big difference between our view and the market on what the Fed will do next month; and how that impacts our credit view. It's Thursday, August 14th at 2pm in London. As of this recording, the market is pricing in a roughly 97 percent chance that the Federal Reserve lowers interest rates at its meeting next month. But our economists think it remains more likely that they will leave this rate unchanged. It's a big divergence on a very important market debate. But what may seem like a radical difference in view is actually, in my opinion, a pretty straightforward premise. The Federal Reserve has a so-called dual mandate tasked with keeping both inflation and unemployment low. The unemployment rate is low, but the inflation rate – importantly – is not. In order to ensure that that inflation rate goes lower, absent a major weakening of the economy, we think it would be reasonable for the Fed to keep interest rates somewhat higher for somewhat longer. Hence, we forecast that the Fed will end up staying put at its September meeting. Indeed, while the market rallied on this week's latest inflation numbers, they still leave the Fed with some pretty big questions. Core inflation in the US is above the Fed's target. It's been stuck near these levels now for more than a year. And based on this week's latest data, it started to actually tick up again, a trend that we think could continue over the next several readings as tariff impacts gradually come through.And so, for credit, this presents three scenarios. One good, and two that are more troubling. The good scenario is that our forecasts for inflation are simply too high. Inflation ends up falling faster than we expect even as the economy holds up. That would allow the Fed to lower interest rates sooner and faster than we're forecasting. And this would be a good scenario for credit, even at currently low rich spreads, and would likely drive good total returns. Scenario two sees inflation elevated in line with our near-term forecast, but the Fed lowers rates anyway. But wouldn't this be good? Wouldn't the credit market like lower rates? Well, lowering rates stimulates the economy and tends to push inflation higher, all else equal. And so, with inflation still above where the Fed wants it to be, it raises the odds of a hot economy with faster growth, but higher prices. That sort of mix might be welcomed by the equity market, which can do better in those booming times. But that same environment tends to be much tougher for credit. And if inflation doesn't end up falling as the Fed cuts rates, well, the Fed may be forced to do fewer rate cuts overall over the next one or two years. Or, even worse, may even have to reverse course and resume hikes – more volatile paths that we don't think the credit market would like. A third scenario is that a forecast at Morgan Stanley for growth, inflation, and the Fed are all correct. The central bank doesn't lower interest rates next month despite currently widespread expectation that they do so. That scenario could still be reasonable for the credit market over the medium term, but it would represent a very big surprise – not too far away, relative to market expectations. For now, markets may very well return to a late August slumber. But we're mindful that we're expecting something quite different than others when that summer ends. Thank you as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

Although tariff negotiations continue, deals are being made, shifting investor focus on assessing the fallout. Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy Michael Zezas and Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen consider the ripple effects on inflation and the bond market. 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. Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Chief U.S. Economist. Michael Zezas: Today, how are tariffs impacting the economy and what it means for bond markets? It's Wednesday, August 13th at 10:30am in New York. Michael, we've been talking about how the near-term uncertainty around tariff levels has come down. Tariff deals are, of course, still pending with some major U.S. trading partners like China; but agreements are starting to come together. And though there's lots of ways they could break over time, in the near-term, deals like the one with Europe signal that the U.S. might be happy for several months with what's been arranged. And so, the range of outcomes has shrunk. The U.S.' current effective tariff rate of 16 percent is about where we thought we'd be at year end. But that's substantially higher than the roughly 3 percent we started the year with. So, not as bad as it looked like it could have been after tariffs were announced on April 2nd, but still substantially higher. Now's the time when investors should stay away from chasing tariff headlines and guessing what the President might do next; and instead focus on assessing the impact of what's been done. With that as the backdrop, we got some relevant data yesterday, the Consumer Price Index for July. You were expecting that this would show some clear signs of tariffs pushing prices higher. Why was that? Michael Gapen: Well, we did analysis on the 2018-2019 tariff episode. So, in looking at the input-output tables, which give you an idea of how prices move through certain sectors of the economy, and applying that to the 2018 episode of tariffs – we got the result that you should see some tariff inflation in June, and then sequentially more as we move into the late summer and the early fall. So, the short answer, Mike, is a model based plus history-based exercise – that said yes, we should start seeing the effects of tariffs on those categories, where the direct effect is high. So that'd be most of your goods categories. Over time, as we move into later this year or early next year, it'll be more important to think about indirect effects, if any. Michael Zezas: Got it. So, the July CPI data that came out yesterday, then did it corroborate this view? Michael Gapen: Yes and no. So, I'm an economist, so I have to do a two-handed view on this. So yes… Michael Zezas: Always fair. Michael Gapen: Always, yes. So, yes, core goods prices rose by two-tenths on the month, in June they also rose by two-tenths. Prior to this goods' prices were largely flat with some of the big durables, items like autos being negative, right? So, we had all the give back following COVID. So, the prior trend was flat to negative. The last two months, they've shown two-tenths increases. And we've seen upward pressure on things like household furnishings, apparel. We saw a strong used car print this month, motor vehicle and repairs. So, all of that suggests that tariffs are starting to flow through. Now, we didn't – on the other hand – is we didn't get as much as we thought. New car prices were flat and maybe those price increases will be delayed until models – the 2026 models start hitting the lot. That would be September or later. And we didn't actually; I said apparel. Apparel was up stronger last month. It really wasn't up all that much this month. So, the CPI data for July corroborated the view that the inflation pass through is happening. Where I think it didn't answer the question is how much of it are we going to get and should we expect a lot of it to be front loaded? Or is this going to be a longer process? Michael Zezas: Got it. And then, does that mean that tariffs aren't having the sort of aggregate impact on the economy that many thought they would? Or is maybe the composition of that impact different? So, maybe prices aren't going up so much, but companies are managing those costs in other ways. How would you break that down? Michael Gapen: We would say, and our view is that, yes, you know, we have written down a forecast. And we used our modeling in the 2018-20 19 episode to tell us what's a reasonable forecast for how quickly and to what degree these tariffs should show up in inflation. But obviously, this has been a substantial move in tariffs. They didn't start all at once. They've come in different phases and there's a lot of lags here. So, I just think there's a wide range of potential outcomes here. So, I wouldn't conclude that tariffs are not having the effect we thought they would. I think it's way too early and would be incorrect to conclude, just [be]cause we've had relatively modest tariff pressures in June and July, inflation that we can be sanguine and say it's not a big deal and we should just move on.Michael Zezas: And even so, is it fair to say that there's still plenty of evidence that this is weighing on growth in the way you anticipated? Michael Gapen: I think so. I mean, it's clear the economy has moderated. If we kind of strip out the volatility and trade and inventories, final sales to domestic purchasers 1.5 in the first quarter. It was 1.1 in the second quarter, and a lot of that slowdown was related to spending by the consumer. And a slowdown in business spending. So that that could be a little more, maybe about policy uncertainty and not knowing exactly what to do and how to plan. But it also we think is reflected in a slowdown, in the pace of hiring. So, I would say, you got the policy uncertainty shock first. That also came through the effect of the April 2nd Liberation Day tariffs, which probably caused a freeze in hiring and spending activity for a bit. And now I would say we're moving into the part of the world where the actual increase in tariffs are going to happen. So, we'll know whether or not firms can pass these prices along or not. If they can't, we'll probably get a weaker labor market. If they can, we'll continue to see it in inflation.But Mike, let me ask you a question now. You've had all the fun. Let me turn the table. Michael Zezas: Fair enough. Michael Gapen: How much does it matter for you or your team, whether or not these tariffs are pushing prices higher? And/or delaying cuts from the Fed. How do you think about that on your side? Michael Zezas: Yeah, so this question of composition and lags is really interesting. I think though that if the end state here is as you forecast – that we'll end up with weaker growth, and as a consequence, the Fed will embark on a substantial rate cutting program. Then the direction of travel for bond yields from here is still lower. So, if that's the case, then obviously this would be a favorable backdrop for owners of U.S. treasury bonds. It's probably also good news for owners of corporate credit, but the story's a bit trickier here. If yields move lower on weaker growth, but we ultimately avoid a recession, this might be the sweet spot for corporate credit. You've got fundamental strength holding that limits credit risk, and so you get performance from all in yields declining – both the yield expressed by the risk-free rate, as well as the credit spread. But if we tipped into recession, then naturally we'd expect there to be a repricing of all risk in the market. You'd expect there to be some expression of fundamental weakness and credit spreads would widen. So, government bonds would've been a better product to own in that environment.But, of course, Michael, we have to consider alternative outcomes where yields go higher, and this would turn into a bad environment for bond returns that would appear to be most likely in the scenario where U.S. growth actually ticks higher, resetting expectations for monetary policy in a more hawkish direction.So, what do you think investors should watch for that would lead to that outcome? Is it something like an AI productivity boom or maybe something else that's not on our radar? Michael Gapen: Yeah, so I think that is something investors do have to think about; and let me frame one way to think about that – where ex-post any easing by the Fed as early as September might be retroactively viewed as a policy mistake, right? So, we can say, yes, tariffs should slow down growth and maybe that happens in the second half of this year. The Fed maybe eases rates as a pre-emptive measure or risk management approach to avoid too much weakness in the labor market. So even though the Fed is seeing firming inflation now, which it is. It could ease in September, maybe again in December [be]cause it's worried about the labor market. So maybe that's what dominates 2025. And, and like you said, perhaps in the very near term, continues to pull bond prices lower. But what if we get into 2026 and the tariff effect or the tariff drag on growth fades, and the consumer begins to accelerate. So, we don't have a recession, we just get a bit of a divot in growth and then the economy recovers. Then fiscal policy kicks in, right? We don't think the One Big, Beautiful Bill act will provide a lot of stimulus, but we could be wrong. It could kickstart animal spirits and bring forward a lot of business spending. And then maybe AI, as you said; that could be a combining factor and financial conditions would be very easy in that world, in part – given that the Fed has eased, right? So that that could be a world where, you know, growth is modest, but it's firming. Inflation that's moved up to about 3 percent or maybe a little bit higher later this year kind of stays there. And then retroactively, the problem is the Fed eased financial conditions into that and inflation's kind of stuck around 3 percent. Bond yields – at least the long end – would probably react negatively in that world. Michael Zezas: Yeah, that makes perfect sense to us. Well, Michael, thanks for taking the time to talk with me. Michael Gapen: Thanks for having me on, Mike. Michael Zezas: And to our audience, thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review and tell your friends about the podcast. We want everyone to listen.

Can a central bank simply announce an inflation target and get everyone to believe it? Our Global Economist Arunima Sinha looks at the cases of South Africa and Brazil to explain why it's a subject of decades-long debate. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Arunima Sinha: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Arunima Sinha, Global Economist at Morgan Stanley. Today I'm going to talk about how inflation targets of central banks matter for market participants and economic activity.It's Tuesday, August 12th at 10am in New York. Tariff driven inflation is at the center of financial market debates right now. The received wisdom is that a central bank should look through one-off increases in prices if – and it is an important if – inflation expectations are anchored low enough. Inflation targets, inflation expectations, and central bank credibility have been debated for decades. The Fed's much criticized view that COVID inflation would be transitory was based on the assumption that anchored inflation expectations would pull inflation down. The Fed is more cautious now after four years of above target inflation. Can a central bank simply announce an inflation target and get everyone to believe it? Far away from the U.S., the South Africa Reserve Bank, SARB, is providing a real time experiment. The SARB's inflation target was originally a range of 3 to 6 per cent, with an intention to shift to 2 to 4 percent over time. At its last meeting, the SARB announced that it was going to target the bottom end of the range, de facto shifting to a 3 percent target. A decision by the Ministry of Finance in the coming months is likely necessary to formalise the outcome, but the SARB has succeeded in pulling inflation down. It has established credibility, but we suspect that more work is needed to anchor inflation expectations firmly at 3 percent. Key to the SARS challenge, as the Fed's – the central bank cannot control all the drivers of inflation in the short run. For South Africa, fiscal targets and exchange rate movements are prime examples. The experience in Brazil offers insight for South Africa. The BCB adopted an inflation target in 1999 following the end of the currency peg that helps the transition away from hyperinflation. The target was initially set at 8 percent, lowered to 4.5 percent in 2005, and then lowered again to 3 percent in 2024.Fiscal outcomes, market expectations, and currency volatility have been hard to contain. The lessons apply to South Africa and also the Fed. Successful inflation targeting relies on a clear framework, but also on institutional strength and political consensus. For South Africa, as inflation falls ex-ante real interest rates will rise. That outcome will be necessary to restrain the economy enough to make sure that the path to 3 percent is achieved. For an open EM economy, there likely needs to be consistency by both monetary and fiscal authorities with regard to short-term pressures, both internal and external. While we ultimately expect the SARB to be able to anchor inflation expectations, the journey may not be a quick one; and that journey will likely depend on keeping real interest rates on the higher side to ensure the convergence.We take the experiences of South Africa and Brazil to be informative globally. Simply announcing an inflation target likely does not solve the problem. The Fed, for example, spent much of the 2010s hoping to get inflation up to target – while now ironically, inflation in the US has run above target for almost half a decade. Whether the lingering effects of the COVID inflation has affected the price setting mechanism is unclear, as is whether tariff driven inflation will exacerbate the situation. Our read of the evidence is that inflation expectations and central bank credibility come from hitting the target, not from announcing it. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share thoughts on the market with a friend or colleague today.

Morgan Stanley Research looks at how changes in demographics, ownership, and distribution can boost tech adoption to revolutionize the global sports industry. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Cesar Medina: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Cesar Medina, Morgan Stanley's Latin America Technology, Media, and Telecom Analyst. Today – we discuss what's driving the digital revolution in global sports. And what it means for fans as well as investors. It's Monday, August 11th, at 10am in New York.These days, watching a sporting event at home usually means streaming the big game on a large 4K HDR screen. Maybe even 8K for premium events. You might access real time stats from a supporting app or social media on a secondary device. Maybe even have a group chat with friends. But imagine a game with real-time personalized stats. Immersive alternate camera angles. Or even experiencing the match from a player's perspective—all powered by AI. These innovations are already being tested and rolled out in select leagues. Global sports generates half a trillion dollars in annual revenues. Despite all that cash, until very recently the industry was slow to embrace digital technology, lagging behind movies and music. Now that's changing – and fast.So, what's driving this transformation? Three powerful forces are closing this digital gap. One – younger, tech-savvy audiences demanding more immersive and personalized experiences. Two – new distribution models, with digital platforms stepping into the arena. And three – institutional investment, bringing capital and a push for modernization. You might ask – what does this all mean for fans, investors, and the future of entertainment? Let's start with fans. Today's sports fans aren't just watching—they're interacting, betting, gaming, and sharing. And younger fans are leading the charge. They are spending more time online and expect hyper-personalized content. They're more interested in individual athletes than teams, and they engage through social media, fantasy sports, and interactive platforms. Surveys show that fans under 35 are significantly more likely to spend money on sports if the experience is digital-first. Some leagues have seen viewership jump by 40 percent after introducing interactive features. Others are using AI to personalize content, boosting engagement and revenue. Digital transformation isn't just about watching games though—it's about reimagining the entire ecosystem. When it comes to live events, smart venues are using AI to adjust ticket prices based on weather, opposing team, and demand. Some are even using facial recognition for faster entry and purchases. Streaming platforms are making broadcasts more interactive, while combating piracy with predictive tech. As for engagement, fantasy sports, esports, and betting are booming. AI-driven platforms are helping fans make smarter picks—and spend more. Altogether, these innovations could boost global sports revenues by over 25 percent, adding more than $130 billion in value. While North America leads in monetization, Emerging Markets are catching up fast. In India, Brazil, and the Middle East, for example, sports franchises are seeing double-digit growth in value—sometimes outpacing traditional media. And here's the kicker: many of these regions have younger populations and faster-growing digital adoption. That's a recipe for serious growth. Meanwhile, niche sports and women's leagues are also gaining global traction, expanding the definition of mainstream entertainment. Of course, this transformation of the sports industry faces real hurdles—technical expertise, budget constraints, and cultural resistance among coaches and athletes. But the incentives are clear. And as more capital flows into sports—from private equity to sovereign wealth funds—digital transformation is becoming a strategic priority. So, what's the biggest takeaway? Global sports is no longer just about what happens on the field. It's about how fans experience it—on their phones, in their homes, and in the stadiums of the future. So whether you're an investor, a fan, or just someone who loves a good underdog story, this is a game worth watching. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist Michelle Weaver discusses what back-to-school spending trends reveal about consumer sentiment and the U.S. economy.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist here at Morgan Stanley.Today -- we're going back to school! A look at the second biggest shopping season in the U.S.. And what it can tell us about the broader market.It's Friday, August 8th, at 10am in New York.It's that time of the year again. With parents, caregivers and students making shopping lists for back-to-school supplies. And it's not just limited to school supplies and backpacks. It probably also includes laptops or tablets, smart phones and, of course, the latest clothes. For investors, understanding how consumers are feeling—and spending—right now is critical. Why? Because back-to-school spending tells us a lot about consumer sentiment. And this month's data has been sending some mixed but meaningful signals.Let's start with the mood on Main Street. According to our latest proprietary consumer survey, confidence in the economy is sliding. Just under one-third of consumers think the economy will improve over the next six months—which is down from 37 percent last month and 44 percent in January. And that's a pretty big drop from the start of the year. Meanwhile, half of all consumers expect the economy to get worse.Household finances are also feeling the squeeze. While around 40 percent expect their financial situation to improve, closer to 30 percent expect it to worsen. The net score is still positive, but down from last month and even more so from January.The takeaway? Consumers are feeling the pinch—and inflation remains their number one concern.We did see a bit of a brighter picture though around tariff fears. And tariffs are definitely still a worry, but we're past that point of peak fear. This month, over a third of consumers said they're “very concerned” about tariffs—down from 43 percent in April, post Liberation Day. And fewer people are planning to cut back on spending because of them: that number is just 30 percent now, compared to over 40 percent a few months ago.In fact, almost 30 percent of consumers actually plan to spend more despite tariffs. That's a sign of resilience—and perhaps necessity—as families prepare for the school year.And that brings us back to back-to-school shopping, which is a relative bright spot.Nearly half of U.S. consumers have already shopped or are planning to shop for the school year—right in line with what we saw in previous years. Among those shoppers, 47 percent are spending more than last year, while only 14 percent plan to spend less. That's a significant net positive at 34 percent.What's in the cart? More than 90 percent of shoppers are buying apparel, footwear, and school supplies. Apparel leads, followed by footwear, followed by supplies.If we look beyond the classroom at other things people are spending on, travel is still a priority. Around 60 percent of consumers plan to travel over the next six months, with visiting friends and family as the top reason. That's consistent with where we were a year ago and shows that experiences still matter—even in uncertain times.The big takeaway from all this data: Consumer sentiment is cooling, but spending—especially spending for seasonal needs—is holding up. Back-to-school categories like apparel and footwear are outperforming, making them potential bright spots for retailers.As we head into fall, keep your eyes on U.S. consumers. They're not just shopping for school—they're also signaling where the market could be headed next.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.

So far, markets have shown resilience, despite the volatility. However, our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets points out that economic data might tell a different story over the next few months, with a likely impact on yields.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 – how a tricky two months could feel a lot like stagflation, and a lot different from what we've had so far this year.It's Thursday, August 7th, at 2pm in London. For all the sound and fury around tariffs in 2025, financial markets have been resilient. Stocks are higher, bond yields are lower, credit spreads are near 20-year tights, and market volatility last month plummeted.Indeed, we sense increasing comfort with the idea that markets were tested by tariffs – after all we've been talking about them since February – and weathered the storm. So far this year, growth has generally held up, inflation has generally come down, and corporate earnings have generally been fine.Yet we think this might be a bit like a wide receiver celebrating on the 5-yard line. The tricky impact of tariffs? Well, it might be starting to show up in the data right now, with more to come over the next several months.When thinking about the supposed risk from tariffs, it's always been two fold: higher prices and then also less activity, given more uncertainty for businesses, and thus weaker growth.And what did we see last week? Well, so-called core-PCE inflation, the Fed's preferred inflation measure, showed that prices were once again rising and at a faster rate. A key report on the health of the U.S. jobs market showed weak jobs growth. And key surveys from the Institute of Supply Management, which are followed because the respondents are real people in the middle of real supply chains, cited lower levels of new orders, and higher prices being paid.In short, higher prices and slower growth. An unpleasant combo often summarized as stagflation.Now, maybe this was just one bad week. But it matters because it is coming right about the time that Morgan Stanley economists think we'll see more data like it. On their forecasts, U.S. growth will look a lot slower in the second half of the year than the first. And specifically, it is in the next three months, which should show higher rates of month-over-month inflation, while also seeing slower activity.This would be a different pattern of data that we've seen so far this year. And so if these forecasts are correct, it's not that markets have already passed the test. It's that the teacher is only now handing it out. For credit, we think this could make the next several months uncomfortable and drive some modest spread widening. Credit still has many things going for it, including attractive yields and generally good corporate performance. But this mix of slower growth and higher inflation, well, it's new. It's coming during an August/September period, which is often somewhat more challenging for credit. And all this leads us to think that a strong market will take a breather.Thank you, as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

Until now, the AI buildout has largely been self-funded. Our Chief Fixed Income Strategist Vishy Tirupattur and our Head of U.S. Credit Strategy Vishwas Patkar explain the role of credit markets to fund a potential financing gap of $1.5 trillion as spending on data centers and hardware keeps ramping up.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.Vishwas Patkar: And I'm Vishwas Patkar, Head of U.S. Credit Strategy at Morgan Stanley.Vishy Tirupattur: Today we want to talk about the opportunities and challenges in the credit markets, in the context of AI and data center financing.It's Wednesday, August 6th at 3pm in New York.Vishy Tirupattur: So, Vishwas spending on AI and data centers is really not new. It's been going on for a while. How has this CapEx been financed so far predominantly? What has changed now? And why do we need greater involvement of credit markets of different stripes?Vishwas Patkar: You're right, Vishy. So, CapEx on AI is certainly not new. So last year the hyperscalers alone spent more than $200 billion on AI related CapEx. What changes from here on, to your question, is the numbers just ramp up sharply. So, if you look at Morgan Stanley's estimates leveraging work done by our colleague Stephen Byrd over the next four years, there's about [$]2.9 trillion of CapEx that needs to be spent across hardware and data center bills.So what changes is, while CapEx so far has been largely self-funded by hyperscalers, we think that will not be the case going forward. So, when we leverage the work that has been done by our equity research colleagues around how much the hyperscalers can spend, we've identified a [$]1.5 trillion financing gap that has to be met by external capital. And we think credit would play a big role in that.Vishy Tirupattur: A financing gap of [$]1.5 trillion. Wow. That's a big number, by any measure. You talked about multiple credit channels that would need to be involved. Can you talk about rough sizing of these channels?Vishwas Patkar: Yep. So, we looked at four broad channels in the report that went out a few weeks ago. So, that [$]1.5 trillion gap breaks out into roughly [$]800 billion across private credit, which we think will be led by asset-based finance. Another [$]200 billion we think will come from Investment Grade rated bond issuance from the large tech names. Another [$]150 billion comes through securitized credit issuance via data center ABS and CMBS. And then finally there is a [$]350 billion plug that we've used. It's a catchall term for all other forms of financing that can cover sovereign spend, PE (private equity), VC among others,Vishy Tirupattur: The technology sector is fairly small within the context of corporate grade markets. You are estimating something like [$]200 billion of financing to come from this channel. Why not more?Vishwas Patkar: So, I think it comes down to really willingness versus ability. And, you know, you raise a good point. Tech names certainly have a lot of capacity to issue debt. And when I look at some of the work done by my colleague Lindsay Tyler in this report, the big four hyperscalers alone could issue over [$]600 billion of incremental debt without hurting their credit ratings.That said, our assumption is that early in the CapEx cycle, companies will be a little hesitant to do significantly debt funded investments as that might be seen as a suboptimal outcome for shareholder returns. And that's why we have reduced the magnitude of how much debt issuance could be vis-a-vis the actual capacity some of these companies have.So, Vishy, I talked about private credit meeting about half of the investment gap that we've identified and within that asset-based finance being a very important channel. So, what is ABF and why do you expect it to play such a big role in financing AI and data centers?Vishy Tirupattur: So, ABF is a very broad term for financing arrangements within the context of private credit. These are financing arrangements that are secured by loans and contractual cash flows such as leases – either with hard assets or without hard assets. So, the underlying concept itself is pretty widely used in securitizations.So, the difference between ABF structures and ABS structures is that the ABF structures are highly bespoke. They enable lots of customization to fit the specific needs of the investors and issuers in terms of risk tolerance, ratings, returns, duration, term, et cetera.So, ABS structures, on the other hand, are pretty standardized structures, you know, driven mainly by rating agencies – often requiring fairly stabilized cash flows with very strict requirements of lessee characteristics and sometimes residual value guarantees, in cases where hard assets are actually part of the collateral package.So, ABF opens up a wider range of possible structures and financing options to include assets that are on different stages of development. Remember, this is a very nascent industry. So, there are data centers that are fully stabilized cash flows, and there are data centers that are in very early stages of building with just land, or land and power access just being established.So, ABF structures can really do it in the form of a single asset or single facility financing or could include a portfolio of multiple assets and facilities that are in different stages of development.So, put all these things together, the nascent nature and the bespoke needs of data center financing call for a solution like ABF.Vishwas Patkar: And then taking a step back. So, as you said, the [$]1.5 trillion financing gap; I mean, that's a big number. That's larger than the size of the high yield market and the leveraged loan market.So, the question is, who are the investors in these structures, and where do you think the money ultimately comes from?Vishy Tirupattur: So, there is really a favorable alignment here of significant and substantial dry powder across different credit markets. And they're looking for attractive yields with appeal to a sticky investor base. This end investor base consists of investors such as insurance companies, sovereign wealth funds, pension funds, endowments, and high net worth retail individuals.Vishy Tirupattur: These are looking for scalable high quality asset exposures that can provide diversification benefits. And what we are talking about in terms of AI and data center financing precisely fall into that kind of investment. And we think this alignment of the need for capital and need for investments, that bridges this gap for [$]1.5 trillion that we're talking about here.So, my final question to you, Vishwas, is this. Where could we be wrong in our assessment of the financing through the various credit market channels?Vishwas Patkar: With the caveat that there are a lot of assumptions and moving parts in the framework that we build, I would flag really two risks. One macro, one micro.The macro one I would talk about in the context of credit market capacity. A lot of the favorable dynamics that you talked about come from where the level of rates are. So, if the economy slows and yields were to drop sharply, then I think the demand that credit markets are seeing could come into question, could see a slowdown over the coming years.The more micro risks, I think really come from how quickly or how slowly AI gets monetized by the big tech names. So, while we are quite optimistic about revenue generation a few years out, if in reality revenues are stronger than expected, then you could see more reliance on the public markets.So, for instance, the 200 billion of corporate bond issuance is likely going to be skewed higher in a more optimistic scenario. On the flip side, if there is mmuch ore uncertainty around the path to revenue generation, and if you see hyperscalers pulling back a bit on CapEx – then at the margin that could push more financing to the way of credit markets. In which case the overall [$]1.5 trillion number could also be biased higher.So those are the two big risks in my view.Vishy Tirupattur: So, Vishwas, any way you look at it, these numbers are big. And whether you are involved in AI or whether you're thinking about credit markets, these are numbers and developments that you cannot ignore.So, Vishwas, thanks so much for joining.Vishwas Patkar: Thank you for having me on Vishy.Vishy Tirupattur: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

There's a dichotomy between the pace of job growth and the unemployment rate. Our Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen and Global Head of Macro Strategy Matthew Hornbach analyze how the Fed might address this paradox.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 – a look back at last week's meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee or FOMC, and the path for rates from here.It's Tuesday, August 5th at 10am in New York.Mike, last week the Fed met for the fifth time this year. The committee didn't provide a summary of their economic projections, but they did update their official policy statement. And of course, Chair Powell spoke at the press conference. How would you characterize the tone of both?Michael Gapen: Yeah, at first the statement I thought took on a slightly dovish tone for two reasons. One, unexpected; the other expected. So, the committee did revise down their assessment of growth and economic activity. They had previously described the economy as growing at a quote, ‘solid pace,' and now they said, you know, the incoming data suggests that growth and economic activity moderated.So that's true. That's actually our view as well. We think the data points to that. The second reason the statement looked a little dovish, and this was expected is the Fed received two dissents. So, Governors Bowman and Waller both dissented in favor of a 25 basis point rate cut at the July meeting.But then the press conference started. And I would characterize that as Powell having at least some renewed concerns around persistence of inflation. So, he did recognize or acknowledge that the June inflation data showed a tariff impulse. But I'd say the more hawkish overtones really came in his description of the labor market, which I know were going to get into.And we've been kind of wondering and, you know, asking implicitly – is the Fed ever going to take a stand on what constitutes a healthy and/or weak labor market? And Powell, I think put down a lot of markers in the direction; that said, it's not so much about employment growth, it's about a low unemployment rate. And he kept describing the labor market as solid, and in healthy condition, and at full employment. So, the combination of that suggests it's a higher bar, in our mind, for the Fed to cut in September.Matthew Hornbach: And on the labor market, if we could dig a little bit deeper on that point. It did seem to me certainly that Powell was channeling your views on the labor market.Michael Gapen: Well, I wish I had that power but thank you.Matthew Hornbach: Well. I'd like to now channel your views – and of course his views – to our listeners. Can you just go a little bit deeper into this dichotomy that you've been highlighting between the pace of job growth and the unemployment rate itself?Michael Gapen: Yeah. Our thesis and what we've laid out coming into the year, and we think the data supports, is the idea that immigration controls have really slowed growth in the labor force. And what that means is the break-even rate of employment has come down.So even as economic growth has slowed and demand for labor has slowed, and therefore employment growth has slowed – the unemployment rate has stayed low, and there's some paradox in that. Normally when employment growth weakens, we think the economy's rolling over; the Fed should be easing.But in an environment of a very slow growing labor force, the two can coincide. And there's tension in that, we recognize. But our view is – the more the administration pushes in the direction of restraining immigration, the more likely it is you'll see the combination of low employment growth, but a low unemployment rate. And our view is that still means the labor market is tight.Matthew Hornbach: Indeed, indeed. Just one last question from me. How are you thinking about the Fed's policy path from here? In particular, how are you looking at the remaining data that could get the Fed to cut rates in September?Michael Gapen: Yeah, I think that there's no magic sauce here, if you will; or secret sauce. Powell, you know, essentially is laying out a case where it's more likely than not inflation will be deviating from the 2 percent target as tariffs get passed through to consumer prices. And the flag that he planted on the labor market suggests maybe they're leaning in the direction of thinking the unemployment rates is likely to stay low.So, we just need more revelations on this front. And the gap between the July and the September FOMC meetings is the longest on the Fed's calendar. So, they will see two inflation reports and two labor market reports. And again, it just to provide context and color, right? What I think Powell was doing was positioning his view against the two dissents that he received. So where, for example, Governor Waller laid out a case where weaker employment growth could justify cuts, Powell was reflecting the view of the rest of the committee that said, ‘Well, it's not really employment growth, it's about that unemployment rate.'So, when these data arrive, we'll be kind of weighing both of those components. What does employment growth look like going forward? How weak is it? And what's happening to that unemployment rate?So, if the Fed's doing its job, this shouldn't be magic. If the labor market's obviously rolling over, you'll get cuts later this year. If not, we think our view will play out and the Fed will be on the sideline through, you know, early 2026 before it moves to rate cuts then.So Matt, what I'd like to do is kind of turn from the economics over to the rates views. How did the rates market respond to the meeting, to the statement, to the press conference? How are you thinking about the market pricing of the policy path into your end?Matthew Hornbach: So initially when the statement was released, as you noted, it had a dovish flavor to it. And so, we had a small repricing in the interest rate market, putting a little bit of a higher probability, on the idea that the Fed would lower rates in September. But then as Chair Powell began the press conference and started to articulate his views around both inflation and the labor market we saw the market take out some probability that the Fed would lower rates in September.And where it ended up at the end of that particular day was putting about a 50 percent probability on a rate cut and as a result of 50 percent probability of no rate cut; leaving the data to really dictate where the pricing of that meeting would go from there.That to me speaks to this data dependence of the Fed, as you've discussed. And I think that in the coming weeks we get more of this data that you talked about, both on the inflation side of the mandate and on the labor market side of the mandate. And ultimately, if they end up, going in September, I would've expected the market to have priced most of that in, ahead of the meeting. And if they end up not cutting rates in September, then naturally the market will have moved in that direction ahead of time.And again, I think what ends up happening in September will be critical for how the market ends up pricing the evolution of policy in November and December. But to me, what I think is more interesting is your view on 2026. And in that regard, the market is still some distance away from your view, that the Fed goes about 175 basis points in 2026.Michael Gapen: Yeah, I mean, we're still thinking the lagged effects of tariffs and immigration will slow the economy enough to get more Fed cuts than the market's thinking. But, you know, we'll see if that happens. And maybe that's a topic we can turn back to in upcoming Thoughts on the Market.But what I'd like to do is ask you this. I've been reading some of your recent work on term premiums. And in my view, had this really interesting analysis about how the market prices Fed policy and how U.S. Treasury yields then adjust and move.You highlighted that Treasury yields built in a term premium after April 2nd. What's happening with that term premium today?Matthew Hornbach: Yeah. The April 2nd Liberation Day event catalyzed an expansion of term premia in the Treasury market. And ultimately what that means is that Treasury yields went up relative to what people were thinking about the path of Fed policy, And of course, the risks that they were thinking about in the month of April were risks related to trade policy. Those risks have diminished somewhat, I would argue in the subsequent months as the administration has been announcing deals with some of our trading partners. And then the market's focus turned to supply and what was going to happen with U.S. Treasury supply. And then, of course, the reaction of investors to that coming supply.And I would say, given what the Treasury announced last week, which was – it had no intention of raising supply, in the next several quarters. In our view is that the U.S. Treasury will not have to raise supply until the early part of 2027. So way off in the distance. So, investors are becoming more comfortable taking on duration risk in their portfolios because some of that uncertainty that opened up after April 2nd has been put away.Michael Gapen: Yeah, I can see how the substantial tariff revenue we're bringing in could affect that story. So, for example, I think if you annualize the run rates on tariffs, you'll get something over $300 billion in a 12-month period. And that certainly will have an impact on Treasury supply.Matthew Hornbach: Indeed. And so, as we make our way through the month of August, we'll get an update to those tariff revenues. And also, towards the end of August, we will have the economic symposium in Jackson Hole, where Chair Powell will give us his updated thoughts on what is the outlook for the economy and for monetary policy. And Mike, I look forward to catching up with you after that.Thanks for taking the time to talk today.Michael Gapen: Great speaking with you Matt.Matthew Hornbach: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Economic data looks backward while equity markets are looking ahead. Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains why this delays the Federal Reserve in both cutting and hiking rates – and why this is a feature of monetary policy, not a bug.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 economic data can be counterintuitive for how stocks trade. It's Monday, August 4th at 11:30am in New York. So, let's get after it. Since the lows in April, the rally in stocks has been relentless with no tradable pullbacks. I have been steadfastly bullish since early May primarily due to the V-shaped recovery in earnings revisions breadth that began in mid-April. The rebound in earnings revisions has been a function of the positive reflexivity from max bearishness on tariffs, the AI capex cycle bottoming, and the weaker U.S. dollar. Now, cash tax savings from the One Big Beautiful Bill are an additional benefit to cash flow which should drive higher capital spending and M&A. As usual, stocks have traded ahead of the positive sentiment and the lagging economic data – which leads me to the main point for today. Weak labor data last week may worry some investors in the short term. But ultimately we see that as just another positive catalyst for stocks. Further deterioration would simply get the Fed to start cutting rates sooner and more aggressively.The bond market seems to agree and is now pricing a 90 percent chance of a Fed cut in September, and the 2-year Treasury yield is 80 basis points below the fed[eral] funds rate. This spread is not nearly as severe as last summer when it reached 200 basis points. However, it will widen further if next month's labor data is disappointing again. While weaker economic data could lead to further weakness in equities, the labor data is arguably the most backward-looking data series we follow. It's also why the Fed tends to be late with rate cuts. Meanwhile, inflation metrics are arguably the second most backward looking data, which explains why the Fed also tends to be late in terms of hiking rates. In my view, it's a feature of monetary policy, not a bug. Finally, in my opinion, the bond market's influence is more important than President Trump's public calls for Powell to cut rates. The equity market understands this dynamic, too—which is why it also gets ahead of the Fed at various stages of the cycle. We noted in our Mid-Year Outlook that April was a very durable low for equities that effectively priced a mild recession. To fully appreciate this view, one must acknowledge that equities were correcting for the 12 months leading up to April with the average stock down close to 30 percent at the lows. More importantly, it also coincided with a major trough in earnings revisions breadth. In short, Liberation Day marked the end of a significant bear market that began a year earlier. Remember, equity markets bottom on bad news and Liberation Day was the last piece of a long string of bad news that formed the bottom for earnings revisions breadth that we have been laser focused on. To bring it home, economic data is backward looking, earnings revisions and equity markets are forward looking. April was a major low for stocks that discounted the weak economic data we are seeing now. It was also the trough of the rolling recession that we have been in for the past three years and marked the beginning of a rolling recovery and a new bull market. For those who remain skeptical, it's important to recognize that the unemployment typically rises for 12 months after the equity market bottoms in a recession. Once the growth risk is priced, it's ultimately a tailwind for margins and stocks, as positive operating leverage arrives and the Fed cuts significantly. Based on this morning's rebound in stocks, it looks like the equity markets agree. 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!

While investors may now better understand President Trump's trade strategy, the economic consequences of tariffs remain unclear. Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Michael Zezas and our Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen offer guidance on the data they are watching.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. Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Chief U.S. Economist. Michael Zezas: Today ongoing effects of tariffs on the U.S. economy. It is Friday, August 1st at 8am in New York. So, Michael, lots of news over the past couple of weeks about the U.S. making trade agreements with other countries. It's certainly dominated client conversations we've had, as I'm assuming it's probably dominated conversations for you as well. Michael Gapen: Yeah certainly a topic that never goes away. It keeps on giving at this point in time. And I guess, Michael, what I would ask you is, what do you make of the recent deals? Does it reduce uncertainty in your mind? Does it leave uncertainty elevated? What's your short-term outlook for trade policy? Michael Zezas: Yeah, I think it's fair to say that we've reduced the range of potential outcomes in the near term around tariff rates. But we haven't done anything to reduce longer term uncertainties in U.S. trade policy. So, consider, for example, over the last couple of weeks, we have an agreement with Japan and an agreement with Europe – two pretty substantial trading partners – where it appears, the tariff rate that's going to be applied is something like 15 percent. And when you stack up these deals on one another, it looks like we're going to end up in an average effective tariff rate from the U.S. range of kind of 15 to 20 percent. And if you think back a couple of months, that range was much wider and we were potentially talking about levels in the 25 to 30 percent range. So, in that sense, investors might have a bit of a respite from the idea of kind of massive uncertainty around trade policy outcomes. However, longer term, these agreements really just are kind of principles that are set out for behavior, and there's lots of trip wires that could create future potential escalations. So, for example, with the Europe deal, part of the deal is that Europe will commit to purchase a substantial amount of U.S. energy. There's obvious questions as to whether or not the U.S. can actually supply that amidst its own energy needs that are rising substantially over the course of the next year. So, could we end up in a situation where six months to a year from now if those purchases haven't been made – the U.S. sort of presses forward and the administration threatens to re-escalate tariffs again. Really hard to know, but the point is these arrangements have lots of contingencies and other factors that could lead to re-escalation. But it's fair to say, at least in the near term, that we're in a landing place that appears to be somewhat smaller in terms of the range of potential outcomes. Now, I think a question for investors is going to be – how do we assess what the effects of that have been, right? Because is it fair to say that the economic data that we've received so far maybe isn't fully telling the story of the effects that are being felt quite yet. Michael Gapen: Yeah, I think that's completely right. We've always had the view that it would take several months or more just for tariffs to show up in inflation. And if tariffs primarily act as a tax on the consumer, you have to apply that tax first before economic activity would moderate. So, we've long been forecasting that inflation would begin to pick up in June. We saw a little of that. But it would accelerate through the third quarter, kind of peaking around the August-September period. So, I'd say we've seen the first signs of that, Michael, but we need obviously follow through evidence that it's happening. So, we do expect that in the July, August and September inflation reports, you'll see a lot more evidence of tariffs pushing goods prices higher. So, we'll be dissecting all the details of the CPI looking for evidence of direct effects of tariffs, primarily on goods prices, but also some services prices. So, I'd put that down as the first marker, and we've seen some, early evidence on that. The second then, obviously, is the economy's 70 percent consumption. Tariffs act as a regressive tax on low- and middle-income consumers because non-discretionary purchases are a larger portion of their consumption bundle and a lot of goods prices are as well. Upper income households tend to spend relatively more money on leisure and recreation services. So, we would then expect growth in private consumption, primarily led by lower and middle-income spending softening. We think the consumer would slow down. But into the end of the year. Those are the two main markers that I would point to. Michael Zezas: Got it. So, I think this is really important because there's certainly this narrative amongst clients that we talk to that markets may have already moved on from this. Or investors may have already priced in the effects – or lack thereof – of some of this tariff escalation. Now we're about to get some real evidence from economic data as to whether or not that view and those assumptions are credible. Michael Gapen: That's right. Where we were initially on April 2nd after Liberation Day was largely embargo level tariffs. And if those stayed in place, trade volumes and activity and financial market asset values would've collapsed precipitously. And they were for a few weeks, as you know, but then we dialed it back and got out of that. So, yeah, we would say it's wrong to conclude that the economy , has absorbed these tariffs already and that they won't have,, a negative effect on economic activity. We think they will just in the base case where tariffs are high, but not too high, it just takes a while for that to happen. Michael Zezas: And of course, all of that's kind of core to our multi-asset outlook right now where a slowing economy, even with higher recession probabilities can still support risk assets. But of course, that piece of it is going to be very complicated if the economic data ends up being worse than you suspect. Now, any evidence you've seen so far? For example, we had a GDP report earlier this week. Any evidence from that data as to where things might go over the next few months?Michael Gapen: Yeah, well, another data point on trade policy and trade policy uncertainty really causing a lot of volatility in trade flows. So, if you recall, there's big front running of tariffs in the first quarter. Imports were up about 37 percent on the quarter; that ended in the second quarter, imports were down 30 percent. So net trade was a big drag on growth in the first quarter. It was a big boost to growth in the second. But we think that's largely noise. So, what I would say is we've probably level set import and export volumes now. So, do trade volumes from here begin to slow? That's an unresolved question. But certainly, the large volatility in the trade and inventory data in Q1 and Q2 GDP numbers are reflective of everything that you're saying about the risks around trade policy and elevated trade policy uncertainty. Second, though, I would say, because we started out the quarter with Liberation Day tariffs, the business sector, clearly – in our mind anyway – clearly responded by delaying activity. Equipment spending was only up 4 to 5 percent on the quarter. IP was up about 6 percent. Structures was down 10 percent. So, for all the narrative around AI-related spending, there wasn't a whole lot of spending on data centers and power generation in the second quarter.So, what you speak to about the need to reduce some trade policy uncertainty, but also your long run trade policy uncertainty remains elevated? I would say we saw evidence in the second quarter that all of that slowed down capital spending activity. Let's see if the One Big Beautiful Bill act can be a catalyst on that front, whether animal spirits can come back. But that's the other thing I would point to is that, business spending was weak and even though the headline GDP number was 3 percent, that's mainly a trade volatility number. Final sales to domestic purchasers, which includes consumption and business spending, was only up 1.1 percent in the quarter. So, the economy's moderating; things are cooling. I think trade policy and trade policy uncertainty is a big part of that story.Michael Zezas: Got it. So maybe this is something of a handoff here where my team had been really, really focused and investors have been really, really focused on the decision-making process of the U.S. administration around tariffs. And now your team's going to lead us through understanding the actual impacts. And the headline numbers around economic data are important, but probably even more important is the underlying. Is that fair? Michael Gapen: I think that's fair. I think as we move into the third quarter, like between now and when the Fed meets in, September, again, they'll have a few more inflation reports, a few more employment reports. We're going to learn a lot more than about what the Fed might do. So, I think the activity data and the Fed will now become much more important over the next several months than where we've been the past several months, which is about, has been about announcements around trade. Michael Zezas: All right. Well then, we look forward to hearing more from you and your team in the coming months. Well Michael, thanks for taking the time to talk to me. Michael Gapen: Thanks for having me on. Michael Zezas: And to our audience, thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review and tell your friends about the podcast. We want everyone to listen.

Lisa Shalett, our Wealth Management CIO, and Andrew Sheets, our Head of Corporate Credit Research, conclude their discussion of American Exceptionalism, factoring in fixed income, in the second of a two-part episode.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Lisa Shalett: And I'm Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management. Andrew Sheets: Today – a today a concluding look at the theme of American exceptionalism and how it factors into fixed income. It's Thursday, July 31st at 4pm in London. Lisa Shalett:  And it's 11am here in New York. So, Andrew, it's my turn to ask you some questions. And yesterday we talked a lot about equity markets, globalization, some of the broader macro shifts. But I wanted to zoom in on the credit markets today and one of our themes in the American Exceptionalism paper was the constraints of debts and deficits and how they play in. With U.S. debts level soaring and interest costs rising, how concerned should investors be? Andrew Sheets: So, you alluded to this a bit on our discussion yesterday that we are in a very interesting divide where you have inequality between very well-off companies and weaker companies that aren't doing as well. You have a lot of division within households between those who are, doing better and struggling more with the rate environment. But you know, I think we also see that the large deficits that the U.S. Federal government are running are in some ways largely mirrored by very, very good private sector financial positions. In aggregate U.S. households have record levels of assets relative to debt at the end of 2024; in aggregate the financial position of the U.S. equity market has never been better. And so, this is a dynamic where lending to the private sector, whether that is to parts of the residential mortgage market or to the corporate credit market, does have some advantages; where not just are you dealing with arguably a better trend of financial position, but you're just getting less issuance. I think there are a number of factors that could cause the market to cause the difference of yield between the government debt and that private sector debt – that so-called spread – to be narrower than it otherwise would be.Lisa Shalett: Well, that's a pretty interesting and provocative idea because, one of the hypotheses that we laid out in our paper is that perhaps one of the consequences of this extraordinary period of monetary stimulus of financial repression and ultra low rates, of massive regulation of the systemically important banking system, has been the explosion of shadow banks, and the private credit markets. Our thesis is they're a misallocation of capital. Has there been excess risk taking – in that area? And how should we think about that asset class, number one? And, number two, are they increasingly, a source of liquidity and issuance, or are they a drain on the system? Andrew Sheets: This is, kind of, where your discussion of normalization is is so interesting because in aggregate household balance sheets are in very good shape; in aggregate corporate balance sheets are in very good shape. But I do think there's a distinct tail of the market. Lets call it 5 percent of the high yield market, where you really are looking at a corporate capital structure that was designed for for a much lower level of rates. It was designed for maybe a immediately post COVID environment where rates were on the floor and expected to stay there for a long period of time. And so, if we are moving to an environment where Fed funds is at 3 or 4. Or as you mentioned – hey, maybe you could justify a rate even a little bit higher and not be wildly off. Well then, you just have the wrong capital structure. You have the wrong level of leverage; and it's actually hard to do much about that other than to restructure that debt, or look to change it in a larger way. So, I think we'll see a dynamic similar to the equity market – where there is less dispersion between the haves and have nots. Lisa Shalett: As we kind of think about where there could be pockets of opportunity in credit and in private credit, both public and private credit, and where there could be risks. Can you just help me with that and explore that a little bit more? Andrew Sheets: I think where credit looks most interesting is in some ways where it looks most boring. I think where the case for credit is strongest is – the investment grade market in the U.S. pays 5.25 percent. A 6 percent long run return might be competitive with certain investors' long-term equity market forecasts, or at least not a million miles off. I think though the other area where this is going to be interesting is – do we see significantly more capital intensity out of the tech sector? And a real divide between fixed income and equities is that tech has so far really been an equity story.Lisa Shalett: Correct. Andrew Sheets: But this data center build out is just enormous. I mean, through 2028, our analysts at Morgan Stanley think it's close to $3 trillion with a 't'. And so there's a lot of interest in how can credit markets, how can private credit markets fund some of this build out; and there are opportunities and risks around that. And you know, something that I think credit's going to play an interesting part of. Lisa Shalett: And in that vision do you see the blurring of lines or a more competitive market between public and private? Andrew Sheets: I do think there's always a little bit of a funny nature about credit where it's not always clear why a particular corporate loan would need to be traded every day, would need to be marked every day. I think it is a little bit different from the equity market in that way. And I think you're also seeing a level of sophistication from investors who now have the ability to traffic across these markets and move capital between these markets, depending on where they think they're being better compensated or where there's better opportunities. So, I think we're kind of absolutely seeing the blur of these lines. And again, I think private credit has until recently been somewhat synonymous with high-yield lending, riskier lending, lower rated lending. Lisa Shalett: Correct. Yeah. Andrew Sheets: And, yet, the lending that we're seeing to some of this tech infrastructure is, you could argue, maybe more similar to Investment Grade lending – both in terms of risk, but also it pays a lot less. And so again, this is kind of an interesting transition where you're seeing a broader scope and absolutely, I think, more blurring of the line between these markets. Lisa Shalett: So, let's just switch gears a little bit and pull out from credit to the broader diversified cross-asset portfolio. And some of those cross-asset correlations are starting to break down; and we go through these periods where stocks and bonds are more often than not positively correlated in moving together. How are you beginning to think about duration risk in this environment? And have you made any adjustments to how you think about portfolio construction in light of these potentially shifting changes in correlations across assets?Andrew Sheets:  I think there are kind of maybe two large takeaways I would take from this. First is I do think the big asset where we've seen the biggest change is in the U.S. dollar. The U.S. dollar, I think, for a lot of the period we've been discussing on these two episodes, was kind of the best of both worlds. And recently that's just really broken down. And so, I think, when we think about the reallocation to the rest of the world, the focus on diversification, I think this is absolutely something that is top of mind among non-U.S. investors that we're talking to, which is almost the U.S. equity piece is kind of a separate conversation.The other piece though, is some of this debate around yields and equities – and do equities fear higher rates or lower rates? Which one of those is the biggest problem? And there's a question of magnitude that's a little interesting here. Rates going higher might be a little bit more of a problem for the S&P 500 than rates going lower. That rates going higher might be more consistent with the scenario of temporary higher inflation. Maybe rates go lower [be]cause the market gets more excited about Federal Reserve cuts.But I think in terms of scenarios where – like where is the equity market really going to have a problem? Well, it's really going to have a problem if there's a recession. So, even though I think bonds have been less effective diversifiers, I really do think they're still going to serve a very healthy, helpful purpose around some of those potentially kind of bigger dynamics. Lisa Shalett: Yeah that very much jives with the way we've been thinking about it, particularly within the context of managing private wealth, where very often we're confronted with the, the question: What about 60-40? Is 60-40 dead? Is 60-40 back? Like, you talk about not wanting to hedge, I don't want to hedge either. But the answer to the question we agree is somewhat nuanced. Right?We do agree that this perfect world of negative correlations between stocks and bonds that we enjoyed for a good portion of the last 15 years probably is over. But that doesn't mean that bonds, and most specifically that 5 - 10 year part of the curve, doesn't have a really important role to play in portfolios. And the reason I say that is that one of the other elements of this conversation that we haven't really touched on is valuation and expected returns.I know that when I speak of the valuation-oriented topics and the CAPE ratio when expected 10-year returns, everyone's eyes glaze over and roll to the back of their head and they say, ‘Oh, here she goes again.' But look, I am in the camp that says an awful lot of growth has already been discounted and already been priced. And that it is much more likely that U.S. equities will return something closer to long run averages. So that's not awful. The lower volatility of a fixed income asset that's returning 6s and 7s has a definite role to play in portfolios for wealth clients who are by and large long term oriented investors who are not necessarily attempting to exploit 90-day volatility every quarter. Andrew Sheets:   Without putting too fine of a point on it, I think when that question of is 60-40 over is phrased, I kind of think the subtext is often that it's the bond side, the 40 side that has a problem. And not to be the Fixed Income Defender on this podcast, but you could probably more easily argue that if we're talking about, well, which valuation is more stretched, the equity side or the bond side? I think it's the equity side that has a more stretched valuation.Lisa Shalett: Without a doubt, without a doubt. Andrew Sheets:  Well, Lisa, thanks again for taking the time to talk. Lisa Shalett: Absolutely great to speak with you, Andrew, as always. Andrew Sheets: And thanks again for listening to this two-part conversation on American exceptionalism, the changes coming to that and how investors should position. And to our listeners, a reminder to take a moment to please review us wherever you listen. It helps more people find the show. And if you found this conversation insightful, tell a friend or colleague about Thoughts on the Market today.*****Lisa Shalett is a member of Morgan Stanley's Wealth Management Division and is not a member of Morgan Stanley's Research Department. Unless otherwise indicated, her views are her own and may differ from the views of the Morgan Stanley Research Department and from the views of others within Morgan Stanley.