Podcasts about Alternatives

Our Chief Fixed Income Strategist Vishy Tirupattur and U.S. Head of Credit Strategy Vishwas Patkar discuss the implications of private credit's exposure to the software industry.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Vishwas Patkar: I'm Vishwas Patkar, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Head of Credit Strategy. Vishy Tirupattur: While potential disruption from AI has been a key driver for markets [in the] last few weeks, the focus of investor agenda has been in the software sector. On today's podcast, we will talk about software in the credit markets and its implications. It's Monday, March 2nd at 10am in New York. Vishwas, let's start by understanding how the exposure in software manifests in the credit markets. How does it compare to software, say, in the equity market? Vishwas Patkar: Yeah, so the software exposure in credit markets is large, and understandably that's why investors are closely watching what's happening with software in the equity market. But what's interesting and important for investors to note is the exposure in credit is very different from what it is in equities. So, for instance, a good chunk of exposure in the credit market is around private issuers. So, we estimate about 80 percent of companies are private in the whole sample set that we looked at. And that's largely a function of the fact that software is not a big part of the more liquid spaces like Investment Grade and High Yield. But it is heavily represented in the more opaque parts of the market, like leveraged loans, CLOs, and, you know, BDCs. So, our analysis found that about 25 percent of BDC portfolios are in software, closely followed by private credit CLOs. And leveraged loan market was about 16 percent. So, that's an important distinction to keep in mind versus the equity market. The second thing I would flag is – because the software sector grew a lot in the loan market through the LBO wave of 2020 and 2021, it has a weaker credit quality skew to it than the overall market. So about 50 percent of borrowers in the sector are rated B - or lower. So, that's the lowest rungs of the rating spectrum. Many of these software deals were underwritten with higher leverage than the broad market. And as a result of that you also have more front-loaded maturities in the sector, which brings the risks of refinancing, if some of this disruption persists. But Vishy, that's a nice segue to you. Over the past couple of years, you looked at the private credit market in depth and that's where I think the exposure we found is the highest in BDCs, you know, which is the public face of private credit. So, in your assessment, what is the risk of software to private credit, given all of the headlines that are popping up? Vishy Tirupattur: Public face of private credit – Vishwas, that's a great line. BDCs – business development corporations for those who are not familiar – are companies that invest in the debt of small and medium sized companies, sourced through non-bank channels. BDCs fund themselves through equity and debt issuance. So, if you look at the portfolios of BDCs to look at their exposure to software, there's a wide variation across the various BDC portfolios. What makes the assessment of these software risks in BDCs challenging is that many of these companies are private companies without the reporting obligations of public companies. So, no earnings reports, no 10-Ks or cues or broadly publicly available financials look at. So, in effect, these companies need to be re underwritten to evaluate which of these companies would be disrupted from AI; and which companies could actually benefit from AI and see their margins expand. So, in the context of BDCs, liability spreads are something we are watching closely. BDC liability spreads have widened but we think more needs to happen there. The clearing levels need to wait for the full resolution of the companies that benefit and that get hurt by disruption that is still awaited. So, we expect credit spreads of BDCs to remain volatile for some time to come. Vishwas Patkar: Okay. So, seems like this is a significant, or at least a non-trivial risk factor for credit markets, given the growth of the sector, leverage, the skew and quality. But Vishy, do you think this could be systemic for risk markets at large? Vishy Tirupattur: So, I do think that this is a significant risk, but I don't think it's a systemic risk. The amount of leverage in BDC is fairly small. About 2x is the kind of leverage. You compare that to the kind of leverage that existed in the financial system before the financial crisis – that's orders of magnitude smaller risk. And also the linkage to the banking system comes through the back leverage provided to the non-bank lenders. But this leverage is substantially risk remote with very high subordination levels. So, my conclusion here is this is a significant risk but not a systemic risk. So let me turn the same question to you, Vishwas. Taking on a sort of historical perspective as well as a macro perspective, how do you see this risk manifesting in the broader credit space? Vishwas Patkar: Yeah, so I would agree with you Vishy, that we need to see a valuation reset. We think spreads should go wider because of disruption concerns, even if they affect a relatively narrow part of the market. But a lot of that's happening against issuance that's rising. But I would say the risk of systemic concerns really emerging is relatively low. if you look at historical cycles where credit has been the weak link in the economy, those are typically characterized by a lot of corporate re-leveraging. So, think about the late 1990s or from 2004 to 2007 or the early 2000-teens. These are all cycles where corporates were being very aggressive, adding a lot of debt. And you know, when the economy slowed, credit became the source of some default and downgrade concerns. We haven't really seen that type of credit cycle play out at all in the past few years. If you look at corporate debt to GDP, for example, it's gone down each of the last five years. Balance sheet corporate leverage has been flat or actually gone lower in spots. M&A activity, which is usually a good indicator of corporate aggressiveness, still remains below trend. So, I think we have had a fairly restrained credit cycle where in place fundamentals are quite strong. And that's why I think the systemic contagion from any credit spread weakness, I think could be relatively muted. Vishy Tirupattur: So, the key takeaway from us is that software and credit is a significant risk but is not quite systemic risk. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

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

Synopsis:  Members of PNLL are experimenting with new ways of doing politics and economics in communities across the US, focusing on local solutions and shared resources. This show is made possible by you! To become a sustaining member go to LauraFlanders.org/donate Description: People across the country are resisting authoritarianism in creative and powerful ways, and this is just the start. The folks at The People's Network for Land & Liberation (PNLL) say the forces that got us here are bigger than one bad leader; entire systems must be taken down. Building a brighter future requires a vision of economic and social justice — and lots of practice. Today on Laura Flanders & Friends, we look at some of those practical experiments and paths for radical change, and discuss why they're just as important as resistance. The members of PNLL, a multiracial, multiethnic consortium of six community-based organizations, are doing politics and economics differently in real places across the U.S. right now. Joining us are Edget Betru, an attorney, activist and Coordinator of the People's Network for Land & Liberation; David Cobb, PNLL staff person and Co-coordinator of the U.S. Solidarity Economy Network; and Blair Evans, Founder and Executive Director of Incite Focus, a production and training lab based in Idlewild, Michigan. Find out how to build for the future — even in the toughest circumstances. All that, plus a commentary from Laura on William Morris's News From Nowhere. “We've been colonized in our minds . . . Involving people in day-to-day produce, meeting their needs through a different way, through thinking, Hey, who in my neighborhood knows how to fix this? . . . It's really that shift in consciousness that needs to happen that's going to allow for this new economy to emerge.” - Edget Betru “My mama and my mamaw and my papa who raised me taught me a lesson as a little boy, and that is, there's enough to go around as long as we share. That made sense to me when I was five years old. It makes sense to me now when I'm 63 years old. There's enough to go around as long as we share. It's just as simple as that.” - David Cobb “We can make things that make things, we can design and build our own equipment that can then use locally sourced materials, hyper localizing the supply chain . . . We can stop feeding the monster that's consuming us and actually disconnect from that process and use what we have.” - Blair Evans Guests: • Edget Betru: Coordinator, People's Network for Land & Liberation; Board Member, Community Movement Builders • David Cobb: Staff, People's Network for Land & Liberation; Manager, Butterfly Impact Fund; Co-Coordinator, U.S. Solidarity Economy Network • Blair Evans: Coalition Member, People's Network for Land & Liberation; Founder & Executive Director, Incite Focus; Designer & Trainer, Fab Lab Watch on YouTube this episode that includes video clips referenced in this episode from Third World Newsreel; PBS World Channel 11:30am ET Sundays and on over 300 public stations across the country (check your listings, or search here via zipcode). Listen: Episode airing on community radio (check here to see if your station airs the show) & available as a podcast March 4, 2026. Full Conversation Release: While our weekly shows are edited to time for broadcast on Public TV and community radio, we offer to our members and podcast subscribers the full uncut conversation.  Music Credit:  'Thrum of Soil' by Bluedot Sessions, 'Steppin' by Podington Bear, and original sound design by Jeannie Hopper Support Laura Flanders and Friends by becoming a member at https://www.patreon.com/c/lauraflandersandfriends   RESOURCES:   Full Episode Notes are located HERE. *Recommended book: “Beautiful Solutions: A Toolbox for Liberation”, Learn More Here* (*Bookshop is an online bookstore with a mission to financially support local, independent bookstores. The LF Show is an affiliate of bookshop.org and will receive a small commission if you click through and make a purchase.)   Related Laura Flanders Show Episodes: •  Jackson Rising: Creating the Mondragon of the South: Watch •  Resisting Trump & Authoritarianism: The “Beautiful Solutions” Toolbox:  Watch / Listen •  Community Wealth Building: An Economic Reset: Watch / Listen:  Full Uncut Conversation and Episode Cut Related Articles and Resources: •  Community Movement Builders' Community Sea Moss Cooperative •  Tale of the Tape:  An Expert Weighs In on the ‘Cop City' Bodycam Footage, by Madeline Thigpen, February 15, 2023, Capital B • Cooperation Jackson, The Build and Fight Educational Series •  The Butterfly Effect Fund •  Cooperation Vermont, Seeding the Alternatives for the Future •  Cooperation Vermont Buys Former Rainbow Sweets Building, by Paul Fixx, February 4, 2025, The Hardwick Gazette • Incite Focus, where ideas and imagination meet inspiration and innovation •  Wellspring Cooperative, building a just and sustainable economy, one co-op at a time •  U.S. Solidarity Economy Network (US SEN) Laura Flanders and Friends Crew: Laura Flanders-Executive Producer, Writer; Sabrina Artel-Supervising Producer; Jeremiah Cothren-Senior Producer; Veronica Delgado-Video Editor, Janet Hernandez-Communications Director; Jeannie Hopper-Audio Director, Podcast & Radio Producer, Audio Editor, Sound Design, Narrator; Sarah Miller-Development Director, Nat Needham-Editor, Graphic Design emeritus; David Neuman-Senior Video Editor, and Rory O'Conner-Senior Consulting Producer. FOLLOW Laura Flanders and FriendsInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/lauraflandersandfriends/Blueky: https://bsky.app/profile/lfandfriends.bsky.socialFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/LauraFlandersAndFriends/Tiktok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lauraflandersandfriendsYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFLRxVeYcB1H7DbuYZQG-lgLinkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/company/lauraflandersandfriendsPatreon: https://www.patreon.com/lauraflandersandfriendsACCESSIBILITY - The broadcast edition of this episode is available with closed captioned by clicking here for our YouTube Channel

Corn rootworm management is a pressing concern for many growers, but the best strategy isn't the same for everybody. In this week's podcast episode, we explore effective management strategies based on recent research findings. With expert insights from Brent Tharp and Eric Wilson, gain a deeper understanding of how to optimize your corn production while mitigating rootworm damage.Effective management of corn rootworm requires a combination of proactive monitoring and research-backed treatment options. As we continue to explore and refine these strategies, growers can enhance their crop resilience and yield potential. For more insights, consider implementing the discussed practices and continuing to monitor your fields for rootworm activity. Links discussed in this episode:Wyffels Hybrids Corn Rootworm MonitoringOur Corn Products - Wyffels HybridsWyffels Hybrids Seed Corn Technology OptionsBetween The Rows® - Monitoring CRW PopulationsWe want to hear from you. Have questions you want us to address on future episodes? Ideas for how we can make this better? Email us at agronomy@wyffels.com. Wyffels Hybrids. Fiercely independent, and proud of it.►  Let's ConnectFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/WyffelsHybridsX: https://www.x.com/WyffelsHybridsInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/wyffelshybrids/LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/wyffelshybrids

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

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

In today's episode, Aaron Mulvihill, Global Alternatives Strategist, is joined by Brian Coleman, Co-Head of Investments for the Private Credit Solutions Group within J.P. Morgan Asset Management, to dive into private credit, an asset class that continues to be popular with investors due to its yield pick-up compared to traditional fixed income. However, private credit does not come without risk. They discuss some of these risks in certain sectors, as well as the outlook for private credit and opportunities outside of direct lending. Watch the video version on YouTube.  Resources: For more resources on Alternatives, visit our Guide to Alternatives and Principles of Alternatives Investing Listen to the audio version of the Alternative Realities podcast: Apple Podcasts | Spotify

What's really happening inside the larynx when we ‘tilt?' In this episode, Alexa is joined by voice researcher Mathias Aaen to unpack the science behind thyroid tilt - exploring what his latest studies reveal about pitch, vocal fold lengthening, and healthy singing. The pair cut through common misconceptions, translate research into studio-ready language, and ask the big question: are our teaching prompts actually doing what we think they are? If you love practical pedagogy grounded in solid science, this one's for you.  WHAT'S IN THIS PODCAST?  2:58 What is tilt? Anatomy & physiology  6:35 CVT framework 16:13 Study results  22:45 Physiology vs the perceptual  25:36 Teaching prompts  43:10 Vocal fold length and pitch change  48:14 Enemies of tilt 52:37 Common misconceptions about tilt   About the presenter HERE RELEVANT MENTIONS & LINKS Investigating Laryngeal “Tilt” on Same-pitch Phonation—Preliminary Findings of Vocal Mode, Metal and Density Parameters as Alternatives to Cricothyroid-Thyroarytenoid “Mix” by Mathias Aaen et al Correlating Degree of Thyroid Tilt Independent of fo Control as a Mechanism for Phonatory Density with EGG and Acoustic Measures across Loudness Conditions by Mathias Aaen et al Singing Teachers Talk - Ep.131 Mastering Research Papers: How to Read with Ease and Extract Knowledge  Complete Vocal Training  Ian Howell Dr Mark Tempesta Kerrie Obert  Dr Ingo Titze Estill CVT App Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica  Manuel Garcia  Praat  ABOUT THE GUEST  Mathias Aaen, PhD, is a voice researcher, educator, and certified rehabilitation specialist. He serves as Honorary Researcher at Nottingham University Hospitals and VP of Research & Collaboration at CVI, and was previously a Fulbright Fellow at UC Berkeley. His work focuses on voice physiology, acoustics, auditory-perceptual analysis, and voice habilitation and rehabilitation, with groundbreaking research into the physiology and health of contemporary commercial music styles, including rock and heavy metal. He recently completed a PostDoc investigating the CVT framework as a clinical treatment for dysphonia in MTD and ABI patients. An award-winning researcher and Authorised CVT Teacher, Mathias is also an active performer who has worked with leading opera houses and voice professionals worldwide.  SEE FULL BIO HEREWebsite

Preview for later today: Liz Peek joins John Batchelor to discuss how AI developments are causing market sell-offs in software and logistics, prompting investors to seek alternatives to MAG 7 stocks.1963

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

We answer the following Biohacking and lifehacking questions in this Q&A podcast...11:30 How to overcome vibrator addiction?19:28 Alternatives to 5-HTP for depression?33:43 What is the best combination of brain supplements?36:52 Alternatives to Resveratrol?39:35 Phenylalanine for bipolar depression?43:06 Is a large Choline dose the same as a smaller Alpha-GPC dose?46:07 Does N-Acetyl Cysteine treat Phenibut withdrawal?Read

Over and over again my clients have been telling me: I want launching to feel simpler, more easeful, more low-lift.Either big, intense launch plans have exhausted their body and nervous system in the past or they've avoided selling altogether because what they think they have to do feels super out of alignment for them. And I get it, because I'm right there with them too.As I shared in my last episode I'm leaning into much softer sales cycles this year and so far it's feeling really good. If old school launching advice and being told that you have to go big, build hype, and create more, more, more sales content and take up more space than feels sustainable for you is holding you back from creating sales cycles that support you to reach your financial goals, I recorded this week's podcast episode for you.In it I share six gentle alternatives to go-big-or-go-home launch strategy that I hope can crack open some fresh ideas for how you can sell this year in a way that resonates and connects with your hell yes people and actually feels fun and sustainable for you to bring to life too. Links:Join me for next month's workshop: Marketing Without Performance & PersuasionJoin my free library filled with resources to support you to create a spacious workweek, a steady and thriving income, and honour your humanness every day.Join me over on Substack. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit yoursimpleandspaciousbusiness.substack.com

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

I did my February 2026 celebrity book club audit: covering Read with Jenna, Reese's Book Club, Good Morning America (adult + YA), Oprah's Book Club, Reese's Gen Z arm Sunnie Reads, and Dua Lipa's Service95. I broke down each pick's premise and vibes, shared whether I felt it was worth your time, and offered alternatives I would've chosen instead.

Today, we are joined by Jeff Wenninger, a retired LAPD Lieutenant, a nationally recognized law enforcement expert and author of “On Thin Ice,” an analysis of how poor leadership and entrenched mindsets have eroded public trust in police.Good policing requires standardization and training. The lack of standardized training nationwide is evident. Police academies across the nation vary significantly in required training hours, with the national average being about 800 hours. For context, a cosmetology license requires 1,500 hours of training. In contrast, Nordic countries train their police for two to three years and continuously monitor candidates to ensure they possess the necessary characteristics for success.Often a department's culture may not align with its standards. Law enforcement policies are only as effective as the culture that enforces them. Training must be assessed, and officers must be held accountable for their actions.Proper police response requires self-awareness, both of the situation and how an officer's actions can escalate or de-escalate an incident. Officers must ensure that any force used is proportional to the threat and the severity of the crime. Alternatives to force should always be considered, and training should instill this mindset rather than defaulting to force as the first solution. But there is often a disconnect between policy, practice, and culture—what Jeff refers to as the "policy-practice divide."Many officers are not fully aware of the legal standards by which their use of force will be judged. Organizations should be responsible for ensuring their officers are not just trained, but competent and able to justify their decisions under stress.Despite clear guidelines, the culture within some departments may foster a mentality where disobedience is met with excessive force—a “contempt of cop” attitude. This underscores the need for good judgment and accountability, both at the individual and organizational levels. Agencies must hold officers to high standards and not simply defend their actions because they are found to be legally justified.Post-incident debriefs, modeled after those used by the Blue Angels, are critical for learning and improvement. These debriefs should happen soon after incidents and involve honest self-assessment and peer feedback.Unfortunately, some leaders undermine trust by publicly defending officers before investigations are complete. True professionalism in law enforcement requires transparency, honest evaluation of incidents, and accountability at every level.

BigSpy was once the go-to ad research tool, but in 2026, performance marketers are jumping ship. Discover why the pricing, features, and fragmented workflows are pushing pros toward smarter, faster alternatives. For more, visit https://www.gethookd.ai/ GetHookd LLC City: Miami Address: 40 SW 13th street Website: https://www.gethookd.ai/

Frustrated with HARO's crowded inbox and endless pitching? Discover why traditional press platforms eat your time and learn about smarter, AI-powered alternatives that turn one topic into eight content formats, publish to hundreds of sites automatically, and deliver massive organic traffic. For more, visit https://ampifire.com/blog/what-is-haro-alternative-platforms-to-get-press/ AmpiFire City: London Address: London Office 15 Harwood Road, , London, England United Kingdom Website: https://ampifire.com/

Starlink works really well as an internet connection service for many RVers, but not for everyone.So what are the best alternatives for RVing travelers who need solid, fast and reliable internet service pretty much wherever they go? Find out in this podcast!Here is the link to the MVNO I recommended in this podcast - https://mobilemusthave.com/

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

Welcome to episode 347 of Growers Daily! We cover: some soil blocking alternatives (with a fun AI question attached—you know how that goes with me), saving the soil for the future, and it's feedback friday!  We are a Non-Profit! 

Most packaged snacks trigger blood sugar crashes that affect behavior, focus, and sleep in ways parents rarely recognize. Simple protein and fiber combinations solve this problem while delivering nutrients children actually need for development and long-term health. Learn more: https://bucketbuddies.xyz/ Smart Farms LLC City: Colton Address: 325 East 4th Street Website: https://smartfarms.global/

File: P-STRADNER-2-19.mp3 Headline: Viktor Orban's Continued Reliance on Russian Energy Guest Name: Stradner 25 Word Summary: Hungarian leader Viktor Orban falsely claims a lack of alternatives to Russian gas, prioritizing his grip on power and ties to Moscow over Hungary's interests.1870 BUCHAREST

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

In this investigative solo deep dive, Darin exposes the ongoing PFAS contamination crisis, the "forever chemicals" found in drinking water, clothing, carpets, cookware, cosmetics, food packaging, and even firefighting foam. Sparked by a Frontline investigation into the carpet industry in Dalton, Georgia, this episode expands far beyond one region and reveals a global supply chain problem affecting nearly every American. This episode is urgent. With 99% of people showing measurable PFAS levels in their blood, this is not about fear. It's about sovereignty. It's about awareness. It's about eliminating silent accumulation and reclaiming control over your environment. This is not luxury health. This is foundational freedom.     In This Episode What PFAS are and why they're called "forever chemicals" The Dalton, Georgia carpet industry case and wastewater contamination Internal corporate knowledge from 3M and DuPont decades ago Why PFAS contamination is global, not regional Everyday exposure: waterproof clothing, yoga pants, school uniforms, outdoor gear Nonstick cookware and safer alternatives Microwave popcorn bags and grease-resistant packaging Cosmetics, mascara, and fluorinated compounds Firefighting foam contamination at airports and military bases Health impacts: immune suppression, thyroid disruption, cancer risk Why water filtration is your first line of defense Emerging detox strategies: fiber, blood donation, microbiome support The role of regulation rollbacks and corporate accountability Algae-based PFAS alternatives already entering the market     Chapters 00:00:00 – Welcome to SuperLife: sovereignty, health, and responsibility 00:00:33 – Sponsor: Truniagen NAD supplement 00:02:17 – Why this PFAS episode is urgent and investigative 00:03:07 – The Frontline documentary: Dalton, Georgia & carpet contamination 00:04:31 – What PFAS / PFOA actually do and why they were adopted 00:05:45 – "Miracle chemistry" without proper safety testing 00:06:07 – Persistence: PFAS do not break down in the environment 00:06:38 – Wastewater discharge & farmland contamination 00:07:50 – Dead livestock, contaminated groundwater & generational impact 00:08:23 – 3M, DuPont, internal documents & decades of corporate knowledge 00:08:52 – Long-chain vs short-chain PFAS replacements 00:09:20 – Clothing exposure: waterproof jackets, yoga pants, uniforms 00:10:24 – Cookware exposure & safer alternatives 00:10:57 – Cosmetics & Environmental Working Group resources 00:11:17 – Sponsor: Shakeology & seven layers of quality testing 00:13:03 – Lack of labeling transparency 00:13:20 – Firefighting foam & military base contamination 00:14:05 – Health risks: immune suppression, thyroid, cholesterol, cancer 00:14:35 – 99% of Americans have PFAS in their blood 00:15:01 – Erin Brockovich & environmental legal activism 00:15:33 – Personal action step #1: Reverse osmosis water filtration 00:16:04 – Testing well water & municipal pressure 00:16:28 – Personal action step #2: Eliminating household exposures 00:17:25 – Emerging research: oat beta glucan fiber 00:18:03 – Firefighter study: blood donation lowering PFAS levels 00:18:32 – Microbiome & mycelium detox research 00:18:56 – Moving beyond fear into empowered action 00:19:23 – Phasing out toxic clothing & upgrading environment gradually 00:20:15 – Stockholm Convention & global treaties 00:20:52 – EPA regulations & rollback frustrations 00:21:19 – Innovation outrunning safety 00:21:50 – Share this episode & create consumer pressure 00:22:28 – Clean water, clean soil, clean products as human rights 00:22:54 – Terem Labs & algae-based PFAS alternatives 00:23:27 – Building a safe home environment as first step 00:24:15 – Final call to action: demand transparency & push reform     Thank You to Our Sponsors Shakeology: Get 15% off with code DARINO1BODI at Shakeology.com. Truniagen: Go to www.truniagen.com and use code DARIN20 at checkout for 20% off     Join the SuperLife Community Get Darin's deeper wellness breakdowns, beyond social media restrictions: Weekly voice notes Ingredient deep dives Wellness challenges Energy + consciousness tools Community accountability Extended episodes Join for $7.49/month → https://patreon.com/darinolien     Find More from Darin Olien: Instagram: @darinolien Podcast: SuperLife Podcast Website: superlife.com Book: Fatal Conveniences     Key Takeaway PFAS shows us what happens when innovation outruns safety. This is not about panic. It's about power. Clean water, clean soil, clean products; these are not luxuries. They are the foundation of sovereignty, freedom, and long-term health. Awareness is rising. Alternatives are emerging. Industry shifts when consumers shift. Make one change today. Then another. That's how we win.     Bibliography/Sources Australian Red Cross Lifeblood / University of New England. (2022). Effect of Plasma and Blood Donations on Levels of Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Firefighters in Australia: A Randomized Clinical Trial. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2791196 Boston University / University of Massachusetts Lowell. (2024). An oat fiber intervention for reducing PFAS body burden: A pilot study. (Published in Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.taap.2024.117163 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2022). Guidance on PFAS Exposure, Testing, and Clinical Follow-Up. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/26156/guidance-on-pfas-exposure-testing-and-clinical-follow-up Environmental Health Perspectives. (2021). Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance Toxicity and Human Health Review: Current State of Knowledge and Strategies for Informing Future Research. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7906952/ New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) / IARC. (2024). Carcinogenicity of Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctanesulfonic Acid (PFOS). https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2401611 FRONTLINE. (2024). Contaminated: The Carpet Industry's Toxic Legacy. (Investigative Documentary). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_j66vAunXk United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2024). Final PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation. https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas

Send a textKristin Olson, Goldman Sachs' Head of Alternatives for Wealth and Asset and Wealth Management, sits down with us for the most candid, no-fluff conversation about private equity and private credit we've ever had. .She walks us through the very real benefits of investing in private capital while also answering the cynical questions: do “retail” investors in private equity products like evergreen funds and perpetual funds get the A-team investors? Are those structures getting the best deals? How do the fees compare to the fees on products for institutional investors? Plus, If more buyers flood the market, does that push prices up and compress returns? Kristin breaks down for us how this whole ecosystem actually works, she discusses the biggest shift in private markets right now, and the pros and cons of newer structures that aim to make private assets feel more like “normal investing.” Finally, we go deep on what investors should actually ask before putting money into private equity and private credit. Kristin talks us through how fees can be misleading, when carry is taken, hurdle rates, gating/redemptions, and what “liquidity” really means when markets get stressed. This is an episode every investor should listen to before putting private capital into their portfolio.For a 14 day FREE Trial of Macabacus, click HERE Visit https://iconnections.io/ to learn more about iConnections!Shop our Self Paced Courses: Investment Banking & Private Equity Fundamentals HEREFixed Income Sales & Trading HERE Wealthfront.com/wss. This is a paid endorsement for Wealthfront. May not reflect others' experiences. Similar outcomes not guaranteed. Wealthfront Brokerage is not a bank. Rate subject to change. Promo terms apply. If eligible for the boosted rate of 4.15% offered in connection with this promo, the boosted rate is also subject to change if base rate decreases during the 3 month promo period.The Cash Account, which is not a deposit account, is offered by Wealthfront Brokerage LLC ("Wealthfront Brokerage"), Member FINRA/SIPC. Wealthfront Brokerage is not a bank. The Annual Percentage Yield ("APY") on cash deposits as of 11/7/25, is representative, requires no minimum, and may change at any time. The APY reflects the weighted average of deposit balances at participating Program Banks, which are not allocated equally. Wealthfront Brokerage sweeps cash balances to Program Banks, where they earn the variable APY. Sources HERE.

Ypsilanti, MI residents Rochelle Clark and Jason Dennie didn't have to go far to get to Grove Studios (7 minutes apparently), but their music will take you on journey somewhere south of there. Both have been making music for quite a long time.They originally met when Rochelle was taking guitar lessons from Jason at Herb David Guitar Studio. Eventually they found each other to be not just musical partners, but partners in life. Rochelle's voice is one that I once said to her in a radio session "you could sing John Bommarito is a big jerk" and it would sound good. I have that audio. It does sound good and it doesn't even hurt when she sings it. Jason's guitar playing, which is what drew me to him in the first place, has him atop my list of best acoustic guitar players in the area (and he may be the best mandolin player in my music scene as well).Enjoy this conversation with two people I am proud to call friends. If you want to hear the interviews that I've done with both in the past, subscribe to my Patreon page at https://www.patreon.com/c/AcousticAlternativeswithJohnBommaritoSongs:Blue (written by Rochelle P Clark)If I Could Make You My Own (written by Dori Freeman)Simply Perfect Day (written by Jason Dennie)Honey Hangover (written by Jason Dennie)More about all things Acoustic Alternatives: https://johnmbommarito.wixsite.com/johnbommarito/acoustic-alternativesFind Rochelle on the web: https://www.rochellepclark.com/Find Jason on the web: https://www.jasondennie.com/Book a session at Grove Studios for your musical needs: https://grovestudios.space/

Bitcoin is down hard… so is it a buyable asset class or just a trader's toy?Jim Iuorio and Bob Iaccino welcome back Shana Orczyk Sissel (Founder & CEO, Banrion Capital)—aka the queen of alternatives—for a fast, wide-ranging conversation on crypto positioning, market breadth, why earnings feel “rigged” by whisper numbers, and whether crude oil is setting up for a real move.Shana breaks down how she thinks about Bitcoin as a high-risk alternative allocation, why ETFs may be the best on-ramp for most investors, and where crypto fits inside a broader portfolio. Then the conversation pivots into the bigger market picture: the AI trade broadening out, equal-weight vs. cap-weight as a “stock picking is back” signal, and why quarterly earnings have become a game of under-promise/over-deliver. Finally, Jim and Bob dig into crude oil—technical setup vs. fundamental reality—and touch on how headline-driven policy noise can skew sentiment.What you'll learn in this episode- Where Bitcoin fits in a real portfolio (tradable vs investable framework)- Best way to own crypto for most people: ETF vs cold storage vs exchange accounts- A simple “top coins” idea: crypto index-style exposure (top basket discussion)- Why the AI rotation and market breadth can be a healthy sign- How equal-weight vs market-cap weight can hint that stock picking is working- Why Shana thinks earnings reactions are overrated (and why companies “game” guidance)- Crude oil: technical breakout talk vs fundamental supply/demand skepticism- Energy stocks + deepwater drilling: what actually needs to happen for that theme to workTimestamps:00:00 – Shana's back + quick recap of her last “Corning” timing01:23 – Bitcoin: where it fits (alternative asset, high risk)04:23 – “How should people own it?” ETFs vs cold storage vs exchanges06:27 – Crypto baskets / index-style exposure discussion16:05 – AI broadening out + why breadth matters19:59 – “Do earnings even matter anymore?” whisper numbers + delayed reaction idea26:08 – Wall Street all-bullish sentiment: should that scare you?28:14 – Crude oil setup: technical case vs fundamental pushback33:00 – Tariffs + negotiation “anchoring” framework (how to think about the noise)37:44 – Deepwater drilling + RIG/Valaris reaction40:24 – Wrap + sponsorsFollow along on social media: Twitter:    https://x.com/bob_iaccinoTwitter:   https://x.com/jimiuorioLinkedIn:  https://www.linkedin.com/in/bob-iaccino/LinkedIn:   https://www.linkedin.com/in/james-iuorio/Newsletter:  http://theunfilteredinvestor.com/This episode is sponsored by: Independence Ark: https://www.independenceark.com/Code: F U AmerGold https://www.amergold.com/Code; F U

Joseph Sternberg analyzes Prime Minister Keir Starmer's crash and burn scenario despite a large parliamentary majority, weakened by scandals and party infighting, with survival relying on the lack of compelling alternatives while constant policy reversals leave his government unable to foster growth.1900 NETHERLANDS

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

AllMomDoes host Julie Lyles Carr welcomes Christy Osborne back to the podcast! Christy was on the show a few years ago, early in her sobriety journey. Today, she returns to talk about the latest research on alcohol dependence, why women struggle to talk about their alcohol use in church settings, and much more!Show Notes: https://bit.ly/4rIbTe5 Takeaways:Christy Osborne shares her journey to sobriety and its impact on her life.The sober curious movement is gaining traction, especially among younger generations.Alcohol is classified as a class one carcinogen, similar to tobacco.Women often feel unable to discuss their struggles with alcohol in church settings.Socializing without alcohol can lead to deeper connections and authentic interactions.Nootropics and other alternatives to alcohol raise questions about dependency and coping mechanisms.Cortisol levels are affected by alcohol consumption, impacting mental health.Non-alcoholic alternatives can be helpful for those transitioning away from alcohol.Community support is crucial for women navigating sobriety.The journey to sobriety is ultimately about drawing closer to Jesus.Sound Bites:"I had this actual come Jesus moment.""Alcohol is a class one carcinogen.""We are not meant to live life alone."Chapters:00:00 - Introduction and Welcome Back02:12 - Christy's Journey to Sobriety04:43 - The Sober Curious Movement08:43 - Understanding Alcohol's Impact on Health14:06 - Socializing Without Alcohol17:10 - Nootropics and Alternatives to Alcohol18:53 - Avoidance and Alcohol20:53 - Cortisol and Alcohol's Effects22:54 - Non-Alcoholic Alternatives24:33 - The Power of Community27:07 - Upcoming Events and Closing ThoughtsKeywords: sobriety, alcohol, health, community, women, coaching, sober curious, mental health, non-alcoholic, support

In this episode, Jan Touchberry discusses the challenges of using social media for business growth, emphasizing the need for a clear strategy that focuses on visibility and conversion rather than mere presence. She explores alternatives to social media, such as email marketing and search-based platforms, and introduces the 'nine grid strategy' as a balanced approach to maintaining an online presence without overwhelming oneself. The conversation encourages listeners to seek clarity in their marketing efforts and to prioritize effective strategies over the pressure to constantly engage on social media.TAKEAWAYSYou are allowed to question the narrative around social media.You do not need social media to grow your business.The goal is predictable visibility that leads to consistent income.Visibility without a conversion pathway is just performing.An email list of engaged people is more valuable than a large social media following.Intent over attention is crucial for growth.Collaborations can significantly enhance your reach and trust.The nine grid strategy offers a sustainable approach to social media.Clarity in strategy is essential for effective marketing.You are not called to be everywhere; focus on what works.SOUND BITES"You are allowed to question the narrative.""Collaborations are huge.""You need clarity, not performance."CHAPTERS00:00 The Social Media Dilemma02:50 Visibility vs. Conversion08:26 Alternatives to Social Media12:38 The Nine Grid Strategy17:29 Finding Clarity and StrategyLINKS:Schedule your FREE 20-minute funnel audit - JanTouchberry.com/funnelCONNECT WITH JAN:Here are all the best places and FREE stuff

If we are willing to be honest we will see where the true hate comes from.

If we are willing to be honest we will see where the true hate comes from.

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

We are all guilty of heading to the big box stores– the Targets, the Walmarts when we're in a pinch and need a one-stop-shop. But there's a whole host of Vegas shops you can go to instead to put your money back into the local economy. Host Sonja Cho Swanson is joined by CoCo Jenkins, founder of There's Nothing to Do in Vegas, and Nicki Pucci, founder of Tambourine Home to share their favorite big box chain store dupes in town. Learn more about the sponsors of this February 18th episode: The Neon Museum Want to get in touch? Follow us @CityCastVegas on Instagram, or email us at lasvegas@citycast.fm. You can also call or text us at 702-514-0719. For more Las Vegas news, make sure to sign up for our morning newsletter, Hey Las Vegas. Learn more about becoming a City Cast Las Vegas Neighbor at membership.citycast.fm. Looking to advertise on City Cast Las Vegas? Check out our options for podcast and newsletter ads at citycast.fm/advertise.

In this podcast, Lord Abbett Head of Origination Jonathan Pearl discusses his team's approach to sourcing and constructing direct lending transactions—including when to say “no.

This one was a long time in the making. I'd been checking in with Tony Lucca on the occasions he would come back to his home state of Michigan for a show to see if he was available to join me for a chat. Two previous in studio sessions in Ann Arbor in 2010 and 2016 established a mutual respect for one another.When I first heard his music in 2010 on an album called Rendezvous with the Angels I had no idea what an interesting backstory he had. To paraphrase something I say in our conversation, how is that I can get access to someone with this much talent and history?It's a long one and I actually left a few questions out when we were recording due to time restraints. Enjoy this conversation with Tony Lucca.Songs written by Tony Lucca:In My Life TodayTrue StoryBack in '87Top and the BottomFind Tony on the web at: https://www.tonylucca.com/See or listen to other Acoustic Alternatives sessions: https://johnmbommarito.wixsite.com/johnbommarito/acoustic-alternativesBook Grove Studios for your next musical needs: https://grovestudios.space/

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

Despite their strong reputation for sustainability, New Zealand's vineyards and orchards still use large amounts of fungicide to fight plant diseases. These chemicals carry environmental risks, including the greenhouse gases emitted through their manufacture and transportation, and the toxic run-off which they can cause when applied. Newsteamer Alex spoke with Nikolai Siimes, a Doctoral Researcher at the University of Auckland who says we should be looking at alternatives — not just developing better pesticides, but rethinking our fruit farming practices from the ground up. 

Join the dialogue - text your questions, insights, and feedback to The Dignity Lab podcast.In this episode of the Dignity Lab, Jennifer Griggs explores the concept of dignity in the context of forgiveness and its alternatives. She discusses how understanding dignity can aid in healing from past hurts, emphasizing the importance of validating one's own experiences and recognizing the elements of dignity that may have been violated. She also covers the ways in which taking accountability can, if applicable, can further healing.TakeawaysDignity is your inherent worth or value.Understanding dignity aids in healing even if forgiveness does not appeal.Dignity is vulnerable to harm and trauma.Naming dignity elements helps validate personal pain.Validating experiences confirms their authenticity.Accountability is a key element of dignity.Recognizing personal agency can empower healing.Accountability helps make sense of personal hurt.Exploring what it means to live and lead with dignity at work, in our families, in our communities, and in the world. What is dignity? How can we honor the dignity of others? And how can we repair and reclaim our dignity after harm? Tune in to hear stories about violations of dignity and ways in which we heal, forgive, and make choices about how we show up in a chaotic and fractured world. Hosted by physician and coach Jennifer Griggs.For more information on the podcast, please visit www.thedignitylab.com.For more information on podcast host Dr. Jennifer Griggs, please visit https://jennifergriggs.com/.For additional free resources, including the periodic table of dignity elements, please visit https://jennifergriggs.com/resources/.The Dignity Lab is an affiliate of Bookshop.org and will receive 10% of the purchase price when you click through and make a purchase. This supports our production and hosting costs. Bookshop.org doesn't earn money off bookstore sales, all profits go to independent bookstores. We encourage our listeners to purchase books through Bookshop.org for this reason.

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

In this engaging conversation, Patrick Grimes shares his journey from a career in automation robotics and machine design to becoming a private investor. He details the lessons learned from experiencing foreclosure during the 2008/2009 market downturn, which led him to develop his "Three Rings of Investment" philosophy: seeking recession resilience, non-correlation, and insulation from AI disruption. Grimes critiques publicly traded Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) in what he calls "The Ruse of REITs," arguing they are "publicly traded paper" that lack the core tax and inflation-hedging benefits of direct real estate. He also emphasizes the power of partnership to build a stable, hyper-diversified portfolio and discusses high-return alternative asset classes like commercial debt, legal funding, and medical receivables.Ultimate Show Notes:01:48 - Patrick Grimes's Background and Career03:57 - The 'Aha' Moment: Advice to Invest in Alternatives, Not Stocks05:56 - Early Setback: Foreclosure and Learning Recession Resilience10:38 - Overview of Passive Investing Mastery (PIM)12:53 - The Three Rings of Investment: Recession Resilience, Non-Correlation, and AI Insulation14:55 - The Risk of AI Disruption in Investments23:49 - "The Ruse of REITs" and Stock Market Correlation30:23 - The Power of Partnership and Hyper-Diversification34:15 - Discussion of Returns in Private Credit and Debt Funds39:00 - High-Return, Low-Risk Boutique Alternatives (Legal Funding, Medical Receivables)Connect with Patrick:www.passiveinvestingmastery.com/bookpatrickgrimes@passiveinvestingmastery.comLearn More About Accountable Equity:  Visit Us: http://www.accountableequity.com/   Access eBook: https://accountableequity.com/case-study/#register Turn your unique talent into capital and achieve the life you were destined to live. Join our community!We believe that Capital is more than just Cash. In fact, Human Capital always comes first before the accumulation of Financial Capital. We explore the best, most efficient, high-integrity ways of raising capital (Human & Financial). We want our listeners to use their personal human capital to empower the growth of their financial capital. Together we are stronger. LinkedinFacebookInstagramApple PodcastSpotify

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

In this Q+A episode of The Fitness League Podcast, we're tackling real-life fitness questions from busy moms and lifters trying to make progress without perfect conditions. We dive into practical macro tracking strategies for moms who don't have time to weigh every gram, how to find motivation postpartum when routines feel impossible, and simple meal ideas that make healthy eating sustainable (yes, yogurt bowls make the list). We also break down workout splits, why flexibility in your training matters more than perfection, and how small tweaks—like foot positioning on leg curls—can improve muscle activation and results. This episode is about adapting your fitness approach to your current season of life. Whether you're navigating postpartum recovery, juggling kids and career, or just trying to stay consistent without burning out, we'll help you simplify the process and focus on what actually moves the needle. As always, progress isn't built in one big moment—it's built in the small decisions you repeat consistently. APPLY FOR COACHING: https://www.lvltncoaching.com/1-1-coaching The Fitness League app https://www.fitnessleagueapp.com/ Macros Guide https://www.lvltncoaching.com/free-resources/calculate-your-macros Join the Facebook Community: https://www.facebook.com/groups/lvltncoaching FREE TOOLS to start your health and fitness journey: https://www.lvltncoaching.com/resources/freebies Alessandra's Instagram: http://instagram.com/alessandrascutnik Joelle's Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/joellesamantha?igsh=ZnVhZjFjczN0OTdn Josh's Instagram: http://instagram.com/joshscutnik Chapters 00:00 Welcome to the Fitness League 03:57 Macro Tracking Tips for Busy Moms 11:54 Finding Motivation Postpartum 16:02 Quick and Healthy Meal Ideas 20:41 Protein Snacks and Alternatives 22:08 Core Exercises During Pregnancy 22:54 Movies and Mental Health 28:06 Training Splits: Full Body vs. Upper/Lower 32:19 Flexibility in Workout Scheduling 35:03 Leg Curl Techniques and Preferences

********** We recently uploaded the wrong audio file for this episode — sorry about that!  The correct version is now live. If your podcast app already downloaded the original (incorrect) file, it may not automatically replace it. You'll need to delete the old download and re-download the episode. Here's how: Step 1: Delete the Downloaded Episode Open your podcast app. Go to the episode. Remove/Delete the downloaded file. (Look for a checkmark, download arrow, or “Downloaded” label — then choose “Remove Download” or “Delete Download.”) Step 2: Re-Download the Episode Once the old download is removed, tap the Download button again. The correct, updated audio will download. If It Still Plays the Old Version If you're still hearing the incorrect audio: Close and reopen your podcast app. Or refresh the show feed (some apps have a “Pull to Refresh” or “Refresh” option). As a last resort, try deleting and reinstalling the app (this may remove saved downloads). App-Specific Notes (Optional to Include) Apple Podcasts: Remove Download → Tap the three dots → “Remove Download” → Re-download. Spotify: Tap the green download arrow to remove → Tap again to re-download. Overcast / Pocket Casts / Others: Remove the download, then download again. ********** In this eye-opening conversation, PhD researcher Abigail Pasiuk joins Dr. Dru Johnson to explore how the Hebrew Bible can inform modern conversations about mass incarceration. Drawing on her personal experience—her father's time in federal prison—and academic research at Oxford, Abby offers a theologically rich critique of retributive justice models prevalent in the U.S. prison system. She explains how biblical justice prioritizes restoration and dignity rather than dehumanization, citing key themes such as the Shema and imago Dei. Abby shares firsthand accounts from interviews with incarcerated individuals, exposing everyday indignities—from food labeled “not for human consumption” to being stripped of identity and reduced to a number. With over 80% recidivism in the U.S., Abby points to countries like Norway where restorative practices and the “principle of normalcy” have dramatically reduced reoffense. The episode challenges listeners to rethink what justice should look like through a biblical lens: not just punishment, but humanizing correction rooted in love. It's a conversation that bridges theology, criminology, and real human stories—urging the church to see prisoners not as disposable, but as image-bearers. Follow Abigail's work here: https://www.theology.ox.ac.uk/people/abigail-pasiuk We are listener supported. Give to the cause here: https://hebraicthought.org/give For more articles: https://thebiblicalmind.org/ Social Links: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/HebraicThought Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/hebraicthought Threads: https://www.threads.net/hebraicthought X: https://www.twitter.com/HebraicThought Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/hebraicthought.org Chapter: 00:00 Abigail's Journey to Oxford 08:26 The PhD Experience at Oxford 17:18 Research Focus: Mass Incarceration and Justice 27:09 Critique of the Prison System and Alternatives

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

Stay informed on current events, visit www.NaturalNews.com - Elon Musk's Moon Announcement and AI Developments (0:00) - AI Avatars and AI Takeover in 2026 (6:19) - AI's Mission-Driven Cognitive Behavior (12:32) - The End of Humanity and AI's Role (23:21) - Elon Musk's Moon City Announcement (36:04) - The Weaponization of Space and Historical Context (1:14:07) - The Role of Operation Paperclip and Nazi Influence (1:16:36) - Mach Speeds and Energy Calculations (1:18:59) - Weaponization of the Moon (1:21:47) - Strategic Importance of the Moon (1:27:18) - Technological Advancements and Military Applications (1:33:55) - Potential Targets and Consequences (1:35:13) - Claude Bot Malware Incident (1:35:34) - Impact and Aftermath of Claude Bot (1:41:42) - Lessons Learned and Future Risks (1:47:28) - Alternatives to Claude Bot and AI Tools (1:49:56) - Final Thoughts and Call to Action (1:52:19) Watch more independent videos at http://www.brighteon.com/channel/hrreport  ▶️ Support our mission by shopping at the Health Ranger Store - https://www.healthrangerstore.com ▶️ Check out exclusive deals and special offers at https://rangerdeals.com ▶️ Sign up for our newsletter to stay informed: https://www.naturalnews.com/Readerregistration.html Watch more exclusive videos here:

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

HEADLINE: Exotic Theories and the Ongoing Quest. GUEST: Govert Schilling. SUMMARY: The conversation explores anomalies like dark-matter-free galaxies and alternatives like primordial black holes, highlighting the enduring mystery of the universe's composition. 1952

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