Podcasts about Alternatives

SpaceX has become one of the most anticipated investment stories in modern market history. Between Elon Musk's popularity, the company's technological achievements, and years of speculation about a public offering, investor excitement is reaching fever pitch. But what happens after the hype? Lance Roberts & Jon Penn examine the lessons to be learned from previous high-profile IPOs, and why some of the biggest investing mistakes occur after the initial excitement fades. We discuss valuation, investor psychology, momentum chasing, and the risks that emerge when enthusiasm becomes disconnected from fundamentals. We also look at the growing speculative interest surrounding leveraged products tied to the SpaceX theme, and why investors should be cautious when Wall Street starts packaging excitement into increasingly aggressive investment vehicles. Here's a topical rundown of today's show: 0:00 - INTRO 0:56 - America's 250th Anniversary Time Capsule & Space-X IPO 3:48 - The Bullish Setup Returns 8:18 - Back from Vacay... 9:32 - IPO's & Space-X 12:04 - What Happens Next - the Advantage in Waiting 14:19 - The FOMO Factor 17:53 - What Could Possibly Go Wrong? 19:02 - Has AI Lost Steam? (The New U.S.Industrial Revolution) 21:37 - What's Next After Iran War? (Economic Pressure Index) 24:08 - Two Things Driving Markets: Profitability & Optimistic Earnings Estimates 25:17 - Italian Gasoline Prices 28:38 - Interest Rates, Bonds, & Kevin Warsh at the Fed 33:59 - A Tip about TIPS 35:44 - Why You Should Own Some Bonds 37:59 - The Three Components of Investing: Safety, Liquidity, & Returns 41:01 - Annuities as Bond "Alternatives?" Hosted by RIA Advisors Chief Investment Strategist, Lance Roberts, CIO,w Senior Investment Advisor, Jonathan Penn, CFP Produced by Brent Clanton, Executive Producer ------- Do you enjoy our content? Rate us on Google: https://bit.ly/4b9JtEo ------- Watch Today's Full Video on our YouTube Channel: https://youtube.com/live/Xr1Ut115-xA ------- Watch today's "Before the Bell" feature, "Bullish Setup Returns," here: https://youtu.be/ox4_xMsXqt4 ------- Watch our previous show, "Bull Market Pullback - Is the Correction Over?" https://youtube.com/live/csXApjrvlNY?feature=share ------- Articles mentioned in this report: "May Inflation Print: Why the 4.2% Headline Is an Oil Story," https://realinvestmentadvice.com/resources/blog/may-inflation-print-why-the-4-2-headline-is-an-oil-story/ --- Get more info & commentary: https://realinvestmentadvice.com/insights/real-investment-daily/ ------- * REGISTER for our next Candid Coffee, "Beyond Protection: What Life Insurance Can Really Do," Saturday, June 20, 2026: https://streamyard.com/watch/WauFUig8HFtb --- Visit our Site: https://www.realinvestmentadvice.com Contact Us: 1-855-RIA-PLAN --- Subscribe to SimpleVisor : https://www.simplevisor.com/register-new --- Connect with us on social: https://twitter.com/RealInvAdvice https://twitter.com/LanceRoberts https://www.facebook.com/RealInvestmentAdvice/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/realinvestmentadvice/ #StockMarket #MarketUpdate #Investing #ArtificialIntelligence #SectorRotation #SpaceX #ElonMusk #IPO #Bonds #Annuities #KevinWarsh

Have you ever had a prospect enthusiastically say yes, only to have the sale stall when it came time to pay?   In this episode of the Sales Maven Show, Nikki Rausch explores a surprisingly common mistake that costs business owners real revenue: creating unnecessary friction in the payment process.   Many entrepreneurs are looking for ways to reduce expenses and avoid credit card processing fees. While the intention is understandable, Nikki explains why asking clients to jump through extra hoops to pay can slow momentum, create hesitation, and even cause deals to fall apart entirely.   When a buyer is ready to move forward, every additional step introduces risk. Whether it's asking someone to send a bank transfer, use a payment platform they don't normally use, or manually pay invoices month after month, friction can quickly turn excitement into delay.   Nikki shares practical examples of how payment processes impact buyer behavior, why recurring payment systems strengthen client relationships, and how hidden labor costs often outweigh the savings business owners hope to gain by avoiding payment processing fees.   If you've ever wondered whether your payment process is helping or hurting your sales, this episode challenges you to rethink how easy it is for clients to do business with you.   In this episode, learn: Why friction is one of the biggest threats to closing a sale How payment delays can lead to lost revenue The hidden costs of manually chasing invoices and late payments Why recurring payment systems often improve client relationships How complicated payment options can reduce buyer momentum Simple ways to make it easier for clients to pay you Why convenience is often more valuable than avoiding fees   A question to consider: How many steps does a buyer have to take after they say yes? And are these extra steps helping your business, or costing you sales?   The easier you make it for clients to take action, the more likely they are to follow through.   Listen in to learn how a few small changes to your payment process can create a smoother experience, increase conversions, and keep more of the business you've already earned.   Did this episode resonate with you? Please subscribe to the Sales Maven Show and share it with another business owner who wants to remove friction from their sales process and make it easier for clients to say yes.   .....................................   You're invited to join the Sales Maven Society. Take advantage of this opportunity to get the support needed to increase your close rate. Bring your questions, concerns, and sales situations; Nikki provides answers and guidance. Join the Sales Maven Society here, click Join Today, and then check out and use coupon code 47trial to get your first month for $47.00!   For more actionable sales tips, download the FREE Closing The Sale Ebook.   Find Nikki: Nikki Rausch nikki@yoursalesmaven.com Facebook | LinkedIn | Instagram Sales Maven Society https://calendly.com/salesmaven/work-with-nikki-discussion     Chapters:   0:00 Intro 00:50 How Payment Friction Kills Sales 02:00 The Hidden Cost of Alternatives 04:11 Why Chasing Payments Hurts Business 06:45 Make Paying Easy for Clients 08:21 Credit Card Fees vs Lost Sales 10:33 The Two-Step Payment Rule 12:00 Final Challenge: Audit Your Process

This is Part 23 of *Practical Anarchy – A Guide to Self-Determination*.. Please Like, Comment, Subscribe and Watch the whole series in order. Acknowledgements Dedication Introduction by Mark Sleigh Introduction to the author ► Full playlist:    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDT6pJU3_gViYVxWUTl8PcR29sW0GAcQK ► Join the Facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1864387554451463/permalink/1881786316044920/ ► Buy the book: https://shop.ingramspark.com/b/084?params=9dOIqr4EMtGT3x43Y9bhrmDaCPKCIzif4Y1dUjMvxgr #anarchy #history #politics #counterculture

Looking at the bogs a bit more closely, where are we at in developing completely peat free alternative composts so that we can stop cutting up bogs to grow food? Teagasc, the agricultural research agency is in the middle of a lot of work in this area. Philip met with Dr Michael Gaffney to discuss further.

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

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

With inflation expectations on the rise, volatility has returned and stocks and bonds are increasingly moving together. This is driving interest in uncorrelated and absolute return strategies that can generate returns regardless of what's happening with broader market beta or the economy. On today's episode, Aaron Mulvihill is joined by Bill Eigen, Head of the Absolute Return and Opportunistic Fixed Income team, to discuss where an absolute return strategy fits in portfolios, areas of opportunity Bill is seeing in the market and thoughts on where we are in today's credit cycle—including private credit. 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

Here it is:

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

The fact that life is a bit of a grind for many people, and has been for some time, means we start to question the natural order of things. When you can pay your bills, have time to spend doing what you enjoy with the people you love, when there aren't glaring inequities, when the failure of the present system and the people who run it aren't up in your face, when you don't see homeless people and beggars and violence, then everything's good. You accept the status quo; things are chugging along nicely. Democracy, capitalism, everybody's getting their fair share, everything's fine. But when things start to go wrong, and go wrong the Western world over, you start to wonder. Thomas Hobbes was a 17th century political philosopher who formulated the social contract theory, whereby people collectively agree —you'll remember this from your political theory studies back in the days of yore— to surrender some of their individual freedoms and transfer their power to a central absolute authority. In exchange, that authority —in this case our government— provides security, maintains order, and guarantees the preservation of life. In modern life, we've wanted a bit more than the preservation of life, we've wanted a little bit of fun, some enjoyment. Be that as it may, without the social contract, Hobbes argues that man's life would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. And when you look at his definitions, we're heading that way. Solitary he defines as the constant distrust that prevents people from forming lasting bonds or cooperation. He didn't know anything about social media at the time, but that's what you're starting to get solitary individuals who don't want to or don't know how to connect with others. Poor he defines as having no incentive to build, farm, or invest labour, as others will simply steal the fruits of your work. Nasty violence and conflict are ever present. Brutish life devolves into a primitive existence stripped of any kind of enjoyment, civilisation, art, culture. And short the perpetual threat and danger of a sudden violent death looming over everyone. It might not be violence that gets us, but if our healthcare systems are failing and you can't afford private care, death or a long unpleasant illness might be our version of Hobbes' short life. We are not there yet. If you've popped into the car and think, “bloody hell, she's a depressing tart, honestly, she does go on," consider me the canary down the coal mine. I'm warning we could well be on our way there. Look at his definitions and tell me I'm wrong. Solitary, poor, nasty as in violent, brutish where there's no time or money to enjoy the nicer things in life. So if the social contract is failing us, we need a better system. And what is a better system than an MMP government and capitalism? When MMP was voted in, it was voted in in anger. People were either devastated or appalled, or they'd seen New Zealand's old way of life completely destroyed by Rogernomics and by Ruth Richardson. Now, maybe it had to be done, but it was done pretty brutally, and people suffered as a result. So the public voted First Past the Post out as a punishment to those politicians, but also because the smaller parties that came up as an alternative, like Social Credit and New Zealand Party, despite getting 20% in the case of Social Credit, 12% in the case of the New Zealand Party, they had very few MPs or no MPs in Parliament despite having so many people. And in '78 and '81, Labour actually got more votes than National, but fewer electorates, so they stayed in opposition and National was in power. So with MMP, Ruth Richardson argues that we have a high level of representation, which is great, but a really low level of government, which is failing us. Helen Clark says MMP has produced a stop go, stop go system of policies which has been detrimental to New Zealand in the long run. So where do we go from here? I'd argue that we're at a point in the Western world where we're on a descent and we need to ascend. With MMP, we were trying to find a better way of doing things. We looked at what a First Past the Post government did and said, “No, we don't want this to happen again. So we're going to bring in MMP and things will be better.” I don't think they are. Having lived under both, I don't think they are. Capitalism well, what's the alternative to capitalism? Communism doesn't work and has caused far more harm to the ordinary person around the world than capitalism has, but there'd be others who'd argue against that. What do we do from here? We're willing to cede our own individual powers to an authority, a government, to live a better life. If we're not getting that better life, then where do we go from here? What alternatives do we have? If this system right now and I'm talking the Western world, not just New Zealand, because have a look at any other country and you can't really see a shining example of where democracy and capitalism is working. Is there anything better, or do we just have to wait for this system to recover? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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

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

As equity markets continue to gain momentum following a March drawdown, host John Bryson welcomes Matt to help investors make sense of the market and economy, and how to navigate an uneasy rally. Matt shares his perspective on the drivers behind stronger-than-expected corporate earnings, portfolio concentration risks in AI, and attractive opportunities for diversification. Here's a snippet of the conversation. 1 What's driving stronger performance in U.S. equity earnings? Matt: The strength is largely driven by AI-led investment. Technology capex is accelerating rapidly, benefiting from both strong pricing power and high demand tied to data center buildouts. That demand is also lifting industrials, which are building the infrastructure, and utilities, which are supplying the power. At the same time, strong equity markets are supporting the financial sector, particularly wealth management, as higher asset values drive increased activity and revenues. Finally, corporate profit margins remain near historic highs. 2 How can investors diversify to reduce portfolio concentration in AI? Matt: We have to use asset allocation more than just style or manager selection. However, manager selection—active management—is one lever. Another is alternatives; infrastructure-related equities and long/short strategies can help reduce overall portfolio beta and provide diversification beyond traditional index exposure. Fixed income is also starting to look more compelling. In an environment where equities may appear stretched or concentrated, bonds provide a reasonable place to generate income while waiting for better entry points. 3 Where are you seeing other opportunities right now? Matt: Mortgage-backed securities and investment-grade corporates in the core to core-plus space. There's a modest credit bias, but the emphasis remains on quality. In corporates, single-A-rated bonds are particularly attractive. We're also being mindful of interest rate risk—staying away from the long end of the curve, where yields have risen, and volatility has increased.

In this episode of the Wealth Management Invest podcast, host David Bodamer speaks with Mark Sutterlin, head of alternative investments at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, about the increasing role of private markets within client portfolios. Mark outlines how demand for alternative investments is evolving, particularly among ultra-high-net-worth investors, and explains how firms are expanding access through new platform offerings and structures. Mark also explores the role of evergreen funds in making private markets more accessible, while emphasizing the importance of long-term thinking, diversification, and consistent allocation. In addition, he shares perspectives on how technology is improving the investment experience, along with key themes shaping opportunities across areas such as artificial intelligence, infrastructure, and hedge strategies. Key takeaways: Why ultra-high-net-worth investors are increasing allocations to private markets for diversification How evergreen funds help simplify access but still require long-term discipline from investors The role of advisor education in helping clients understand illiquidity and portfolio fit How technology is improving reporting, execution and the overall investor experience Key investment themes including AI, infrastructure growth and renewed interest in hedge strategies Connect With David Bodamer: david.bodamer@informa.com  Wealth Management LinkedIn: David Bodamer LinkedIn: Wealth Management Connect With Mark Sutterlin: LinkedIn: Mark Sutterlin LinkedIn: Bank of America Merrill Lynch LinkedIn: Bank of America Business Website: Bank of America Business Resources: Listen to the Wealth Management Invest Podcast on Wealth Management Listen and Subscribe to the Wealth Management Invest on Apple Podcasts Listen and Subscribe to the Wealth Management Invest on Spotify

Discover the nuanced role of physical touch in yoga, including its profound benefits and significant risks. In this episode, yoga teacher Adam explores the power of touch as a tool for connection, affirmation, and energy work, while addressing the dangers of abuse, boundary setting, and how to incorporate touch thoughtfully and ethically. Key Topics ·      The significance of touch in embodying energy and cultivating connection in yoga ·      Personal experiences and crises of touch during the COVID-19 pandemic ·      The impact of touch on healing and the importance of positive affirmation ·      Recognizing and preventing physical and sexual abuse in yoga settings ·      Establishing consent, feedback, and trust to create a safe environment ·      The difference between assistance, adjustments, and forcing body shapes ·      Safeguards such as consent cards and open communication with students ·      Principles for ethical touch: gentle, clear, affirmative, and gradual ·      The role of trust, relationship building, and sensitivity to personal boundaries ·      Alternatives to adjustments, emphasizing support through presence and subtle cues CONNECT WITH ADAM https://linktr.ee/Keenonyoga SUPPORT KEEN ON YOGA: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/infoRf FULL PODCAST LIST: https://www.keenonyoga.com/keen-on-yoga-podcast-guests/   WATCH https://www.youtube.com/@keenonyoga LISTEN Apple podcast:  https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/keen-on-yoga-podcast/id1509303411 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/5iM9lcw52JskHUZ2eFvVxN  

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

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

Depression is often treated as a single condition. But two people with the same diagnosis can have completely different underlying causes. On this episode of The Dr. Hyman Show, I'm rejoined by Dr. James Greenblatt to explore why depression may be less of a disease and more of a signal that something deeper is going on. We discuss how a root-cause approach can uncover what's driving symptoms and why finding what's beneath them matters. Watch the full conversation on YouTube or listen wherever you get your podcasts. We discuss: Could nutrient deficiencies, inflammation, or gut issues be contributing to symptoms of depression What tests can help uncover the biological factors that may be affecting mood and mental health Why can two people with depression have different root causes—and require different solutions How do blood sugar imbalances, hormone changes, and metabolic health influence the brain What should you know about antidepressants, tapering, and addressing the factors that may affect recovery Hope doesn't come from ignoring symptoms—it comes from understanding them. Sometimes the most important question isn't "What's wrong with me?" but "What might my body be trying to tell me?" One of the key themes in this conversation is that mental health is deeply connected to what's happening throughout the body. In my Brainshaping Academy, you'll learn how to support the biological systems that shape cognitive, emotional, and mental well-being. View Show Notes From This Episode Depression symptoms aren't always just “in your head.” Dr. Hyman's Brainshaping Academy shows how your gut, immune system, and nutrient levels may be responsible—and what you can do about it. → https://drhyman.com/products/brainshaping?utm_source=dr_hyman_show&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=may_27&utm_content=link Get Free Weekly Health Tips from Dr. Hyman https://drhyman.com/pages/picks?utm_campaign=shownotes&utm_medium=banner&utm_source=podcast Sign Up for Dr. Hyman's Weekly Longevity Journal https://drhyman.com/pages/longevity?utm_campaign=shownotes&utm_medium=banner&utm_source=podcast Join the 10-Day Detox to Reset Your Health https://drhyman.com/pages/10-day-detox Join the Hyman Hive for Expert Support and Real Results https://drhyman.com/pages/hyman-hive This episode is brought to you by Seed, Made In Cookware, Perfect Amino, BON CHARGE, and Big Bold Health.Go to seed.com/hyman and use code 20HYMAN to get 20% off your first month.Visit madeincookware.com and use code HYMAN10 for 10% off your order.Go to bodyhealth.com and use code HYMAN20 to get 20% off your first order.Head to boncharge.com/hyman and use code HYMAN for 15% off.Go to bigboldhealth.com/drhyman and use code HYMAN15 to save 15% on your first order. (0:00) Antidepressants, Cooking at Home, and Introducing the Brain Shaping Academy (3:14) Prevalence of Depression and Personal Stories (4:27) Exploring Root Causes of Depression (5:07) Influential Figures and Orthomolecular Psychiatry (12:29) Gut Health, Gluten Sensitivity, and Brain Inflammation (20:22) Neuroinflammation and Root Causes of Depression (22:10) Biomarkers, Hormonal Imbalances, and Insulin Resistance (25:34) The Role of Toxins and Diagnostic Testing (31:15) Case Studies and Patient Stories (34:29) Challenges in the Mental Health System (37:05) Effectiveness of Antidepressants and Patient Resistance (43:17) Role and Need for Nutritional Lithium (45:00) Sponsor: Big Bold Health (46:00) Identifying Nutritional Lithium Need (47:13) Integrating Modalities and Supplements vs. Medications (48:04) Psychotherapy Methods and Addressing Root Causes (49:34) Dr. Greenblatt's Book and the Finding a Living Platform (51:03) Systematic Approach and Global Impact of Depression (52:39) Sharing, Disclaimer, and Closing Remarks

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

Nathan, Matt, and David open with an update on David's post-Boston rehab before diving into the mailbag. They field a range of footwear and injury questions, covering shoe options for Achilles tendinopathy and medial knee OA, alternatives to high-drop shoes, road-to-trail crossover picks, and lightweight daily trainer recommendations. They also help a listener find a replacement for the Brooks Hyperion 2.We're thrilled to announce our apparel collaboration with Rabbit! The collection includes the EZ Tee SS, EZ Tee LS, and a unisex Go-to Hoodie. Pre-sale is open June 3–June 17th, with gear shipping the week of July 6th. Check it out at https://www.runinrabbit.com/collections/doctors-of-running. Note that the monthly discount code cannot be applied to collab items.Rabbit is the presenting partner of our podcast. You can use code DORJUNE10 to get 10% off your entire order of $50.00 or more. Note that the code is limited to one use per customer and can't be combined with other discounts. The code is active from 1st of every month to last day at 11:59PM PST, but don't worry because we'll be bringing you a new code every month. Shop now at https://www.runinrabbit.com.Our In For Testing segment is fueled by Skratch Labs! Get 20% off your first order from Skratch with code: DOCTORSOFRUNNING! https://www.skratchlabs.comChapters0:00 - Intro2:16 - David's rehab after Boston12:04 - In for Testing: Powered by Skratch Labs27:46 - Replacements for the Brooks Hyperion 233:50 - Shoe suggestions for dealing with Achilles Tendinopathy38:34 - Alternatives to high-drop shoes45:42 - Favorite road-to-trail shoes49:26 - Dealing with medial knee OA54:48 - Lightweight daily trainer/non-plated super shoes suggestions1:02:06 - Wrap-up

In this episode of the Twiniversity Podcast, Natalie talks with Maddie Rahlf, a twin mom of three girls, about the "double whammy" delivery - giving birth to one twin vaginally and the other by C-section in the very same hour. Maddie shares how her twins were a complete surprise - a natural, spontaneous twin conception with no twins in the family, discovered at her 12-week ultrasound - and how reading Nat's book helped her find solid ground once the shock wore off. Because Baby B had a marginal cord insertion and was measuring under the 10th percentile, Maddie's pregnancy included weekly maternal fetal medicine (MFM) monitoring and an induction at 36 weeks. Natalie and Maddie walk through the delivery almost minute by minute: an easy vaginal birth for Baby A after only a few pushes, Baby B flipping transverse the moment she had the womb to herself, the attempts to turn her, a cervix that closed back up, and the placenta concern that finally made a C-section the safest call. Then comes the twist - it was Baby A, the vaginally delivered twin, who ended up in the NICU on CPAP, while Baby B stayed right with mom. The conversation also gets into recovering from a vaginal birth and major abdominal surgery at the same time, the empowerment of being given the choice to try for a vaginal delivery, and Nat's "use your BRAIN" framework (Benefits, Risks, Alternatives, Intuition, Nothing) for making decisions in the moment. Maddie's biggest takeaway: if it happens, it happens - you figure it out one day at a time, and you'll have a pretty cool story to tell. This episode is a reassuring, myth-busting conversation for any twin parent who feels anxious about the possibility of a double whammy delivery. EPISODE THEMES

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

In this episode, Libby sits down with Summer Webb from American Estate & Trust to unpack what alternatives actually are, why more advisors are exploring them, and how firms can offer these types of investments in a more streamlined and compliant way. Whether you're completely new to alternatives or already managing some private investments for clients, this conversation helps demystify the process and explores what it can look like to bring more sophisticated solutions into your practice without losing efficiency.In this episode, you will learn:What “alternative investments” actually include — from private equity and real estate to crypto, precious metals, and private creditWhy more everyday clients (not just ultra-high-net-worth investors) are asking advisors about alternativesHow advisors can potentially retain more wallet share by staying involved in private investment conversations instead of sending clients elsewhereWhat it looks like operationally and compliantly to offer alternatives through a specialized custodial partner without adding unnecessary complexity to your businessIf you've ever felt curious about alternatives but assumed they were too complicated, too niche, or only for massive family offices, this episode offers a really interesting behind-the-scenes look at how the landscape is changing. Libby and Summer explore the balance between sophistication and simplicity, and how advisors can continue evolving their businesses while still maintaining the efficiency and client experience they've worked so hard to build.Learn more about AET here! Download this fascinating fact sheet on Alternatives here!Check out The First 100 Days Course: The Advisor's Blueprint for a Remarkable Client Experience HERE!Learn more about T2MWorks HERE! Learn more about Asset-Map financial planning software HERE! Learn more about our sponsor Beemo Automation HERE!   Check out the Efficient Advisor YouTube Channel HERE!Connect with Libby on LinkedIn HERE!Successful businesses don't get built alone. You need community! You need collaboration! Join us in The Efficient Advisor Community on Facebook.

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

Kimberly explores the surprising science of sun exposure with Rowan Jacobsen, challenging common fears about sunlight and revealing its profound health benefits. Learn how to balance sun safety with the need for natural light to improve health, mood, and longevity.Chapters00:00 Introduction to Sunlight and Health02:52 The Historical Perspective on Sunlight06:00 Understanding Skin Cancer and Sun Exposure08:50 The Benefits of Sunlight Beyond Skin Cancer12:02 Sensible Sun Exposure and Aging14:56 Circadian Rhythms and Sunlight17:56 Alternatives to Natural Sunlight20:58 Vitamin D and Its Importance24:41 The Vitamin D Dilemma29:59 Sunlight and Fertility33:40 In Defense of Sunlight38:53 The Impact of Light on Children43:44 Sunscreen InsightsSponsor: ANIMA MUNDI OFFER: Anima Mundi is giving Feel Good Podcast listeners they're largest discount of the year. It's a great opportunity to treat yourself or a friend to some soothing self-care by going to AnimaMundiHerbals.com and use the code: SOLLUNA20 for 20% off your purchase. USE LINK: AnimaMundiHerbals.com Code: SOLLUNA20 for 20% off your purchase.Rowen Jacobsen Resources: Book: In Defense of Sunlight: The Surprising Science of Sun Exposure (June 16th, 2026) (Simon & Shuster) Website: rowanjacobsen.com Social: @unrealrowanjacobsen Email: rowanjacobsen@gmail.comBio: Rowan Jacobsen writes about science and nature and the less-explored corners of the world for Harper's, Outside, The Atlantic, Scientific American, Smithsonian, The New York Times, The Washington Post, MIT Technology Review, Businessweek, and others, and his work has been anthologized in The Best American Science & Nature Writing and other collections. He has received awards from the James Beard Foundation, the Society of American Travel Writers, and the Overseas Press Club. He is the author of nine books, including A Geography of Oysters, Fruitless Fall, and Truffle Hound, which have been named to Best Book of the Year lists by the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, NPR, and Publishers Weekly. He has performed with Pop-Up Magazine, lectured at Harvard and Yale, and appeared on CBS, NBC, and NPR. He has been an Alicia Patterson Foundation Fellow, writing about endangered diversity on the borderlands between India, Myanmar, and China; a Knight Science Journalism Fellow at MIT, focusing on the environmental and evolutionary impact of synthetic biology; and a Nova Media Fellow, researching the science of sun exposure. His new book, In Defense of Sunlight: The Surprising Science of Sun Exposure, will be published by Scribner on the Summer Solstice, 2026.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Forced arbitration clauses have become embedded as a dominant mechanism in technology vendor contracts, shifting legal risk and accountability away from large vendors and reducing recourse options for managed service providers (MSPs) and IT service firms. This structural change, present in agreements with RMM and PSA vendors as well as hyperscalers such as Microsoft, Amazon, and Google, establishes a private dispute resolution system that operates beyond the traditional court system and is typically non-negotiable for smaller partners. The shift is evidenced by data and case studies outlined by Brendan Ballou. According to supplied figures, while consumers win in 89% of small claims court cases, their success rate drops to between 20% and 30% in arbitration, and even less—sometimes as low as 0.2%—for certain arbitration providers. Arbitration clauses are enforced even in extreme cases, as illustrated by a notable instance involving Disney, in which a forced arbitration clause was applied following a consumer's prior account registration. Legal precedent as far back as the 2011 Supreme Court decision referenced by Brendan Ballou has broadened the Federal Arbitration Act well beyond its 1925 origins, further entrenching this system. Additional developments reference increased litigation in the 1980s, often cited as justification for expanding arbitration, though he attributes much of the legal caseload surge to government actions rather than consumer or employee lawsuits. The technology industry's broad adoption of arbitration, especially in contracts where MSPs have little or no room to negotiate, further cements these power imbalances. Alternatives such as mediation are discussed as potentially less risky, but their adoption remains limited. The operational implications for MSPs, IT service providers, and IT leaders include heightened contract risk and reduced leverage in vendor disputes. Arbitration clauses limit access to open legal processes, restrict discovery rights, and are prone to bias in favor of vendors with repeat arbitrator relationships. For MSPs reliant on large platforms and suppliers, this creates ongoing exposure and complicates risk management. Mitigating measures—such as leveraging peer coordination for "mass arbitration" or negotiating for post-dispute mediation rather than pre-dispute forced arbitration—require proactive planning but may remain unavailable in standard vendor agreements. Supported by:MoovilaHaloPSA  

Rural Health News is a weekly segment of Rural Health Today, a podcast by Hillsdale Hospital. News sources for this episode: Sarah Kwon, “Cheaper, Alternative Health Plans Are Having a Moment, but Critics Urge Caution,” May 26, 2026, https://kffhealthnews.org/health-industry/alternative-health-plans-growth-sharing-ministries-short-term-aca-premiums/, KFF Health News. John Riggi, “Health Care Cybersecurity Considerations for 2026: This Year's Top 3 Cyber Risks,” May 15, 2026, https://www.aha.org/news/aha-cyber-intel/2026-05-15-health-care-cybersecurity-considerations-2026-years-top-3-cyber-risks, American Hospital Association. Steve Alder, “Up to 1.8 Million Individuals Affected by NYC Health + Hospitals Data Breach,” May 19, 2026, https://www.hipaajournal.com/nyc-health-hospitals-data-breach-march-26/, The HIPAA Journal. Anna Falvey, “146 rural hospital and health system presidents and CEOs to know | 2026,” April 29, 2026, https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-management-administration/146-rural-hospital-and-health-system-presidents-and-ceos-to-know-2026/, Becker's Hospital Review. Rural Health Today is a production of Hillsdale Hospital in Hillsdale, Michigan and a member of the Health Podcast Network. Our host is JJ Hodshire, our producer is Kyrsten Newlon, and our audio engineer is Kenji Ulmer. Special thanks to our special guests for sharing their expertise on the show, and also to the Hillsdale Hospital marketing team. If you want to submit a question for us to answer on the podcast or learn more about Rural Health Today, visit ruralhealthtoday.com.

Welcome back to our weekend Cabral HouseCall shows!   This is where we answer our community's wellness, weight loss, and anti-aging questions to help people get back on track!   Check out today's questions:    Amy: Hi Dr. Cabral. Thank you for all you do every day! I have learned so much from you and really appreciate your help. My children's school right next to a cell tower (it sits in the middle of their playground). Is there anything I can do to protect them from the high levels of radiation they are getting on a daily basis? I have looked into wearable EMF protection but am not sure if any actually work. Do you have a recommendation? Is there anything I can be doing to help my children's bodies prepare for these high levels on a daily basis?      Kelly: Love your podcast and your willingness of your time to help all of us! I did a 21 day detox in Nov then did an OATS test, had a lot of overgrowth & started CBO protocol Jan. 27. From the beginning, I started struggling with anxiety & insomnia. Middle of month 2 had to stop protocol due to waking up 2-4 am in panic and not able to get back to sleep. My sleep came back on line & I started protocol again very slowly, had to stop florafilm but continued with other 2. It wasn't long before the insomnia and anxiety started again. Eventually had to stop again. Have been off protocol 19 days but no improvement in insomnia & anxiety. At a loss of what to try next -even tried sleeping pills. Also no idea how i will ever feel comfy enough to restart cbo protocol after all this. Help pls!!        Nibal: Goodmorning Dr, Im nibal from.lebanon and its a pleasure to follow you. I need to know more about fighting candida protocol if thats possible please. Thank you, With regards       Mohamed: Hey dr.cabral, been listening to your podcast for a few years now. Thanks for all your quality info and product at Equilife. I work in healthcare, I constantly have to use hand sanitizer. I'm sure it's not just alcohol in there. What can I do to mitigate this. Really health conscious, I take DNS, Omega 3 support, Vit D3/K2. Extra Vit C.. I also occasionally use taurine. Is there a healthy alternative? For hand sanitizer or is there a cream I can use on my hands to blunt the absorption. What are your thoughts? Thanks       Mary: Hi SC! Ive been a daily listener for years. Thank you for your sinceriety and the education you share. 1) Whats your opinion on plasma pen treatments and sofwave treatments for collogen production (specifically jowels and 'turkey neck')? A while back you answered a question regarding collogen treatments and said you were ok w most but there was one that involved a heat based treatment you were not a fan of...i couldnt catch which one that was. 2) Will you please explain what happens when we put plastic in the dishwasher? I know we are not supposed to and i'm curious what happens. Do microplastics contaminate other dishes in the dishwasher or what happens?  oh also, any thoughts on procell therapy?       Thank you for tuning into today's Cabral HouseCall and be sure to check back tomorrow where we answer more of our community's questions!    - - - Show Notes and Resources: StephenCabral.com/3767 - - - Get a FREE Copy of Dr. Cabral's Book: The Rain Barrel Effect - - - Join the Community & Get Your Questions Answered: CabralSupportGroup.com - - - Dr. Cabral's Most Popular At-Home Lab Tests: > Complete Minerals & Metals Test (Test for mineral imbalances & heavy metal toxicity) - - - > Complete Candida, Metabolic & Vitamins Test (Test for 75 biomarkers including yeast & bacterial gut overgrowth, as well as vitamin levels) - - - > Complete Stress, Mood & Metabolism Test (Discover your complete thyroid, adrenal, hormone, vitamin D & insulin levels) - - - > Complete Food Sensitivity Test (Find out your hidden food sensitivities) - - - > Complete Omega-3 & Inflammation Test (Discover your levels of inflammation related to your omega-6 to omega-3 levels) - - - Get Your Question Answered On An Upcoming HouseCall: StephenCabral.com/askcabral - - - Would You Take 30 Seconds To Rate & Review The Cabral Concept? The best way to help me spread our mission of true natural health is to pass on the good word, and I read and appreciate every review!  

Last Hope of a Dying Republic with Rev. William Cook – Public education in the United States has become ideologically driven and harmful to children's moral, spiritual, and academic development. Newman attributes increased parental concern about public schools in part to experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic, which he says exposed families to curriculum content and...

The main reason for the podcast is music discovery for you, my listener. When I hear someone I think needs a larger audience I make it a point to get them on the podcast and to your ears.It took about 3 years from the first time I heard his voice for me to get it to your ears, but I think you'll find it worth the wait.Songs written by John Richard Paul:Untitled New SongIn ReturnExistentialist BluesThere and Back AgainMore about John at :https://johnrichardpaul.com/homeMore about Acoustic Alternatives: https://johnmbommarito.wixsite.com/johnbommarito/acoustic-alternativesMore about Grove Studios: https://grovestudios.space/

Welcome back paranormal lovers to another amazing episode of discovering the unknowns of the world. I am being joined in this interview by Fiona Thorson; Chronic Illness Survivor, Thriver, & Teacher of Alternatives to the Alternative of Recovery. This isn't exactly a full on paranormal themed show but we still touch on the paranormal and the unknowns of science. Join us for a fun discussion on everything from Lyme Disease, detoxing, canadian healthcare, reflexology, electromagnetic issues, and so much more. Fiona's Website: https://fionaforhealth.com/ Uncensored, Untamed & Unapologetic U^3 Podcast Collective: https://www.facebook.com/groups/545827736965770/?ref=share YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8xJ2KnRBKlYvyo8CMR7jMg

Commercial real estate debt is now one of the market's most avoided asset classes. Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets explains why there may be an opportunity to invest in those securities.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, why commercial real estate debt could be overlooked and undervalued. It's Friday, May 29th at 2pm in London. Bond yields have risen this year, and it's attracting strong flows into fixed income markets. The problem is that all of that demand is narrowing the risk premium that one receives. Spreads on U.S. mortgage bonds are richer than 89 percent of observations over the last 20 years. Spreads on the U.S. high yield market, well, they're richer than 96 percent of the time. And spreads on U.S. investment grade, it's 99 percent. We live in a world where the risk premium on most bonds is very low versus history, but there are exceptions. One is debt backed by commercial mortgages or so-called CMBS. Spreads here, notably and unusually, are significantly higher than the long run average. It is a market that we like. Commercial property is largely comprised of lending against office buildings, apartments, retail complexes, and industrial sites like warehouses. The first three have faced major challenges over the last five years. Office values have slumped as investors feared more people working from home. Apartments have suffered from significant supply in building, conceived in a low-rate world as this has come online. And retail has faced long-run concern about the trend of more online shopping. And the rise of interest rates, well, that's loomed over everything. A building, in a lot of ways, is a lot like a bond, promising a dependable stream of rents over time. When an investor can get that stream of cash flows from the bond market, commercial property prices must adjust lower to remain competitive. These challenges are material, but they are also not new. Indeed, investors may recall that fears around commercial property peaked way back in early 2023 following significant rate hikes by the Federal Reserve. Back then, there were widespread fears that commercial property weakness would ricochet back and threaten the banking system. Three years later, those worst fears have not been realized. And while defaults and restructurings have happened, overall commercial property fundamentals are beginning to pick back up. Commercial property transaction volumes increased 27 percent in the U.S. in the first quarter relative to a year prior; and prices are rising, up about 5 percent over the same period. The amount of commercial real estate debt being originated is up about 40 percent over the last year – a sign that lenders are coming back. And the number of commercial deals that are becoming distressed and unable to pay their bills, they just saw their first quarterly decline since all of those problems in early 2023. Part of this recovery in the commercial real estate market may be explained by U.S. growth, which continues to be resilient, and some of it mirrors other cycles. When rates rose and commercial lending markets weakened, the construction of new properties really slowed down. It takes several years to build a building, and so it's only now that the impact of everything that was not built is starting to be felt. With less supply coming online, the value of existing property is better supported, especially relative to the more elevated risk premiums on offer for its debt. Thank you, as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

[powerpresss] My co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 175 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Bruce Dearling, patent attorney and partner at Hepworth Browne in the UK, and we talk about how non-technical features must be considered when assessing inventive step of patents at least according to recent decisions of the UK supreme court and the Unified Patent Court. Profile of Bruce Dearling UK Supreme Court Emotional Perception AI Limited UPC Abbot vs Sinocare But before we jump into this interesting interview, I have news for you: On May 20, 2026, the Swiss Federal Council adopted the fully revised Patent Ordinance, which will enter into force on January 1, 2027, together with the revised Patent Act. In the future, the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property will prepare a mandatory search report for each application; applicants can choose between a partially examined version and a full examination that assesses novelty and inventive step. The full examination costs an additional 300 Swiss francs, and renewal fees will increase by a total of eight percent over the 20-year term. On May 19, 2026, Asus entered into a licensing agreement with the Wi-Fi multimode patent pool managed by Sisvel, thereby ending all ongoing infringement proceedings. Sisvel bundles standard-essential patents in the pool from, among others, Atlantia, ETRI, and Mitsubishi Electric. On May 18, 2026, the UPC Local Chamber in Düsseldorf rejected Align Technology's application for a preliminary injunction against its Chinese competitor Angelalign. Angelalign may continue to sell its clear aligners within the UPC jurisdiction. Our partners Dirk Schulz, Ulrich Storz, and Wanze Zhang, together with Arnold Ruess, successfully represented Angelalign. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced midweek that, since October of last year, it has invalidated or is seeking to invalidate approximately 10,500 trademark applications and registrations in eleven administrative orders. Reasons include forged attorney signatures and the fabrication of non-existent filing requirements. This stems from ongoing abuse of the U.S. trademark system, primarily by non-U.S. applicants, which can lead to conflicts with validly registered trademarks for legitimate businesses. On May 12, 2026, the British Court of Appeal overturned a lower court decision that would have required Nokia to grant interim licenses for video coding patents. The court found that Nokia's license offer to the Taiwanese manufacturers Acer and Asus had already been made on RAND terms. In May, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a brief in the ongoing Corteva v. Inari litigation, expressing antitrust concerns regarding certain patent practices in the field of plant breeding. This marks the first time the agency has actively intervened in a biopharmaceutical patent dispute with implications for seed innovations. Episode 175 of the IP Fridays podcast was a conversation I will not forget quickly. My guest Bruce Dearling, partner at Hepworth Brown in the UK and a patent attorney for 36 years, took a case through every level of the British court system up to the Supreme Court and, in doing so, fundamentally changed patent law for AI inventions in the UK. The case is called Emotional Perception, and its effects reach well beyond British borders. Below I summarize the key points from our conversation. The full episode is available at IP Fridays. A. What Is the Emotional Perception Case About? The underlying invention concerns artificial neural networks. Specifically, it relates to a method of closing what is called the semantic gap at the output of a neural network. That sounds abstract, but the idea is straightforward: a neural network always produces an output that does not fully correspond to what a human would actually expect or feel. Closing that gap brings the system closer to human perception and human expectations. Bruce Dearling drafted this application himself and filed it at the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO). The Office rejected it as excluded subject matter, characterizing it as essentially a computer program as such. The legal basis for that rejection was the Aerotel decision from 2006. The case then went to the High Court, which found in favor of the applicant. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision. Then the UK Supreme Court stepped in and changed everything. B. The Aerotel Test and Its Flaws Since 2006, the Aerotel test had been the standard British method for assessing whether an invention falls within the excluded categories under patent law. It was a four-step approach: construe the claim, identify the actual contribution the invention makes to human knowledge, ask whether that contribution falls solely within excluded subject matter, and finally check whether the contribution is technical in nature. The problem Dearling described in our conversation is that Aerotel reverses the logical order of the analysis. You start with the contribution and only then ask about the exclusions under Article 52 EPC. The UK Supreme Court described Aerotel in its judgment as “unsound law” and overturned it. The EPO’s Technical Boards of Appeal had previously called Aerotel “disingenuous,” which at the time led to a public dispute between the British courts and the Boards. With the Emotional Perception ruling, that conflict has now been resolved in favor of harmonization with the EPO. C. What the UK Supreme Court Decided The Supreme Court made two central findings. First, the exclusion of computer programs “as such” is overcome as soon as a claim includes any piece of hardware. It does not matter whether that is a processor, a memory module, or any other component. The threshold is deliberately low. Dearling described this as the “any hardware” approach, which aligns fully with the EPO’s position following G1/19. Second, and in Dearling’s assessment the more important finding: when assessing inventive step, the invention must be considered as a whole. The Court introduced what it called an “intermediate step,” an analytical stage in which the interactions between all features of a claim are examined before the question of inventive step is addressed. Non-technical features cannot simply be struck out if they contribute to the overall technical effect of the invention. D. Inventive Step: The Intermediate Step This is the heart of the judgment. In EPO practice, Dearling said, it happens regularly that examiners strike through features they consider non-technical and thereby fail to assess the invention’s inventive step correctly. A recent Technical Board of Appeal decision, T 1249/22, already criticized this approach: a claim directed at a technical solution to a problem can be patentable even if the underlying problem is non-technical in nature. Dearling recalled a remark made by a Board of Appeal member at a hearing he attended years ago: “We understand that examining divisions can operate with a degree of mental laziness and that it’s too easy to throw too many things out of the basket when considering the issues of inventive step.” That quote stayed with him because it names a structural problem that the intermediate step now addresses directly. The British method for assessing inventive step is the Pozzoli test, which differs from the EPO’s problem-solution approach. The Supreme Court explicitly retained Pozzoli because the problem-solution approach, in its view, is structurally infected with hindsight reasoning: you already know the invention, you work backwards to formulate an objective technical problem, and then you ask whether it would have been obvious for the skilled person to arrive at precisely that solution. Dearling sees this as a source of unfairness toward genuine inventions. E. Alignment with the Unified Patent Court In April 2025, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision in Abbott v. Sinocare (APP_000000901/2025, judgment of 17 April 2025). Dearling pointed out that this decision uses language and reasoning strikingly similar to the UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception ruling of February 2025. That is significant because the UPC is bound neither by UK courts nor by the EPO. The overlap suggests voluntary convergence. Dearling reported a conversation with a person close to the EPO, whom he did not name, who used the word “permissive” to describe the UK Supreme Court’s approach and indicated that the EPO might move toward it. Whether and how quickly that happens remains to be seen. What is clear is that the UPC, as the new European patent court, is setting its own standards, and the question of how to handle non-technical features in inventive step assessment is now being asked at multiple levels simultaneously. F. Implications for the EPO and Practice The EPO is not directly bound by the ruling. It is an administrative body, not a court. Dearling is nonetheless optimistic that change is coming. On one hand, external pressure is building: when the UK Supreme Court and the UPC articulate similar principles, convergence becomes hard to resist. On the other hand, Article 27.1 TRIPS requires all contracting states to make patents available in all fields of technology. Examiners routinely striking non-technical features from AI claims and rejecting them on that basis sits uncomfortably with that obligation. For the underlying application in the Emotional Perception case, the ruling has a pointed consequence. The Supreme Court did not grant the patent itself; it referred the matter back to the UKIPO for reconsideration under the intermediate step. The Office’s subsequent response was, in Dearling’s words, unconvincing. He suspects the Office is attempting to reintroduce the Aerotel test through the back door. As a last resort, he has not excluded a judicial review, a procedure that does not simply challenge the substantive decision but holds the Comptroller General of Patents to account for whether the Office is deliberately circumventing the Supreme Court’s direction on the intermediate step. That is, as Dearling put it, “a nuclear option,” but one he would not rule out if the evidence in the file already suggests the Office is in contempt of court. There is also an international dimension. Singapore’s Intellectual Property Office launched a public consultation shortly after the ruling, asking whether Singapore should adopt the Emotional Perception approach into national law. That is British soft power operating in real time within the Commonwealth. G. Three Takeaways for Patent Practitioners At the end of our conversation I asked Bruce Dearling to distill the most important practical points. His first takeaway: make sure the claim contains hardware. This applies not only to UK and European applications but is simply good drafting hygiene. Without hardware in the claim, the application remains exposed. The second takeaway concerns the description. Anyone filing an AI invention needs to explain clearly which function is achieved by which piece of hardware, circuit, or software. Not as boilerplate, but as a complete technical account that describes the real-world effects. Dearling’s experience is that practitioners who write the claim first and fill in the description afterward run into trouble. The third takeaway emerged from the conversation itself: how the EPO assesses inventive step for AI inventions is not a settled question. It is worth following the development of UPC case law and any shifts in EPO practice closely. Anyone advising on AI patent applications today needs to know these arguments. H. Conclusion The UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception ruling is not a British footnote. It has declared the Aerotel test dead, introduced the intermediate step that brings non-technical features back into the inventive step analysis, and set off a convergence movement that is already visible at the UPC and still pending at the EPO. For everyone working in AI patent practice, whether in prosecution, examination, or counseling, this ruling is required reading. Rolf Claessen: Our interview guest on IP Fridays podcast is Bruce Dearling. He has been in the IP field and a patent attorney for 36 years and is partner at Hepworth Brown in the UK. Thank you very much for being on the podcast. Bruce Dearling: My pleasure, Rolf. Thank you for inviting me. Rolf Claessen: All right. We just met at the INTA annual meeting in London. And you talked about the UK Supreme Court case where you were involved. And the core questions were whether non-technical features would be considered when assessing inventive step of patents. Can you briefly summarize this case? Bruce Dearling: It’s a bit more than that. It started — I actually wrote the case. And I prosecuted it through the patent office. The patent office rejected the case for being excluded subject matter. So pretty much the excluded subject matter provisions in the UK are nearly identical. They’re as near as practical to the language of the EPC, so those of the European Patent Office — Article 52.2. But again, they apply as such. The actual technology relates to artificial neural networks. And the invention related to a very clever way of what is termed closing the semantic gap at the output of the neural network. So that means that in a neural network, there is always a discrepancy between the output of the neural network in terms of what it’s telling you you should be thinking essentially, and what reality is. So if you can close the semantic gap, then you align the neural network or the artificial intelligence system to better reflect human knowledge or human reactions and human expectations. So that’s really what the invention is about. There’s no point in going into too much detail with it — that’s the way it is. It’s very clever. So the UKIPO rejected this because they said it was essentially a computer program excluded from patentability as such. And they used a decision which is called Aerotel, which has been around since 2006. And that decision has caused considerable consternation and tension between the EPO Technical Boards of Appeal and the UK courts. Aerotel was described as being essentially disingenuous by the EPO Technical Board of Appeal. And the UK courts pushed back and said, you don’t know what you’re talking about. So that’s where it fell apart. So that’s where they rejected it for essentially being a computer program as such, possibly with a bit of business methods thrown in as well. But let’s leave that for the time being. So the case then went to the High Court and at the High Court, we won. The judge said, actually, it’s not a computer program. Neural networks aren’t computers. They’re not programs themselves. There’s more to them than that. And the invention as claimed is not excluded from patentability as such. The UKIPO obviously weren’t very happy about that because they liked their Aerotel case and so they appealed it. And they appealed it on several grounds, including a new one, which was that it was a mathematical method. The Court of Appeal decided that the UKIPO was right and that we were wrong, so we lost the case. So we then went to the Supreme Court. Well, actually, they denied us an ability to go to the Supreme Court. The court said no appeal. We went — actually, no, I think there is a bigger issue here — because we realized, or I realized at that point, that the work that we were doing was much broader than this. It requires real consideration of what an invention is at a fundamental level. So not only exclusions, but how inventive step is applied. And these issues were built into the case from the very beginning. And they sort of — I wouldn’t say crept up on the court as we went through — but they became more and more prominent to the extent that ultimately, when we made an application to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court went, yeah, we’ve got some issues here. We want to hear the full arguments on why this is not excluded from patentability, why Aerotel is potentially bad and how we more or less try to align ourselves with the European Patent Office. So that’s essentially what happened. And the Supreme Court hearing was last July. It took them the thick end of eight months to come out with a decision, which was issued in early February, at which point the entire legal landscape in the UK changed because they said we were right. The Patent Office doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Aerotel is bad. It’s unsound. That’s what they described it as — unsound law. It needs to be removed and we’re going to harmonize with the European Patent Office. So before I — I’m just going on a bit of a rant here, standing on my soapbox telling you what you already know. But the Aerotel test essentially was — it was a four-step test, past tense. So you firstly had to construe the claim. That’s pretty straightforward. Then you actually had to identify the actual contribution. This is what they said — identify the contribution. Really in this aspect, you’re asking what, as a matter of substance rather than form, the inventor has added to human knowledge. So that’s what they said the contribution was. And then they said, the next step in Aerotel was to ask, well, does that contribution fall solely within the excluded subject matter field or realm? And then they said, well, if you get through that question, then you check the actual contribution or the alleged contribution to see whether it’s technical in nature. So that’s the Aerotel test as it was. And what the Supreme Court in their unanimous final decision said was that Aerotel at best jumbles up the order. It reverses the logical order of the analysis by starting with the contributions and then addressing the Article 52 exclusions. And then finally it goes back to what the technical nature of the invention is about. So they really went, no, we don’t like any of this stuff. It’s bad, it’s stupid, it puts the cart before the horse. So, in the intervening period between finding the case and actually seeing it progress all the way to the Supreme Court, we obviously had the G1/19 decision from the EPO Enlarged Board. And they basically said that they are going to validate any hardware as the approach. And that’s essentially what the UK also went with. The UK Supreme Court said we’re going to say that the threshold of patentability — or the exclusion to patentability — is simply overcome by the inclusion in a claim of any piece of hardware, whether it’s a processor or a piece of memory or whatever. It doesn’t matter. Any hardware makes the invention a technical invention. So it’s a really low threshold to consider. And they then went, well, actually, if we now align and harmonize with the European Patent Office sensibly, then we need to look at how we assess inventive step, which is the other thing that we raised with the Supreme Court. In fact, we probably raised it at other times and in all the other instances as well, but it came to a head at the Supreme Court. So the Supreme Court then also went a bit further and said, well, actually, whilst we do like the global approach to assessing inventive step for all fields of technology — whether it’s chemistry or biotech or electronics or software or AI — we use a test called Pozzoli. So that isn’t problem-solution. We don’t like problem-solution. We think it’s not codified in the European Patent Office. It’s just a mechanism that the EPO has come up with to try to objectively assess inventive step. We don’t particularly think that’s appropriate. We like our approach called Pozzoli. That’s it. So we’re going to say with Pozzoli, however, in order to actually understand — particularly in the context of mixed inventions having technical and non-technical features — it’s necessary for the examiner to undertake the so-called intermediate step, where you have to look at the interactions between features within a claim. The invention is defined by the claim. That’s what the act says. That’s what everyone understands. It’s the invention defined by the claim. So you look at the claim features and then you have to understand the interactions that take place. And even if they are between technical and non-technical features, if they bring about an overall technical effect when you consider the invention as a whole, then your claim should be good and you can assess it for classical inventive step. So that’s really where we’re at. There’s a lot to unpack there already. It’s probably a podcast in its own right, but that’s the positive history of where we’re at. And I can keep going if you wish me to for a second and talk about why I think this is — we’ll just contrast it quickly with the problem-solution approach at the EPO and COMVIK. So for inventions in the computer-implemented field, they use COMVIK and the problem-solution approach. The Supreme Court said, as I said, they don’t like problem-solution. I think the problem-solution issue is that it is also inherently pre-baked with hindsight because you have to look at the invention and then step back and exclude those features which are common. And then you formulate a problem based on the function that the claim achieves. And then you’re asking whether or not it would be obvious for a skilled person to arrive at the claimed invention, having been given that hindsight-developed problem. So COMVIK is not great by any means. And we know from a practical perspective that examiners are only too willing to look at a claim and simply line through features which they believe are non-technical, whereas they don’t actually look at the interaction of those features in the context of the claim as a whole. There is also a decision — very recent one actually, about a year ago — T 1249/22, where the Technical Board of Appeal told the examiners and the examining division, you cannot do this. It’s okay to have a claim directed towards an invention in a non-technical field, as long as the invention is directed to a technical solution of that problem. I think it’s paragraphs 11 and 12 or 10 of that decision that are worth looking at. But they’re saying that in all fields of technology, it doesn’t matter as long as the technical solution is about technology — therefore, you should be able to obtain a patent as long as there is a realistic and appropriate technical effect. Be careful actually, Bruce — I don’t mean technical contribution, I mean technical effect. There’s a reason for that distinction. Rolf Claessen: The non-technical features are nevertheless used to assess inventive step in the UK now after this decision, right? Bruce Dearling: Yes, that is the intermediate step. The decision says you must look at the invention as a whole. It’s the important thing. There are a couple of issues that arise out of this. The first one is that you have to provide context for the invention. The Supreme Court never provided any specific guidance about how we deal with the intermediate step or what the exact test is, which is in some respects fine. It seems to be fairly clear that you just have to engage your gray matter — your neurons — to work out what is going on in the real world. And once you work out what’s going on in the real world, what the benefits are, then you look at whether or not the actual implementation of the invention fundamentally has a technical flavor to it, which is not just coding, not just simple coding, but it does something smarter. There’s a real technical impetus. There’s a technical effect. Now that actually brings me onto something I’ve postulated or said. I think the intermediate step will follow something like what I’ve termed the holistic character test, which essentially is: work out what’s going on in the real world. Then once you’ve worked out what’s actually being achieved, what the benefits are, what the invention’s concerned with, then you ask the question, how am I achieving it technically? And how is there a technical effect? How does the technical effect arise? That brings out a couple of issues. The first one is that it’s actually about the word “contribution” because it depends on how the word is used. So if you look at head note one in COMVIK, it uses the word “contribute” — how the non-technical feature contributes to the invention. So that’s an additive inclusive concept. The UK IPO historically, and arguably at the moment today whilst they’re trying to retrain their 400 examiners — which this has caused them to have to do — their idea of contribution is this backward-looking concept. So technical contribution and technical effect, I think — although we mix them up and interchange them — are distinct. Technical contribution: you’re looking backwards. Technical effect is what you look at when you look forward into what’s going on. So this is subtle — it’s really subtle, but it’s important. And once you realize that you are actually looking for the technical effects, then you’re on much safer ground. It’s much more objective in terms of the assessment. This might be somewhat contentious, because it’s the way I’m looking at this, but I’ve been working on this a long, long time and thinking about it for probably decades, worryingly so. So technical contribution and technical effects are probably not the same, where they are interchangeably used to mean the same thing within existing decisions. Rolf Claessen: And in the beginning you said, now that Aerotel is dead basically, it’s more harmonized with the EPO’s approach. But what I take from the discussion now is that maybe — especially in view of the problem-solution approach — it’s not fully harmonized with the EPO’s approach at the moment, right? Or did the UK Supreme Court get something wrong, or was that a desired outcome from your point of view that this is not so completely harmonized with the EPO? Bruce Dearling: Well, the EPO — the any-hardware solution is fully harmonized, no doubt. So it’s now a question of inventive step under Article 56 or Section 3 of the Act. The EPC nowhere mandates the use of problem-solution. And we know that there are many different ways of actually assessing inventive step, including the concrete elaboration test from last year and problem-of-invention approaches. So there are numerous ways of assessing inventive step. So the UK says, “Pozzoli — we like Pozzoli.” Interestingly, I had a discussion with someone I probably can’t mention. They’re saying that the UK approach may actually be more permissive now. It might even influence how the EPO operates. So they may move away from COMVIK towards more of a Pozzoli approach, which basically says this: You identify the notion of the skilled person — step one. You identify the common general knowledge of that skilled person — step one B. You identify the inventive concept of the claim in question, where you construe it if you can’t work out what it is. You then identify what the differences are. And then you ask the question, is it obvious to the skilled person, given knowledge of the common general knowledge? This is entirely not artificial because, as I said beforehand, when you look at problem-solution, you are formulating a problem by backtracking from what the claimed invention is to a situation where you say, well, these are the common features and I’m going to project a problem to try and solve. Now that is already tainted with hindsight reasoning. It’s not safe, it’s not thoroughly objective. There is an inherent problem with this which sees good inventions cast by the wayside. Although it’s a preferred mechanism, it’s not fully baked. There are situations where examiners are inherently lazy, or they just simply use something like the requirements specification argument, which is just factual. It just demonstrates that they can’t be bothered to actually argue it properly or think about what the invention is. Sorry to any examiners listening to this, but this is just my personal view, that sometimes there are problems. I’m reminded of a quote from an EPI hearing I was at a long time ago, where the Legal Board of Appeal member said: “We understand that examining divisions can operate with a degree of mental laziness and that it’s too easy to throw too many things out of the basket when considering the issues of inventive step.” Now that one has stayed with me because you think — did someone just say that? And the answer is yes, they did. But it just goes to show that there is some tension between the TBA and the examining divisions, and they don’t always get it right. Rolf Claessen: So there might be a small difference now between the UKIPO’s future approach of assessing inventive step and the EPO? Bruce Dearling: Yeah, it might do. But the other interesting thing here — and thank you for pointing this out, I hadn’t entirely caught up with it, I’ve been traveling beforehand and I missed some of the UPC case law. So the UPC case law — in, was it — yeah, we talked about that. Rolf Claessen: Yeah. There was a decision in April, Abbott versus Sinocare. Bruce Dearling: Yeah, 901 of 2025. So a Court of Appeal decision from the UPC. It was APP_000000901, I believe, 2025. Decision 17th of April, hearing 27th of March. The UPC is not bound by — it’s a court. The European Patent Office is not a court, it’s an agency that administers and looks after the administrative rule of law. So the fact that this decision came out from the UK Supreme Court in February, and you see almost identical language used in the UPC decision, suggests that there is some alignment here, or some convergence in thought. Now, whilst the UPC decision also references G1/19 and uses problem-solution, there is enough — you’ve got to bear in mind that high-level courts do look at each other’s decisions. And this is really a question of influence and the desire to converge. So the fact that they’ve done this at this time is quite interesting. Again, I can’t quote someone directly from the EPO, although I would love to. They were saying — at a very high level — and they used the words “converge UPC practice towards UK Supreme Court practice on interpretation of the law.” So this may actually be happening in real time. Again, it would be wrong to actually refer to anyone by name, but it’s an observation that when I looked at the case, I can see why this is going ahead. And I can see why the judiciaries — they want to maintain independent judicial controls. They won’t reference the UK Supreme Court decision, not least because we’re not in the UPC. But if you look at the arguments in sections 106 and 107 of the UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception decision and head note one, you go — wow, this is very close. Rolf Claessen: Very close and nearly identical wording. Yeah. And the UPC also now uses non-technical features for assessing inventive step. Is that a problem for the EPO that has historically been aggressive in throwing out non-technical features for inventive step analysis? Bruce Dearling: Well, I think they really need to get to the situation — I don’t know — this holistic character test that I’m sort of proposing, where you really have to think about what the invention is achieving, and then look at how it’s technically being achieved. And then if you look at that again in the context of that other decision I mentioned — T 1249/22 — it says something like, in the case of an invention that amounts to a technical implementation of a non-technical method, provided the non-technical method does not contribute to the technical character of the invention. The board validated the approach of identifying the non-technical method and then goes through and says it’s patentable. There are decisions like this which suggest that examining divisions have to give it a bit more thought, because the Technical Board will realize that to satisfy the WTO requirements — which pretty much everyone is bound by — Article 27.1 TRIPS, which requires that you protect all fields of technology. And that means whether it’s data processing or business methods, because business methods can be patentable so long as they are implemented on a technical basis. That essentially seems to be what T 1249/22 is saying, although it doesn’t explicitly say “allowing business methods.” The exclusion is only “as such.” So does this decision, in combination with the Supreme Court case and the movement of the UPC, say: well, actually, let’s look at this properly? It requires objective assessments, not just superficial “let’s strike through that feature because I don’t like it, it looks non-technical.” Rolf Claessen: So are you hopeful that the EPO is adjusting and will reshape their case law in view of the UPC decision and the UK Supreme Court decision? Bruce Dearling: It’s a bit unfortunate that the corresponding UK case at the EPO was dropped by the applicants, because it was heading towards an examination hearing at the examining division. It would have gone to the TBA, and I’m sure it would then have gone from the TBA to the Enlarged Board. I’m pretty sure that’s the case. There is another case from the same client which will probably argue the same thing because the specs are almost identical. It’s just lagged in time. So is it going to change? I hope so, because I think the EPO have got it wrong — more often than not in this field. Well, maybe not more often than not — they get it wrong more times than they should do. Would I like to see it changed? Yes, I would, because I want the examiners to actually think about the technology as opposed to just — oh, it’s not — I don’t want to engage the gray matter. That serves no one. That doesn’t serve technology. That doesn’t serve industry. These patent rights are there for a reason. They are property rights. I’m referring to the award of the 2025 Nobel Prize for Economics — they are a core driver for society’s development. So the 2025 Nobel Prize was for something called creative destruction — the replacement of old technology with new — and it’s based on the patent paradigm. So all this stuff is coming to a head now. It’s just a question of how quickly the EPO actually catch up, and maybe they have something to catch up on. It’s just understanding that the examiners have to start to think. As I said, we’ve got the issues at the UKIPO where they’re going to have to retrain 400 examiners. Rolf Claessen: Yeah, right. Bruce Dearling: The Emotional Perception case wasn’t granted by the Supreme Court. They referred it back to the patent office for consideration under the intermediate step. So the patent office produced a response that I would describe as — I’d say arguably — not well reasoned, which I’ve filed the response to, which basically says you don’t really know what you’re talking about. What really worries me a bit is that I think they’re trying to introduce the Aerotel case through the back door. It’s backsliding. It’s a mechanism for trying to apply it in a different way or a different context, which would be wrong. I think they believe that the applicant will appeal this if they get a bad decision — they will appeal it back to the courts again via the High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court route. I say maybe not. I say maybe the client will file what they call a judicial review, which is a nuclear option. That’s when you actually hold the Comptroller General of Patents to account and get full discovery of whether or not there’s internal documentation showing that they are deliberately circumventing the direction of the Supreme Court on the intermediate step. This is basically holding them to account and saying: if you’re not applying the intermediate step appropriately, you are in contempt of the law. So judicial review is a really serious thing to do, but it’s certainly something I would not exclude from consideration. We’ll see what happens. It’s not saying we’re just going to go through the courts and make them decide on this. We’re going to say you’re wrong. And there’s already enough evidence in the files to suggest that they are probably in contempt of court and they’re not applying the intermediate step appropriately. They may not know any better at the moment — they need to be guided — but the consequences for them are potentially severe. Rolf Claessen: I have another question for you. You were the instructing attorney — do you think the decision was perfect? What argument that you made was the most underappreciated by the court? And where do you think the judgment got it wrong, or was it all perfect? Bruce Dearling: No, it got 90% or 95% correct. The intermediate step is right. That’s the most important thing in the decision — it’s the intermediate step. The any-hardware thing — that’s logical, that makes some sense — but if people say “if the any-hardware rule is the important bit,” no it isn’t. It’s the intermediate step. That’s the important thing. Where do they go wrong? I think they went wrong because — and you’ve got to bear in mind that unlike German courts, I’ve got to be careful about how I express this — generally, as I understand it, and correct me if I’m wrong, but the judiciary in Germany on patent cases are generally more technically able. They’re normally technically qualified. I look at the Supreme Court justices and the Court of Appeal justices — we had one who was a humanities undergrad, one was a chemist. Good luck with trying to argue complex artificial neural network technologies, which are difficult even for me to understand. And I’ve been working in the field. They’re hard to understand. They require real understanding, real appreciation. They could say, well, actually we don’t need to look at the technology — but frankly, if you’re looking at the statutes and exclusions to patentability and asking what a computer program is, then you need to understand what these technical terms really are. And if you can’t, then the judgment is potentially flawed. Their finding that the neural network is a computer program is, I think, technically obtuse. You know that the Singaporean government — the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore — released about six weeks ago a consultation note to the Singaporean profession and population, asking: is the Emotional Perception case right, and do we need to adopt it into Singaporean national law? So this is direct soft power from the UK Supreme Court changing Commonwealth legislation and statutes. We’ll see what happens. But from what I’ve seen of a draft response from the attorneys, they’re saying essentially: we agree any hardware is right, the intermediate step is right. The assessment of the neural network as a computer program is wrong, or it just doesn’t make any sense. And I’ve made the same comments before in SIPA, in the relevant round in March. There’s a disconnect. I mean, it’s like they equate a computer program with being able to be run on an analog computer. Now, an analog computer has no central processing unit. An analog computer just has resistors and transistors and capacitors. So if they’re saying that an analog computer can run a program — that’s essentially what they’re saying in part of the judgment. Where is the program in an analog computer? And if they’re saying it’s in the values of the resistors and the capacitors, then that has implications for any circuit we’ve got — it’s potentially a computer program — which is just madness, because it doesn’t sit well with the legislation and decisions we’ve looked at over the last 50 years. This is a real problem. It may be a storm in a teacup because you can overcome the objections by having any hardware, but it’s an argument they shouldn’t have been making. It seems to be abstract legal argumentation which has little credibility in my personal view, although it’s now law. It may be that someone can take that, have an argument with the Supreme Court, get them to fix this. The other thing is the EPO looks at a neural network as a mathematical method, and the UK now says it’s a computer program. Neither is right. The EPO is wrong as well. If you look at the actual decision which they regularly quote — the Vicom case — if you actually read the claim and look at the case, you see that it doesn’t make a huge amount of sense. A neural network has applied mathematics in it. It can be based on a computer program because it’s required to set up the learning objectives and the loss function. Mathematical processes — it tweaks the weighting factors of neurons over the course of the training epochs. But at the end of the day, if the function performed by the neural network is new and it’s directed towards a technical implementation which is technically relevant, then it shouldn’t fail for being a mathematical method. And I think the EPO guidelines actually say that. Even recommendations — the UK court said that a recommendation is not technical. Well, actually it is, because it’s data processing, and you’ve got to work out how does the data processing work to provide an improved recommendation? Again, it goes back to the T 1249/22 decision. There’s a whole raft of these things which are left not entirely resolved. There’s enough here to keep someone busy for a few more years. Rolf Claessen: Right. So I have a question for you now that we’ve talked about the decision of the UK Supreme Court and the UPC — the Unified Patent Court — with very, very similar wording. What do you say are the three most important takeaways for patent practitioners in the US, in Europe, in the UK, before the EPO? Are there any things that you really want patent practitioners to take away from our discussion here? Bruce Dearling: Yeah, okay. So first: make sure the claim has some structure in it. You need to have any hardware. That’s number one — in terms of claim drafting. In terms of the description, you really have to understand what the invention is about. And you’ve got to make sure that you explain what function is achieved by what piece of hardware, kit or software. And if you do that — don’t nickel-and-dime this by writing the claim first — I would suggest that you run into problems. You need to understand what the invention is about. And you need to make sure that the description is complete and full to describe the functionality and the effects that are achieved in the real world. And if you can do that, then you’re on a much sounder basis — much, much stronger. There’s a much stronger foundation for this. So that’s two things. Is there a third one? That’s me being a bit cheeky, but I suppose I know what’s going on. Rolf Claessen: Yeah, but maybe the third takeaway is that maybe the EPO will rethink the way — at least how AI inventions are assessed for inventive step. Bruce Dearling: Well, as I said to you before, it could be that that’s the case. I don’t want to repeat myself again. The word “permissive” was used in a conversation I had with respect to the UK Supreme Court approach. COMVIK fundamentally still breaks with me and has done for years, because the way it’s set up and the way it’s applied distorts fundamentally what the invention is about. And until such time as that distortion is removed, there is a problem of objectivity versus subjectivity. And I think that’s really what the EPO has to grapple with. It’s not an easy thing to deal with, but maybe there are things going on. Bruce Dearling: It’s not an easy thing to deal with. I don’t know who’s going to argue it. It would have been useful for me to still have the original case up and running at the EPO because these arguments would have been fleshed out. I’m pretty sure they would have been referred to the Enlarged Board. We would have got it resolved. So it’s whether or not I can now work this into the existing case to try and get the examining division to — well, they will refuse, I suspect. And then it’ll go to the TBA. And then the TBA will have to look at this, hopefully with the referrals to the Enlarged Board. And then that fixes the problem on a national and international basis. Rolf Claessen: Yeah. Let’s see. [Laughs] Bruce Dearling: No, we don’t know. I mean, you might have a different view. What do you think? Do you think COMVIK is fundamentally right or fundamentally wrong? Rolf Claessen: Well, I’m not so much into AI inventions. I’m a chemist and I usually deal with chemistry inventions. But from the discussion that we had, I think that the EPO might rethink their position. I don’t know. Let’s see. Let’s hope so. Bruce Dearling: Well, they liked it. They liked problem-solution. It’s been with us for 25 years. It suggests that it’s a compromise. It’s not mandated by the European Patent Convention — that’s the point. It’s something they think works. And these things only work until such time as someone comes along and says, actually, you’re wrong, and this is the reason. Rolf Claessen: Let’s see if they choose a different route at least for AI inventions. So Bruce, thank you very much for your insight and for talking about the case that you were involved in with the UK Supreme Court. Where could people reach you if they have more questions about this field — basically patents, AI protection in the UK and Europe — and if they want to ask you more questions about this case? Bruce Dearling: Sure. Through the Hepworth Brown website or my LinkedIn profile, I suppose. The Hepworth Brown website has an email link. I’m trying to post things on it as well to try and provide a bit more context. But if people have fundamental questions on this stuff, then I’m happy to try and answer them. I suppose that I can be considered to be quite knowledgeable in the area. Rolf Claessen: Right. Certainly more than I am. [Laughing] Bruce Dearling: So I was fortunate. As a consequence of the work I’m doing, I was appointed last year to the WIPO Standing Committee on Patents and Privacy. That was discussed for the issues of where WIPO goes and what the direction of the problems are that we have in high-tech areas. So there seems to be some degree of understanding that I might know what I’m talking about. I think I probably do. Rolf Claessen: Thank you, Bruce. Thank you very much for being on IP Fridays. Bruce Dearling: My pleasure. Thank you very much, Rolf.

Dr. Becky Kennedy is the founder and CEO of Good Inside, a parenting movement that overturns a lot of conventional, modern parenting practices to empower parents to become sturdy, confident leaders and raise sturdy, confident kids. She is the author of the bestselling book Good Inside: A Guide to Becoming the Parent You Want to Be, a chart-topping podcast, a TED talk with more than 5 million views on the power of repair.This episode is brought to you by:Monarch track, budget, plan, and do more with your money: Monarch.com/Tim Shopify global commerce platform, providing tools to start, grow, market, and manage a retail business: Shopify.com/tim*This episode was originally published in December 2024. Show notes and links: https://tim.blog/2024/12/27/dr-becky-kennedy-good-inside/TIMESTAMPS:[00:00:00] Start.[00:01:55] The power of repair.[00:04:50] "It's never your fault when I yell at you."[00:08:55] What does it mean to be a "good" parent?[00:10:32] Activating curiosity over judgment.[00:13:33] Alternatives to saying "Good job" as a confidence builder.[00:20:50] Making kids happy vs. building capability.[00:24:18] A pilot metaphor for sturdy leadership.[00:29:30] Role confusion.[00:32:04] Defining boundaries.[00:35:07] How parenting becomes a two-way mirror for growth.[00:40:09] The MGI (Most Generous Interpretation) approach.[00:42:52] Biggest challenges in parenting.[00:46:52] Recommended reading for someone with kids in their life.[00:52:11] Advisable prerequisites for singles who aim to build a family.[00:56:18] Setting boundaries with grandparents and dealing with different parenting styles.[01:01:42] Handling frustration when a child is pushing your buttons.[01:09:58] Lessons learned from working with eating disorders.[01:13:26] Managing troublemaker behavior.[01:17:38] Bad influence intervention.[01:22:52] Cultivating resilience in "deeply feeling" kids (DFKs).[01:28:58] The trials and errors that birthed Good Inside.[01:32:53] "Our words are not our wishes. Our words are our fears."[01:40:07] Billboard messages and mantras.[01:48:00] Fan-favorite scripts on saying no, boundaries, and repair.[01:51:15] The tennis court metaphor for boundaries.[01:55:45] Resources and parting thoughts.For show notes and past guests on The Tim Ferriss Show, please visit tim.blog/podcast.For deals from sponsors of The Tim Ferriss Show, please visit tim.blog/podcast-sponsorsSign up for Tim's email newsletter (5-Bullet Friday) at tim.blog/friday.For transcripts of episodes, go to tim.blog/transcripts.Discover Tim's books: tim.blog/books.Follow Tim:Twitter: twitter.com/tferriss Instagram: instagram.com/timferrissYouTube: youtube.com/timferrissFacebook: facebook.com/timferriss LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/timferrissSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Our Deputy Global Head of Research Michael Zezas explains why the recent U.S.-China summit may have eased near-term risks, without changing the bigger picture for investors.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Deputy Global Head of Research. Today, we're talking about what investors should take away from the recent U.S.-China summit. It's Thursday, May 28th at 10:30am in New York. It's been two weeks since the much-anticipated U.S.-China summit, where Presidents Trump and Xi met to discuss a wide array of issues in their relationship. Understandably, investors were watching carefully. The relationship between the two countries and its potential impact on global economic conditions has been a driver of markets at key intervals. Brinksmanship around the trade relationship has been particularly noteworthy. In 2025, the level of tariffs substantially influenced macro markets, and export restrictions for semiconductors and rare earths drove volatility in key equity sectors such as tech hardware. Coming into the summit, the two countries had found a tenuous equilibrium, with the policy volatility of last year giving way to an uneasy calm this year. So, did the summit change anything? As best we can tell, not really. Some modest progress was made in lower sensitivity areas, but investors shouldn't confuse that with a durable reset in relations. The summit, in our view, points to a more managed relationship, not a fundamentally stable one. Here's what investors should keep in mind. At the risk of stating the obvious, the concrete public policy choices of each country matter a lot from here. President Trump emphasized renewed investment in the U.S.-China relationship. That's good. Talking beats not talking. But the bigger issue is what happens next. So far, we haven't seen broad language around joint efforts to establish trade and investment cooperation boards translated into workable arrangements; which if they materialized might hint at a more stable relationshipSo, net-net for investors, the summit is best understood as a continuation of the status quo, not a pivot. It may reduce near-term tail risks, which is sufficient to support the many other positive drivers pushing equity markets higher. But it does not eliminate the structural forces behind U.S.-China competition. That means we'll keep tracking this relationship as an economic and markets catalyst and keep you in the loop. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen. And share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Across decades of reading and travel, something has struck me again and again: wildly different traditions, from Daoism to Hinduism to Christianity, converge on a threefold or Trinitarian model of ultimate reality. In this talk I trace that pattern through philosophy, theology, and modern physics, and suggest it reflects something fundamental about the nature of things.Many churches will be celebrating the Holy Trinity on Sunday May 31, Trinity Sunday.This talk was recorded live at St James's Church London, May 13th, 2026 as part of the Alternatives programme. The full video with human readable transcript is available on substack.

Explore accessible tech tips, high-quality audio alternatives to Sonos, custom iPhone VoiceOver gestures, guide dog versus cane mobility, and the challenges of embracing Android as a blind user in this lively Double Tap episode with Steven Scott and Shaun Preece. Steven and Shaun dive into a packed inbox covering a wide range of topics for blind and visually impaired tech users. They discuss listener questions about Sonos speakers, the declining Sonos app, and whether alternatives like WiiM or Brennan can deliver accessible, high-quality audio. The hosts share practical insights on customising iPhone VoiceOver gestures for easier control and gesture shortcuts. The conversation shifts to mobility and independence: Craig writes about the transition between using a guide dog and a white cane, attending concerts despite anxiety, and the social perceptions of mobility aids. Steven reflects on his own challenges navigating Glasgow with and without his guide dog. Listener TJ shares his experience trying to switch from iPhone to Pixel 10 Pro, highlighting the hurdles of Android accessibility, typing performance, and daily-use challenges. The hosts also talk about accessible gaming, audio description that makes viewers feel “special,” and funny moments with liquid level indicators and accidental spills. ----Follow on:YouTube: https://www.doubletaponair.com/youtubeX (formerly Twitter): https://www.doubletaponair.com/xInstagram: https://www.doubletaponair.com/instagramTikTok: https://www.doubletaponair.com/tiktokThreads: https://www.doubletaponair.com/threadsFacebook: https://www.doubletaponair.com/facebookLinkedIn: https://www.doubletaponair.com/linkedinSubscribe to the Podcast:Apple: https://www.doubletaponair.com/appleSpotify: https://www.doubletaponair.com/spotifyRSS: https://www.doubletaponair.com/podcastiHeadRadio: https://www.doubletaponair.com/iheartAbout Double TapHosted by the insightful duo, Steven Scott and Shaun Preece, Double Tap is a treasure trove of information for anyone who's blind or partially sighted and has a passion for tech. Steven and Shaun not only demystify tech, but they also regularly feature interviews and welcome guests from the community, fostering an interactive and engaging environment. Tune in every day of the week, and you'll discover how technology can seamlessly integrate into your life, enhancing daily tasks and experiences, even if your sight is limited."Double Tap" is a registered trademark of Double Tap Productions Inc. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

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

This month on Laura Flanders and Friends, we're revisiting conversations around work, workers, and the Labor Movement on the Move.  This week we explore how the folks at The People's Network for Land & Liberation (PNLL) are building for the future in the midst of the crisis facing us now.  They say the forces that got us here are bigger than one bad leader; entire systems must be taken down. 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). 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:  "Solace" by Antibalas from their album Hourglass released on Daptone Records, '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

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

Have you done all the right things and still spent two weeks a month feeling like a completely different, much less pleasant person? I get it.Most PMS and PMDD conversations stop at estrogen and progesterone. But if you're still dealing with mood swings, brain fog, or symptoms that show up around ovulation, too, there's a piece nobody's named for you yet. It's histamine. And before you say, "I don't have allergies" - that's not what we're talking about here. In this episode, I'm walking you through why histamine can be a very real driver of your hormonal symptoms, why it tends to spike at two specific points in your cycle, and what's actually going on underneath that your body has been trying to flag.You'll learn:The estrogen-histamine feedback loop that makes symptoms spike at two points in your cycle, including mid-cycle, when you're supposed to feel goodThe specific signs that point to histamine as a contributing factor in your PMS/ PMDD Why supplements like DAO enzyme or Quercetin can help temporarily, and what the real question is that nobody's askingIf histamine has never once crossed your mind as a reason you feel terrible two weeks out of the month - buckle up, because this episode is about to make a lot of things click.And if you're currently tracking your basal body temperatures and your PMS is still not where you want it to be, I have something for a few of you at the end of this episode. Stay all the way through, you'll want to hear it.Breakfast GuideNourish Tracker - Discount code: HAPPILYHORMONALBook a FREE Hormone Strategy Call with meGrab your Happily Hormonal Quick Start GuideNEED HELP FIXING YOUR HORMONES?Hormone Imbalance Quiz - Find out which of the top 3 hormone imbalances affects you most!Join Nourish Your Hormones Coaching for the step-by-step and my eyes on YOUR hormones for the next 4 monthsSend us a text with episode feedback or ideas! (We can't respond to texts unless you include contact info but always read them)Don't forget to subscribe, share this episode, and leave a review. Your support helps us reach more women looking for answers.Disclaimer: Nothing in this podcast is to be taken as medical advice, please take informed accountability and speak to your provider before making changes to your health routine.This podcast is for women and moms to learn how to balance hormones naturally in motherhood, to have pain-free periods, increased fertility, to decrease PMS mood swings, and to increase energy without restrictive diet plans. You'll learn how to balance blood sugar, increase progesterone naturally, understand the root cause of estrogen dominance, irregular periods, PCOS, insulin resistance, hormonal acne, post birth-control syndrome, and conceive naturally. We use a pro-metabolic, whole food, root cause approach to functional women's health and focus on truly holistic health and mind-body connection.If you listen to any of the following shows, we're sure you'll like ours too! Pursuit of Wellness with Mari Llewellyn, Culture Apothecary with Alex Clark, Found My Fitness with Rhonda Patrick, Just Ingredients Podcast, Wellness Mama, The Dr Josh Axe Show, Are You Menstrual Podcast, The Model Health Show, Grounded Wellness By Primally Pure, Be Well By Kelly Leveque, The Freely Rooted Podcast with Kori Meloy, Simple Farmhouse Life with Lisa Bass

This month on Laura Flanders and Friends, we're revisiting conversations around work, workers, and the Labor Movement on the Move.  This week we explore how the folks at The People's Network for Land & Liberation (PNLL) are building for the future in the midst of the crisis facing us now.  They say the forces that got us here are bigger than one bad leader; entire systems must be taken down. 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. 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

Are you holding onto mattresses, kitchen supplies, or linens because your adult kids might need them someday? You're not alone—and you're not wrong for wanting to help. But what feels like wisdom or generosity might actually be one of the sneakiest forms of clutter. In this episode of Clutter Free Academy, Kathi Lipp and Grace Church tackle a question that resonates with so many listeners: How do you decide what to keep for your kids and what to let go? The Real Cost of "Just in Case" Storage Before you dedicate precious square footage to items your children haven't asked for, consider this: you might be making decisions based on a future that may never happen, for a person who hasn't requested anything. Grace shares her eye-opening experience of calculating 10 years of storage unit costs—and the painful realization of what that money could have done instead. A Simple Framework for Deciding Kathi offers a straightforward approach: "I have [blank]. Do you want it? And if so, when?" This simple conversation can save years of storing items that your kids may never want—or worse, items that deteriorate while waiting for their "someday" moment. When Donations Feel Impossible The episode also addresses a common frustration: what to do when thrift stores are overwhelmed and Facebook Marketplace isn't working. From Buy Nothing groups to foster care closets and community swaps, Kathi and Grace share creative alternatives for getting items out of your home and into hands that need them today. Key Takeaways Storage costs (even in your own home) often exceed replacement costs Stored items don't always store well—deterioration adds grief to clutter Your house is not a storage unit; your square footage has value If you can replace it for under $50 and it's taking up real space, let it go Have your favorite donation spots mapped out before you start decluttering It's okay to throw things away—they'll be thrown away eventually Whether you're storing things for adult children, struggling to find homes for donations, or simply need permission to let go, this episode delivers the practical wisdom and gentle encouragement you need to reclaim your space.

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

PREVIEW for Later Today: Evan Ellis explores military alternatives for Cuba beyond a traditional invasion. He suggests selective strikes against command nodes or special operations to pressure the regime, providing a hard-line complement to ongoing diplomatic negotiations.1960 VASTRO AND NASSER

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

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

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

Body composition goals, particularly bodyfat loss, are among the most common reasons people seek support from a nutritionist or health and fitness professional. While the principles are well established, the challenge is helping individuals apply them consistently in real-world conditions. Many people struggle due to hunger, unrealistic expectations, emotional eating, inconsistent routines, or overly restrictive dieting approaches. These challenges can make fat loss difficult to sustain, even when someone understands what they "should" be doing. In this episode,  Luke Hanna discusses practical strategies for improving body composition, including food diaries, energy-density manipulation, preloads, mindful eating, and realistic goal-setting. The discussion emphasizes identifying individual barriers, collaborating with clients, and building repeatable behaviours that support both fat loss and long-term maintenance. Luke Hanna holds a Master's degree in Obesity and Clinical Nutrition from University College London and a degree in Sport and Exercise Science from the University of Portsmouth. He currently works as a nutrition coach and personal trainer. Timestamps: [03:15] Interview [05:39] Client assessment basics [11:59] Alternatives to tracking [13:57] Volume eating [18:56] Preloads before meals [22:25] Snacking and hunger types [26:44] Habits and food environment [30:40] Managing expectations [33:51] Transition to maintenance [39:09] Key ideas (premium-only) Links: Go to episode page (with resources) Join the Sigma newsletter for free Subscribe to Sigma Nutrition Premium Instagram: @lukehannanutrition

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