Podcasts about Alternatives

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

This episode dismantles the idea that successful investing comes from finding the next hot thing. Instead, Don and Tom argue that good portfolios are built by eliminating what doesn't belong: actively managed funds, sector ETFs, alternatives, high-yield bonds, gold, and other distractions that add complexity without purpose. Drawing on a Morningstar column by Amy Arnott, they reinforce that most investing mistakes come from chasing performance rather than embracing simplicity and discipline. The show also tackles listener questions on retirement “bucket” strategies, rebalancing timing, Dimensional fund structure, and annuities—emphasizing that bonds exist for stability, cash should be limited and intentional, and any strategy must be personal, rules-based, and boring enough to actually work. 0:04 Opening banter, Apple censoring Tom's name, and the beige pudding world 1:12 Bitcoin critics, one-star reviews, and a bad 2025 for crypto 2:03 Core idea: good investing is about elimination, not prediction 2:56 Amy Arnott and the case against active management 4:07 Why past winners usually become future losers 5:28 REITs, once useful, now mostly redundant 6:01 Sector funds as performance-chasing traps 8:19 Alternatives, I Bonds, and junk bonds—complexity without payoff 10:04 Bonds explained properly: stability, not income or excitement 11:14 Gold (and Bitcoin) as non-productive speculation 13:21 Simplify first and portfolios become easier—and calmer 15:05 Retirement bucket strategy: where it helps and where it hurts 18:48 Cash as an emergency tool, not a long-term holding 21:04 MYGA annuities, safety trade-offs, and insurer risk 29:04 Insurance failures as cautionary history 31:04 DFAW explained: Core Equity 1 vs Core Equity 2 35:53 Rebalancing discipline: timing beats tinkering 39:11 Final reminder: stop watching your portfolio so much Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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

Tu veux créer une offre freelance rentable en 2026 et arrêter de dépendre de ton TJM ? Dès le 9 janvier, on démarre le sprint ByeByeTJM dans l'Incubateur Solopreneur : 5 semaines pour créer ton offre signature, la packager, écrire ta page de vente et bâtir un plan de lancement pour la vendre.

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

durée : 00:46:39 - On n'arrête pas l'éco - par : Alexandra Bensaid, Valentin Pérez - Pour la dernière émission de l'année, nous vous offrons d'entrer dans une autre conversation : une heure de bonnes nouvelles en économie, d'idées différentes, de regards neufs. L'éco façon good vibes, avec les coups de cœur de nos débatteurs et un reportage sur les métiers d'art qui recrutent. - invités : Béatrice Mathieu, Anne-Sophie Lechevallier, Christian CHAVAGNEUX, Léo Klimm - Béatrice Mathieu : Rédactrice en chef adjointe du magazine L'Express, Anne-Sophie Lechevallier : Journaliste française, Christian Chavagneux : Economiste, éditorialiste à Alternatives économiques.fr, Léo Klimm : Journaliste pour le magazine allemand Der Spiegel - réalisé par : Etienne BERTIN Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les autres épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France.

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

In part 2, we con't our conversation with Jeremiah Colbert, Colbert Plumbing & Repair, Makarios Hester, MGB Studio, and Joseph Lumpkin Jr, F.B.L, For Better Living, about alternatives to being in the streets or going to a 4 year college to have the life you want and deserve to have.

Aprofitem que avui

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

Est

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

Cet épisode est une rediffusion - j'aime vous proposer, pendant les vacances scolaires, les contenus que vous avez le plus plébiscités au cours des derniers mois !Faut-il vraiment punir un enfant pour poser des limites ?Et quelles alternatives concrètes existent pour guider nos enfants dans le respect, sans céder à l'autoritarisme ?Dans cet épisode, Sylvie d'Esclaibes, spécialiste de l'éducation depuis 30 ans et fondatrice d'écoles Montessori, nous invite à repenser notre rapport à la punition et à explorer des alternatives respectueuses du développement de l'enfant.Au programme :✨ Pourquoi la punition est inefficace et contre-productive✨ Le vrai rôle des règles et comment les formuler✨ Poser un cadre clair sans casser la relation✨ Les outils alternatifs : espace de retour au calme, gestion des conflits, réparation, tableaux de réussites...✨ La puissance de la discussion, de la médiation et du dialogueRessources citéesPour les adultes :Discipline Positive, Jane NelsenParler pour que les enfants écoutent, écouter pour que les enfants parlent, Adele Faber & Elaine MazlishÉlever son enfant sans punition ni récompense, Alfie Kohn Pour les enfants :Grosse Colère de Mireille d'Allancé (École des loisirs)Aujourd'hui, je suis de Mies Van Hout (Minédition)La couleur des émotions d'Anna LlenasLe livre de mes émotions de Stéphanie CouturierLe lion qui avait perdu sa crinière de Myriam OuyessadLoin des sanctions et de la peur, découvrez comment stimuler chez l'enfant une véritable réflexion sur ses actes, renforcer le lien parent-enfant et poser des limites solides tout en douceur.

Mentor Sessions Ep. 044: Bitcoin Freedom, Government Adoption Risks & IMF Criticism | My First Bitcoin Founder John DennehyWhat if government Bitcoin adoption isn't the victory everyone celebrates... but the greatest threat to true Bitcoin freedom? In this eye-opening interview on BTC Sessions, John Dennehy — founder of My First Bitcoin — drops the uncomfortable realities: governments and corporations could co-opt Bitcoin, turning it into just another controlled asset while stripping away self-custody, sovereignty, and individual power. He exposes the IMF's exploitative grip on nations, warns that politicians are "fair-weather friends" to Bitcoin, and shares why grassroots education and real-world usage are the only path to genuine liberation. From his own arrests and jail-cell epiphany ("They can't take this from me") to brutal lessons from El Salvador's experiment, John reveals why Bitcoin isn't just "number go up" — it's the tool to build a freer world, starting with self-custody and rejecting centralized control. If you're serious about Bitcoin as freedom money, this is the conversation you can't afford to miss.Key topics: Bitcoin freedom, government Bitcoin adoption, self-custody, Bitcoin education, IMF criticism, My First Bitcoin.Support My First BitcoinWebsite: https://myfirstbitcoin.orgX: @MyFirstBitcoin_Chapters:00:00 Teaser & Intro00:01:45 Government Adoption: Threat or Victory?00:03:09 Education + Usage for True Freedom00:06:46 Money = Power: Bitcoin's Unique Freedom00:08:01 Predictability & Long-Term Thinking00:11:08 Self-Custody vs Treasury Companies00:13:14 Global Adoption & Hurdles00:17:09 Politicians as Fair-Weather Friends00:22:27 The Cliff Analogy & Urgency00:25:08 Personal Actions & Leading by Example00:26:57 Regions Primed for Bitcoin00:30:36 John's Seizures & Bitcoin Journey00:36:48 IMF Exposed: Sovereignty Killer00:44:54 Alternatives & Preventative Solutions00:51:13 El Salvador Lessons00:58:25 Governments: Get Out of the Way01:01:13 Bitcoin Transforms Mindsets01:04:27 Building New Models01:10:59 Jail Liberation & Bitcoin Power01:16:52 Help My First Bitcoin & Get Involved About John Dennehy:X: https://x.com/jdennehy_writesPrevious Episode:Exposing the Global Elite's Bitcoin Psyop | Dr. Jack Kruse & Simon Dixon: https://youtu.be/4Rzv9meq3Yg

Happy holidays—and let's be real: the markets, the economy, and “the plan” don't look clean right now.In this 12 Days of Giving episode, Shana Orczyk Sissel comes back with a story that hits every advisor (and every client) right between the eyes: a young advisor leaves a firm, starts from zero, and lands a $25M client… not by sounding smarter… but by asking better questions and bringing REAL options to the table.Here's the uncomfortable truth: most advisors are selling the same portfolio with a different logo on it. Same playbook. Same funds. Same “set it and forget it” pitch. Shana breaks down why alternatives—private credit, direct lending, and other non-traditional tools—can be a legit way to differentiate… IF you're actually doing planning and not just product-pushing.Then we go straight at the elephant in the room: crypto and “controversial” investments. If your advisor's entire view is “it's a scam,” that's not wisdom—that's laziness. You don't have to love crypto to be qualified. But you DO have to have a thoughtful, educated stance. Because the future client is already there, already curious, already investing… and they're not waiting for the industry to catch up.We also talk about where advice is headed: less AUM worship, more fee-for-service, coaching, and real-life decision support. Translation: if you can't deliver value people can't get from a brokerage app, you're going to get left behind—fast.Watch the full episode here:https://youtu.be/Wv8sctzRALQAs always we ask you to comment, DM, whatever it takes to have a conversation to help you take the next step in your journey, reach out on any platform!Twitter, FaceBook, Instagram, Tiktok, LinkedinDISCLOSURE: Awards and rankings by third parties are not indicative of future performance or client investment success. Past performance does not guarantee future results. All investment strategies carry profit/loss potential and cannot eliminate investment risks. Information discussed may not reflect current positions/recommendations. While believed accurate, Black Mammoth does not guarantee information accuracy. This broadcast is not a solicitation for securities transactions or personalized investment advice. Tax/estate planning information is general - consult professionals for specific situations. Full disclosures at www.blackmammoth.com.

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

When it comes to crop inputs, farmers are looking for more than a salesman in the field – they need an advisor. One partner that can help shape decision making that keeps them profitable, efficient and sustainable all while driving yield to make their operations successful. It's a tall order and one this week's guest loves to welcome as a challenge. Danny Carmony, Central Indiana GM for Nutrien Ag Solutions, joins AgriNovus' VP Libby Fritz to talk consistency, serving in that advisory role over multiple generations and what innovations have him most excited for the future of the industry. We get into:  The work Nutrien Ag Solutions does to serve farmers and the outlook of growers over the last 12 months What Danny sees ahead for 2026 and recommendations they are making to their customers The relationship of Nutrien Ag Solutions with its parent company and its unique advantage Alternatives for nitrogen fertilizer, new forms of nitrogen or emerging innovations that enable the farmer to be more efficient Generational farming operations and the difference in selling across multiple generations of operators who have different schools of thought on ROI Biologicals past, present and future in agbiosience innovation Global geopolitical pressures factoring into supply and demand for farmers Using the power of partnerships, leverage Nutrien Ag Solutions' reach, while also tapping into locally to create maximum value for customers The criticality of sourcing talent in areas that are serving rural customers – and Danny's passion for bringing people from outside the industry into agbioscience What's ahead for Nutrien Ag Solutions that has him excited in 2026 

In this episode, Dr. Vaughn Lawrence exposes the hidden dangers of acetaminophen (Tylenol), NyQuil, and other common painkillers, including liver damage, glutathione depletion, and mitochondrial stress. He shares effective natural pain relief alternatives like turmeric-based formulas, ginger, CBD, and kratom, and explains how to choose clean supplements and protein powders that are free from heavy metals. To find out how we can help you on your health journey, book a free 15-minute Discovery Call with one of our New Client Coordinators! Click the link: https://www.spiritofhealthkc.com/discoverycall For more health tips and information visit: https://www.spiritofhealthkc.com/To buy natural health supplements visit: http://store.spiritofhealthkc.com Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SpiritofHealth/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/spiritofhealthkc/ Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/spiritofhealthkc/YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwRcNSxR3kMYi9wP8OmxlQQ Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/7yfBBUjWKk3yJ3auK71O7H?si=295c77ed21f14568&nd=1&dlsi=af01c00121ed4aed

Rabea Berfelde discusses socialisation, its history and current socialisation movements. Future Histories LIVE. This episode is part of the ‘Future Histories LIVE' format. For this, individual episodes are recoded live – that is, in front of an audience – at irregular intervals. This episode was recorded on August 6th, during the 2025 Rethinking Economics Summer School Switzerland, titled “Economics as Resistance. Heterodox Strategies on Housing, Energy, and Agriculture against the New Right”. Shownotes Rabea at the Center for Social Critique of the Humboldt University Berlin: https://criticaltheoryinberlin.de/people/rabea-berfelde/ the Socialization in Theory and Practice research project: https://criticaltheoryinberlin.de/en/projects/socialization-in-theory-and-practice/ the 2025 Rethinking Economics Summer School Switzerland: https://resuso.ch/ Berfelde, R., & Möller, P. (2025). (Re)-Imagining Housing as an Infrastructure for Social Reproduction. In J. Groos & C. Sorg (Eds.), Creative Construction. Democratic Planning in the 21st Century and Beyond. Bristol University Press. https://bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/creative-construction Berfelde, R. et al. (2024). Für eine Linke mit Plan. Luxemburg. Gesellschaftsanalyse und Linke Praxis. 1/2024. https://zeitschrift-luxemburg.de/artikel/fuer-eine-linke-mit-plan/ Berfelde, R. & Heeg, S. (2024). Struggling with and through Knowledge Production: The Campaign ‘Expropriate Deutsche Wohnen & Co.'s' Attempt at Housing Definancialisation in Berlin. Critical Housing Analysis 11 (1): 105-114. https://www.housing-critical.com/home-page-1/struggling-with-and-through-knowledge-productio Berfelde, R., & Blumenfeld, J. (2024). Von der Vergesellschaftung zur Planung und wieder zurück: Über alte und neue Debatten um Wirtschaftsplanung und Vergesellschaftung. PROKLA. Zeitschrift für Kritische Sozialwissenschaft, 54 (215), 177–193. https://www.prokla.de/index.php/PROKLA/article/view/2119 Berfelde, R., & Möller, P. (2023). Radikaldemokratische Planung der Wohnraumversorgung? Das Vergesellschaftungskonzept von »Deutsche Wohnen & Co. enteignen«. PROKLA. Zeitschrift für Kritische Sozialwissenschaft, 53 (212), 561–577. https://www.prokla.de/index.php/PROKLA/article/view/2049 on the Bavarian Soviet/Council Republic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavarian_Soviet_Republic on the German revolution of 1918-19: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_revolution_of_1918%E2%80%931919 Backhaus, J., Chaloupek, G., & Frambach, H. A. (2019). The First Socialization Debate (1918) and Early Efforts Towards Socialization. Springer. https://www.springerprofessional.de/the-first-socialization-debate-1918-and-early-efforts-towards-so/16761374 on Otto Neurath: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Neurath Chaloupek, G. (2007). Otto Neurath's Concepts of Socialization and Economic Calculation and his Socialist Critics. In: Nemeth, E., Schmitz, S.W., Uebel, T.E. (eds.) Otto Neurath's Economics in Context. Vienna Circle Institute Yearbook, vol 13. Springer. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4020-6905-5_4 on Karl Korsch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Korsch on Otto Bauer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Bauer Meyer, N. (2023). Otto Bauer on the Long Transition to Socialism. Left Notes. https://www.left-notes.com/p/otto-bauer-long-transition-to-socialism on Karl Kautsky: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Kautsky Vrousalis, N. (2018). Council Democracy and the Socialisation Dilemma. In: Muldoon, J. (ed.) Council Democracy. Towards a Democratic Socialist Politics. Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781351205634-5/council-democracy-socialisation-dilemma-nicholas-vrousalis Blumenfeld, J. (2023). What was socialization? A look back. https://sfb294-eigentum.de/en/blog/what-was-socialization-a-look-back/ Critical Theory Network et al. (2024). 11 Theses on Socialisation. https://criticaltheoryinberlin.de/en/interventions/11-theses-on-socialisation/ Benanav, A. (2025). Beyond Capitalism – 1. New Left Review. 153 May-June 2025. https://newleftreview.org/issues/ii153/articles/aaron-benanav-beyond-capitalism-1 Benanav, A. (2025). Beyond Capitalism – 2. New Left Review. 154 July-August 2025. https://newleftreview.org/issues/ii154/articles/aaron-benanav-beyond-capitalism-2 Muldoon, J. (ed.) (2018). Council Democracy. Towards a Democratic Socialist Politics. Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/edit/10.4324/9781351205634/council-democracy-james-muldoon on Deutsche Wohnen & Co Enteignen (the Berlin Housing Campagin): https://dwenteignen.de/en Hoffrogge, R. (2024). Commons and Constitution: historical and legal roots of the German socialization movement: https://sfb294-eigentum.de/de/blog/commons-and-constitution-historical-and-legal-roots-of-the-german-socialization-movement/ for projects on socialization in different sectors see also: https://communia.de/en/ communia (2024). Socialising Energy. Lessons from radical housing campaigns in Germany. In: Buxton, N. (ed.) (2024). Energy, Power and Transition. Transnational Institute. https://www.tni.org/files/2024-03/State%20of%20Power%202024-web.pdf on the legal assessment of socialising the energy sector in Germany: https://communia.de/energiekonzerne-enteignen-das-geht/ article 15 in the constitution of Germany: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/art_15.html for the draft of the socialisation law by the Berlin Housing Campaign see here: https://dwenteignen.de/en/material the Ackersyndikat: https://ackersyndikat.org/ RWE & Co Enteignen: https://rwe-enteignen.de/ Hamburg Enteignet: https://hamburg-enteignet.de/ the socialist calculation debate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_calculation_debate the first socialisation conference 2022: https://communia.de/en/project/socialization-conference-october-2022/ the second socialisation conference 2024: https://communia.de/en/project/lets-socialize-socialization-for-climate-justice/ on anti-fascist economics: https://www.exploring-economics.org/en/discover/anti-fascist-economics/ Future Histories Episodes on Related Topics S03E29 | Nancy Fraser on Alternatives to Capitalism https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s03/e29-nancy-fraser-on-alternatives-to-capitalism/ S03E19 | Wendy Brown on Socialist Governmentality https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s03/e19-wendy-brown-on-socialist-governmentality/ S03E10 | Katharina Keil zu Vergesellschaftung und Transformation https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s03/e10-katharina-keil-zu-vergesellschaftung-und-transformation/ S02E57 | Jenny Stupka zum Kampf um Vergesellschaftung https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s02/e57-jenny-stupka-zum-kampf-um-vergesellschaftung/ S02E57 | Jenny Stupka zum Kampf um Vergesellschaftung https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s02/e57-jenny-stupka-zum-kampf-um-vergesellschaftung/ S02E48 | Heide Lutosch, Christoph Sorg und Stefan Meretz zu Vergesellschaftung und demokratischer Planung https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s02/e48-heide-lutosch-christoph-sorg-und-stefan-meretz-zu-vergesellschaftung-und-demokratischer-planung/ S02E29 | Max und Lemon von communia zu Vergesellschaftung und demokratischer Wirtschaft https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s02/e29-max-und-lemon-von-communia-zu-vergesellschaftung-und-demokratischer-wirtschaft/ S02E23 | Nina Scholz zu den wunden Punkten von Google, Amazon, Deutsche Wohnen & Co. https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s02/e23-nina-scholz-zu-den-wunden-punkten-von-google-amazon-deutsche-wohnen-co/ S03E32 | Jacob Blumenfeld on Climate Barbarism and Managing Decline https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s03/e32-jacob-blumenfeld-on-climate-barbarism-and-managing-decline/   --- If you are interested in democratic economic planning, these resources might be of help: Democratic planning – an information website https://www.democratic-planning.com/ Sorg, C. & Groos, J. (eds.)(2025). Rethinking Economic Planning. Competition & Change Special Issue Volume 29 Issue 1. https://journals.sagepub.com/toc/ccha/29/1 Groos, J. & Sorg, C. (2025). Creative Construction - Democratic Planning in the 21st Century and Beyond. Bristol University Press. [for a review copy, please contact: amber.lanfranchi[at]bristol.ac.uk] https://bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/creative-construction International Network for Democratic Economic Planning https://www.indep.network/ Democratic Planning Research Platform: https://www.planningresearch.net/ --- Future Histories Contact & Support If you like Future Histories, please consider supporting us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/join/FutureHistories Contact: office@futurehistories.today Twitter: https://twitter.com/FutureHpodcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/futurehpodcast/ Mastodon: https://mstdn.social/@FutureHistories English webpage: https://futurehistories-international.com   Episode Keywords #RabeaBerfelde, #JanGroos, #Interview, #FutureHistories, #FutureHistoriesInternational, #futurehistoriesinternational, #FutureHistoriesLive #DemocraticPlanning, #DemocraticEconomicPlanning, #Capitalism #BerlinHousingCampaign, #DWE, #Economics, #Socialism, #Socialisation, #OttoNeurath, #AaronBenanav, #Transition

A few episodes ago, we mentioned how the Hoka Speedgoat and Clifton just aren't working for us like they used to and so many of you reached out to confirm your same experience. So, today we're giving you eighteen alternative shoe options to consider!

Have you made it to a rorate Mass?Morning Offering, December 20, 2025Every morning, join Father Brad as he begins the day with prayer and reflection. In a few short minutes, Father Brad guides you in prayer, shares a brief reflection grounding your day in the Church's rhythm of feast days and liturgy, and provides you with the encouragement necessary to go forward with peace and strength. Disclaimer: The ads shown before, during, or after this video have no affiliation with Morning Offering and are controlled by YouTubeLet us do as the saints urge and begin our days in prayer together so as a community of believers we may join the Psalmist in saying, “In the morning, Lord, you hear my voice; in the morning I lay my requests before you and wait expectantly.” (Psalm 5:3-4)________________

The Affordable Care Act health insurance is a great option for many. But it may not be the right fit for your clients. Discover ACA alternatives that fit your clients' needs.   Read the text version  

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

This podcast is a short daily audio provided by the online recovery group Transitions Daily. The daily content includes different recovery quotes from various sources, including; Twenty-Four Hours a Day, A.A. Thought for the Day, Daily Reflections, Big Book Quote, Just for Today, As Bill Sees It, and more! Transitions Daily also delivers the same content in a daily email with a secret Facebook group for discussion. Visit www.DailyAAEmails.com for more information. Do you want to stop drinking? Have you ever listened to sobriety podcasts? Does alcoholism or addiction run in your family? Have you tried Alcoholics Anonymous or the 12 Steps of A.A.? Are you considering how to get sober? Are you seriously thinking about sobriety for the first time? Is alcohol controlling your life as never before? If so, you will definitely want to check out this recovery podcast.

Daniel Jimenez is the founder of iLi Markets and formerly worked for SQM. On X: @D_Jimenez_SchTopics:The rapid growth of BESSCATLChina's weakening grip on lithium Hidden costs in AfricaThe tightening marketWhere is the money made in LIBChile's lithium futureArgentinaRio Tinto's next movesWhen does DLE matter?Alternatives to CO3 & LiOHThe coming price spikeConversion capacity outside ChinaRapid fire

Tonight in the "Barbershop," we're talking about different paths to creating the life you want. In our community, many believe there are only three ways to change your circumstances: sports, the streets, or college. But tonight, with help from our guests, we're exploring other Alternatives.

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

LET'S TALK ABOUT ALTERNATIVES TO OUR BROKEN INSURANCE SYSTEM I've gotten SO MANY questions about Direct Primary Care and Med Share membership based health plans I'm bringing in experts for a healthcare roundtable at 2pm. I've got Dr. John Dygert, founder of Pinnacle Advanced Primary Care, Lisa Fagan, with Smith Medical, and Preston Guthrie with Zion HealthShare to explain how these programs are upending healthcare. We will discuss the nuts and bolts of how they work, why they are different than insurance, and the limitations for each. We will give a complete example of what a patient might expect when using these services and answer your questions about it. Click on each hyperlink above to reach each business, and rethink how your healthcare is paid for and delivered!

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

About this episode: For decades, cosmetics and medicine developers have relied on animal testing to assure product safety for humans. Today, more ethical and accurate alternatives to animal testing are poised to improve this process. In this episode: scientist and lawyer Paul Locke on the new technologies replacing lab animals and how regulators can lead the gradual and necessary transition to these innovative models. Guests: Paul Locke, DrPH, MPH, JD, is a lawyer and scientist who serves as the principal investigator for the JHU Toxicology Program and an advisory board member of the Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing. Host: Lindsay Smith Rogers, MA, is the producer of the Public Health On Call podcast, an editor for Expert Insights, and the director of content strategy for the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Show links and related content: Transitioning to Human-Centered Science: An Off-Ramp and Transition Plan—JHU Toxicology Program White House slashes medical research on monkeys and other animal testing, sparking fierce new debate—CBS News Animal Models—Harvard Medical School Transcript information: Looking for episode transcripts? Open our podcast on the Apple Podcasts app (desktop or mobile) or the Spotify mobile app to access an auto-generated transcript of any episode. Closed captioning is also available for every episode on our YouTube channel. Contact us: Have a question about something you heard? Looking for a transcript? Want to suggest a topic or guest? Contact us via email or visit our website. Follow us: @‌PublicHealthPod on Bluesky @‌PublicHealthPod on Instagram @‌JohnsHopkinsSPH on Facebook @‌PublicHealthOnCall on YouTube Here's our RSS feed Note: These podcasts are a conversation between the participants, and do not represent the position of Johns Hopkins University.

Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, everybody! Scott Carson here, and today's episode of The Note Closures Show dives deep into a story that's all too familiar in today's market: a real estate deal gone sideways. If you or someone you know is struggling with properties caught in a changing market, plummeting values, or non-performing notes, this is a must-listen. I'll walk you through a recent, real-life situation where "karma" brought an IRA investor and a fix-and-flipper to my doorstep, looking for a way out of a financial quagmire. We're talking about a "shit sandwich" situation, and I'll share how a proactive, empathetic approach can turn it into something much more palatable.In this eye-opening episode, you'll discover:A Real-Life Distressed Deal: Unpack the details of a Plano, Texas property financed by three IRA investors to a fix-and-flipper. With a $280,000 purchase and an estimated $150,000-$170,000 rehab, the flipper walked with $50,000 up front, only for the deal to unravel.The Market Shift Strikes: Learn how rapidly changing market conditions, especially over the last six months in Texas and beyond, caused property values to drop significantly, leaving a gutted, unlivable property with a non-performing note and silent borrower. The note balance stood at $396,000, far exceeding the current market value and potential rehab costs.Scott Carson: The Unlikely Mediator: Hear how a chance encounter (or "karma") linked Scott to both the investor (Harry) and the fix-and-flipper, whom he recognized from past events. Scott steps in as a third-party neutral to facilitate communication and find a pragmatic solution, saving both parties from further, costly pain.The Power of Deed-in-Lieu & Friendly Foreclosure: Explore why a Deed-in-Lieu of Foreclosure or a "friendly foreclosure" where the borrower deeds the property back can be a win-win. This strategy avoids prolonged, expensive legal battles, protects the borrower's record, and allows the lender to regain control of the asset quickly, even if it means accepting less than the full amount owed.Turning Lemons into Lemonade (or a "Shit Sandwich" into Something Tastier): Understand the empathetic approach to these tough situations. Scott emphasizes that bad things happen to good people and that sometimes the best solution is to cut losses, regain control of the asset, and market it strategically (e.g., with pre-approved hard money financing) to recover as much as possible, moving forward instead of being dragged down.This episode is a testament to the fact that even in the toughest real estate scenarios, solutions exist. By prioritizing communication, empathy, and smart legal strategies like Deed-in-Lieu, you can navigate market downturns and distressed assets more effectively. Don't let bad deals linger and drain your resources.If you're facing a similar "shit sandwich" situation with a fix-and-flip gone wrong or a non-performing note, please reach out. I'm here to help, act as that third-party mediator, and leverage my experience to find a solution that works for everyone involved.Watch the Original VIDEO HERE!Book a Call With Scott HERE!Sign up for the next FREE One-Day Note Class HERE!Sign up for the WCN Membership HERE!Sign up for the next Note Buying For Dummies Workshop HERE!Love the show? Subscribe, rate, review, and share!Here's How »Join the Note Closers Show community today:WeCloseNotes.comThe Note Closers Show FacebookThe Note Closers Show TwitterScott Carson LinkedInThe Note Closers Show YouTubeThe Note Closers Show VimeoThe Note Closers Show InstagramWe Close Notes Pinterest

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

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains the significance of the Fed's decision to resume buying $40 billion of Treasury bills monthly. 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 decision last week and what it means for stocks.It's Monday, December 15th at 11:30am in New York. So, let's get after it.Last week's Fed meeting provided incremental support for our positive 2026 outlook on equities. The Fed delivered on its expected hawkish rate cut but also indicated it would do more if the labor market continues to soften. More important than the rate cut was the Fed's decision to restart asset purchases. More specifically, the Fed intends to immediately begin buying $40 billion of T-Bills per month to ensure the smooth operation of financial markets. Based on our conversations with investors prior to the announcement, this amount and timing of bill buying exceeded both consensus, and my own expectations. It also confirms a key insight I have been discussing for months and highlighted in our Year Ahead Outlook. First, the Fed is not independent of markets, and market stability often plays a dominant role in Fed policy beyond the stated dual mandate of full employment and price stability.Second, given the size of the debt and deficit, the Fed has an additional responsibility to assist Treasury in funding the government, and will likely continue to work more closely with Treasury in this regard.Finally, the decision to intervene in funding markets sooner and more aggressively than expected may not be ‘Quantitative Easing' as defined by the Fed. However, it is a form of debt monetization that directly helps to reduce the crowding out from the still growing Treasury issuance, especially as Treasury issues more Bills over Bonds.At the Fed's October meeting, it indicated some concern about tightening liquidity which I have discussed on this podcast as the single biggest risk to the bull market in stocks. Evidence of this tightness can be seen in the performance of asset prices most sensitive to liquidity, including crypto currencies and profitless growth stocks.While the Fed probably isn't too concerned about the performance of these asset classes, it does care about financial stability in the bond, credit and funding markets. This is what likely prompted it to restart asset purchases sooner and in a more significant way than most expected.We view this as a form of debt monetization as I mentioned, given the Treasury's objective to issue more bills going forward. More importantly, these purchases provide additional liquidity for markets, and in combination with rate cuts, suggest the Fed is likely less worried about missing its inflation target. This is very much in line with our run it hot thesis dating back to early 2021. As a reminder, accelerating inflation is positive for asset prices as long as it doesn't force the Fed's hand to take the punch bowl away like in 2022. Ironically, the risk in the near-term is that this larger than expected asset purchase program may be insufficient if the Fed has materially underestimated the level of reserves necessary for markets to operate smoothly. This is what happened in 2019 and why the Fed created the Standing Repo Facility in the first place. However, this is more of a tool that is used on an as-needed basis. What the markets may want or need is a larger buffer if the Fed has underestimated the level of reserves required for smoothly functioning financial markets.To be clear, I don't know what that level is, but I do believe markets will tell us if the Fed has done enough with this latest provision. Liquidity-sensitive asset classes and areas of the equity market will be important to watch in this regard, particularly given how weak they traded last Friday and this morning.Bottom line, the Fed has reacted to the markets' tremors over the past few months. Should markets wobble again, we are highly confident the Fed will once again react until things calm down. Last week's FOMC meeting only increases our conviction in that case and keeps us bullish over the next 6-12 months, and our 7800 price target on the S&P 500. We would welcome a correction in the short term as a buying opportunity. Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!

The Day the “Emergency Fund” Met Real Life Rachel here. Many tell us the same story: “I saved the emergency fund, but I'm worried I'm losing ground to inflation and missed opportunities.” https://www.youtube.com/live/T7O8abZDKw8 Because for most people, the “emergency fund” is a lonely pile of cash—stuck in a corner doing next to nothing. It feels safe, until inflation and opportunity cost quietly erode it. Today Bruce and I want to reframe that pile into something far better: emergency fund alternatives that give you liquidity and momentum. What You'll Get From This Guide If you've ever wondered how to stay liquid for the unknown without parking money in low-yield accounts, this is for you. We'll show you how to: Design liquidity that protects your family and keeps compounding intact Think “emergency and opportunity,” not either/or Decide how much liquidity you actually need Compare storage options (banks, brokerage, HELOCs, and emergency fund alternatives like cash value life insurance) Understand policy loans, interest, IRR, and why control and flexibility often beat chasing the “best rate” By the end, you'll have a practical blueprint to keep cash ready for life's surprises—without stalling your long-term growth. The Day the “Emergency Fund” Met Real LifeWhat You'll Get From This Guide1) Why Most People Misunderstand “Emergency Funds”Emergency Fund Alternatives vs. Cash-in-the-Bank2) How Much Liquidity Do You Actually Need?Emergency Fund Alternatives for Real Estate Investors3) Liquidity from Cash-Flowing Assets4) Where to Store Liquidity: A Practical Comparison5) Cash Value as an Emergency–Opportunity FundEmergency Fund Alternatives Using Whole Life Insurance6) “But What About Loan Rates vs. Policy IRR?”7) Real Estate, HELOCs, and Policy Loans—How They Compare8) Early-Year Liquidity & Design Reality9) The Two Big Mindset ShiftsEmergency Fund Alternatives That Keep You in Control10) Implementation Steps You Can Start This WeekWhy This MattersListen In and Go DeeperFAQWhat's the best place to keep an emergency fund?Are whole life policies good emergency fund alternatives?How much liquidity should real estate investors keep?Do whole life policy loans hurt compounding?Policy loan rate vs. policy IRR—what matters most?HELOC or whole life policy loan for emergencies?Book A Strategy Call 1) Why Most People Misunderstand “Emergency Funds” Most picture a rainy-day stash: a fixed dollar amount “just in case.” The problem? That mindset narrows your field of vision to only bad events. You end up over-saving in idle cash, under-preparing for real opportunities, and missing compound growth. The better frame is liquidity for emergencies and opportunities—capital that can pivot quickly, without losing momentum. Emergency Fund Alternatives vs. Cash-in-the-Bank Savings accounts provide easy access but pay little, expose you to inflation, and interrupt compounding when you withdraw. Emergency fund alternatives aim to keep liquidity and let your money continue working. 2) How Much Liquidity Do You Actually Need? Rules of thumb (3–6 months) don't account for your real situation: expenses, income volatility, business ownership, real estate cycles, and your emotional comfort. Bruce and I coach clients to answer three questions: Cash flow cushion: If your income paused, how long until you're back on track? Asset mix & access: Where is your capital now, and how liquid is it (including taxes/penalties)? Personal margin: What amount helps you sleep at night without freezing progress? The right number blends math and emotion. Peace of mind matters because you'll only stick with a plan you believe in. Emergency Fund Alternatives for Real Estate Investors Great operators earmark a percent of rents for vacancies, repairs, and cap-ex—plus a broader, flexible reserve. Emergency fund alternatives make that reserve productive while keeping it accessible. 3) Liquidity from Cash-Flowing Assets One overlooked “emergency fund” is consistent cash flow. If assets deposit $5K–$20K/mo. into your checking account regardless of your job, you may need less static cash. Let the monthly stream cover life's bumps—while your capital base keeps compounding. Cash flow accumulates → periodically deploy to premium (more on that next) Short-term bank buffer exists, but money doesn't linger there You stay positioned for both emergencies and deals 4) Where to Store Liquidity: A Practical Comparison VehicleLiquidityGrowth/DragTaxes on AccessProsConsBank savings/HYSAInstantLow; inflation dragNo capital gains on principalSimplicity, FDICOpportunity cost; interrupts compoundingBrokerage (cash/short-term)High–moderateVariesPossible gains taxesOptional yieldMarket risk; sale can trigger taxesHELOCOn-demand (if open)House appreciates regardlessLoan (not income)Flexible; common for investorsBank approval; can be frozenCash Value Whole Life3–5 days via policy loansUninterrupted compoundingLoan (not income)Control, guarantees, death benefitMust qualify; early-year liquidity is lower Bottom line: Banks are fine for swipe-ready cash. But for meaningful reserves, emergency fund alternatives that preserve compounding and add optionality often fit better. 5) Cash Value as an Emergency–Opportunity Fund This is where Infinite Banking principles shine. Premium dollars build cash value (guaranteed growth + potential dividends) and a rising death benefit. When you need liquidity, you borrow against cash value. Your cash value keeps compounding uninterrupted while the insurer's general fund provides the loan. Result: Capital keeps working; you gain flexibility Mindset: Be both the producer and the banker in your life Governance: Treat loans like a bank would—repay with intention to restore capacity Emergency Fund Alternatives Using Whole Life Insurance Liquidity in days (not months) Access via loan documents—not a bank underwriter If you pass away with a loan outstanding, it's simply deducted from the death benefit; your heirs still receive the net 6) “But What About Loan Rates vs. Policy IRR?” Bruce said it well: I care less about a single rate and more about the system—control, flexibility, and volume of interest over time. IRR reflects long-term, policywide performance. Loan rate is what you pay while capital continues compounding inside the policy. Volume matters: The faster you repay, the less interest volume you pay—at the same rate. Meanwhile, rising death benefits and dividends work in your favor. Chasing the perfect spread can stop you from using a system designed to keep your compounding intact and your options open. 7) Real Estate, HELOCs, and Policy Loans—How They Compare A helpful analogy: a policy loan works like a HELOC on your house—the property can keep appreciating whether a lien exists or not. With cash value, your “property” is the policy: growth continues by contract, and you place a lien to access cash. Differences: Access: Policy loans are paperwork-simple; HELOCs require bank re-approval and can be frozen. Speed: Policies often fund in 3–5 business days; HELOC timing varies. Control: With a policy, you set repayment terms; with banks, they do. For investors, combining a small bank buffer, a HELOC, and cash value creates layers of redundancy—plus uninterrupted compounding. 8) Early-Year Liquidity & Design Reality Honest trade-off: in the first year(s), you won't have access to 100% of premium dollars. That early drag buys you guarantees, long-term compounding, and a growing death benefit. Design matters (base + paid-up additions) and expectations matter. Ask: Do I really need every dollar back in 30 days? Most don't. By years 3–4, well-designed policies are commonly close to dollar-for-dollar access on new premium—and rising. 9) The Two Big Mindset Shifts From Emergency to Emergency–OpportunityStop saving only for the worst. Start storing capital that can respond to anything—repairs, vacancies, investments, giving, tuition, tithing, trips. From Saver to BankerDon't just hold capital; govern it. Design rules. Repay loans. Value your capital at least as much as a bank would. This shifts you from scarcity to stewardship. Emergency Fund Alternatives That Keep You in Control The aim isn't a magic product; it's a governed system that preserves compounding, widens options, and serves your family for decades. 10) Implementation Steps You Can Start This Week Clarify your true liquidity need. Calculate 90–180 days of net cash flow needs, not just expenses. Segment reserves: Keep a thin swipe-ready bank buffer; move the rest to emergency fund alternatives (e.g., cash value). Document loan rules: When you borrow, how will you repay? From what cash flow? On what rhythm? Automate funding: Set recurring transfers to build capital consistently. Review quarterly: Check buffer size, upcoming premiums/PUAs, deal pipeline, and family needs. Think generationally: Policies on multiple family members expand access, diversify insurability, and strengthen your long-term plan. Why This Matters Your “emergency fund” shouldn't be a deadweight expense. With emergency fund alternatives, you can keep liquidity, protect your family, and maintain uninterrupted compounding. Cash-flowing assets provide monthly cushion. Cash value provides controlled access, contractual growth, and a rising death benefit. Together, they create a resilient system that handles storms and seizes sunshine. Listen In and Go Deeper Want the full conversation—including examples, loan mechanics, and our candid takes on rates, IRR, and real-world trade-offs? Listen to the podcast episode on Emergency Fund Alternatives to hear how we actually apply this with clients and in our own families.

WBBM political editor Geoff Buchholz reports on negotiations aimed at ending a stalemate over the city of Chicago's budget for 2026.

On this week's episode of Hands-On Tech, Curt asks Mikah Sargent about a good replacement to the Pocket app, an app that allowed you to save articles for later reading, which Firefox discontinued back in July of 2025. Don't forget to send in your questions for Mikah to answer during the show! hot@twit.tv Host: Mikah Sargent Download or subscribe to Hands-On Tech at https://twit.tv/shows/hands-on-tech Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free audio and video feeds, a members-only Discord, and exclusive content. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Club TWiT members can discuss this episode and leave feedback in the Club TWiT Discord.

--{ "Commerce, Christmas, and Caring"}-- Santa Claus Conquers the Martians - A brief update as this year draws to a close. - Depressing times for some, anxiety for others - CON-Sumer, Path of the unexpected - Lenin, Hegel, dialectical chessboard - Alternatives, primitive peoples - Life purpose, life quality, life reflections - Outworn Christmas ritual - Fake patriot leaders - Sumerian priest recruitment, technique. (Songs: "Baker Street" and "Right Next Time" by Gerry Rafferty, "You've Got A Friend" by James Taylor)

On this week's episode of Hands-On Tech, Curt asks Mikah Sargent about a good replacement to the Pocket app, an app that allowed you to save articles for later reading, which Firefox discontinued back in July of 2025. Don't forget to send in your questions for Mikah to answer during the show! hot@twit.tv Host: Mikah Sargent Download or subscribe to Hands-On Tech at https://twit.tv/shows/hands-on-tech Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free audio and video feeds, a members-only Discord, and exclusive content. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Club TWiT members can discuss this episode and leave feedback in the Club TWiT Discord.

On this week's episode of Hands-On Tech, Curt asks Mikah Sargent about a good replacement to the Pocket app, an app that allowed you to save articles for later reading, which Firefox discontinued back in July of 2025. Don't forget to send in your questions for Mikah to answer during the show! hot@twit.tv Host: Mikah Sargent Download or subscribe to Hands-On Tech at https://twit.tv/shows/hands-on-tech Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free audio and video feeds, a members-only Discord, and exclusive content. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Club TWiT members can discuss this episode and leave feedback in the Club TWiT Discord.

On this week's episode of Hands-On Tech, Curt asks Mikah Sargent about a good replacement to the Pocket app, an app that allowed you to save articles for later reading, which Firefox discontinued back in July of 2025. Don't forget to send in your questions for Mikah to answer during the show! hot@twit.tv Host: Mikah Sargent Download or subscribe to Hands-On Tech at https://twit.tv/shows/hands-on-tech Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free audio and video feeds, a members-only Discord, and exclusive content. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Club TWiT members can discuss this episode and leave feedback in the Club TWiT Discord.

Send us a textSteven & Derek get ready for a great slate of week 15 NFL games & much more (00:34)-Who gets to HOF 1st, Philip Rivers or Barry Bonds? (04:46)-Fernando Mendoza likely to win Heisman, Chances of being Raiders' QB (13:07)-Alternatives to hot sauce & Steven's toilet insecurities (19:53)-Michigan football scandal & Sherrone Moore firing fallout (29:43)-Warriors don't play Kuminga again, could DNP's hurt his trade value? (47:29)-Could Philip Rivers' return be bad for the NFL? (01:04:12)-Did Joe Burrow sound unhappy in his latest press conference?(01:17:27)-Bucs lose to Falcons & lead of NFC South, is Todd Bowles on the hot seat? (01:30:44)-Winz or Wangz: Week 15 Picks (01:46:28)-Jackass of the Week (01:51:44)-Pop Culture Catch-Up Support the show

Our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets explains why 2026 might bring a credit cycle that burns hotter before it burns out.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts in the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Today I'm going to talk about our outlook for global credit markets in 2026 and why we think the credit cycle burns hotter before it burns out.It's Friday, December 12th at 2pm in London.Surely it can't go on like this. That phrase is probably coming up a lot as global credit investors sit down and plan for 2026. Credit spreads are sitting at 25 year plus tights in the U.S. and Asia. Issuance in corporate activity are increasingly aggressive. Corporate CapEx is surging. Signs of pressure are clear in the lowest rated parts of the market. And credit investors are trained to worry. Aren't all of these and more signs that a credit cycle is starting to crack under its own weight?Not quite yet, according to our views here at Morgan Stanley. Instead, we think that 2026 brings a credit cycle that burns hotter before it burns out. The reason is partly due to an unusually stimulative backdrop. Central banks are cutting interest rates. Governments are spending more money, and regulatory policy is easing. All of that, alongside maybe the largest investment cycle in a generation around artificial intelligence, should spur more risk taking from a corporate sector that has the capacity to do so.In turn, we think the playbook for credit is going to look a lot like 2005 or 1997-1998. Both periods saw levels of capital expenditure, merger activity, interest rates, and an unemployment rate that are pretty similar to what Morgan Stanley expects next year. And so, looking ahead to 2026, these two periods offer two competing ways to view the year ahead.2025 might be more similar to a period where the low-end consumer really is starting to struggle, but that another force – back then it was China, now it might be AI spending – keeps the broader market humming. 1997 or 1998, on the other hand, would be more similar to a narrative that investors are growing more confident that a new technology is really transformative. Back then, it was the internet and now it's AI.Corporate bond issuance we think will be central to how this resolves itself. This is a strong regional theme and a key driver of our views across U.S., European and Asia Credit. We forecast net issuance to rise significantly in U.S. investment grade up over 60 percent versus 2025 to a total of around $1 trillion.That rise is powered by a continued increase in technology spending to fund AI as well as a broader increase in capital expenditure and merger activity. All of those bonds being sold to the market should mean that U.S. spreads need to move wider to adjust. And that's true, even if underlying demand for credit remains pretty healthy, thanks to high yields, and the economy ultimately holds up.We think this story is a bit better in other areas and regions that have less relative issuance, including European and Asian investment grade and global high yield. They all outperform U.S. investment grade on our forecast. In total returns, we think that all of these markets produce a return of around 4 to 6 percent, and if that's true, it would underperform, say U.S. equities, but outperform cash.More granularly similar to 2025 or 2005, we think that single name and sector dispersion remain major themes. And where you position in maturity should also matter. Credit curves are steep and our U.S. interest rate strategist are expecting the U.S. Treasury curve to steepen significantly Further. That should mean that so-called carry and roll down and where you position on the maturity curve are a pretty big driver of your ultimate result. In our view, corporate bonds between five- and 10-year maturity in both the U.S. and Europe will offer the best risk reward.The most significant risk for global credit remains recession, which we think would argue for wider spreads on both economic rounds, but also through weaker demand as yields would fall. It would mean that our spread forecasts are too optimistic and that our expectation that high yield outperforms investment grade would be wrong. And then there's a milder version of this bear case – that aggression and corporate supply are even stronger than we think, and that creates conditions closer to late 1998 or 1999.Back then, U.S. investment grade spreads were roughly 30 basis points wider than current levels, even though the economy was strong and even though the equity market kept going up.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, please tell a friend or colleague about us today.

Our Global Head of Macro Strategy Matthew Hornbach and Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen discuss the Fed's path as inflation remains above its target and the labor market continues cooling.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: Yesterday, the FOMC meeting delivered another quarter percentage point rate cut. Today we're here to discuss what happens next.It's Thursday, December 11th at 8:30 AM in New York. So, Mike, once again, the Fed cut rates by 25 basis points. That outcome was not a surprise, and the markets reacted positively. But there were some surprises. A bit of a divided FOMC, if you will. How did things play out during the meeting and what are some important takeaways to keep in mind? Michael Gapen: Yeah, well certainly Matt, it is a divided committee. I think that's clear. I think one key takeaway for me is the idea that the Fed is done with risk management rate cuts, and now we're back to data dependent. So, what does that mean? I mean, a risk management rate cut isn't necessarily about the data you have in hand and the data you see; it's your view about the distribution of risks around that. So, in some ways, you're not data dependent when you're making those cuts. Now, I think the challenge at this press conference for Powell was to say, ‘Well, now things are different.' And it was a nuance in the sense that cuts from here, if and when they come, will be data dependent. But I think at the same time he did not want to communicate that the bar for those rate cuts were exceptionally high. But I think he threaded the needle quite well in transitioning from risk management cuts, which aren't data dependent to an outlook, which is now more data dependent. And I thought he did that artfully well. So, for me, that's the big key. Secondarily I'd add a takeaway for me was he seems fairly confident that inflation will be coming down, and I think he still believes the labor market is cooling. The blend of that came across as a bit dovish to me. And then the third thing I would add is he fairly explicitly ruled out the risk of rate hikes. So, I think the combination of those three things: data dependence, still concerns about cooling in the labor market, and chopping off the upper half of the rate path distribution – those were kind of the key takeaways from my point. Matthew Hornbach: So, Mike, with respect to the labor market, Chair Powell did address it in a couple of different ways. But one of the ways that stood out to my ears was how he described some technical factors that people are well aware of – that could mean the economy is actually shedding jobs to the tune of about 20,000 per month. I was wondering if you could just briefly address what those factors – that are supposedly so well known – might be. Michael Gapen: Sure. So, obviously the data that gets released, there are the initial releases and then there are revisions. And in the labor market, there are what are called annual benchmark revisions. So, the BLS released a preliminary estimate of that benchmark revision several months ago, and if you apply that initial estimate, it would suggest that job growth in 2025 could be about 60,000 jobs per month, less than has already been reported. But at the same time, we know immigration controls are slowing growth in the labor force. So, this is what Powell is calling the really curious balance. How can you have employment growth basically zero, maybe even negative, after these revisions come in – and the unemployment rate relatively stable. Yes, it's gone up a few tenths, but not like you would normally expect that rise would be if we were shedding jobs. So that to me is why he… You know; the technical factors about revisions and things that lead them to be, I think, very unsure about where the labor market is; and lean in the direction of thinking lower rates are better to manage those risks than where they were six months ago. Matthew Hornbach: One of the points that you raised in your opening explanation of the meeting was about inflation. And Chair Powell mentioned an expectation that the inflation related to tariffs would be peaking in the first quarter of the year. That sounded very familiar to me because I believe that's your expectation as well. I'm curious. How are you looking at tariffs and the inflation related to tariffs today? And do you agree with Chair Powell still? Michael Gapen: We do. Our modeling of the tariff pass through and our conversations with clients and firms and what we hear on corporate earnings calls suggests that this is a long process. Meaning tariffs go in place, prices don't go up the next month. Firms make pricing decisions that take time to implement. So, we agree that the tariff pass through story will extend into 2026 and likely through the end of the first quarter. And if that's true, then goods prices should continue to move higher. The year-on-year rate of inflation should move higher, peaking at 3 percent or a little above in the first quarter of the year. And then tat effect should we think be over, which would open the door for overall inflation to start coming back down. So, I will use the dreaded T-word. We think ultimately inflation from tariffs will be transitory. And I agree with the Chair's timeline; inflation should peak in the first quarter of the year and then start to trend down. That said, we think inflation will be above the Fed's 2 percent target into 2027, and this is the cost of providing insurance to the labor market. Matthew Hornbach: So finally, all things considered, what is your outlook for Fed policy in 2026? Michael Gapen: Yeah, and the key here, Matt, is that exactly what you just implied about tariffs and inflation still going on into 2026, right? Because what we know is while firms are gauging exactly where they should be pricing, they've been offsetting tariffs through lower demand for labor. So, we think the Fed will be cutting again in January. We have three months of employment data that come across two employment reports between now and the January meeting. We think they will show continued cooling in the labor market. And then we have a second cut next year in in April. So, while tariffs are getting passed through, we think the labor market will continue to cool. And this Fed will be biased to cutting rates to provide support to the labor market in the process. That would mean the federal funds rate gets to 3 – 3.25 percent in the second quarter of 2026, where we think it'll stay.So Matt, I'd like to ask you a question. What I noticed was the rate market backed up going into the meeting, despite the fact that market participants were projecting a cut. And then the rate market rallied, in my view, significantly during the meeting and right after. What do you think was happening there? Matthew Hornbach: So, there's a phenomenon that happens in all markets where investors often speculate on a potential outcome. And if the outcome is then delivered, the follow-on price action is underwhelming. That is colloquially known as buying the rumor and selling the fact. So, I think going into this meeting kind of in line with your expectations, investors were forming very similar expectations about how the FOMC statement itself would change and the implications that that might have for the future of Fed policy. When that hawkish cut was delivered almost exactly as you had expected, Mike, I think, investors started thinking about the future in a slightly different way. Now that their expectations were met with the meeting outcome, they started to consider, the data that is forthcoming. And whenever, officials at the Fed talk about data in the way that Chair Powell spoke about the data – and by which I mean labeled the labor market as potentially losing jobs at the moment, and labeling inflation as transitory, that we'd be past the peak of tariff related inflation after the first quarter of the year. Investors can kind of look at those factors and extrapolate going forward, what that may mean for Fed policy in the first half of 2026. So, I think similar to your expectations for policy after this meeting, investors probably became a bit more confident in your outlook for Fed policy that we would see additional rate cuts in the first half of next year. And then, of course, after the April meeting, the baton will be passed to the next Fed chair, and I think investors are considering what policy might look like under that new regime at the Fed. And on the margin, the view is that the next Fed chair would be more likely than not to continue the process of lowering policy rates. So, I think all of those factors played into the post press conference, and even during the press conference reaction. Michael Gapen: Okay Matt, one last question, if I may. How did the events of the FOMC this week and the market reaction, how does that dovetail with how you're thinking about longer term rates, in particular where you see 10-year yields going? And the dollar? Matthew Hornbach: So, 10-year yields are relatively close to 4 percent at this juncture, and we expect them to drift modestly lower in the first half of 2026, as the Fed continues this process of lowering the policy rate. One point that's very important to make here is that the longer-term Treasury yields today are now sitting well above the Fed's policy rate, and that hasn't been the case for many, many years now. A lot of investors with whom we speak think that longer term yields can head a lot higher from here. But we're skeptical – because the higher that those yields go relative to the Fed's policy rate, the more attractive those bonds become for other investors to buy. So, we don't expect a big increase in longer term interest rates. Unlike some investors, we are expecting interest rates in the long end to remain relatively stable with a downward bias.On the dollar, similarly, we have the dollar continuing its depreciation trend, which it began in January of 2025, earlier this year. We expect that depreciation trend to continue in the first half of 2026 before – similar to the interest rate path – we see a little bit of dollar strength in the second half of the year. And so, you know this being the last FOMC meeting of the year, Mike, I guess we're going to have to take a wait and see approach until the FOMC reconvenes in the new year. Thanks a lot for taking the time to talk about the Fed with me this year. Michael Gapen: Great speaking with you Matt. See you in 2026. 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.

In this episode, Shannon gets fired up about one of the biggest mistakes retreat leaders make: discounting their retreats. While a discount might feel like an easy way to fill a few spots, the long-term damage is real - it devalues your experience, trains your audience to wait for price drops, signals desperation, and hurts the entire retreat industry. Shannon breaks down exactly why discounting is harmful, what it communicates to potential guests, and better alternatives like early-bird bonuses, pay-in-full perks, and smart payment options. She also unpacks the real reason retreat leaders discount - fear - and how to address it in a healthier, business-savvy way. If you're ready to protect your profit, elevate your positioning, and stop shrinking your worth, this episode is a must-listen. Key Takeaways Retreats are transformational live experiences - not products to be marked down like retail. Discounting immediately lowers perceived value and conditions your audience to never pay full price again. It signals desperation and damages not just your brand, but the entire retreat industry. Live experiences require emotional labor, planning, expertise, and responsibility - none of which should be discounted. Instead of discounting, offer early-bird bonuses, pay-in-full perks, and extended payment plans. The real reason people discount is fear - not strategy. If enrollment is low, you need better messaging, positioning, urgency, and audience warming… not cheaper prices.   The Retreat Leaders Podcast Resources and Links: Learn to Host Retreats Join our private Facebook Group Top 5 Marketing Tools Free Guide Get your legal docs for retreats Join Shannon in Denver at the Retreat Industry Forum  Join our LinkedIn Group Apply to be a guest on our show   Thanks for tuning into the Retreat Leaders Podcast. Remember to subscribe for more insightful episodes, and visit our website for additional resources. Let's create a vibrant retreat community together!   Subscribe:  Apple Podcast | Google Podcast | Spotify --------- TIMESTAMPS The Problem with Discounting Retreats (00:00:50) Shannon expresses frustration about retreat leaders discounting their retreats and outlines why this is harmful. Why Discounting Retreats is Harmful (00:01:12) Explains how discounting devalues retreats, signals desperation, and attracts difficult guests. Negative Impact on Guest Experience and Industry (00:03:42) Discusses how discounting attracts ungrateful guests and lowers perceived value across the retreat industry. Discounting Hurts Your Margins and Business (00:06:02) Details how discounts cut into profits, making it harder to sustain a retreat business. Retreats as Premium, Transformational Experiences (00:07:16) Emphasizes that retreats are not products but containers for transformation, requiring significant energy and expertise. Alternatives to Discounting: Bonuses and Perks (00:08:14) Suggests offering early bird bonuses, pay-in-full perks, and extended payment plans instead of discounts. Why Retreat Leaders Discount: The Role of Fear (00:10:22) Explores the real reasons behind discounting, such as fear of failure and low signups. Building Confidence and Enrollment Without Discounts (00:11:30) Encourages improving messaging, marketing, and mindset instead of lowering prices. Final Advice and Invitation to Community (00:12:39) Urges listeners to stop discounting, value their work, and join the Retreat Industry Forum for support. Podcast Closing and Resources (00:13:39) Shannon thanks listeners, encourages sharing, and offers free resources for retreat leaders.

Our Chief Asia Economist Chetan Ahya and Chief China Equity Strategist Laura Wang unpack Asia's broadening economic recovery and focus on China's path to market stability in 2026.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Laura Wang: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Laura Wang, Morgan Stanley's Chief China Equity Strategist.Chetan Ahya: And I'm Chetan Ahya, Chief Asia Economist.Laura Wang: Today – our 2026 macro outlook for Asia with a particular focus on China's equity market.It's Wednesday, December 10th at 10am in Hong Kong.Chetan, as 2025 draws to a close; and if we try to remember what we were thinking about this time last year, I think, probably a lot of the market participants were expecting headwinds going into 2025 on the exports and trade front. But turns out that Asia's export growth is tracking at 8 percent this year so far. What's your explanation for this surprise?Chetan Ahya: Well, yes, Laura, you know, we were all concerned that there will potentially be tariffs, especially on China. And therefore, we were concerned that [the] regions' exports may be affected negatively. However, what has happened is that tech exports have driven the strength in the overall exports for the region. And that is all because of the story on AI and tech development that we have all been watching.But the good news is that non-tech exports will recover in 2026. In fact, that's the key call we are making – that from early next year, you will see that improvement in the U.S. domestic demand that helps Asia's exports. And at the same time, we are expecting that bulk of this tariff-related uncertainty would be behind us. And so those are the two factors we think will support this recovery in non-tech exports in 2026.Laura Wang: That's great. How significant is the shift in exports from tech to non-tech?Chetan Ahya: Well, we think that's very important for [the] regions' economic outlook. Because when you think about the tech exports recovery, it was helpful to keep [the] regions' overall exports growth strong, but it did not have the broader multiplier effect on the economy. So, for example, when you think about the tech exports, it tends to be more capital intensive, and we don't see much benefit on job growth.I think the best example I can give you is when you look at the Taiwan economic numbers. We've seen very strong GDP growth year-to-date. But at the same time, consumption numbers have been very weak. And so, non-tech exports recovery is very important for the broader economic recovery, and that is precisely what we expect in 2026. You will see that broadening out of growth with follow up in CapEx, job growth, and consumption recovery.Laura Wang: Your work suggests that Asia inflation will pick up modestly in 2026. What factors are behind this trend?Chetan Ahya: Well, as the non-tech exports recovery materializes, you should see improvement in capacity utilization across the board in the region. That should reduce the disinflationary pressures that we've been seeing year-to-date. And at the same time, we are expecting that the disinflationary pressures that the region was facing from China is also going to ease in 2026.Laura Wang: How will Asia central banks respond to keep inflation within their comfort zones? And what does this mean for monetary policy across the region in 2026?Chetan Ahya: Well actually, there's not much concern about keeping the inflation within the central bank's comfort zone because what we've seen year-to-date in Asia is that Inflation has been much lower than the central bank's target for a number of economies in the region. And they have been responding to this with more interest rate cuts.But going forward, as disinflationary pressure is reduced, we are expecting that the central banks in the region would end their rate cutting cycle. We should see just about one to two more rate cuts for some of the central banks. And then policy rates should remain largely stable through to the end of 2026.So, Laura, let me come to you now. So, 2025 was a very strong year for China markets. And you see 2026 as a ‘keep it steady' year rather than a breakout year. What does stability look like for investors and companies?Laura Wang: That's right, 2025 was a very good year for China equity market. We saw both MSCI China and Han Sang Index delivering more than 30 percent return in absolute terms. Going into 2026, we see it as a year for investors and for the market to preserve and protect what has been achieved in 2025 so far, but not with significantly much higher upside at this point. This is because the valuation re-reading we've seen so far in 2025 is already more than 30 percent, close to 40 percent.In [20]26, we think the valuation will largely stay at its current level, and further upside for the market will be more driven by solid earnings growth. For 2026, we see MSCI China's earnings growth year-on-year at around 6 percent.Chetan Ahya: So, with that backdrop, Laura, do you expect more inflows into the market next year?Laura Wang: Absolutely. Actually, we have already talked to so many investors on a global basis, and we are seeing much higher level of interest in investing in Chinese equities, particularly in some R&D and innovation heavy sectors.That being said, what we are seeing also is relatively light positioning by global investors in Chinese equities – actually across the board, still a quite sizable underweight, which means there will be much higher room for them to increase their allocation gradually in 2026 back to China.Chetan Ahya: And with the U.S.-China tensions easing a bit, and China doubling down on AI and smart manufacturing, where do you see the real-world opportunities from that?Laura Wang: There will be a lot of opportunities inside Chinese equity market, but we do want to stay with the names that will be delivering very solid earnings growth in the next few years. And we also want to highlight the next five years growth strategy laid out by Chinese policy makers.We want to make sure that we focus on the sectors that are very well aligned with the national growth strategy with a strong focus in R&D and innovation – and that would include AI as well as smart manufacturing, automation, robotics, and biotech. We also have collected very high level of interest from global investors in these sectors.At the same time, as we start to see less deflation pressure in 2026, but still with it potentially persisting into 2027, we want investors to still hold on to some exposure to high quality dividend plays. The steady cash returns from these stocks will help you navigate through some volatilities in the market in next year.Chetan Ahya: So, you expect global investors returning, mainland investors shifting money from savings into stocks, and strong cross-border trading within Hong Kong. What does that mean for market behavior and thematic opportunities?Laura Wang: One very positive development we have observed in 2025 is the strong capital market activities in Hong Kong. Hong Kong at single stock exchange basis actually is the most active IPO market in the world in 2025, and with policy support for Hong Kong to continue as a global financial hub, we expect this trend to continue. So, we are seeing more and more capital market activities happening in Hong Kong and mainland China in the next year. And in terms of thematic opportunities, I already mentioned that opportunities align with the national growth strategy with very heavy innovation and R&D focus. Along these opportunities, we're also heavy recommending investors to focus on thematic opportunities such as anti-evolution, as well as corporate governance reform.That summarizes our New Year outlook for Asia economy as well as China equity market. Chetan, thanks so much for taking the time to talk to me.Chetan Ahya: Great speaking with you, Laura.Laura Wang: 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 Research Product in Europe Paul Walsh and Chief European Equity Strategist Marina Zavolock break down the key drivers, risks, and sector shifts shaping European equities in 2026. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Paul Walsh: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's Head of Research Product in Europe.Marina Zavolock: And I'm Marina Zavolock, Chief European Equity Strategist.Paul Walsh: And today – our views on what 2026 holds for the European stock market.It's Tuesday, December 9th at 10am in London.As we look ahead to 2026, there's a lot going on in Europe stock markets. From shifting economic wins to new policies coming out of Brussels and Washington, the investment landscape is evolving quite rapidly. Interest rates, profit forecasts, and global market connections are all in play.And Marina, the first question I wanted to ask you really relates to the year 2025. Why don't you synthesize your, kind of, review of the year that we've just had?Marina Zavolock: Yeah, I'll keep it brief so we can focus ahead. But the year 2025, I would say is a year of two halves. So, we began the year with a lot of, kind of, under performance at the end of 2024 after U.S. elections, for Europe and a decline in the euro. The start of 2025 saw really strong performance for Europe, which surprised a lot of investors. And we had kind of catalyst after catalyst, for that upside, which was Germany's ‘whatever it takes' fiscal moment happened early this year, in the first quarter.We had a lot of headlines and kind of anticipation on Russia-Ukraine and discussions, negotiations around peace, which led to various themes emerging within the European equities market as well, which drove upside. And then alongside that, heading into Liberation Day, in the months, kind of, preceding that as investors were worried about tariffs, there was a lot of interest in diversifying out of U.S. equities. And Europe was one of the key beneficiaries of that diversification theme.That was a first half kind of dynamic. And then in the second half, Europe has kept broadly performing, but not as strongly as the U.S. We made the call, in March that European optimism had peaked. And the second half was more, kind of, focused on the execution on Germany's fiscal. And post the big headlines, the pace of execution, which has been a little bit slower than investors were anticipating. And also, Europe just generally has had weak earnings growth. So, we started the year at 8 percent consensus earnings growth for 2025. At this point, we're at -1, for this year.Paul Walsh: So, as you've said there, Marina, it's been a year of two halves. And so that's 2025 in review. But we're here to really talk about the outlook for 2026, and there are kind of three buckets that we're going to dive into. And the first of those is really around this notion of slipstream, and the extent to which Europe can get caught up in the slipstream that the U.S., is going to create – given Mike Wilson's view on the outlook for U.S. equity markets. What's the thesis there?Marina Zavolock: Yeah, and thank you for the title suggestion, by the way, Paul of ‘Slipstream.' so basically our view is that, well, our U.S. equity strategist is very bullish, as I think most know. At this stage he has 15 percent upside to his S&P target to the end of next year; and very, very strong earnings growth in the U.S. And the thesis is that you're getting a broadening in the strength of the U.S. economic recovery.For Europe, what that means is that it's very, very hard for European equities to go down – if the U.S. market is up 15 percent. But our upside is more driven by multiple expansion than it is by earnings growth. Because what we continue to see in Europe and what we anticipate for next year is that consensus is too high for next year. Consensus is anticipating almost 13 percent earnings growth. We're anticipating just below 4 percent earnings growth. So, we do expect downgrades.But at the same time, if the U.S. recovery is broadening, the hopes will be that that will mean that broadening comes to Europe and Europe trades at such a big discount, about 26 percent relative to the U.S. at the moment – sector neutral – that investors will play that anticipation of broadening eventually to Europe through the multiple.Paul Walsh: So, the first point you are making is that the direction of travel in the U.S. really matters for European stock markets. The second bucket I wanted to talk about, and we're in a thematically driven market. So, what are the themes that are going to be really resonating for Europe as we move into 2026?Marina Zavolock: Yeah, so let me pick up on the earnings point that I just made. So, we have 3.6 percent earnings growth for next year. That's our forecast. And consensus – bottom-up consensus – is 12.7 percent. It's a very high bar. Europe typically comes in and sees high numbers at the beginning of the year and then downgrades through the course of the year. And thematically, why do we see these downgrades? And I think it's something that investors probably don't focus on enough. It's structurally rising China competition and also Europe's old economy exposure, especially in regards to the China exposure where demand isn't really picking up.Every year, for the last few years, we've seen this kind of China exposure and China competition piece drive between 60 and 90 percent of European earnings downgrades. And looking at especially the areas of consensus that are too high, which tend to be highly China exposed, that have had negative growth this year, in prior years. And we don't see kind of the trigger for that to mean revert. That is where we expect thematically the most disappointment. So, sectors like chemicals, like autos, those are some of the sectors towards the bottom of our model. Luxury as well. It's a bit more debated these days, but that's still an underweight for us in our model.Then German fiscal, this is a multi-year story. German fiscal, I mentioned that there's a lot of excitement on it in the first half of the year. The focus for next year will be the pace of execution, and we think there's two parts of this story. There's an infrastructure fund, a 500-billion-euro infrastructure fund in Germany where we're seeing, according to our economists, a very likely reallocation to more kind of social-related spend, which is not as great for our companies in the German index or earnings. And execution there hasn't been very fast.And then there's the Defense side of the story where we're a lot more optimistic, where we're seeing execution start to pick up now, where the need is immense. And we're seeing also upgrades from corporates on the back of that kind of execution pickup and the need. And we're very bullish on Defense. We're overweight the issue for taking that defense optimism and projecting out for all of Europe is that defense makes up less than 2 percent of the European index. And we do think that broadens to other sectors, but that will take years to start to impact other sectors.And then, couple other things. We have pockets of AI exposure in the enabler category. So, we're seeing a lot of strength in those pockets. A lot of catch up in some of those pockets right now. Utilities is a great example, which I can talk about. So, we think that will continue.But one thing I'm really watching, and I think a lot of strategists, across regions are watching is AI adoption. And this is the real bull case for me in Europe. If AI adoption, ROI starts to become material enough that it's hard to ignore, which could start, in my opinion, from the second half of next year. Then Europe could be seen as much more of a play on AI adoption because the majority of our index is exposed to adoption. We have a lot of low hanging fruit, in terms of productivity challenges, demographics, you know, the level of returns. And if you track our early adopters, which is something we do, they are showing ROI. So, we think that will broaden up to more of the European index.Paul Walsh: Now, Marina, you mentioned, a number of sectors there, as it relates to the thematic focus. So, it brings us onto our third and final bucket in terms of what your model is suggesting in terms of your sector preferences…Marina Zavolock: Yeah. So, we have, data driven model, just to take a step back for a moment. And our model incorporates; it's quantum-mental. It incorporates themes. It incorporates our view on the cycle, which is in our view, we're late cycle now, which can be very bullish for returns. And it includes quant factors; things like price target, revisions breadth, earnings revisions breadth, management sentiment.We use a Large Language Model to measure for the first time since inception. We have reviewed the performance of our model over the last just under two years. And our top versus bottom stocks in our model have delivered 47 percent in returns, the top versus bottom performance. So now on the basis of the latest refresh of our model, banks are screening by far at the top.And if you look – whether it's at our sector model or you look at our top 50 preferred stocks in Europe, the list is full of Banks. And I didn't mention this in the thematic portion, but one of the themes in Europe outside of Germany is fiscal constraints. And actually, Banks are positively exposed to that because they're exposed to the steepness – positively to the steepness – of the yield curve.And I think investors – specialists are definitely optimistic on the sector, but I think you're getting more and more generalists noticing that Banks is the sector that consistently delivers the highest positive earnings upgrades of any sector in Europe. And is still not expensive at all. It's one of the cheapest sectors in Europe, trading at about nine times PE – also giving high single digit buyback and dividend yield. So that sector we think continues to have momentum.We also like Defense. We recently upgraded Utilities. We think utilities in Europe is at this interesting moment where in the last six months or so, it broke out of a five-year downtrend relative to the European index. It's also, if you look at European Utilities relative to U.S. Utilities – I mentioned those wide valuation discounts. Utilities have broken out of their downtrend in terms of valuation versus their U.S. peers. But still trade at very wide discounts. And this is a sector where it has the highest CapEx of any sector in Europe – highest CapEx growth on the energy transition. The market has been hesitant to kind of benefit the sector for that because of questions around returns, around renewables earlier on. And now that there's just this endless demand for power on the back of powering AI, investors are more willing to benefit the sector for those returns.So, the sector's been a great performer already year to date, but we think there's multiple years to go.Paul Walsh: Marina, a very comprehensive overview on the outlook for European equities for 2026. Thank you very much for taking the time to talk.Marina Zavolock: Thank you, Paul.Paul Walsh: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Mike Wilson, our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist, and Dan Skelly, Senior Investment Strategist at Morgan Stanley Wealth Management, discuss the outlook for the U.S. stock market in 2026 and the most significant themes for retail investors. 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. Daniel Skelly: And I'm Dan Skelly, Senior Investment Strategist for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management. Mike Wilson: Today we're going to have a conversation about our views on the U.S. stock market in 2026, and what matters most to retail investors in particular. It's Monday, December 8th at 9am in New York. So, let's get after it. Dan, it's great to see you. We always talk about the markets together. I think this is a great opportunity for us to share those thoughts with listeners. Our view coming into this year is still pretty bullish for 2026. We've been bullish on [20]25 as you have, probably for, you know, similar – maybe some slightly different reasons. I think one of our differentiating views is that we do think inflation is still a major risk for individual investors. And institutional investors, quite frankly, which is why stocks have done so much better. A concept, I think you're well aware of. And I think, you know, the risk for retail is that there's going to be; it's going to be volatile. So, point-to-point, we're still bullish as you are. How are you thinking about managing that point-to-point path? And how are you structuring your portfolio as we go into 2026 with a bullish outlook – but understanding that it's not always going to be smooth. Daniel Skelly: So, like you said, we've also shared this view that next year's going to be positive, albeit there's going to be more volatility. And when I think about the two main risks that retail investors are facing today, one of them is definitely inflation. We're seeing that in services. We're seeing that in housing. We've had the labor market shrink over the recent couple of quarters, so who knows if wage inflation pops up again. But there are ways to definitely hedge against that in an equity portfolio. We think, for instance, owning parts of the AI infrastructure cohort is one of the ways of hedging, whether that be in utilities, pipelines, energy infrastructure in general. These are areas that we think are a necessary hedge against inflation risk. And number two are a positive diversifier. And second key point, Mike, just thinking about that diversification comment. Look, we all know that in many ways the Mag 7 – and the technology strength that we've seen this past year – has driven a fairly concentrated market. I think what people, particularly on the individual side, are recognizing less is just how much AI cuts across many other sectors in parts of the market. And again, we think that risk of over concentration is still out there. And we like the idea of thinking of embedding natural diversification into the equity portfolio. Mike Wilson: Yeah. I mean, it's interesting. Inflation, you know, is part of that story too because AI is somewhat disinflationary or deflationary. I think, you know, investing in things that can drive higher productivity even away from AI can mitigate some of that risk in the economic outlook. But if I think about, you know, the Mag 7 dominance, and just this concentrated market risk, which you spoke about. If inflation re-accelerates next year, which, you know, is one of our core views as the economy improves – doesn't that broaden out the opportunity set? And you know, like there's been this idea that, ‘Oh, you have to own these seven stocks and nothing else.' I mean, part of our view for next year is that we think the market's going to broaden out. How are you set up for that broadening out? And how are you thinking about picking stocks and new themes that can work – that maybe people aren't paying attention to right now? Daniel Skelly: Yeah, it's a great point, Mike. And so, on the first topic, we do think there's broadening, and that's a combination of factors. Number one is just the market becoming more convicted about the Fed cutting path, which we've talked about, and the firm's view reaffirms for next year. Number two is starting to see some of the benefits of deregulation, right, which should impact maybe some of the more cyclical sectors out there – Financials, Energy being two of them. Maybe seeing more M&A activity too as a byproduct of deregulation. And that should bode better for mid- and maybe small caps as well as they receive a M&A premia in the valuations. And I know you've talked about small caps recently in your commentary. But last point I'll make Mike, and it comes back to AI. It almost feels like AI is this huge inflationary ramp at first to get to that deflationary nirvana down the road – with productivity. I think one of the key factors we think about, in terms of a bottom-up perspective, which is what we focus on in across the portfolio, is definitely pricing power. Who owns the pricing power and the key data and the key AI adoption outlook in order to absorb all the different tools and technology diffusion we've seen in the last three years. And that's going to play out, Mike, as you well know, across a variety of sectors and themes. So, agreed, we should see broadening for all those varying reasons. Mike Wilson: So, I mean, there are a couple areas I think, where we overlap. Financials…Daniel Skelly: Yep. Mike Wilson: Industrials, Healthcare, some of the themes that I think we both; we share our bullish views. And what do you think those areas are, within those sectors? You think that you have a differentiated view maybe than the consensus being Financials, Industrials, Healthcare? That the market may be missing, which offers more upset? Daniel Skelly: Sure. I'll start with Financials, which has been an overweight call for us for some time, as I know it has for you as well. And I think that kind of cyclical re-acceleration in the economy is one part. I think the Fed cutting is another part. I think deregulation is clearly another driver. Fourth Capital Markets recovery, which we have seen now. We had a little bit of a technical lull with the government shutdown in terms of filings and issuance, but we see all of the pipeline indicators, indicating green lights for next year in terms of recovery. I think the one thing I would argue that I've observed in looking at all of our vast data sets is that despite all these different bullish factors, this still maybe has been a theme or a sector that investors have traded in and out of, right? I don't think I've even seen like a real strong, consistent overweight. So, I think number one, that's an opportunity. And last point is, listen, there's different sub-sector bifurcation going on, as you know, within the industry, whereas money centers and large banks are performing really well. The same is not the case of regionals and alts managers. And there are varying reasons for that. But we would even argue, Mike, there could be catchup trades within the sector next year. Mike Wilson: Yeah, I would agree on that. I mean, the regional over money centers and actually regionals over alt managers, because I mean – I think the Treasury Secretary has talked about this, you know. Trying to get the regulated banking system kind of back in the game may actually be an opportunity to take share back from some of those alt managers, which have actually done quite well. What about on Healthcare? We upgraded that back in the summer. I think you've been constructive on parts of Healthcare, right. Wwhat do you think people are missing there and why could that be a good sector for next year? Daniel Skelly: Yeah. We were definitely, I'll say, earlier than you and wrong. You had really good timing in terms of your Healthcare upgrade last summer. And look, the sector was out of favor for two years. What we think we observed in the kind of July-August period is: First and foremost, I think we got past the point of maximum policy concern and risk. And ironically, we saw some kind of nominal or surface level deal signed with the government around most favored nation pricing. And it was really, not a lot to write home about. It wasn't as egregious as a policy inflection as some had feared. So, I think that was the first key catalyst. Second, we just saw a really good revisions breadth. And I know this is a comment you make a lot in your work. But we saw across big pharma, tools and life science, medical technology, and devices. We saw really good positive earnings revisions coming out of third and even starting the second quarter. Thirdly, I think if you're talking about an M&A in capital markets recovery, you can't not talk about Healthcare. I think that's a space that'll be ripe for deal making. And then just fourth, right? Look, as the market broadens out, and as people are stopping or maybe slowing the crowding and the key leadership, they're going to go again from AI enablers to AI adopters. And we think AI is going to be a vector that cuts across the Healthcare industry in a really positive way. Mike Wilson: Yeah, I mean, the efficiencies that are, you know, possible in the Healthcare sector seem immense. I mean, it, it appears to me that that's going to be an area where there's probably some new solutions, some new companies we don't even know about yet. So, to me that's a very exciting area that's been dormant for quite a while. What about Consumer, Dan? It's been this K economy. It's been very bifurcated, you know, high-end versus middle-income, lower-income. I mean, what are the themes within consumer that you're finding in putting to work in your portfolio? Daniel Skelly: Yeah. We've talked a lot, Mike, in the last year or so about playing Consumer platforms, particularly domestically oriented versus global consumer brands. And there's a couple of key drivers behind that. But first, when you look at what's going on in consumer land, and Simeon Gutman's been a really good, kind of, analyst looking at this theme over time. In many ways it's starting to resemble the Mag 7 in terms of winner take all phenomena. If you look at some of the major consumer big box platforms, they're taking 50- 60 percent of share of total retail sales. Just a couple of companies. So, number one, we're really focused on platforms where market share gains, free cash flow and revenue – recurring revenue – in particular, are leading to even stronger competitive moats, particularly in a capital-intensive industry. And what we've observed about retail is that as those leaders in big box areas take more share, they can reinvest that winning capital in their advertising growth in their online channel and widen their moats even more. Secondly though, in order to have a positive theme, I've always said you got to fund it from somewhere. And so, what we've observed again over the last year or so is – when I think about some of the even highest quality global brands they've suffered seeing less traction in China. And that's amid less of a willingness from Chinese consumers to own American and European brands. There's a lot to that, but I think culturally, obviously the trade war, the AI war for prominence leading to maybe some of that lack of cultural traction. Secondly, we've also, I think, started to see the growth of AI tools start to weigh on established brands. I think what makes a brand cool and the barriers to entry in terms of creating brands is going to go down in the future because of AI influencing and advertising tools. And so, simply put, we continue to like, Mike, the big box consumer platforms across, clothing and food, housing, across e-commerce. That continues to be one of our higher conviction themes. Mike Wilson: All right, Dan, I want to come back to, kind of, AI infrastructure. I mean, AI spending has been the big, big theme. But there's other types of infrastructure spend and CapEx. It's been dormant, quite frankly, and with the [One] Big Beautiful Bill [Act] perhaps incentivizing some of that. How does that play into your thought process around other industrial stocks that could benefit? Daniel Skelly: Absolutely, Mike. You cited the AI infrastructure spending. We think continues kind of unimpeded going into next year. Number two, we think the Fed cutting, just creating better financing conditions in terms of bigger projects. You mentioned as well, the fiscal incentives. And look, I think Chris Snyder has been spot on the last year or so talking about reshoring production wins coming back to the U.S. I don't think this is certainly as cognizant on the – or on the minds of individual investors. Maybe not even institutional investors. But the U.S. is winning manufacturing production share and has been for some time. And we've seen that no doubt ramp up post the announcement of the [One] Big Beautiful Bill {Act]. No doubt. But we think that has implications, Mike, for stocks and stock picking within what we would call, kind of, shorter cycle themes. And I think whether that be in Logistics and Transports or HVAC or some of the Non-Resi, Non-Datacenter related verticals. There are a whole bunch of stocks that have been kind of dormant for two to three years as we've been in this ISM recession that we think could certainly wake up next year as things broaden out. Mike Wilson: Yeah, we would agree with that. And I guess lastly, you know, there's always this Johnny come lately, you know, fear factor of, ‘Well … stocks are up a ton. My neighbor's bragging how much money they're making. So, I must have missed it all.' And I think embedded within that is this fear of valuation. The valuations are now very rich. What's your response to individual clients about – it's not too late, they haven't missed it. It's still a bull market. In fact, we would argue a new bull market began in April with a new economic cycle. What is your response to those folks who have that angst? Daniel Skelly: Two things. One is the market today looks totally different than it did in the past, and AI is no doubt one big part of that. The composition of the market in many ways is higher quality, less debt, more recurring revenue. Big call option on productivity coming from AI earnings, power, et cetera. So, we think the market should trade at richer levels than it did in the past, point number one. Point number two, we would say whereas most people say time is your friend – for individual investors, they would also say valuation is no short term or short run indicator, but it's the best long run indicator. And looking at today's, again, extended levels of valuation relative to history – they would say that's not going to play out well over the long run. I would actually take the other side of that. I think that the earnings and the economic potential unleashed not just from AI, but some of these fiscal and monetary policies could create tremendous margin earnings potential in the long run. And so, I think today we're looking at a level of multiples that appears artificially high. And based on what could be a big earnings inflection point in that multi-year timeframe could frankly just be superficially high. Mike Wilson: Well, Dan, it's always great to get your perspective. I always enjoyed chatting with you. Daniel Skelly: Likewise. Mike Wilson: Thanks for coming on the show and sharing it with our listeners. It's great to see you. Daniel Skelly: Thanks Mike. Mike Wilson: And thanks to our listeners. Thanks for tuning in and 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.

Live from the Morgan Stanley Global Consumer & Retail Conference, our analysts discuss how AI is reshaping the future of shopping in the U.S.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. We're coming to you live from Morgan Stanley's Global Consumer and Retail Conference in New York City, where we have more than 120 leading companies in attendance. Today's episode is the second part of our live discussion of the U.S. consumer and how AI is changing consumer companies. With me on stage, we have Arunima Sinha from the Global and U.S. Economics team, Simeon Guttman, our U.S. Hardlines, Broad Lines, and Food Retail Analyst, and Megan Clap, U.S. Food Producers and Leisure Analyst. It's Friday, December 5th at 10am in New York. So, Simeon, I want to start with you. You recently put out a piece assessing the AI race. Can you take us through how you're assessing current AI implementation? And can you give us some real-world examples of what it looks like when a company significantly integrates AI into their business? Simeon Gutman: Sure. So, the Consumer Discretionary and Staples teams went to each of their covered companies, and we started searching for what those companies have disclosed and communicated regarding their AI. In some cases, we used AI to do this search. But we created a search and created this universe of factors and different ways AI is being implemented. We didn't have a framework until we had the entire universe of all of these AI use cases. Once we did, then we were able to compartmentalize them. And the different groups; we came up with six groups that we were able to cluster. First, personalization and refined search; second, customer acquisition; third product innovation; fourth, labor productivity; fifth, supply chain and logistics. And lastly, inventory management. And using that framework, we were able to rank companies on a 1 to 10 scale. Across – that was the implementation part – across three different dimensions: breadth, how widely the AI is deployed across those categories; the depth, the quality, which we did our best to be able to interpret. And then the last one was proprietary initiatives. So, that's partnerships, could be with leading AI firms. So that helped us differentiate the leaders with others, not necessarily laggards, but those who were ahead of in the race. In some cases, companies that have communicated more would naturally scream more, so there is some potential bias in that. But otherwise, the fact pattern was objective. Walmart has full scale AI deployment. They're integrated across their business. They've introduced GenAI tools. That's like their Sparky shopping assistant. As well as integrated to in-store features. They talked about it. It's been driving a 25 percent increase in average shopper spend. They've recently partnered with OpenAI to enable ChatGPT powered Search and Checkout, positioning where the company, where the customer is shopping. They're also layering on augmented reality for holiday shopping, computer vision for shelf monitoring. LLMs for inventory replenishment. Autonomous lifts, the list goes on and on. But it covers all the functional categories in our framework. Michelle Weaver: And how about a couple examples of the ways companies are using these? Any interesting real world use cases you've seen so far? Simeon Gutman: So, one of them was in marketing personalization, as well as in product cataloging. That was one of the more sided themes at this conference. So, it was good timing. So, the idea is when product is staged on a company's website; I don't think we all appreciate how much time and many hours and people and resources it takes to get the correct information, to get the right pictures and to show all the assortment – those type of functions AI is helping enable. And it sounds like we're on the cusp of a step change in personalization. It sounds like AI, machine learning or algorithm driven suggestions to consumers. We didn't get practical use cases, but a lot of companies talked about the deployment of this into 2026, which sounds like it's something to look forward to. Michelle Weaver: And Megan, how would you describe AI adoption in your space in terms of innings and what kind of criteria are you using to assess the future for AI opportunity and potential? Megan Clapp: Yeah, I would say; I'd characterize adoption in the Food and broader Staples space today is still relatively early innings. I think most companies are still standing up the data infrastructure, experimenting with various tools. We're seeing companies pilot early use cases and start to talk about them, and that was evident in the work we did with the note that Simeon just talked about. And so, the opportunity, I think, going ahead, lies in kind of what we see in terms of scaling those pilots to become more impactful. And for Staples broadly, and Food, you know, ties into this. I think, these companies start with an advantage and that they sit on a tremendous amount of high frequency consumption data. So, the data availability is quite large. The question now is, you know, can these large organizations move with speed and translate that data into action? And that's something that we're focused on when we think about feasibility. I think we think about the opportunity for Food and Staples broadly as we'd put it into kind of two areas. One is what can they do on the top line? Marketing, innovation, R&D, kind of the lifeblood of CPG companies, and that's where we're seeing a lot of the early use cases. I think ultimately that will be the most important driver – driving top line, you know, tends to be the most important thing in most consumer companies. But then on the other side, there are a lot of cost efforts, supply chain savings, labor productivity. Those are honestly a bit easier to quantify. And we're seeing real tangible things come out of that. But overall I think the way we think about it is the large companies with scale and the ability to go after the opportunity because they have the scale and the balance sheet to do so – will be winners here, as well as the smaller, more nimble companies that, you know, can move a little bit faster. And so that's how we're thinking about the opportunity. Michelle Weaver: Can you give us also just a couple examples of AI adoption that's been successful that you've seen so far? Megan Clapp: Yeah, so on the top line side, like I said, kind of marketing innovation, R&D. One quick example on the Food side. Hershey, for example, they're using algorithms to reallocate advertising spend by zip code, based on the real time sell through. So, they can just be much more targeted and more efficient, honestly, with that advertising spend. I think from an innovation perspective too, these companies are able to identify on trend things faster and incorporate that and take the idea to shelf time down significantly. And then on the cost side, you know, General Mills is a company is actually relatively, far ahead, I'd say, in the AI adoption curve in Staples broadly. And what they've done is deployed what they call digital twins across their network, and it has improved forecast accuracy. They've taken their historical productivity savings from 4 percent annually to 5 percent. That's something that's structural. So, seeing real tangible benefits that are showing up in the PNL. And so, I think broadly the theme is these companies are using AI to make faster, and more precise decisions. And then I thought, I'd just mention on the leisure side, something that I felt was interesting that we learned from Shark Ninja yesterday at the conference is – when asked about the role of Agentic AI in future commerce, thinks it'll be huge was how he described; the CEO described it. And what they're doing actively right now is optimizing their D2C website for LLMs like ChatGPT and Gemini. And his point was that what drives conversion on D2C today may not ultimately be what ranks on AI driven search. But he said the expectation is that by Christmas of next year, commerce via these AI platforms will be meaningful; mentioned that OpenAI is already experimenting with curated product transactions. So, they're really focused on optimizing their portfolio. He thinks brands will win; but you have got to get ahead of it as well. Michelle Weaver: And that's great that you just brought up Agentic commerce. We've heard about it quite a bit over the past couple of days, Simeon. And I know you recently put out a big piece on this theme. Agentic commerce introduces a lot of possibility for incremental sales, but it also introduces the possibility for cannibalization. Where do you see this shaking out in your space? Are you really concerned about that cannibalization possibility? Simeon Gutman: Yeah, so the larger debate is a little bit of sales cannibalization and a potential bit of retail media cannibalization. So, your first point is Agentic theoretically opens up a bigger e-commerce penetration and just more commerce. And once you go to more e-commerce, that could be beneficial for some of these companies. We can also put the counter argument of when e-commerce came, direct-to-consumer type of selling could disintermediate the captive retailer sales again. Maybe, maybe not. Part of this answer is we created a framework to think about what retailers can protect themselves most from this. Two of them; two of the five I's are infrastructure and inventory. So, the more that your inventory is forward position, the more infrastructure you have; the AI and the agent will still prioritize that retailer within that network. That business will likely not go elsewhere. And that's our premise. Now, retail media is a different can of worms. We don't know what models are going to look like. How this interaction will take place? We don't know who controls the data. The transactions part of this conference is we were hearing, ‘Well, the retailers are going to control some of the data and the transaction.' Will consumers feel comfortable giving personal information, credit card to agents? I'm sure at some point we'll feel comfortable, but there are these inertia points and these are models that are getting worked out today. There's incentives for the hyperscalers to be part of this. There's incentive for the retailers to be part of it. But we ultimately don't know. What we do know is though forward position inventory is still going to win that agent's business if you need to get merchandise quickly, efficiently. And if it's a lot of merchandise at once. Think about the largest platforms that have been investing in long tail of product and speed to getting it to that consumer. Michelle Weaver: And Arunima, I want to bring this back to the macro as well. As AI adoption starts to ramp the labor market then starts to get called into question. Is this going to be automation or is it going to be augmentation as you see a ramp in AI adoption? So how are your expectations for AI being factored into your forecast and what are you expecting there? Arunima Sinha: There are two ways that we think about just sort of AI spending mattering for our growth forecasts. One part is literally the spend, the investment in the data centers and the chips and so on. And then the other is just the rise in productivity. So, does the labor or does the human capital become more productive? And if we sum both of those things together, we think that over 2026 – [20]27, they add anywhere between 40-45 basis points to growth. And just to put things in perspective, our GDP growth estimate for the end of this year in 2026 is 1.8 percent. For 2027, it's 2.0 percent. So, it's an important part of that process. In terms of the labor market itself, the work that you have led, as well as the work that we've been doing – which is this question about adoption at the macro level, that's still fairly low. We look at the census data that tracks larger companies or mid-size companies on a monthly basis to say, ‘How much did you use AI tools in the last couple of weeks.' And that's been slowly increasing, but it's still sort of in the mid-teens in terms of how many companies have been using as a percentage. And so, we think that adoption should continue to increase. And as that does, for now, we think it is going to be a compliment to labor. Although there are some cohorts within sort of demographic cohorts in terms of ages that are probably going to be disproportionately impacted, but we don't think that that's a sort of near term 2026 story. Michelle Weaver:  Well, thank you all for joining us and please follow Thoughts on the Market wherever you listen to podcasts. Thank you to our panel participants for this engaging discussion and to our live and podcast audiences. 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.