Podcast appearances and mentions of Lisa Shalett

How many times have you looked back across your whole life, looked at all those S Curves you've taken on and thought – wow. “I guess things do come together in the end,” even though, in the moment, those S Curves seemed so treacherous, and we felt so lost and afraid climbing them. There's an element of faith in that statement, sure, but just as strongly, there's an undercurrent of grit, determination, stick-to-it-ness. We appreciate the journey a lot more if we also can appreciate having felt lost and afraid – and then pushing through it. Our guest today has had an unusual trajectory, to say the least. Lisa Shalett started her career in 1990s Tokyo, producing those classic game shows – then she zig-zagged to the world of equities at Goldman Sachs, – zagging again to its compliance division – and then in charge of the bank's entire brand during a PR disaster. And today, she's the co-founder of Extraordinary Women On Boards, a community dedicated to supporting high-achieving women. So what can we learn from Lisa's journey?  

Lisa Shalett is a member of Morgan Stanley's Wealth Management Division and is not a member of Morgan Stanley's Research Department. Unless otherwise indicated, her views are her own and may differ from the views of the Morgan Stanley Research Department and from the views of others within Morgan Stanley. Our CIO for Wealth Management, Lisa Shalett, and our Head of Corporate Credit Research continue their discussion of the impact of interest rates on different asset classes, the high concentration of value in equity markets and more.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market, and to part two of a conversation with Lisa Shalett, chief investment officer for Morgan Stanley wealth management. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of corporate credit research at Morgan Stanley.Today, we'll be continuing that conversation, focusing on how higher interest rates could impact asset classes, and also some recent work about the unusually high concentration of stocks within the equity market.We begin with Lisa's very topical question about how higher interest rates might impact credit. Lisa Shalett: So, Andrew, let me ask you this. From your perspective as the Global Head of Corporate Credit Research, what happens if we're, in fact, in this new regime of rates being higher for longer? Andrew Sheets: Yeah, thanks, Lisa. It seems more topical by the day as we see yields continuing to march higher. So I think like a lot of things in the market, it kind of depends a little bit on what the fundamental backdrop is that's driving those interest rates higher. Because if I think about the modern era for credit, which I'll define as maybe the last 40 years, the tightest that we've ever seen corporate credit spreads was not when the Fed or the European central bank was buying bonds. It was not when you had lots of leverage building up in the financial system prior to the financial crisis. It was in the mid 90s when the economy was pretty good. The Fed had hiked rates a lot in [19]94 and then it cut them a little. And, you know, the mid nineties, I think, are one of the poster children for, kind of, a higher for longer rate environment amidst a pretty strong economy. So, if that is what we're looking at, we're looking at rates being higher for longer because the economic output of the US and other regions is generally stronger. I think that's an environment where you can have the overall credit market performing still pretty well. You'll certainly have dispersion around that as not every balance sheet, not every capital structure was planned, was created with that sort of rate environment in mind.Overall, if you had to say, is credit more afraid of a kind of higher for longer scenario or is it more afraid of, growth being a lot weaker than expected, but that would bring low rates. I actually think a lot of credit investors would much rather have a more stable growth environment, even if that brings somewhat fewer rate cuts and higher for longer rates.Lisa Shalett: One other thing, I know that the Global Investment Committee has been debating is this idea between the haves and the have nots that's been somewhat unique to this business cycle where, there's been a portion of the mega cap and large cap universes who have demonstrated, quite frankly, total insensitivity to interest rates because of their cash balances. Or because of their lack of need for actual borrowing. And then there's smaller midsize companies, these smaller cap or unprofitable tech companies, some of the companies that may have been born in the venture capital boom of the early 2020s. How is this have, have not, debate playing out in the credit markets? Are there parts of the credit markets that are starting to worry that there's a tail?Andrew Sheets: Yeah, I think that's just a fascinating question at the moment because we've lived in this very macro world where it seemed like big picture questions about central banks: Will we go into recession? What will commodity prices do is driving everything. And even this week, questions about interest rates are dominating the headlines on TV and on the news.But I think if you peel things back a little bit, this is an incredibly micro market, you know, we're seeing some of the lowest correlations and co-movement between individual stocks in the US and Europe that we haven't in 15 years. If I think about the credit market, the credit market is not just sailing into this environment, happy go lucky, no risk on the horizon. It's showing some of the highest tiering that we've seen in a very long time between CCC rated issuers, which is the lowest rated, main part of performing credit and Single-B issuers, which are still below investment grade rated, but are somewhat better. Market is charging a very high price premium between those two, which suggests that it is exactly as you mentioned, differentiating based on business model strength and level of leverage and the likes.So, this environment of differentiation -- where the overall market is kind of okay, but you have lots of churning below the surface -- I think it's a very accurate description of credit. I think it's a very accurate description of the broader market, and it's certainly something that we're seeing investors take advantage of we see it in the data.Andrew Sheets: Lisa, you recently published a special report on the consequences of concentration, which focuses on some of these mega cap stocks and how they may present underappreciated risks for investors. What were the key takeaways from that that we should keep in mind when it comes to market concentration and how should we think about that?Lisa Shalett: The fundamental point we were trying to make -- and it really has to do with some of the unintended risks potentially that passive investors may be embracing that they don't fully appreciate -- is really through the end of 2023, US equity indices became extraordinarily, concentrated; where the top 10 names were accounting for greater than, a third of the market capitalization. And history has shown that such high levels of concentration are rarely sustainable. But what was particularly unique about the era of the Magnificent Seven or these top 10 mega cap tech stocks is not only were they a huge portion of the whole index, but in many ways they had become correlated to one another, right? Both, in terms of their trading dynamics and their valuations, but in terms of their factor exposures, right? They were all momentum oriented. They were all tech stocks. They were all moving on an AI, narrative. In many cases, they had begun competing with each other; one another directly in businesses, like the cloud, like streaming services and media, et cetera.Andrew Sheets: And Lisa, kind of further on that idea, I assume that one counterpoint that you get to this work is that some of these very large mega cap names are just great companies. They've got strong competitive positions; they've got opportunities for future growth. As an investor, how do you think about how much you are supposed to pay up for quality, so to speak? And, you know, maybe you could talk just a little bit more about how you see the valuations of some of these larger names in the market.Lisa Shalett: What we always remind clients is, there is no doubt that, these are great companies and they have phenomenal, cash flows, phenomenal profit growth. footprints, dominant positions, and markets that are growing. But the question is twofold. When is that story fully discounted, right?And when do great companies cease to be great stocks? And if you look back in history, history is littered with great companies who cease to be great stocks and very often, clients quote unquote never saw it coming because they hung their hat on this idea, but it's a great company.Andrew Sheets: Any parting thoughts as we move closer to the midpoint for 2024?Lisa Shalett: The line that I'm using most with clients is that, I fundamentally believe that uncertainty in terms of the economic scenarios that could play out from here. Whether we're talking about a no landing, we're talking about a hard landing, we talk about a stagflation. And the policy responses to that, whether it's the timing of the Fed, and what they do. And what's their mix between balance sheet and rates, and then what happens post the presidential elections in the US. And is there a policy change that shifts some of the growth drivers in the economy. I just think overall uncertainty is rising through the end of the year, and that continues to argue, for a position as we've noted, where clients and their advisors are particularly active towards risk management, and where the premium to diversification is above average. Andrew Sheets: Lisa, thanks for taking the time to talk. Hope we can have you back again soon.Lisa Shalett: It's great to speak with you, as always, Andrew.Andrew Sheets: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts in the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you get your podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

Lisa Shalett, our CIO for Wealth Management, and our Head of Corporate Credit Research discuss how to forecast expected returns over the long term, and whether historic cycles can help make sense of the market environment today. ----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Lisa Shalett: And I'm Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management.Andrew Sheets: And on part one of this special episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing long run expected returns across markets, how we think about cross asset correlations and portfolio construction, and what are the special considerations that investors might want to have in mind in the current environment.It's Friday, May 3rd at 4pm in London.Lisa Shalett: And it's 11am here in New York City.Andrew Sheets: Lisa, you and I are both members of Morgan Stanley's Global Investment Committee, which brings together nine of our firm's market, economic, and portfolio management thought leaders to provide a strategic framework for advice that we give to clients.Andrew Sheets: I wanted to touch on a unique aspect of that process because, you know, we're talking about estimating returns over different horizons for markets. And I think there's something that's kind of unique about that challenge. I mean, I think in most aspects of life, it's probably safe to say that the next decade is more uncertain than the next six months or next year. But when we're thinking about asset class returns, it's not quite as simple as that.Lisa Shalett: Not at all. And very often this is where our understanding of history needs to play a big part. When we think about the future, what are the patterns that we think might be persistent? And therefore, encourage us to think about long run trends and mean reversion. And what dynamics might actually be disconnected, or one offs that are characteristic of maybe structural change in the economy or geopolitics or in policymaking stance.Andrew Sheets: How have these latest capital market assumptions changed over the last year?Lisa Shalett: I think one of the most profound changes has been our willingness to embrace the idea that, in fact, we are in a higher for longer inflation regime. And that has a couple of implications. The first has to do, of course, with nominal returns. A higher inflation environment suggests that nominal returns are actually likely to be higher. The second really has to do with where we are in the cycle and its implications for correlations. We've been through periods most recently, where stocks and bonds were, in fact, anti-correlated; or there was a diversifying property, if you will to the 60 40 portfolio. Most recently, as inflation and level of interest rates has had profound importance to both stock valuations and bond valuations, we have found that these correlations have turned positive. And that creates a imperative, really, for clients to have to look elsewhere beyond cash, bonds, and stocks to get appropriate diversification in their portfolios.Andrew Sheets: Well, it's been less than a month since we updated our strategic recommendations. We've recently also published an update to our tactical asset allocation recommendations. So, Lisa, I guess I have two questions. One is, how do you think about these different horizons, the strategic versus the tactical? And can you also summarize what's changed?Lisa Shalett: Sure. You know, we very often talk to clients about the tactical horizon as being in the 12 to 18-month time frame.In our most recent adjustment, we moved from what had been roughly a, year old underweight in US large cap stocks, and we neutralized that, kind of quote unquote, back to benchmark. So, we added some exposure, and we funded that exposure by selling out of two other positions; one that we had had in both small cap value and small cap growth, as well as a position we had, that we had put on as a hedging oriented position and long duration treasuries.Now, some might say well, given the move in interest rates, is now the right time to take that hedge off? Our decision was basically premised on the fact that we're just not seeing the value in holding duration today given the inversion of the yield curve, and we're not getting paid for the risk of duration. And so, you know, we thought redeploying into those large cap stocks was prudent. Now, the other rationale, really has to do with earnings achievability. A lot of our thoughts were premised early in the year on this idea of a soft landing -- and a soft landing that would include deceleration in top line growth. And so, we were skeptical that could produce what consensus was looking for, which was a 10 to 11 per cent bottom line in 2024. As it turns out, it looks like, nominal GDP in the US is going to continue to persist at levels above 5 per cent, and that kind of tailwind, suggested that our skepticism would prove too conservative; and that, in fact, in a, 10 per cent bottom line could be achievable -- especially if it were being driven by manufacturing oriented companies who are seeing a pick up from global growth.Andrew Sheets: Lisa, maybe if I could just ask you kind of one more question related to some of these longer-term assumptions, you know, I imagine you get some skepticism to say, ‘Well, you know, is the market of today really comparable to, say, the stock market of 30 or 40 years ago? Can we really use metrics or mean reversion that's worked in the past when, you know, the world is different.'Lisa Shalett: Yeah, no, that, that's a fantastic question. I mean, some of the bigger variables in the world that we look at have shown over very long periods of time tendencies to cycle, whether those are things around the business cycle, valuations, cost of capital. Those are the types of variables that over long periods of time tend to mean revert. Same thing volatility. There tend to be long term characteristics. And the history book is pretty convincing that even if sometimes mean reversion is delayed, it ultimately plays out. But we do think that there are elements that we need to continue to question, right. One of them is, you know, has monetary policy and central bank intervention fundamentally changed the rules of the game? Where central banks implicitly or explicitly are managing market liquidity as much as they are managing cost of capital; and as a result, the way markets interact with the central bank and the guidance -- is that different?A second, factor has to do with market structure, right? And in a world where market prices were really being determined almost exclusively by fundamentals, right? There was this constant rotational shift between growth style and value style and where value could be determined in the market. As we've moved to a market that is increasingly driven by passive flows; there's a question that many market participants have raised about whether or not markets have gotten more inefficient because price discovery is actually, in the short run, not what's driving prices, but rather flows; passive flows are driving prices.And so, you know, how do we account for these leads and lags in prices being actually remarked to fundamentals? So those are at least two of the things that I know we are constantly tossing around as we think about our methodologies and capital market assumptions.Andrew Sheets: That was part one of my conversation with Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management.Look out for part two of our conversation, where we'll be discussing the impact of higher interest rates on asset classes. And how investors should think about an unusually concentrated stock market. Andrew Sheets: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts in the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you get your podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

It's another earnings bonanza after the bell rings for overtime with Palo Alto Networks, Diamondback Energy, Chesapeake Energy, Caesars and Toll Brothers all reporting. We have you covered with the numbers and analysis. Vital Knowledge's Adam Crisfulli on what he makes of earnings season so far while Morgan Stanley's Lisa Shalett on her favorite sectors and emerging markets. Former Palo Alto CEO Lane Bess on what he makes of the company's latest earnings. Globalfoundries CEO Thomas Caulfield on his company's allocation from the CHIPS Act. Zelman & Associates Co-Founder Ivy Zelman makes sense of the housing market as investors wait on the Fed. 

Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer of Morgan Stanley Wealth Management, discusses long-term investors' biggest concern – the amount and timing of interest rate moves.Lisa Shalett is a member of Morgan Stanley's Wealth Management Division and is not a member of Morgan Stanley's Research Department. Unless otherwise indicated, her views are her own and may differ from the views of the Morgan Stanley Research Department and from the views of others within Morgan Stanley.----- Transcription -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Lisa Shalett: And I'm Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management. Andrew Sheets: And on this special episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing some of the latest market trends and what they may mean for our retail clients. It's Tuesday, January 23rd at 4 p.m. in London. Lisa Shalett: And it's 11 a.m. here in New York. Andrew Sheets: Lisa, it's great to have you back on. So wealth management clients are typically investing for the long term in order to meet specific goals such as retirement. And with that in mind, let's start with the current market backdrop. You know, we've entered the year with increased market confidence. We've seen implied volatility near some of the lowest levels that we've seen in several years. And yet we've also seen some mixed economic data to start the year. So as you look out into 2024, what are the major risks that you're focused on? Lisa Shalett: Well, I think one of the first things that, you know, we're trying to impress upon our clients, who tend to be long term, who tend to be multi-asset class investors, very often owning a simple classical 60/40 portfolio, is that we've been in this very interesting potential regime change, where both bonds and stocks are sensitive to the same thing. And that is the level and rate of change of interest rates. And that's meant that the 60/40 portfolio and stocks and bonds are actually positively correlated with one another. And so the very first thing we're talking to clients about is the extent to which we believe they need to focus on diversification. I think a second factor that we're talking, you know, to clients a lot about is liquidity. Now in the macro sense, we know that one of the reasons that markets have been able to resist some of the pressure is coming from the fed. Raising rates 550 basis points in kind of 15, 16 month period has been because there have been huge offsets in the macro backdrop providing liquidity to the marketplace. So we're talking about the fact that some of those supports to liquidity may, in fact, fall away and go from being tailwinds to being headwinds in 2024. So what does that mean? That means that we need to have perhaps more realistic expectations for overall returns. The third and final thing that we're spending a lot of time with clients on is this idea of what is fair valuation, right? In the last eight weeks of the year, clients were, you know, very I think enamored is probably the right word with the move in the last eight weeks of the year, of course, people had, you know, the fear of missing out. And yet we had to point out that valuations were kind of reaching limits, and we therefore haven't been shocked at this January, the first couple of weeks, markets have maybe stalled out a little bit, having to kind of digest the rate that we've come and the level that we're at. So those are some of the themes that, you know, we've begun to talk about, at least with regard to portfolio construction. Andrew Sheets: So, Lisa, that's a great framing of it. You know, you mentioned the importance of rates to the equity story, this unusually high correlation that we've had between bonds and stocks. And you have this debate in the market, will the Fed make its first rate cut in March? Will it make its first rate cut in June, like the Morgan Stanley research call is calling for? Is that the same thing? And how important to you in terms of the overall market outlook is this question of when the Fed actually makes its first interest rate cut? Lisa Shalett: Yeah. For our client base and long term investors, you know, we try to push back pretty aggressively on this idea that any of us can time the market and that there's a big distinction and difference between a march cut and a may or June cut. And so what we've said is, you know, the issue is, again, less about when they actually begin, but why do they begin? And one of the reasons that they may begin later than sooner would be that inflation is lumpy. And I know that some of the economists on our global macro team have that perspective that, you know, the heavy lifting, if you will, or the easy money on the inflation trade has been made. And we were able to get from 9 to 4 on many inflation metrics, but getting from 4 to 2 may require patience as we have to, you know, kind of wait for things like owner occupied rents and housing related costs to come down. We have to wait for the lags in wage growth to come out of some of the calculations, and that may require a pickup in unemployment. We may have to wait for some of the services areas where there has been inflation, things related to automotive insurance and things related to health care for some of those items to settle down as well. And so that might be one of the issues that impacts timing. Andrew Sheets: So moving to your second key point around market liquidity. Another factor I want to ask you about, which I think is kind of adjacent to that debate, is what about all this cash? You know, we've heard a lot about record inflows into US money market funds over 2023. You have around $6 trillion sitting in US money market funds. How do you see that story playing out, and how do you think investors should think about that question of should I redeploy my cash, given it's still offering relatively high yields? Lisa Shalett: So for our clients, you know, one of the things that we're very focused on, again, because we're taking that much longer time frame is saying, look, how does the current 5.3, 5.25 money market yield compare with expected returns for stocks and bonds over the next couple of years? And in that framing from where we sit, what we're saying is cash is reasonably competitive still. Now if rates come down very, very quickly right, we again get back to that question of why. If rates are coming down very quickly because we have disinflationary growth then, then that might be a signal that it's time to redeploy into riskier assets. Alternatively, if they're cutting because they see deteriorating economic conditions, staying in cash for a little while longer during a slowdown might also be the right thing, even though your yields might be going from five to 4 to 3 and a half. And from where we sit, I think our clients know that our capital market assumptions have erred on the conservative side, no doubt about it. But, you know, we think U.S. equities are apt to return at best in 2024 something in the 4 or 5, 6 range against a backdrop where earnings growth could be 10%. And for, you know, investment grade credit, which I know is your expertise. We're saying, you know, we think that rate risk is moderate from here, that it's asymmetric. Andrew Sheets: Lisa, just to bring in your third point on valuations, especially valuations and a potentially higher real rate environment. What should investors do in your opinion to build those diversified portfolios given the valuation reality that they're having to deal with? Lisa Shalett: So look, I think our perspective is that in a world where, you know, real interest rates are higher, the dynamics around balance sheet quality really come into the fore dynamics around those business models, where you have to ask yourself, are the companies that I own, are the credits that I own truly able to earn their cost of capital? And you know, those questions tend to put pressure on excess valuations. So when we're building portfolios, at least right now, we have a bias to press up against the current skew in the market, right. We're currently skewed to growth versus value. So we've got a preference for value. We've got some skew towards mega-cap versus large mid or small cap. So we're skewing large mid and small cap and active management versus the cap weighted management. We've had this huge skew towards a US bias in our client portfolios, and we're trying to push back against that and say in a relative value context, other regions like parts of emerging markets, like Japan, like parts of Europe are showing genuine interest. So part of this idea of higher real rates in the US is this idea that other asset classes, other regions than this mega cap U.S. growth bias that has really dominated the themes over the last 18 months, that that might get challenged. Andrew Sheets: Lisa, thanks for taking the time to talk. We hope to have you back soon. Lisa Shalett: It's always great speaking with you, Andrew. Andrew Sheets: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people find the show.

Lara Rhame, FS Investments Chief US Economist, breaks down today's core PCE price index which showed that both inflation and consumer spending rose in September. Isaac Boltansky, BTIG Policy Research Director, predicts that the chaos in the House will lead to a shutdown later this year. Lisa Shalett, Morgan Stanley Chief Investment Officer of Wealth Management, says that we've entered within 50 basis points of a peak in rates. Poonam Goyal & Anurag Rana, Bloomberg Intelligence Senior Analysts, discuss a big week in Big Tech earnings. Chris Marinac, Janney Montgomery Scott Analyst, expects banks to set aside reserves to build confidence going into 2024. Get the Bloomberg Surveillance newsletter, delivered every weekday. Sign up now: https://www.bloomberg.com/account/newsletters/surveillance      FULL TRANSCRIPT:     This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Lisa A. Bromoids, along with Tom Keen and Jonathan Ferrell. Join us each day for insight from the best in economics, geopolitics, finance and investment. Subscribe to Bloomberg Surveillance on demand on Apple, Spotify and anywhere you get your podcasts, and always on Bloomberg dot Com, the Bloomberg Terminal and the Bloomberg Business App. We're waiting for the PC data. We're joined by Mike Nicky Aron the Deak. So we're waiting for the personal spending, the deflator. Mike, will it be disinflationary? Roll of the dice, that's the question. We're waiting for the numbers to come down on the Bloomberg Terminal. Well, I got about four seconds until that happens. But the ideas we may get a little more disinflation. Let's find out from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, and here come the numbers. And we'll start with the inflation numbers. They come in hotter than anticipated, up four tenths of a percent. I don't know month over a month basis. For the headline, the core comes in up a three tenths which is about what was expected, although there was some leaning towards maybe a little lower number year over year. Now we see the PCE headline number at three point four percent, that's down from three to five, and the core comes in at three seven, down from three to nine. Both of those expected. All the people who like to dive into all those numbers and figure out what actually changed will be with us in a few seconds. Personal income up three tenths. That's lower than the prior month of four tenths gain, but also lower than what was anticipated a four tenths gain. Spending up seven tenths, I mean not strong. On the back of that, on the back of that GDP and the connginut well, this number is in the GDP because this is a September number. It was the third month of the quarter, so he kind of sort of backed out the numbers and anticipated that this would be fairly strong. We were up four tenths the prior month. The question is now do we continue to see that spending happen, Because if incomes are falling behind and they have been the spending levels over the last couple of months, that would suggest that maybe there's a pullback ahead. Now I'm not the expert here. There's one more there is, indeed, La Rain chief economists out with us this morning. First take, I think that we continue to see inflation coming down, but it's still uncomfortably It's still unacceptably high from the point of view of the Fed, and I think the conversation as we go into next year continues to the options for the Fed continue to narrow because if inflation stays about where it is and it's going to take a long time for it to get closer to too, their room to maneuver should the economy slow at all, is going to be very narrow. And look by these numbers, it looks like the economy is just still incredibly strong. We know that from the GDP numbers that we already got, but I mean the spending has just by the households that has defied every expectation of it to slow, and it's accelerated so much in the third quarter. That's what's extraordinary. I think savings rate comes in a three point four percent. People have been watching that for some indication of whether or not they're going to run out of money in the American consumer. It's down from four percent and it's been a steady decline. But historically, before the pandemic, we used to say people spend what they make. They don't dip into savings the way people tend to think they do. And so if that's the case, then there's more of a case now for maybe a slow down. People don't have as much to dip into if they wanted to, but they're also not making as much as they were. Well, I had johnat Henry with me this morning from HSBC and she said, actually Americans are more likely to dip into their savings and spend, spend, spend right to the very end. But I want to bring you an idea from UBS, which is Paul Donovan, where he said, you know, when we go to write the history of twenty twenties, do not bet against the headonism of the US consumer. It's very rich. I love it. I mean, there's a there's a brilliant wine place in London called Hedonism Wines. Whole other story the hedonism. You can tell us that later. I could tell you that later, but I want to understand from you laya the hedonism of the US consumer. Is that real or do you think that runs out of mileage as well. Next sure, listen, he's got a point. That's a really colorful way to put it. But that's what the third quarter felt like. Between the headlines about the concerts, Yeah, all of that, and then and all everyone who followed. I think, you know, people seem to be looking for that next experience and looking to pay whatever is required to get it. You know, this issue of savings has gotten so complicated because we of course have the excess savings that accumulated during the shutdown. Is that more you know, bucketed with these you know sort of now the highest quintile of quartile of household that sort of maybe aren't going to spend them as much. We know that that access savings is run out for a lot of the lower you know sort of strata. The other seventy five percent of us, we're not in that upper quintal. I think as we think about it, people, the normal people, I think, and yet you know, we just see the strong job growth I think reinforces the foundation of the household, and we just see this reacceleration is really unexpected in terms of your hedonism. Example, here services spending went up eight tenths whereas goods spending went up seven tents. There was always a story about people switching away from goods, but they still seem to be spending a lot on goods. Services don't go into the retail sales numbers that we got earlier this month, except for bars and drinking places fitting your theme, but eight tenths of a percent to gain for services pretty strong. So it looks like people were spending money during the third quarter on all sorts of things. I do think there's an interesting dynamic here, which is that if you look at consumer confidence, it's still well below where it was before the pandemic, and that's, you know, despite strong growth. So can you tie those two together. You know that the consumer confidence is being a little bit battered, but the spending it remains unabated. To me, it really, I think inflation is something that is still really casting a long shadow over the household, because you know, when I'm not here, I'm the mom at the grocery store and I've got one bag of groceries and it still cost me ninety five dollars and I can't figure out what's in it, you know, So I think you know this idea that your over year inflation is coming down, but the sticker shock is still a very real and present pain point to household budgets. And Coca Cola are raising prices, and Netflix are raising prices, and there are a Whole and Apple TV they're raising prices as well, and we are moderately immune to those. Do you know that you'll still order a Coca Cola? You'll still order You'll still order your Netflix movie. Mike Well, I was looking here to see if we get super Core. I haven't got that number pulled out yet, but that's the one that the Chairman of the Fed says he likes the most. See if we have that number calculated yet, because you got to take out and then the CPI number that had risen the most since you know, about a year, so it had. I think that's going to be a key piece of today's report too. Well, just looking at the bond market, it's virtually flat. I mean four eighty five is where we are on tenure government bonds. So there's a sort of a flat, sort of unknown entity within the bond market. Let's just check in on equities up for tenenths of one percent again, you've got an Amazon recovery and nice kicker there. It was up six percent at one juncture, giving a little bit back. You're looking at ten year years, just still incrementally rising. This morning at four eighty five, we just had Bmo in Lingen here with us saying look, the next three weeks will define where the endpoint is for the bond spike. Use oil is up one point ninety three percent this morning. Again there's more geopolitical anks with military action in Syria from the US side, and that has brought again a geopolitical bid back to the oil markets. But personal income rises zero point three percent. The estimate was for plus point four percent, So Mike this the takeaway from this is the core price index rises to three point seven percent, pretty much in line with the estimates. We're seeing disinflation, I mean O creative inflation is slowing down. It's not slowing down as perhaps fast as people would like. And to Lar's point, especially about the being the moment at the grocery store, prices go up at a slower rate, but they don't come down. So you're paying more for a lot of staples and they're going to just stay at that price. And so people look at that and they're still experiencing inflation, even if inflation is not as bad as it was before. What what happens then to this view in the market that we're going to get right cuts into twenty twenty four does not debate change. It's got to continue. The FED, I think now has to just continue to ring rate cut expectations out of that future's curve. I feel like this is the deal with the devil right now, because if you had told me that we were going to have GDP growth of almost five percent and the FED was not going to cut rates again, I would have just not believed that was a possible outcome. But FED future's markets are not pricing in another rate cut. Markets seem very convinced the Fed is done. And I think the only way that works is if we continue to get this drift higher in long term yields. And there's a room for that because today markets have seventy five basis points of rate cuts priced in for next year, So if the FED is going to kind of stay on hold, there's room for that to continue to come out, for long term rates to continue to move higher. How do you think they look at this in the Fed? In the Fed might give you look at this the top line is pce is it a four month high consumer spending picks up. It doesn't leave them that huge optionality to be very very dubbish, does it. They can just sit on this at the moment because they forecast in September, the last time they did forecast that we would see PCEE core at three point seven percent at the end of the year. Well, I'm with there bang on where we are. So most economists think with a couple of months to go, we're going to come in below that. So the Fed could argue its targets are being hit. And you mentioned Ian Ling, and he had a great note this morning about how we're starting to see more impacts from higher FED rates and that is slowly getting into the economy and we should see more. So the Fed is probably going to sit there and say what we're doing is working. We're at a level where inflation is still coming down. We don't have to go up more right now with all this uncertainty out there about what's going to happen. Well, and unless inflation is a nine percent there really is no emergency reason to raise rates. That's usually you know, not a thing. So they you know, to your point, they have the time and yet. To me, this increase in long term interest rates is the reason that they can be patient, and that is going to continue to sort of pump the brakes on activity. You know, when I look ahead at next year, my forecast is for slower growth. I think these higher interest rates have actually increased the chance of a recession, not decreased. Is that slower growth? No landing, soft landing, not hard landing. I think it has to be as soft landing. I still feel like there is very real risk of recession next year, and we cannot discount that. But all the reasons why we've been saying it might be a mild recession could also mean that you just end up with some sluggish growth. So, Mike, as we go to the close of the year, what's the next piece that you're going to hang your hat on in terms of dead We've got Michigan at University of Michigan. Yeah, I don't think that's going to move the needle a whole lot. But I think what we are going to focus on is all the data next week, particularly the ISM numbers and then jobs at the end of the week. The Fed meets on Wednesday, so they won't have the jobs figures, but at this point to get an idea of where they're going to go, and nobody is less than a two percent chance they do anything on Wednesday, but nobody expects that. But the question is then what happens January December, January, and the jobs report will contribute to that. That's what will be joining us is Isaac Boltanski, director of policy research at BTIG. Can you give us a sense, to Isaac, of just what kind of leader Mike Johnson is going to be? Can he find some sort of consensus within a very fractured party. I think the simple answer to that is now. I think I think that there are lots of folks who are breathing this deep sigh of relief because now there's someone with a gavel and we can begin handling the people's business again. But when you take a step back, you've got to see that the House Republican caucus is still deeply fractured. It's not clear how well they're going to be able to govern going forward. There's no semblance of bipartisanship anywhere on Capitol Hill, and frankly, Lisa I think that people are downplaying the risk associated with a prolonged government shutdown. I still think that is distinctly possible because we are nowhere, and I mean this nowhere when it comes to figuring out a way to fund the government and deal with all the supplemental funding requests that have been sent from the White House. There's a lot to impact there, and a lot of people have pushed backed against that and said that actually, the fact that we have a speaker makes it less likely that we will have a government shutdown. Are you disagreeing with that? Are you saying that basically this is just a window dressing over a pretty big fracture fissure in the Congress. In Congress, though, the unknown right now is how much of a honeymoon speaker the new speaker is going to get. But my sense when you start to look at some of the specific issues here and really hone in on things like Ukraine funded, or you take a step back and you look at the fact that we haven't even agreed on overall spending levels, I think it's incredibly difficult to believe that that this group is going to be able to easily avert a shutdown. My base case is that we are going to see a shutdown later this year. I don't think that's going to be a massive market moving event, but I do think that the getting the gabble to Speaker Johnson has lessened fears in the market, and that that's unfounded at this point. So the President wants a total of what one hundred and sixty two billion dollars from Congress across Ukraine, Israel, supplemental spending, et cetera. How contentious is this going to be? How much of a flashpoint is this going to be? Will it all be cojoin? Will it just be a great dissipation of this request. So first and foremost, they haven't even agreed on basic funding levels yet, right, so we're not even at a point of agreement over the normal funding levels, and that's going to be the fight for the next few weeks when we then dig into the supplementals, where you do have over one hundred billion in different ass I think that there is clearly political support for things like funding Israel and supporting Israel and it's battle with Hamas. I think that fourteen billion dollars is very likely to get done. There's clearly support for more money at the US southern border. I think that that's bipartisan and by Camel on Ukraine, it's going to be a little bit tougher. And note that this is something that the News Speaker has actually fought against in the past. Last night he did suggest that there is a way to move forward on Ukraine funding, but that they're going to have to be conditions attached to that. No one knows what those conditions are yet. Put it all together, and I think that there is a way forward on this spending package. I just think that we're going to have to go through the same type of pain that we were seeing before when Speaker McCarthy lost the gap. How long do you think this speaker lasts or do you think he is there for the duration? So what of the first things he's going to have to do is try to get rid of that motion to vacate which pulled Kevin McCarthy out of the chair. I think that this speaker has a decent runway to get into first quarter of next year at a minimum. My conversation suggests that there's a real focus on at least getting to April of next year. As a reminder, that's when the one percent across the board. Budget cuts will go into effect if Congress does not pass the twelve appropriation spills. So I think that that's the date that a lot of people have circled on their calendar just trying to make it to that point. So, Isaac, how do you deal with the fact that you are in a situation where the interest that the government has to pay continues to go up? Where does that fall in these budgetary arguments? No one seems to talk about it, but it's on the rise. So if we can't cut the budget at all to do what we want to do, how are we dealing with spending that we now are compelled to do. That's one of the most frustrating parts of the past three weeks is that we weren't talking about the real issues. We weren't talking about the thirty three trillion in debt, we weren't talking about the two trillion deficit we're running this year. We weren't talking about the seven hundred billion dollars it costs US just this year to fund our deficits. And so I think that I remain deeply disheartened because we're not having those conversations, and more broadly, no one, no one, No one cares about the deficit when they're in the majority. They only care about the deficit when they're in the minority. And so until we see something that shocks DC tou to the point where it's forced to think about the debts and deficit differently, it's going to be status quo business as usual. How do you force someone to take a look at their own balance sheet and say, your payment next year is going to be double what your payment was this year, and you couldn't afford your payment this year. Why do we not? Why is that not part of the conversation. I know nobody wants to have it when they're in the majority. Nobody wants to not spend because everybody wants they get there, has a million things they want to spend on. But it's sort of like no one is dealing with the elephant in the room, no pun intended, which is the fact that we've got all this spending that still has to come through on this And I find that particularly frustrating in general. So I just how do we get to that conversation? You should run for office, come on down here and try to try to figure it out. But look, We're going to have a real, real fight over this with the Trump tax cuts expiring. You've got trillions of dollars in tax cuts that are coming due in twenty twenty five from the expiration of the Trump tax cuts, and I think that that could be a forcing mechanism for a broader conversation, but it's going to depend who's in power, right and sot. The next hurdle is to understand who's ahead in the elections. How much is Jennet Yellen's idea the mainstream that yields are going to go back down once we get past this blip, and that higher yields in the US is not a reflection of deficits but really just a reflection of how strong the US economy is. Is that the main idea and belief in Washington, DC. It's the hope of many on Capitol Hill. I don't think that there is anyone who has a firm feel for where yields are going, surely not on Capitol Hill. But it is definitely the hope at this point that everything will fix itself. Because our politics are so broken, they're unable to fix the problems, and so there is a hope that that's the direction that's going, Lisa. But I don't think anyone has a firm feeling one way or the other. Hope is not a strategy. I just keep thinking about that. Isaac Boltanski of BTIG, thank you so much for being with us. Joining us now is Lisa Shallatt CIO at Morgan Stanley Wealth Management, And Lisa, I just want to start with have we sold off enough? Because I know you've been bearished, particularly on tech. Has this been a big enough sell off for you? Look, we're not interested in getting in here unless you're a trader. What we, you know, tend to point our clients to is being investors, being long term investors. And you know, our perspective is going has been that we're going to continue to trade in this bear market range, which is where we've been for two years. I mean, people have to pull out their telescope and look at where we've been. You look at the s and P five hundred. We were here in the summer spring of twenty twenty one, and so you know, this is a trader's market right now. We don't think we break out of this range of somewhere around forty two forty five hundred really until the middle of next year, and that's when the fog clears on whether or not we're really going to see growth reaccelerate or we're going to see us you know, probabilities of recession increase. And we've been in the camp that we're going to be in that second scenario where next year economic growth, particularly in the second half, disappoints. I mean, look at the third quarter GDP, we're doing nominal eight percent. What kind of a cop year over year is that going to be in the second half next year. It's a great point. You said that this is a trader's market when it comes to equities. Is it also a trader's market when it comes to bonds. You've been bullish on longer term bonds at a time where there's a feeling that maybe this selloff has legs and actually is fundamentally driven, including by how much the US has to finance. Yeah. I mean, look, our perspective is that we are probably within fifty basis points of a peak in rates, and that having clients begin to embrace this market lock in some of these coupons with the potential for rates on a cyclical basis to reset, creates a double digit return with a third of the volatility. So again, as as as UH you know investors, we think that that the buy and hold on some of these bonds UH is a good value proposition. But I think here too, there's a lot of volatility, and that means you've got to be a trader if you're going to be uh, you know, in this market looking for returns on the month or on the quarter. Lisa, good morning, it's manas. I think that's one of the most honest interpretations. You're not prepared to step and buy into this market in a trading market that we've heard in quite a while. But there is the other side, which is you either view that you've got to build some kind of defense, and I'm drawn to your view that you want real assets and you want gold. Gold is nearly a two thousand dollars and so are you actively adding more real assets than if you're not convinced on pure equity. We are adding and encouraging folks to add some real assets here. I mean, one of our themes has been that, you know, the equity markets in particular are just not pricing real risk premiums. And you know, one of the things that has, you know, given us has been heartening to us is the fact not only are we getting higher real rates in the bond market, but that there's a term premium that suddenly people realize that in a new inflation and in a new interest rate regime where the FED is going to be data dependent, there is lumpiness and there is uncertainty over time about how that data is going to come out. Add in all the geopolitical dimensions to what's going on right now, the dimensions of dysfunction in Washington, d C. The fact we're rolling into an election year in the US where I think that the headlines and the developments are going to be extraordinarily volatile. Our view is that real assets, things like commodities, things like real estates, things like energy, infrastructure assets could really, you know, be a source of protection here in stability in portfolios. We just had in Lincoln here from BMO. We talked about a number of different things that could drive the bond market, term premium being one, fiscal deficit's being another. He thinks that the peak, the peak spike in rates could be over the next couple of weeks. Would you agree with that, and if so, what part of the bond market. Would you like to take a portion off or add to if you're adding real commodities, what would you add in duration? Yeah, we're we're looking at Our perspective is that the best value right now is really intermediate, somewhere between four to six. We're finding some value in sevens in the treasury market in fact, but we're looking at investment and great corporate, so you know, we're taking the treasury yield and taking some of that spread. We do believe that there are quality balance sheets out there that can service you know, these coupons. So we're we're enthusiastic that the middle of the curve could produce double digit returns over the next you know, twelve to eighteen months. Lisa, I'm curious about this really different reaction when it's come to this geopolitical these devastating geopolitical events. Normally we would see US yields plunge in the face of this, and we had that reaction. But you know, you blinked and you missed it. We're right back up again. Does that represent a more fundamental reassessment of treasuries as a risk free asset? You know, you were going into this government shutdown again, an episode which historically has given us lower yields, and we sort of shrug it off. Is this time going to be different because people are fundamentally reassessing the dollar as a flight to quality and the result treasures. Yeah, I mean, I love that you're bringing up this issue. I mean, this is one of the issues that we talk about with our clients all the time because it is our sense that something fundamental is going on and that the appetite for US treasury debt is different this time. Clearly, you know, the market is readjusting to not having the FED as a price and sensitive buyer, right, we know that, and and QT is certainly a weight here. But you know, you look at what's going on among Japanese investors. They're facing the realities of a tough currency compare and really tough hedging costs in terms of their ability to buy treasuries in the size that they have been buying really over the last decade. The geopolitical dimensions of this, you know, historically, we know China has has been a big buyer given their you know, trade balances and foreign currency reserves and US dollars. Uh, there's a lot of complexity UH, and a lot I believe to question about why we haven't seen that flight to safety UH manifest as it historically has in US treasuries. I do think that this is something we need to watch and study and really think hard about about whether or not something is changing and whether the US treasury market is vulnerable to geopolitics for the first time, maybe since World War Two. Lisa Chalatte Morgan Stanley Wealth mentioned it is clear cut that when people are spending on clothes, Amazon does well. But that seems to be what we experienced yesterday in the Earth, straining us now to really pass through it. Anor A Karana and Punam Goyle of Bloomberg Intelligence covering the tech and the retail side of things. Anag, I want to start with you, are we basically just learning that Microsoft is taking the lead when it comes to cloud computing and Amazon and Google are falling behind. See I'm a big fan about Microsoft's down over the years, but I would not say that they are leading here. I would just say that in the Genai, you know, Frenzy, they just have a leg up because of their relationship with open Ai. But Amazon is still the biggest cloud out there. They have more, yeah, I would say revenue than anybody else. That's partially the reason why their relative growth rates are not as strong. But last night's comments on the conference call were so positive and I think that's what's driving the stock up here. Before that, the stock was flat, and you know, it was just the positive I would say body language of the management team that you know, the cloud bottom may be here for them. Okay, who's got the strongest who has the strongest cloud offering, and who will win the most market share? Well, Amazon's far bigger in terms of you know, revenue, the revenue boundard is closer to ninety billion dollars compared to Microsoft, which is closer to sixty billion, and with Google somewhere around twenty four to twenty five billion. So Amazon's clearly the leader with the biggest network and biggest footprint. But let's bring you into the conversation here. This has been a brutal week. At one junction, we lost two hundred billion dollars in market cap of some of these biggest and most loved, most owned stocks in the US. As you go to the close of the week, there was a brutalization of stocks that disappointed on Clyde, But the one thing that stood out to me is that there are these tech companies and they are raising prices. How does that play into your thinking? Yeah, I think on the retail side, Amazon actually has done a great job in maintaining its share and even growing it. You know, when you talk about raising crisis, do then in flee. I think it's quite the opposite at Amazon. You're actually seeing them push forward low crisis, especially on those deal days that they have, like Prime Days, and that's driving the consumer spend. We're expecting Amazon to use it scale and speed to really push the pedal on prices even more as we go through the holiday season, and that's going to drive consumers to their platform, allowing them to go gain share over competitors. Plunum advertising revenue has been growing at a double digit clip based on what two hundred million global Prime subscribers were able to get an early WED on that Prime Video ads edition. I think the ad edition is going to take time to build right now. The bulk of that advertising revenue is driven from the retail side, and I think that's really key here that's going to continue to climb. And remember that advertising is a much more profitable business than the retail business and even the cloud business. So as that business scales beyond fifty billion, which it's trending to right now, it's going to drive the bottom line for Amazon. And that edition of the ads that you're talking about, I think that's just icing on the cake. I mean, that's really going to also help build revenues for Amazon and allow customers to choose do they want the ads or do they want the content without the ads where they would have to pay attlefore that. And you're right, we've now digested earnings from Alphabet, Meta, Intel, IBM, you name it. You know, what are the primary takeaways from you from three third quarter performance? I think if we are not very close to the bottom, you know, we have probably a quarter or two away, and I think that really sets up well for a big rebound in twenty twenty four. And I think this was the biggest fear that we have that what's going to happen beginning of next year with geopolitical conditions getting worse. And I think last night's results and even Microsoft's comments give us some hope that things are not as bad as you know, you know, people are making out to be. It does raise a question though, about the differentiation on rog within the cloud space, within the AI space, and whether companies are being reward for investing in some of the AI intelligence AI programming that could make a lot of money. Did you get the sense that Amazon was rewarded more on that front than Google. See. One of the biggest thing I think it's the scale matters now, And you have to remember most enterprises around the world fortune two thousand companies are going to experiment with this technology over the next twelve to twenty four months. Who are they going to go to. All these companies have the building blocks for people to experiment, So I'm not saying one's going to win over the other. All three of them are going to get their fair share of revenue from the clients. The problem is on the other side, they actually don't have enough GPU capacity to go out and build some of that AI workloads or training models and other things. But I'm fairly confident that over the next twelve for twenty four months, all three of them are going to see some benefit from Jenai. Who's got the ability to deliver the best margins. You note that revenue grew by twelve percent of aws, but the margin jump by third thirty percent. Who else is at thirty percent or beating that? Or is that where the aspiration is to deliver stronger margins? Is that part of the buy thesis. So one of the things we have talked about, think about all the three companies in the long run. Now the long run could be five years or ten years. These businesses have potential to grow operating margins north of forty percent. Now that's the reason why we say that is if you look at you know, processing companies and other things, when they reach maturity stage, these are highly scalable business Once you you know, go through the cycle of capax, you don't really require that much money to maintain them. We are confident in the the long run all three of them will have great margins. The other two companies don't really disclose it at the cloud level, at that infrastructure level, but to that extent, I mean, I mean, frankly, alphabet is still losing money in their cloud portfolio. But there is a lot of different things that go into that. Put on what's the takeaway that we've gotten in terms of these earnings about how much retailers in the US continue their hedonistic tendencies. Yeah, I thank you for the retailers. It's going to be mixed. As we moved through holiday, there is going to be clear winners and losers. And we do think that the consumer is really focused on value and that trend isn't going away for the holiday season, so they're going to have to suction the pedal on price and inventories aren't as high as they were last year, so it's really going to depend on their ability to bring product in to drive demand and really keep prices well the holiday season. Un I'm Gail on our grounda both of you. Thank you so much for being with us. One aspect of the market that's kind of flown under the radar is the regional banks in particular, especially as we talk about the big banks and the successors and all of that, and we could see that so far you're to date the BKX, the KBX KBW index is down twenty five percent, close to the lows that we saw during the crisis back in March. Now is Chris Marinac, director of research at Jenny Montgomery Scott. And I know Chris that you've been really bullish on the banking sector and I want to get your take on what you make of the selloff that has persisted. Well. I think, Lisa, there's been some continued struggles about the fears of credit quality getting worse in twenty twenty four. I think that there's been some passive flows against the banks. I've heard of a lot of folks shorting the KRX and the KRE and then going along in the Nasdaq one hundred, So that has been a challenge in terms of incremental selling. I think to some extent, the banks are not sexy here and they're not doing anything from a growth perspective that causes investors to dive in. And I think most of the fun flows has been to other growth areas and other areas that are kind of avoiding anything that's economically sensitive and perhaps recession recession proNT So have you gotten less bullish on this area because we have seen a bit of underperformance versus expectations, particularly in the regional space, and there isn't a clear pathway to growth. Well, the stocks have an opportunity to trade back to forty five to forty seven on the KRE. I think the question is can we get investors to pay attention to what really matters, which is cash flow. The operating cash flow for most banks is only down about ten percent from the August estimate's pre third quarter earnings, and so I think the other ninety percent of PP and R is actually very strong to allow banks to earn through the cycle on credit issues and anything that comes their way. I think their capacity to absorb losses is extremely good, and that's one of the reasons I've thought the stocks have opportunities to do better. I don't think we'll go back to where we would have been on the KRE pre Silicon valley, but I do think we can be better than we are, and I think we have to get through this recession discounting that the market is doing at the moment. Yeah, we are pretty obsessed with the recession dis kind in it just hasn't come home Durus yet, Chris good Morning. Provisioning was something that stood out for me as being on the low side in this reporting season. Of course, if there is no dramatic slow dying and there is no hard landing, then that's all justified that The acinting reason, do you think twenty twenty four is going to be madred by an increase a material increase in provisioning, and if so, word does it hurt the most. So I think that the provisions will rise in twenty four primarily because I think charge offs will go up. We have a lot of companies who are writing off fifteen to twenty basis points of charge offs, which is very very low. So going back to thirty or forty basis points for most mid sized banks is normal. I think your large national companies probably right off between forty five and fifty, so that's a little higher than the forty range that they are today, So that will cause provision to rise. I think generally most banks are going to set aside reserves to kind of build confidence with themselves. Clearly, the accounting on SECOIL has led banks to actually limit their reserve growth this quarter, less than I would have fought. I think to some extent it is driven by unlimited balance sheet growth and also the Moody's forecast that a lot of banks use has actually pushed out the recession, and that is also tamped down the reserve calculations. I mean, you think the consensus is obviously JP Morgan just keeps getting bigger. It's just like this juggernaut that just swallows everything and moves everything out of its way. You've listened to the conference calls, You've listened to a couple of these CEOs. Who's under most pressure in the banking sphere? I know I have my target list, But who do you think is under the most pressure as the CEO at the moment? Well, I think there are regional banks who have capital ratios that are depressed when you take the mark to market for all securities, both for the available for sale and held the maturity, So that issue has to be resolved. I think to some extent, banks will work out of their issues on their own because securities are going to start maturing in four and twenty five and to some extent these marks start to flatten out. We don't have to see FED policy chains for the marks to get better. I think somebody think that some of the payoffs of securities coming due at maturity will help. I think the pressure is on the regional banks who are going to have these new FED accounting rules, which basically means who ratios are lower than they're reported, And even though it's phased in over a three year period, the market just perceives that they have to adopt those capital rules today, so to some extent, I think we have to fight through that. The good news is the banks are profitable, they can pay dividends. There's no changes happening on some of those major items like common and preferred dividends. So I think the attitude for the investors should be better than it is. But I think the pressure is really on the regional banks where the definition is changing on capital. I do think will work through it, but that continues to be the pressure point at the moment. So does that mean that we have to extend the BTFP and do you believe that they will extend that we don't have to extend it. It It would be nice to extend because it simply takes one issue off the table. The use of BTFP has been very limited. It's hovering around one hundred and nine billion for weeks and weeks, and so the banks who have used it have used it. Some may renew if given the opportunity, but if they don't, I don't think it's a big problem. It would be nice to do that. It would be nice to have some FDIC deposit insurance reform to be able to buy insurance on uninsured depositors. I'm not sure the FDIC is going to go there, so that would be my thought on that. So it sounds like the regional banks have a maturity profile that's not as dire as I think some of us were worried about. But I think about some of the assets that are sitting there. Are the regional banks kind of stuck like utilities where I'm in a flat yield curve, so I don't have a lot going on there. I have some things I may have to write off, but I just don't see a lot of growth ahead of me. And they don't have the diversification of some of the money center banks. Well, I actually think the diverse location is actually very good. I mean, you have office real estates very limited, even commercial real estates very limited. Within the C and I space, there's a lot of different mid size and small businesses that regional banks and even community banks do and provide a great service for that. The economy is healthier than I think folks realize. But even if it changes, the ability for companies to earn through is very good. What we see happening is actually less balance sheet growth but more turnover old loans that are at low yields, renewing at high yields. A new loan today is going on the books at eight percent, and that actually is very attractive, and it's going to cosset the mix to shift on netatrist margin. We think margins may actually bottom in the first quarter, if not sooner, and that will help the stocks. I think catch a little bit of a bid. Chris, just real quick here, final word on Ted Pick the idea of some of the succession at Morgan Stanley. Is it significant in terms of the direction of that bank or do you think that it's basically going to be a continuing of the guard. Well, the investment banking business is the highest margin business of these large international firms, so it didn't surprise me at all that he was the choice. I think that his leadership inside the company has been very well thought of for a long time, so it seemed to make sense. I think to some extent they want to put the best foot forward, not to be negative on the wealth management space, because it's certainly a huge driver. They picked up a lot of new customers from the First Republic failure in April and May, so there's a lot happening there. But it seemed to be kind of continuing on the investment banking Angela Chris Marrinac of Jenny Montgomery Scott. Thank you so much. Subscribe to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast on Apple, Spotify, and anywhere else you get your podcasts. Listen live every weekday starting at seven am Eastern on Bloomberg dot com, the iHeartRadio app tune In, and the Bloomberg Business app. You can watch us live on Bloomberg Television and always on the Bloomberg Terminal. Thanks for listening. I'm Lisa Abramowitz, and this is BloombergSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Major averages closed higher. It's the S&P 500's first consecutive positive sessions of the month. Morgan Stanley's Lisa Shalett and Wells Fargo's Scott Wren break down the action. Zillow co-founder Spencer Rascoff talks the housing market gridlock as mortgage rates climb to 20-year highs. He also discusses his new property tech startup Pacaso, fractional ownership for second homes. Art Wheaton, director of Labor Studies at Cornell's ILR, on the possible upcoming UAW strike—who has the leverage and what it would mean for the economy. Blueshirt Group's Gary Dvorchak on Secretary Raimondo's high-stakes trip to China. Plus, Bernstein analyst Nikhil Devnani breaks down the highlights from Instacart's S-1.  

Bond yields have seen a surprising increase as a result of real interest rates, which could mean both good and bad news for other asset types.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, a Senior Fixed Income Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, August 18th at 2 p.m. in London. August is a month in financial markets that is often all or nothing. Sometimes it's quiet, a self-reinforcing state where investors desire to recharge and enjoy the nicer weather means fewer deals and lower activity, reinforcing the desire to enjoy the nicer weather. But there's a flip side. The fact that so many investors' are away in August can also amplify market moves, especially if worries mount, and we see that in the historical data. August has seen the largest average rise in stock market volatility of any month, if we go back to 2010, where it's seen higher volatility in 10 out of the last 14 years. So far, this August is off to another volatile start. The culprits are plenty. Equity markets have been having a great run based almost entirely on expanding valuations, an unusual occurrence, as Lisa Shalett, the CIO of Morgan Stanley Wealth Management and I discussed on this program last week. Data in China has been weaker than expected and across the U.S., Europe and Japan, bond yields have been rising significantly. The bond move is especially notable given how it's been happening. Yields aren't rising because of inflation, as last week's U.S. consumer price inflation reading was a little better than expected, and longer run expectations of U.S. inflation are actually lower on the month. The market also has increased its expectation of further rate hikes from the Federal Reserve or the ECB, although it has added another expected hike for the Bank of England. Rather, the increase in yields this month has been almost entirely due to the so-called real interest rate, that is the yield on bonds over and above expected inflation. In the U.S., ten year real rates are now about 1.9% above expected inflation, which is a similar level to what we saw from 2003 to 2005. There's both bad and good news here. The bad news is that if investors can get a higher guaranteed return over inflation from government bonds, other assets are going to look less attractive by comparison. We continue to hold a more cautious view on U.S. equity markets as well as commodities. But there's also some good news. Higher real rates have made TIPS or Treasury inflation-protected securities more attractive and my colleagues in interest rate strategy like them. The recent volatility in bond markets has cheapend mortgage backed securities, where my colleague Jay Bacow, Morgan Stanley's co-head of securitized products research, has recently moved back to a positive view. And higher yields are improving the funding ratio for many pension funds, encouraging them to buy safer, longer term investment grade bonds. More broadly, higher long term real rates could be a sign that the market is more confident about the long term outlook for the U.S. economy. If we think back to the 1990s, it was a period of higher expected potential growth and higher rates relative to expected inflation. If we think about the sluggish 2010s, it was the opposite with very low rates relative to inflation as the market worried that growth could not achieve escape velocity. It will take years to know if the bond market is really endorsing a stronger long run economic view, but as we hope to emphasize, higher rates aren't necessarily all bad. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.

0:00 -- Intro.1:21 -- Start of interview.2:10 -- Lisa's "origin story" 2:59 -- Her connection to Japan.6:29 -- Her experience in investing banking, mostly with Goldman Sachs (20-year career).15:55 -- On her board journey, and the distinctions between serving on private (VC or PE backed) and public boards.19:57 -- On Extraordinary Women on Boards, the organization she co-founded in 2017  to amplify the impact of women inside boardrooms and beyond.  "To be clear, I did not set out to start an organization, this has been totally organic." "There was just a desire for a community of peers who already had a seat at the table in the boardroom." 25:04 -- On current market conditions and impact of pandemic in boardrooms. "I think we are in a high velocity environment of tremendous change, there is a lot of uncertainty." "The remit for directors exploded during the pandemic." "What has changed most for directors is the pace of change, how do you keep up with that?"31:55 -- On the role of the board on growth and down cycles. "One of the hardest things to do when things are going well is making sure to ask a lot of (tough) questions." "There is an opportunity to institutionalize in the boardroom the role of somebody to ask the tough questions, to play the devil's advocate."36:40 -- Her take on ESG, the anti-ESG backlash and the politicization of corporate governance.42:27 -- On boardroom dynamics and progress on boardroom diversity.46:43 -- On geopolitics in the boardroom, particularly on "decoupling" or "de-risking" supply chains with China.48:52 -- Topic in her mind: thinking about the board as a team. 50:58 -- Her take on board evaluations: The good, the bad and the ugly. "You only know as much as you've experienced."53:38 -- A book that has greatly influenced her life: The Choice, by Dr. Edith Eger (2017). 54:43-- Her mentors, and what she learned from them: "I have a lot of mentors who are my peers."56:01 -- Quotes she thinks of often or lives her life by: "To live your life by design not default" (from The Decade Game by Carolyn Buck Luce) and "Define yourself by your aspirations, not your limitations" (Cathie Black).57:45 -- An unusual habit or an absurd thing that she loves.58:54 -- The living person she most admires: her sons.Lisa Shalett is a former Goldman Sachs Partner who serves as a corporate advisor and independent board director. She's also the co-founder of Extraordinary Women on Boards (EWOB), an organization whose mission is to amplify the impact of women inside boardrooms and beyond.  __ You can follow Lisa on social media at:Twitter: @lisashalettLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lisashalett/Extraordinary Women on Boards: https://www.ewobnetwork.com/__ You can follow Evan on social media at:Twitter: @evanepsteinLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/epsteinevan/ Substack: https://evanepstein.substack.com/__You can join as a Patron of the Boardroom Governance Podcast at:Patreon: patreon.com/BoardroomGovernancePod__Music/Soundtrack (found via Free Music Archive): Seeing The Future by Dexter Britain is licensed under a Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License

While the Fed navigates a soft landing for the U.S. economy and stock valuations remain high, how can investors navigate the risks and rewards of a surprisingly strong equity market? Lisa Shalett is Morgan Stanley Wealth Management's Chief Investment Officer. She is not a member of Morgan Stanley Research.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts in the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Fixed Income Strategist at Morgan Stanley. Lisa Shalett: And I'm Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management. Andrew Sheets: And today on the podcast, we'll be discussing what's been happening year to date in markets and what might lie ahead. It's Friday, August 11th at 1 p.m. in London. Lisa Shalett: And it's 8am here in New York City. Andrew Sheets: So, Lisa, it's great to have you here. I think it's safe to say that as a strategy group, we at Morgan Stanley have been cautious on this year. But I also think this is a pretty remarkable year. As you look back at your experience with investing, can you kind of help put 2023 in context of just how unusual and maybe surprising this year has been? Lisa Shalett: You know, I think one of the the key attributes of 2023 is, quite frankly, not only the extraordinarily low odds that history would put on the United States Federal Reserve being able to, quote unquote, thread the needle and deliver what appears to be an economic soft landing where the vast and most rapid increase in rates alongside quantitative tightening has exacted essentially no toll on the unemployment rate in the United States or, quite frankly, average economic vigor. United States GDP in the second quarter of this year looked to accelerate from the first quarter and came in at a real rate of 2.4%, which most folks would probably describe as average to slightly above average in terms of the long run real growth of the US economy over the last decade. So, you know, in many ways this was such a low odds event just from the jump. I think the second thing that has been perplexing is for folks that are deeply steeped in, kind of, traditional analytic frameworks and long run correlative and predictive variables, the degree to which the number of models have failed is, quite frankly, the most profound in my career. So we've seen some real differences between how the S&P 500 has been valued, the multiple expansion that we have seen and things like real rates, real rates have traditionally pushed overall valuation multiples down. And that has not been the case. And, you know, I think markets always do, quote unquote climb the wall of worry. But I think as we, you know, get some distance from this period, I think we're also going to understand the unique backdrop against which this cycle is playing out and, you know, perhaps gaining a little bit more of an understanding around how did the crisis and the economic shocks of COVID change the labor markets perhaps permanently. How did the degree to which stimulus came into the system create a sequencing, if you will, between the manufacturing side of the economy and the services side of the economy that has created what we might call rolling slowdowns or rolling recessions, that when mathematically summed together obscure some of those trends and absorb them and kind of create a flat, flattish, or soft landing as we've experienced. Andrew Sheets: How are you thinking about the valuation picture in the market right now? And then I kind of want to get your thoughts about how you think valuations should determine strategy going forward. Lisa Shalett: So this is a fantastic question because, you know, very often I'm sitting in front of clients who are, you know, very anxious about the next quarter, the next year. And while I think you and I can agree that there certainly are these anomalous periods where valuations do appear to be disconnecting from both interest rates and even earnings trends, they don't tend to be persistent states. And so when we look at current valuations just in the United States, if you said you're looking at a market that is trading at 20x earnings the implication is that the earnings yield or your earnings return from that investment is estimated at roughly 5%. In a world where fixed income instruments and credit instruments are delivering that plus at historic volatilities that are potentially half or even a third of what equities are, you can kind of make the argument that on a sharp ratio basis, stocks don't look great. Now, that's not all stocks. Clearly, all stocks are not selling at 20x forward multiples. But the point is we do have to think about valuation because in the long run, it does matter. Andrew Sheets: I guess looking ahead, as you think about the more highly valued parts of the market, where do you think that thinking might most likely apply, as in the current valuation, even if it looks expensive, might be more defendable? And where would you be most concerned? Lisa Shalett: I think we have to, you know, take a step back and think about where some of the richest valuations are sitting. And they're sitting in, you know, some of the megacap consumer tech companies that have really dominated the cycle over the last, you know, 14, 15 years. So we have to think about a couple of things. The first is we have to think about, you know, the law of large numbers and how hard it is, as companies get bigger and bigger, for them to sustain the growth rates that they have. There will never be companies as dominant as, you know, certain banks. There will never be companies that are as dominant as the industrials. There will never be companies that are as dominant as health care. I mean, there's always this view that winners who achieve this kind of incumbent status are incumbent forever. And yet history radically dispels that notion, right? I think the second thing that we need to understand is very often when you get these type of valuations on megacap companies, they become, you know, the increased subject of government and regulatory scrutiny, not only for their market power and their dominance, but quite frankly for things around their pricing power, etc. The last thing that I would say is that, you know, what's unique about some of the megacap consumer tech companies today that I don't hear anyone talking about, is this idea that increasingly they're bumping up against each other. It's one thing when, you know, you are an e-commerce innovator who is rolling up retail against smaller, fragmented operators. It's quite another when it's, you know, three companies own the cloud, seven companies own streaming. And I don't hear anyone really talking about it head on. It's as if these markets grow inexorably and there's, you know, room for everyone to gain share. And I push back on some of those notions.Andrew Sheets: So, Lisa, I'd like to ask you in closing about what we think investors should do going forward. And to start, within one's equity portfolio, where do you currently see the better risk reward? Lisa Shalett: So we're looking at where are the areas where earnings have the potential to surprise on the upside, and where perhaps the multiples are a little bit more forgiving. So where are we finding some of that? Number one, we're finding it in energy right now. I think while there's been a lot of high fiving and enthusiasm around the degree to which headline inflation has been tamed, I think that if you, you know, kind of look underneath the surface, dynamics for supply and demand in the energy complex are beginning to stabilize and may in fact be showing some strength, especially if the global economy is stronger in 2024. A second area is in some of the large cap financials. I think that some of the large cap financials are underestimated for not only their diversity, but their ability to actually have some leverage if in fact global growth is somewhat stronger. We also think that there may be opportunities in things like residential REITs. There's been, you know, concern about that area, but we also know that the supply demand dynamics in US housing are in fact quite different this cycle. And last but certainly not least, I think that there are a series of themes around fiscal spending, around infrastructure, around decarbonization, around some of the the reconfiguration of supply chains that involves some of the less glamorous parts of the market, like utilities, like, you know, some of the industrials companies that have some very interesting potential growth attributes to them that that may not be fully priced as well. Andrew Sheets: Lisa, thanks for taking the time to talk. Lisa Shalett: Absolutely, Andrew. Always a pleasure. Andrew Sheets: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

May proved to be a challenging month for investors. The NASDAQ was the big US winner last month, rallying almost 6%. That's in stark contrast to the DJIA, which was off more than 3%. It's one of the biggest disparities in US stock market performance in years. Joining Julia to discuss what might happen next is Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer of Wealth Management at Morgan Stanley. To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy

Heidi Crebo-Rediker, CFR Senior Fellow, International Capital Strategies Partner & Former US State Department Chief Economist, says "there must be market pressure" in order for politicians to act on the debt ceiling. Robert Tipp, PGIM Fixed Income Chief Investment Strategist & Head of Global Bonds, says we can see a drop in yields and a widening of credit spreads if there is an "accidental default." Lisa Shalett, Morgan Stanley Wealth Management Chief Investment Officer, says no company is immune from recession. Neil Dutta, Renaissance Macro Research Head of US Economic Research, says recession is not imminent. Helane Becker, Cowen Senior Research Analyst, says travel demand is exceeding supply. Get the Bloomberg Surveillance newsletter, delivered every weekday. Sign up now: https://www.bloomberg.com/account/newsletters/surveillance See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Nouriel Roubini, Roubini Macro Associates CEO & Author of "Megathreats", says Credit Suisse "might be too big to fail, but also too big to be saved." Peter Tchir, Academy Securities Head of Macro Strategy, says the ECB needs to put enough "firewalls" in place to help Credit Suisse. Ken Leon, CFRA Director of Equity Research, says there might be counterparty risk for some of the US banks in regards to Credit Suisse. David Rubenstein, "The David Rubenstein Show: Peer-to-Peer Conversations" Host and Carlyle Group Co-Chairman & Co-Founder, says there is a lot of Middle East interest in Credit Suisse. Lisa Shalett, Morgan Stanley Wealth Management CIO, says the Fed, ECB need to continue on their tightening campaign. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The way companies and individuals spend their money has changed in the wake of the COVID pandemic. How might market leadership shift as a result and will new market winners come into focus? Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets and Chief Investment Officer for Wealth Management Lisa Shalett discuss.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley Research. Lisa Shalett: And I'm Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management. Andrew Sheets: And on part two of this special episode, we'll be continuing our discussion of the "Next American Productivity Renaissance". It's Friday, March 3rd at 2 p.m. in London. Lisa Shalett: And it's 9 a.m. in New York. Andrew Sheets: So Lisa, let's take this to markets, how do you think this impacts equity market leadership, given that we've been in a market that's really been defined by the age of secular stagnation. What do you think happens now and who will be those new leaders? Lisa Shalett: This is one of the most important, I think, outcomes of our thesis. And that is that pendulums swing and market leadership shifts all the time, but when it's at that moment of inflection there's huge amounts of pushback, typically. Our sense is that the wealth creation ahead of us may not be in the current leadership in consumer tech, but rather in enterprise tech and the technology providers who are the leaders in new automation technologies that are going to allow us potentially to automate parts of our economy that have heretofore resisted. So it's a lot of the services side of the economy. Think of financial services, consumer services, government services, education services, how manual some of those industries are. And yet when we think about these triads or four or five level combinations of things like artificial intelligence, and machine learning, and optical scanning, and natural language processing and voice recognition. These are things that could really transform service-oriented businesses in terms of their margins and the economics of them. And so we envision a leadership that is potentially bimodal, that includes the tech enterprise enablers. Some of the software or software-as-a-service, some of the technology consultants who will help implement these automation programs and some of the beneficiaries, the tech takers, right. Think about some of those banks, those insurance companies, those healthcare companies, educational-oriented institutions that are just so heavy in manual service support infrastructures that could be rationalized. Andrew Sheets: So I'd like to dive into two of those threads and in just a little bit more detail. Just in terms of, kind of, the decade we've just been in. And, you know, I think it was pretty unique that it was a decade with some of the lowest cost of capital we've ever seen in economic history, and yet, you know, it's kind of left us with an economy where it's very easy to order food and very hard to take a train to the airport. We've had a lot of investment in consumer-led technology and a lot less in infrastructure. Do you think that equation has finally changed in a bigger way? And what do you think that means for maybe winners and losers of the changes that might be happening? Lisa Shalett: Our perspective is that I don't know that it's a permanent change. I think pendulums swing and there are waves when technology is more consumer-oriented. The issue with consumer technology, as we know and certainly with the smartphone, has been there's 2 billion people implementing that technology in 2 billion different ways. So it's very hard to scale those productivity benefits, if there are any, across an economy. When you go through periods of enterprise or economy-wide or infrastructure deepening-based technology spends, that's when economies can transform. And so I think it's a phase in the market. But I think one that is really important, you know, when we think about the advancement of overall return on assets in the economy. Andrew Sheets: And so, Lisa, digging into that technology piece, is there an example that stands out to you of a type of technology consumption that you think could be more fleeting as a result of the post-COVID period? And to your point about the more tangible, long lasting shifts in technology investment, the types of things that will be a lot more permanent and could really surprise people in their permanence over the longer run? Lisa Shalett: I'm not a technology visionary, but I do think that so many of the consumer technologies that we see over time end up being cannibalizing and substitutive as opposed to truly revolutionary. So, think about the consumption of media. We're still consuming media, it's just on what mode. Are we consuming it through a radio broadcast, a television broadcast, now streaming services on demand and etc, but it's content nonetheless. I think that there are other technologies when we think about what's going on with things like A.I., when we think about some of the things that are going on in genomics and in health care in particular, that really are transformative and take us to places we truly have never been before. And I think that that's one of the things that's super exciting right now is that we've never seen this before in many industries, right? Whether we're talking about things like transport and things in terms of human robotics and artificial intelligence and machine learning. These are places that we really haven't been before. And so to me, this is an extraordinarily exciting time vis a vis the innovation path. Andrew Sheets: Lisa, you've been talking about some of these big secular drivers of this productivity shift and capital investment shifting to deglobalization, decarbonization. And so I guess the next question is there might be demand for these things, but is there the supply to address these issues? Can we actually build these plants and re-orient these supply chains? How do you think about the supply side of this? And do you think supply is going to be able to rise to the challenge of the potential demand for this capital expenditure? Lisa Shalett: So I think that that's the piece of this thesis that was most exciting to us because very often one of the things that constrains investment is that you don't have the supply side enablement. One of the things that we can't take for granted is how good, particularly in the United States, private sector balance sheets are today. And so whether we're talking about the degree to which the United States banking system has healed and recapitalized, or we're talking about corporations who are still reasonably cash-rich and have locked in almost historically low costs of capital, or we talk about the household sector, which has moved away and locked in to fixed rate mortgages. That's a huge enablement that says we have the capacity to fund new technology. Then one of the other things that we've been talking about that enable the supply side are demographics. We've gone through this period where there was a bit of an air pocket in terms of overall working age population growth because Gen X was just not all that big relative to the boom. And we're talking about a working age population that is rapidly going to be dominated by a humongous millennial and Gen Z wave. And these are digital natives, right? These are folks who were born with technology in their hands. And so having a workforce that is flexible and tech savvy, that helps implement. So I think those are some of the supply side factors that are different than perhaps what we saw 10-15 years ago, you know, in 2007 when Apple launched the iPhone. Andrew Sheets: Lisa, thanks for taking the time to talk. Lisa Shalett: It's my pleasure, Andrew. Andrew Sheets: And as a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show.

The COVID pandemic changed the way the U.S. engages with work, but how will these shifts impact structural changes to capital investment? Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets and Chief Investment Officer for Wealth Management Lisa Shalett discuss.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley Research. Lisa Shalett: And I'm Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management. Andrew Sheets: And on this special two-part episode, we'll be discussing what we see as the "Next American Productivity Renaissance". It's Thursday, March 2nd at 2 p.m. in London. Lisa Shalett: And it's 9 a.m. in New York. Andrew Sheets: So while everybody has been paying close attention, and rightly so, to 40 year highs of inflation that we've been having recently, there's another legacy from this pandemic that we want to dig into more deeply. We believe that the COVID crisis catalyzed an incredibly powerful regime shift, a once-in-a-generation shock to the labor markets which transformed the nature of work and is accelerating structural changes to capital investment. Lisa, you believe we're on the cusp of what you call the "Next American Productivity Renaissance", and this renaissance is underpinned by an upcoming capital spending supercycle. So, I guess the place to start is what does that mean and what's driving it? Lisa Shalett: I mean, I think that some of these trends were already beginning to take form before COVID struck, but COVID was really an accelerant. And so if we think about first the detachment from the labor force and the way COVID really transformed the way we think about work, and those jobs that maybe were not flexible to convert to a remote setting, or a work from home setting, and carried with them in-person high risk attributes. I think that was really one of the first dimensions of it, but then it was really about companies having to fundamentally rethink and re-engineer business models towards digitization, right? The removal of human contact. And then you overlay those two major pillars with things like decarbonization and the issues that emerged around how we make this transition to a cleaner energy mix around the world. Obviously COVID accelerated some of the issues around supply chain and deglobalization and how do we secure supply chains. And last but not least, I think it has really become clear we're talking about a world where incentives to invest either to substitute for labor, to strengthen our infrastructure, to commit to some of these climate change initiatives, to re-engineer supply chains or to deal with this new multipolar world. The incentives and the argument for capital spending has really changed. Andrew Sheets: So Lisa actually it's that last point on labor market tightness that I'd like to dive into a little bit more. Because I mean, it's fair to say that this would actually be a pretty normal cyclical phenomenon that as labor markets get tighter, as workers are harder to find, that companies decide that now it's worth investing more to make their existing workers more productive. Do you think that's a fair characterization of some past capital spending cycles that we've seen? And how do you think this one could fit into that pattern? Lisa Shalett [00:04:19] Yes, I think very often, you know, we've gone through these periods where the capital for labor substitution has been at the forefront. Now, one of the things that very often we have to wait for are what I call the supply side enablers of that. There have been eras where there's more automation-oriented technology that is available, and then there's eras where perhaps there's been less. And I think that one of the things that we're positing is that after the golden age of private equity that we're entering one of those periods of technology J-curve explosion, right, where the availability of automation-orienting technologies is there. So it enables part of the dialog around capital for labor arithmetic. Andrew Sheets: I also want to ask you about decarbonization as a theme, which you cited as one of these drivers of the productivity renaissance and capital deepening because I think you do encounter a view out there in the world that decarbonization and environmental regulation is negative for productivity. What do you think the market might be missing about decarbonization as a theme? And how does it drive higher productivity in the future rather than lower productivity? Lisa Shalett: I think fundamentally that there is no doubt that as we make this transition, there are going to be bumps and bruises along the road. And part of the issue is that as we move away from what is perhaps the lowest cost, but most dirty technologies that there may be pressures on inflation. But the flip side of that is that it creates huge incentives to drive productivity improvement in some of those cleaner technologies so that we can accelerate adoption through more compelling economics. So our sense is hydro and wind and some of these technologies are going to see material productivity improvements. Andrew Sheets: Well, Lisa, I think that's a great point, because also what we've certainly seen in Europe is a dramatic fall of consumption of natural gas and a dramatic increase in efficiency. As energy prices spiked in Europe in the aftermath of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, you did see an increased focus on energy-efficient investment, on the cost of energy. And I think it surprised a lot of people about how much more production they were able to squeeze out of the same kilowatt hour of electricity. So it's, I think, a really interesting and important point that might go against some of the conventional wisdom around decarbonization. But I think we have some real hard evidence in the last couple of quarters of how that could play out. And Lisa, the final piece that I think your thesis probably gets a little bit of debate on is deglobalization. Because, again this has been a macro and micro topic, you know, macro in the sense that you're seeing companies look to shorten supply chains after some of the major supply chain issues around COVID. They're looking to shorten supply chains, given heightened geopolitical risk. And, you know, this has often been cited as something that's going to reduce profitability of companies, is they're going to have to double up on inventory and make their supply chain somewhat less efficient. So again, how does that fit into a productivity story or how do you see the winners and losers of that potentially playing out? Lisa Shalett: I don't know that the deglobalization itself drives productivity per se, but what it does do is it creates a lot of incentives for us to rethink the infrastructure that underlies supply chains. So, for example, as companies maybe think about shortening supply chains, maybe it's that American companies don't want to simply be motivated by the lowest net cost of production. But perhaps to your point, the proximity and security of production. So suddenly, does that mean we will be investing in infrastructure across the NAFTA region, for example, as opposed to over oceans and through air freight? And as those infrastructures are strengthened, be those through highway infrastructure, rail infrastructure or new port infrastructure, there's productivity benefits to the aggregate economy as companies rethink those linkages and flows. Andrew Sheets: That's interesting. So when we're talking about deglobalization, maybe you run the risk of focusing very narrowly on some higher near-term costs, but thinking bigger picture, thinking out over the next decade, maybe you are ending up with a more robust, more resilient economy and supply chain that over the long run over cycles does deliver better, more productive output. Lisa Shalett: Absolutely. Andrew Sheets: Lisa, thanks for taking the time to talk. Lisa Shalett: It's my pleasure, Andrew. Andrew Sheets: Thanks for listening, and be sure to tune in for part two of this special episode. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show.

Lisa Shalett, chief investment officer for wealth management at Morgan Stanley says 'Investors may be relying too much on recent trends to extrapolate corporate earnings resilience' at a time when corporate earnings are not impressive compared to  years past. Meanwhile, slowing economic growth means 'There's still a lot of room for downside in company earnings estimates if we just revert to the mean, forget about hard landing or soft landing." While Shalett thinks a recession is coming, nearly 70 percent of Americans believe it's already here, according to a recent survey; research analyst Jaime Dunaway-Seale of Clever Real Estate discusses the disconnect between economic numbers and consumer expectations. And in the Market Call, portfolio manager Eric McNew of Summit Global Investments discusses managing risk in current market conditions.

Bill Dudley, Former New York Fed President, Bloomberg Opinion Columnist & Bloomberg Economics Senior Advisor, says the Fed's game plan is to go to restrictive and keep it there for as long as it takes. Andrew Hollenhorst, Citi Chief US Economist, says we are a 'ways away' from 2% inflation. Lisa Shalett, Morgan Stanley Wealth Management CIO, says the US equity market is fighting the Fed. Michael Nathanson, SVB MoffettNathanson Senior Research Analyst, previews Disney earnings. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Shaz Kahng is a serial CEO and Board Director and with a wealth of experience running companies and businesses and is also an award-winning author of two novels, with a third underway.  In this episode she talks about the power of diverse perspectives on management teams and boards, and the tremendous impact it can have. Thanks for listening! We love our listeners! Drop us a line or give us guest suggestions here. Links Shaz's website https://www.ceilingsmashers.com/ Amazon for The Closer https://www.amazon.com/Closer-Ceiling-Smashers-Book/dp/0998656607/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1663614201&sr=8-1 Google Talk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foKW0H9v4V0   LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/shazkahng/ Quotes  The Closer [First Novel] I noticed in reading a lot of fiction novels was that if there was a male character who was a business leader, he was allowed to be attractive and smart and successful and athletic and had lots of friends. But whenever there was a female business leader, she was allowed to be competent at her job, but the rest of her life was really negative: for example, she was trying to quash the careers of other women, or she had 13 cats or she was desperate to get married. I thought that these fiction books were not reflecting reality.  I've worked with and know so many incredible women who are leading businesses, leading companies who are very inspirational, very positive, who are really focused on helping other women, like Lisa Shalett [co-founder of EWOB] I thought there was just a void in the fiction marketplace. I wanted to address that and write a fresh novel that had a more modern and accurate take on women in business. Some publishers were a little concerned about the theme of the book. I was really surprised [at the reaction by some publishers] because I thought I was offering a very distinct and unique product and one that women would want to read, and I was surprised when I heard from some publishers that they didn't think women wanted to read about other smart women. They didn't want to read about successful women. They didn't want to read about women helping other women, and I just thought they were wrong. I pushed ahead and published the book, and it's gotten a great reception from women leaders and male leaders as well. I've heard some men who are CEOs say, "When I'm faced with a challenge, I think what would the main character Vivien Lee do in this situation," and then they make a decision that way. So, that's been very gratifying to hear. Big Ideas/Thoughts Extraordinary Women on Boards EWOB is really focused on educating current board members. In order to be on EWOB, you have to be currently on a board or previously on a board so it's for people who really are experienced board directors, but the focus is on continuing education, discussing topics that are top of mind for boards and just really expanding board members' capabilities and understanding of different issues. It is a really helpful resource to have such qualified women who are experienced on different boards to be able to share their experiences, share their perspectives, network, and also let each other know of opportunities. Strategic war games [at OMSignal, a biometric apparel startup] I suggested to the board and to the founders that we do a strategic war game, which is type of simulation game that you play, that helps you build a very forward-looking strategy. It helps you figure out what the holes are in your business strategy, what the opportunities are, where the industry sector is going. As a result of that strategic war game, we ended up focusing a little bit more on women and I had been asking the founders, "Why are you just focused on men's compression and introducing a smart sports shirt? Why not women's compression?" And they said, "Well, what product would that be?" And I said, "Well, women wear a compression product every day, which is a bra, so why don't we do a smart sports bra?" I think that's why populating your board with people of different backgrounds, different ways of thinking, differentexperiences are so critical to ensuring a successful future for your company. Onboarding: Private vs Public Boards It was a vastly different experience. With the private company boards, basically on my first day they said, "Okay, can you help us figure out our revenue projections? Do we do it the right way? We need help with marketing. What do you think about this copy? Or should we be spending more money doing these different things with our marketing budget?" it was very hands on, very deep. With the public company board, it was much more of a formal process. There were certain pieces of information that I needed to review, SEC documents that I had to fill out, and then I also had interviews with, I think, three or four members of the board before I was nominated, and I also asked to meet with all of the board members individually before I actually joined the board Science Background I think a science background was a great foundation for a business career, and one of the reasons is that it helps you really approach problems from a holistic point of view. I think it gives you an ability to develop hypotheses on how to solve problems, to experiment with different results that might work and to ultimately pick the right solution. LiveGirl LiveGirl was started by Sheri West. She was a former GE executive and she noticed that there weren't enough opportunities careerwise for women from diverse backgrounds and she wanted to do something about it and she's doing a terrific job with it. LiveGirl helps to provide girls, middle school and up, with the skills that they need to be able to succeed in the workplace, like better communication skills, negotiation skills, interviewing skills and things like that. They also help set up girls in the program with summer internships with different companies.

Jane Chwick, the former Co-Chief Operating Officer of Goldman's technology division, and a seasoned board member, talks about the critical impact of having a technologist on a board. Thanks for listening! We love our listeners! Drop us a line or give us guest suggestions here. Quotes Getting my first board seat. The simplest way to say this, I followed the advice I had given to more junior people in my organization for years. I let people know what I wanted, I told everybody who asked me what I wanted to do or where I was going, that I wanted to sit on boards, and somehow it made its way through the grapevine Importance of a technologist on the board. If you have even one technologist in the board room pushing back, and if it's the right technologist, they're pushing back in English to the right point, and it will inform the entire board. Big Ideas/Thoughts Extraordinary Women on Boards (EWOB). One of the things that Lisa Shalett has created that's unbelievable about EWOB is on a monthly basis there's a list of board seats that she puts out. She's not a recruiting firm; recruiting firms, will talk to you about the one possible position that might be appropriate for you. Lisa sends out the email of all of the possible board seats, and it's up to you to decide what you're interested in and what you might want to view yourself as a fit for that you can apply to. That's a very different model in the job search world or the board search world, and that's been very valuable Preparing for an IPO.  the IPO process was very interesting because the other boards I had joined were already public, and so this was bringing this company to an IPO and being part of it as a board member was very interesting. The board met with all the big name investment bankers that you could possibly think of and interviewed them all and then we had board sessions around ranking them and deciding which ones would work the best for us and would meet our needs. There were a lot of meetings along the way in terms of creating the right governance structure; we didn't have a compensation committee, a nomination and governance committee, an audit committee and we had to make sure we had the right people on the board for those committees. Don't lose the secret sauce.  Sir Ian Davis was the managing director of McKinsey and is a very impressive person. With all of his background at McKinsey that's helpful in learning how to scale, but he is very conscious to not break what ThoughtWorks is.  Raza.  I love to tell everybody famous Agile seminal joke of the Pig and the Chicken. A pig and a chicken get together and the chicken asks the pig, "Hey, should we open a restaurant?" And the pig says, "Hey, what are we going to call it?" And the chicken responds by saying "ham and eggs."  The pig thinks for a little bit, and then says, "No, thank you. You'll only be involved, but I'll be committed." This is the principle of committed versus involved in a stand-up meeting where people that are merely involved are not allowed to speak in a stand-up meeting. As one of the really important original works for Agile development that Martin Fowler and others did, I may not know ThoughtWorks, but as a recovering technologist I know Martin Fowler. Voya Culture. We announced the new CEO of Voya in the summer and her name is Heather Lavallee and it's very exciting because when I joined the board of Voya another woman and I were the first two women on the board. There were hardly any women in the senior, senior leadership team, and roll the clock forward, not only are there women in the senior leadership team, but the new CEO is a woman.  I think 50% or more of the board are female. It's an amazing story

Danny Blanchflower, Dartmouth Professor & Former BOE Policy Committee Member, warns of an economic disaster ahead. Lisa Shalett, Morgan Stanley Wealth Management Chief Investment Officer, assesses the recent carnage in the markets. Abby Joseph Cohen, Columbia Business School Professor & Retired Goldman Sachs Partner, sees more credit market damage ahead. National Bank of Ukraine Deputy Governor Serhiy Nikolaychuk discusses signs of recovery in Kyiv, the challenge to maintain a focus on monetary policy amid war with Russia, and the need for further funding from the International Monetary Fund.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

While shifts in stock and bond correlation have increased the volatility of a 60:40 portfolio, investors may still find some balance in diversification. Chief Cross Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets and Chief Investment Officer for Wealth Management Lisa Shalett discuss.-----Transcript-----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley Research.Lisa Shalett: And I'm Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management.Andrew Sheets: And on part two of this special episode, we'll be continuing our discussion of the foundational 60/40 portfolio. It's Wednesday, August 17th at 4:00 PM in London.Lisa Shalett: And it's 11:00 AM here in New York.Andrew Sheets: So Lisa, I know the positive correlations won't lift the 60:40 portfolio's volatility too much, but would you say that investors have been inclined to accept more equity risk in recent decades because the cushioning effect of fixed income and this idea that if anything goes wrong, the Fed will kind of ride to the rescue and support markets?Lisa Shalett: Yes I do. And I think, you know, part of the issue has been that we've been not only in a regime of falling interest rates, which has supported overall equity valuations, but we've lived in a period of suppressed volatility with regard to the direction of policy. We've been in this forward guidance regime, if you will, from the central bank where not only was the central bank holding down the cost of capital but they were telegraphing the speed and order of magnitude and pace of things which took a huge amount of volatility out of the market for both stocks and bonds and permitted risk taking. I mean, my goodness, you know, when was the last time in history that we had such negative “term premiums” in the pricing of bonds? That was a part of this function of this idea that the Fed's going to tell us exactly what they're going to do and there's this Fed put, and any time something unexpected happens, they will, you know, “come to save the day.”And so I think we're at the beginning, we're literally in my humble opinion in the first or second innings of the market fundamentally wrapping their heads around what it means to no longer be in a forward guidance regime. Where the central bank, in their ambitions to normalize policy to crush inflation have to inherently be more data dependent and data dependency is inherently more volatile. And so I do think over time we are going to see these equity risk premiums, which, you know, as we've discussed earlier, had gotten quite compressed, widen back out to something that is more normal for the amount of risk that equities genuinely represent.Andrew Sheets: And Lisa, I think that's such a great point about the predictability of monetary policy cause you're right, you know, that's another interesting similarity with the period prior to 2000. That period was a period of a much more unpredictable Fed between, you know, 1920 and the year 2000 where in more recent years, the Fed has become very predictable. So, that's another good thing that we should, as investors, think about is does that shifting predictability of Fed action, does the rising uncertainty that the Fed is facing, you know, is that also an important driver of this stock bond correlation. So boiling it all down, how are you talking about all of this to clients to help them reposition portfolios to navigate risk and potential return?Lisa Shalett: I think at the end of the day you know, the most important thing that we're sitting with clients and talking about is that these fundamental building blocks of asset allocations, stocks and bonds, while they may correlate to one another differently, while they're each inherent volatilities may move up and therefore the volatility of that 60:40 portfolio may readjust some, the reality is, is that they're still very important building blocks that play different roles in the portfolio that are both still required. So, you know, your stocks are still going to be that asset class that allows you to capture unexpected growth in the economy and in the overall profit stream, while fixed income and your rates market is still going to be that opportunity to cushion, if you will, disappointments in growth.As we know that they, come over the course of a cycle. In that regard, as we look to this repricing of interest rates and what it may mean, we are encouraging our clients to look much more deliberately, actively, at being diversified across styles, across factors, across market capitalizations because these dynamics are changing. If we look back over the last 13 years, because the narrative around falling interest rates and Fed forward guidance and low volatility, and these correlations, these very stable correlations, and everything's going our way, you didn't need to look very far beyond just owning that passive S&P 500 index. Now, as things begin to normalize and get more inherently volatile and idiosyncratic, we look at where there may be, “value” in the traditional factor sense, to look down the market capitalization scheme to smaller and mid-cap stocks, to look at more cyclical oriented stocks that may be responding to this higher interest rate, higher inflation regimes. And so we're encouraging maximum levels of diversification within these building blocks and very active management of riskAndrew Sheets: Lisa as always, thanks for taking the time to talk.Lisa Shalett: It's my pleasure, Andrew.Andrew Sheets: And as a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show.

The Dow snapped a 5-day win streak … but is this just what the market needed? Josh Brown of Ritholtz Wealth Management gives his take. Plus, Morgan Stanley Wealth Management's Lisa Shalett says investors should not chase new market momentum. And, reaction to Target's earnings from an analyst who issued a bold call ahead of that report – he explains where he stands now.

In the current era of tighter Fed policy, the status quo of stock and bond correlation has changed, calling the foundational 60:40 portfolio into question. Chief Cross Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets and Chief Investment Officer for Wealth Management Lisa Shalett discuss.-----Transcript-----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley Research.Lisa Shalett: And I'm Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management.Andrew Sheets: And on part one of this special episode, we'll be discussing the foundational 60/40 stock bond portfolio. In an era of tighter policy, is a diversified portfolio of stocks and bonds fundamentally broken? It's Tuesday, August 16th at 4:00 PM in London.Lisa Shalett: And it's 11:00 AM here in New York.Andrew Sheets: Lisa, it's so good to talk to you again. So, you know, one of the most important, fundamental building blocks of asset allocation is the so-called 60/40 portfolio, a portfolio of 60% stocks and 40% bonds, and both of us have been writing about that this year because this strategy of having diversified stocks and bonds worked unusually well for the 40 years up through 2021, but this year has suffered a real historical reversal, seeing some of the worst returns for this diversified balanced strategy we've seen in 40 or 50 years. So when you think about these dynamics, when you think about the historically poor performance, can you give some context of what's been happening here and what our listeners should make of it?Lisa Shalett: Sure, absolutely. I think as we know, we've gone through this 13-year period through the pandemic when the narrative was very much dominated by Federal Reserve intervention repression and keeping down of interest rates and in fact, falling interest rates, that produced financial market returns both for stocks and for bonds. But as we know, entering 2022, that narrative that was so concentrated on the direction of interest rates, you know, faced a major pivot from the Federal Reserve itself who, as we know, was facing an inflation fight which meant that they were going to have to move the federal funds rate up pretty significantly. The implication of that was pretty devastating for both stocks and bonds, that combined 60/40 portfolio delivered aggregate returns of about -12 to -13% on average that's the performance for that diversified portfolio benchmark in over 50 years. But again, we have to remember a lot of that performance was coming from a starting point where both stocks and bonds had been extraordinarily valued with those valuations premised on a continuation of Federal Reserve policy that unfortunately because of inflation has had to changeAndrew Sheets: Lisa I'm so glad you mentioned that starting point of valuations because, you know, it matters, I think in two really important ways. One, it helps us maybe understand better what's been happening this year, but also, you know, usually when prices fall, and this year prices are still down considerably from where they started, that means better valuations and better returns going forward. So, you know, could you just give a little bit more context of you and your team run a lot of estimates for what asset classes can return potentially over longer horizons. You know, maybe what that looked like for a 60/40 portfolio at the start of this year, when, as you mentioned, both stocks and bonds were pretty richly valued, and then how that's been developing as the year has progressed.Lisa Shalett: Yeah. So, fantastic question. And, you know, we came into 2022 quite frankly, on a strategic horizon given where valuations were, not very excited about either asset class. You know for bonds, we were looking for maybe 0-2% or somewhat below coupon, because of the pressures of repricing on bonds. And for stocks we were looking for something in the, you know, 4-5% range, which was significantly below what historical long term capital market assumptions, you know, might expect for many institutional clients who benchmark themselves off of a 7.5 or 8% return ambition. So, when we entered this bear market, this kind of ferocious selloff, as we noted, from January through June, there were many folks who were hoping that perhaps valuations and forward looking expectations of returns were improving. Importantly, however, what we've seen is that hasn't been the case because what you have to do when you're thinking about valuation is you've gotta look at stock valuations relative to the level of interest rates.And we're now in a scenario where, you know, the terminal value for the US economy may be something very different than it was and that means somewhat lower valuations. So, you know, if I had to put a number on it right now, my expectations for equity returns going forward from the current mark to market is really no better, unfortunately, than perhaps where it was in January. For bonds on the other hand, we've made some progress. And so to me, you know, I, I could see our estimates on bonds being a little bit more constructive than where they were with the 10 year yield somewhere in the, in the 2.8 zip code. Lisa Shalett: So Andrew we've talked about the stock bond correlation as keying off the direction of inflation and the path of Fed policy. With both of those changing, do you view a positive correlation as likely over the longer term?Andrew Sheets: Yeah. Thanks. Thanks, Lisa. So I think this issue of stock bond correlation is, is really interesting and, and gets a lot of attention for, for good reasons. And then, I think, can also be a little bit misinterpreted. So the reason the correlation is important is, I think, probably obvious to the listeners, if you have a diversified portfolio of assets, you want them to kind of not all move together. That's the whole point of diversification. You want your assets to go up and down on different days, and that smooths the overall return. Now, you know, interestingly for a lot of the last hundred years, the stock bond correlation was positive. Stock and bond prices tended to move in the same direction, which means stock and bond yields tended to move in the opposite direction. So higher yields meant lower stock prices.That was the history for a lot of time, kind of prior to 2000. The reason I think that happened was because inflation was the dominant fear of markets over a lot of that period and inflation was very volatile. And so higher yields generally meant a worsening inflation backdrop, which was bad for stock prices and lower bond yields tended to mean inflation was getting back under control, and that was better for stocks. Now, what's interesting is in the 90s that dynamic really kinda started to change. And after 2000, after the dot-com bubble burst, the fear really turned to growth. The market became a lot less concerned about inflationary pressure, but a lot more concerned about growth. And that meant that when yields were rising, the market saw that as growth being better. So the thing they were afraid of was getting less bad, which was better for stock prices.So, you had this really interesting flip of correlation where once inflation was tamed really in the 90s, the markets started to see higher yields, meaning better growth rather than higher inflation, which meant that stocks and bonds tend to have a negative correlation. Their prices tend to more often move in opposite directions. And as you alluded to, that really created this golden age of stock bond diversification that created this golden age of 60/40 portfolios, because both of these assets were delivering positive returns, but they were delivering them at different times. And so offsetting and cushioning each other's price movements, which is really, you know, the ideal of anybody trying to invest for the long run and, and diversify a portfolio. So that's changed this year. It's been very apparent this year that both stock and bond prices have gone down and gone down together in a pretty significant way.But I think as we look forward, we also shouldn't overstate this change. You know, I think your point, Lisa, about just how expensive things were at the start of the year is really important. You know, anytime an asset is very expensive, it is much more vulnerable to dropping and given that both stocks and bonds were both expensive at the same time and both very expensive at the same time, you know, their dropping together I think was, was also a function of their valuation as much of anything else. So, I think going forward, it makes sense to assume kind of a middle ground. You know, I don't think we are going to have the same negative correlation we enjoyed over the last, you know, 15 years, but I also don't think we're going back to the very positive correlations we had, you know, kind of prior to the 1990s.And so, you know, I think for investors, we should think about that as less diversification they get to enjoy in a portfolio, but that doesn't mean it's no diversification. And given that bonds are so much less volatile than stocks, you know, bonds might have a third of the volatility of the stock market, if we look at kind of volatility over the last five years. That still is some pretty useful ballast in a portfolio. That still means a large chunk of the portfolio is moving around a lot less and helping to stabilize the overall asset pool. Andrew Sheets: Thanks for listening. Tomorrow I'll be continuing my conversation with Lisa Shalett, and as a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show.

The chief investment officer of Morgan Stanley Wealth Management has a warning for investors who are chasing the latest rally in stocks: Don't get too excited about a potential peak in inflation after the consumer price index cooled off a bit in July. Lisa Shalett joined this week's episode of the “What Goes Up” podcast to explain the firm's cautious stance toward the market, and how CPI is still elevated enough that the Federal Reserve needs to continue lifting rates aggressively. “The direction is correct, but the levels are wrong,” she says of the latest inflation data. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Melissa Baker, Founding Partner of Fenwick Brands, discusses trends in the Private Equity space. Bloomberg Technology Reporter Alex Barinka talks about her story on TikTok's misogyny watchdog. Solomon Partners CEO Marc Cooper gives his mid-year outlook on M&A. And we Drive to the Close with Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer of Wealth Management at Morgan Stanley.Hosts: Tim Stenovec and Kriti Gupta Producer: Sara LivezeySee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Melissa Baker, Founding Partner of Fenwick Brands, discusses trends in the Private Equity space. Bloomberg Technology Reporter Alex Barinka talks about her story on TikTok's misogyny watchdog. Solomon Partners CEO Marc Cooper gives his mid-year outlook on M&A. And we Drive to the Close with Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer of Wealth Management at Morgan Stanley.Hosts: Tim Stenovec and Kriti Gupta Producer: Sara LivezeySee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Bill Dudley, Bloomberg Opinion, Bloomberg Economics Senior Adviser & Former New York Fed President, expects not deep recession in the US. Abby Joseph Cohen, Columbia Business School Professor & Retired Goldman Sachs Partner, says market valuations matter again. Lisa Shalett, Morgan Stanley Wealth Management Chief Investment Officer, says sell-side analysts have stopped doing work since the era of Reg FD. Tim Gould, IEA Chief Energy Economist, says we haven't been putting enough capital into the energy sector in recent years. Doug Kass, Seabreeze Partners President, says stocks are no longer priced to perfection and speculation and froth have been rooted out of the market.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Cecilia Rouse, Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, discusses how the Biden administration is addressing inflation concerns for Americans. Nathan Sheets, Citi Global Chief Economist, says the Fed is setting the tone for other central banks. Lisa Shalett, Morgan Stanley Wealth Management Chief Investment Officer, says growth may slow much faster than many people believe. Kathy Jones, Charles Schwab Chief Fixed Income Strategist, explains why she likes municipal bonds and not high yield.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

As investors look to diversify their portfolios, there are two big stories to keep an eye on: the historic rise in bond yields and the increased adoption of ESG strategies. Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets and Chief Investment Officer for Wealth Management Lisa Shalett discuss.Lisa Shalett is Morgan Stanley Wealth Management's Chief Investment Officer. She is not a member of Morgan Stanley Research.----- Transcript ----- Andrew Sheets Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley Research.Lisa Shalett And I'm Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management.Andrew Sheets And today on the podcast, we'll be continuing our discussion on retail investing, ESG, and what's been happening in Fixed income. It's Friday, April 29th at 4:00 p.m. in London.Lisa Shalett And it's 11:00 a.m. in New York.Andrew Sheets Lisa, the other enormous story in markets that's really impossible to ignore is the rise in bond yields. U.S. Treasury yields are up almost 100 basis points over the last month, which is a move that's historic. So maybe I'd just start with how are investors dealing with this fixed income move? How do you think that they were positioned going into this bond sell off? And what sort of flows and feedback have you been seeing?Lisa Shalett I think on the one hand, we've been fortunate in that we've been telegraphing our perspective to be underweight treasuries and particular underweight duration for quite a long time. And it's only been really in the last three or four weeks that we have begun suggesting that people contemplate adding some duration back to their portfolios. So the first thing is I don't think it has been a huge shock to clients that after what has been obviously a 40 plus year bull market in bonds that some rainier days are coming. And many of our clients had moved to short duration, to cash, to ultra-short duration, with the portions of their portfolios that were oriented towards fixed income. I think what has been more perplexing is this idea of folks using the bond sell off as an opportunity to move into stocks under the rationale of, quote unquote, there is no alternative. That's one of the hypotheses or investment themes that we're finding we have to push up against hard and ask people are they not concerned that this move in rates has relevance for stock valuations? And over the last 13 years, the moves that we have seen in rates have been sufficiently modest as to not have had profound impacts on valuations. These very high above average multiples have been able to hold. And very few investors seem to be blinking an eye when we talk about equity risk premiums collapsing. So, you know, the answer to your question is clients in the private client channel avoided the worst outcomes of exposure to long duration rates, were not shocked, and have actually used some of the selloff in bonds or their short duration positions to actually fund increasing stock exposures. So that's I think how I would describe where they're at.Andrew Sheets And that's really interesting because there are these two camps related to what's been happening. One is, look at bonds selling off. I want to go to the equity market. But at the same time as bond yields have gone from very low levels to much higher levels, the relative value argument of bonds versus stocks, this so-called equity risk premium, this additional return that in theory you get for investing in more risky equities relative to bonds has really been narrowing as these yields have come up. Lisa, how do you think about the equity risk premium? How do you think about, kind of, the relative value proposition between an investment grade rated corporate bond that now yields 4-4.25% relative to U.S. equities?Lisa Shalett One of the things that we're trying to remind our clients is they live in an inflation adjusted world and real yields matter. And from where we're sitting, the recent dynamic around real rates and real rates potentially turning positive in the Treasury market is a really important turning point for our clients because today if you just look at the equity risk premium adjusted for inflation, it's very unattractive. And so, that's the conversation we're starting to have with people is you got to want to get paid. Owning stocks is great, as long as you're getting paid to own them. You got to ask yourself the question, would I rather have a 2.8-3% return in a 10-year Treasury today if I think inflation is going to be 2.5% in 10 years or do I want to own a stock that's only yielding an extra premium of 200 basis points.Andrew Sheets When you think about what would change this dynamic, you mentioned that if anything, yields have gone up and investors seem to be more reticent about buying bonds given the volatility in the market. There's a scenario where people buy bonds once the market calms down, what they're looking for is stability. There's an argument that's about a level, that it's about, you know, U.S. 10-year bond yields reaching 3%, or 3.5%, or some other number that makes people say, OK, this is enough. Or it's that stocks go down and that they no longer feel like this kind of more stable or maybe better inflation protecting asset. Which of those do you think would be the more realistic catalyst or the most powerful catalyst that you see kind of driving a change in behavior?Lisa Shalett I think it's this idea of inflation protected resilience, right? There is this unbelievable faith that, quite frankly, has been reinforced by recent history that the U.S. stock indices are magically resilient to anything that you could possibly throw at them. And until that paradigm gets cracked a little bit and we see a little bit more damage at the headline level, I mean, we've seen, you know, some of the data that says at least half of the names in some of these indices are down 20, 40%. But until those headline indices really show a little bit more pain and a little bit more volatility, I think it's hard for people to want to take the bet that they're going to go back into bonds.Andrew Sheets Lisa, another major trend that we've seen in investing over the last several years has been ESG - investing with an eye towards the environmental, social and governance characteristics of a company How strong is the demand for ESG in terms of the flows that you're seeing and how should we think about ESG within the context of other strategies, other secular trends in investing?Lisa Shalett So ESG, I think, you know, has gone through a transformation really in the last 12 months where it's gone from an overlay strategy, or an option and preference for certain client segments, to something that's really mainstream. Where clients recognize and have come to recognize the relevance of ESG criteria as something that's actually correlated with other aspects of corporate performance that drive excellence. If you're paying this much attention to your carbon footprint as a company or you're paying this much attention to your community governance and your stakeholder outcomes, aren't you likely paying just as much attention to your more basic financial metrics like return on assets? And there's a very high correlation between companies that are great at ESG and companies who are just very high on the quality factor metrics. Now what's interesting is as we've gone through this last six months of inflation and surging energy prices around the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the recovery from COVID, what I think the world has recognized is the importance of investing in energy infrastructure. Now for ESG investors that has meant doubling down on ESG oriented investments in clean and green. For others it may mean investing back in traditional carbon-oriented assets. But ESG, from where we're sitting, has gone mainstream and remains as strong, if not stronger than ever.Andrew Sheets Lisa, thanks for taking the time to talk. We hope to have you back on soon.Lisa Shalett Thank you very much, Andrew.Andrew Sheets And as a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show.

With questions around equity outperformance, tech overvaluation and currency headwinds in the U.S., retail investors may want to look internationally to diversify their portfolio. Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets and Chief Investment Officer for Wealth Management Lisa Shalett discuss.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley Research.Lisa Shalett And I'm Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management.Andrew Sheets And today on the podcast, we'll be discussing the role of international stocks in a well-diversified portfolio. It's Thursday, April 28th at 4:00 p.m. in London.Lisa Shalett And it's 11:00 a.m. in New York.Andrew Sheets Lisa, it's so good to talk to you again. There's just an enormous amount going on in this market. But one place I wanted to start was discussing the performance of U.S. assets versus international assets, especially on the equity side. Because you've noticed some interesting trends among our wealth management clients regarding their U.S. versus international exposure.Lisa Shalett One of the things that we have been attempting to advise clients is to begin to move towards more global diversification. Given the really unprecedented outperformance of U.S. equity assets, really over the last 12 to 13 years, and the relative valuation gaps and most recently, taking into consideration the relative shifts in central bank policies. With obviously, the U.S. central bank, moving towards a very aggressive inflation fighting pivot that, would have them moving, rates as much as, 200-225 basis points over the next 12 months. Whereas other central banks, may have taken their foot off the accelerator, acknowledging both, the complexities of geopolitics as well as, some of the lingering concerns around COVID. And so, having those conversations with clients has proven extraordinarily challenging. Obviously, what's worked for a very long time tends to convince people that it is secular and not a cyclical trend. And you know, we've had to push back against that argument. But U.S. investors also are looking at the crosscurrents in the current environment and are very reticent and quite frankly, nervous about moving into any positions outside the U.S., even if there are valuation advantages and even if there's the potential that in 2023 some of those economies might be accelerating out of their current positions while the U.S. is decelerating. Andrew Sheets It's hard to talk about the U.S. versus the rest of world debate without talking about U.S. mega-cap tech. This is a sector that's really unique to the United States and as you've talked a lot about, is seen as kind of a defensive all-weather solution. How do you think that that tech debate factors into this overall global allocation question?Lisa Shalett I think it's absolutely central. We have, come to equate mega-cap secular growth tech stocks with U.S. equities. And look, there's factual basis for that. Many of those names have come to dominate in terms of the share of market cap the indices. But as we've tried to articulate, this is not any average cycle. Many of the mega-cap tech companies have already benefited from extraordinary optimism baked into current valuations, have potentially experienced some pull forward in demand just from the compositional dynamics of COVID, where manufactured goods and certain work from home trends tended to dominate the consumption mix versus, historical services. And so it may be that some of these companies are over earning. And the third issue is that, investors seem to have assumed that these companies may be immune to some of the cost and inflation driven dynamics that are plaguing more cyclical sectors when it comes to margins. And we're less convinced that, pricing power for these companies is, perpetual. Our view is that these companies too still need to distribute product, still need to pay energy costs, still need to pay employees and are going to face headwinds to margins.Andrew Sheets So what's the case for investing overseas now and how do you explain that to clients?Lisa Shalett] I think it's really about diversification and illustrating that unlike in prior periods where we had synchronous global policy and synchronicity around the trajectory for corporate profit growth, that today we're in a really unique place. Where the events around COVID, the events around central bank policies, the events around sensitivity to commodity-based inflation are all so different and valuations are different. And so, taking each of these regions case by case and looking at what is the potential going forward, what's discounted in that market? One of the pieces of logic that we bring to our clients in having this debate really focuses on, the divergence we've seen with currencies. The U.S. Dollar has kind of reached multiyear extreme valuations versus, the yen, and the euro and the pound. And currencies tend to be self-correcting through the trade channels, and translation channels. And we don't know that American investors are thinking that all through.Andrew Sheets Well, I'm so glad you brought up the currency angle because that is a really fascinating part of the U.S. versus rest of world story for equities. If we take a market like Japan in yen, the Nikkei equity index is down about 4% for this year, which is better than the S&P 500. But in dollars, as you mentioned the yen has weakened a lot relative to the dollar, the Nikkei is down almost 14% because the yen has lost about 10% of its value year to date. So, when you're a investor investing in a market in a different currency, how do you think about that from a risk management standpoint? How do you think about some of these questions around taking the currency exposure versus hedging the currency exposure?Lisa Shalett Well, for the vast majority of our clients who may be, owning their exposures through a managed solution, through a mutual fund, through an ETF, currency hedging is fraught. And so very often, we try to encourage people to just, play the megatrend. Don't overthink this. Don't try to think that you're going to be able to hedge your currency exposures. Just really ask yourself, do you think over the next year or two the dollar's going to be higher or lower? We think odds are pretty good that the dollar is going to be lower and other currencies are going to be stronger, which creates a tailwind for U.S. investors investing in those markets.Andrew Sheets I guess taking a step back and thinking about the large amount of assets that we see within Morgan Stanley Wealth Management. What are you think, kind of, the most notable flows and trends that people should be aware of?Lisa Shalett As we noted, one of the most, structurally inert parts of people's portfolio is in their devotion to US mega-cap tech stocks. I think, disrupting that point of view and convincing folks that while these may be great companies, they perhaps are no longer great stocks is one that that has really been an effort in futility that seems only to get cracked when an individual company faces an idiosyncratic problem. And it's only then when the stock actually goes down that we see investors willing to embrace a new thesis that says, OK, great company. No longer great stock.Andrew Sheets Tomorrow I'll be continuing my conversation with Lisa Shalett on retail investing, ESG, and what's been happening in fixed income.Andrew Sheets And as a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show.

Original Release on January 25th, 2022: With inflation on the minds of consumers and the Fed reacting with a sharp turn towards tightening, 2022 may be a year for investors to focus on incorporating tax-efficient strategies into their portfolios. Morgan Stanley Wealth Management's Chief Investment Officer Lisa Shalett and Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets discuss.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, chief cross asset strategist for Morgan Stanley Research.Lisa Shalett And I'm Lisa Shalett, chief investment officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management.Andrew Sheets And today on the podcast, we'll be discussing the importance of tax efficiency as a pillar of portfolio construction. It's Tuesday, January 25th at three p.m. in London.Lisa Shalett And it's 10:00 a.m. here in New York.Andrew Sheets Lisa, welcome back to the podcast! Now, as members of Morgan Stanley Wealth Management's Global Investment Committee, we both agree that the current portfolio construction backdrop is increasingly complicated and constrained. But tax considerations are also important, and this is something you and your team have written a lot on recently. So I'd really like to talk to you about both of these issues, both the challenges of portfolio construction and some of the unique considerations around tax that can really make a difference to the bottom line of investment returns. So Lisa, let's start with that current environment. Can you highlight why we believe that standard stock bond portfolios face a number of challenges going forward?Lisa Shalett We've been through an extraordinary period over the last 13 years where both stocks and bonds have benefited profoundly from Federal Reserve policy, just to put it bluntly, and, you know, the direction of overall interest rates. And so, our observation has been that, you know, over the last 13 years, U.S. stocks have compounded at close to 15% per year, U.S. bonds have compounded at 9% per year. Both of those are well above long run averages. And so we're now at a point where both stocks and bonds are quite expensive. They are both correlated to each other, and they are both correlated to a large extent with Federal Reserve policy. And as we know, Federal Reserve policy by dint of what appears to be inflation that is not as transitory as the Fed originally thought is causing the Fed to have to accelerate their shift in policy. And I think, as we noted over the last three to six weeks, you know, the Fed's position has gone from, you know, we're going to taper and have three hikes to we're going to taper be done by March. We may have as many as four or five hikes and we're going to consider a balance sheet runoff. That's an awful lot for both stocks and bonds to digest at the same time, especially when they're correlated with one another.Andrew Sheets And Lisa, you know, if I can just dive into this a little bit more, how do you think about portfolio diversification in that environment you just described, where both stocks and bonds seem increasingly linked to a single common factor, this this direction of Federal Reserve policy?Lisa Shalett One of the things that we've been emphasizing is to take a step back and to recognize that diversification can happen beyond the simple passive betas of stocks and bonds, which we would, you know, typically represent by, you know, exposures to things like the S&P 500 or a Barclays aggregate. And so what we're saying is, within stocks, you've got to really make an effort to move away from the indexes to higher active managers who tend to take a diversified approach by sector, by style, by market cap. And within fixed income, you know, we're encouraging, clients to hire what we've described as non-core managers. These are managers who may have the ability to navigate the yield curve and navigate the credit environment by using, perhaps what are nontraditional type products. They may employ strategies that include things like preferred shares or covered call strategies, or own asset backed securities. These are all more esoteric instruments that that hiring a manager can give our clients sources of income. And last, you know, we're obviously thinking about generating income and diversification using real assets and alternatives as well.Andrew Sheets And so, Lisa, one other thing you know, related to that portfolio construction challenge, I also just want to ask you about was how you think about inflation protection. I mean, obviously, I think a lot of investors are trying to achieve the highest return relative to the overall level of prices relative to inflation. You know, how do you think from a portfolio context, investors can try to add some inflation protection here in a smart, you know, intelligent way?Lisa Shalett So you know what we've tried to say is let's take a step back and think about, you know, our forecast for, you know, whether inflation is going to accelerate from here or decelerate. And you know, I think our position has broadly been that that we do think we're probably at a rate of change turning point for inflation, that we're not headed for a 1970s style level of inflation and that, you know, current readings are probably, you know, closer to peak than not and that we're probably going to mean revert to something closer to the, you know, two and a half to three and a half percent range sooner rather than later. And so in the short term, you know, we've tried to take an approach that says, not only do you want to think about real assets, these are things like real estate, like commodities like gold, like energy infrastructure linked assets that have historically provided some protection to inflation but really go back to those tried and true quality oriented stocks where there is pricing power. Because, you know, 2.5-3.5% Inflation is the type of inflation environment where companies who do have very strong brands who do have very moored competitive positions tend to be able to navigate, you know, better than others and pass some of that the cost increases on to consumers.Andrew Sheets So, Lisa, that takes me to the next thing I want to talk to you about. You know, investors also care about their return after the effects of tax, and the effects of tax can be quite complex and quite varied. So, you know, as you think about that challenge from a portfolio construction standpoint, why do you think it's critical that investors incorporate tax efficient investing strategies into their portfolios?Lisa Shalett Well, look, you know, managing, tax and what we call tax drag is always important. And the reason is it's that invisible levy, if you will, on performance. Most of our clients are savvy enough to suss out, you know, the fees that they're paying and understand how the returns are, you know, gross returns are diluted by high fees. But what is less obvious is that some of the investment structures that clients routinely use-- things like mutual funds, things like limited partnership stakes-- very often in both public and private settings, are highly tax inefficient where, you know, taxable gain pass throughs are highly unpredictable, and clients tend to get hit with them. And so that's, you know, part of what we try to do year in, year out is be attentive to making sure that the clients are in tax efficient strategies. That having been said, what we also want to do is minimize tax drag over time. But in a year like 2022, where you know, we're potentially looking at low single digit or even negative returns for some of these asset classes, saving money in taxes can make the difference between, you know, an account that that is at a loss for the full year or at a gain. So there's work to be done. There's this unique window of opportunity right now in the beginning of 2022 to do it. And happily, we have, you know, some of these tools to speed the implementation of that type of an approach.Andrew Sheets So Lisa, let's wrap this up with how investors can implement this advice with their investments. You know, what strategies could they consider? And I'm also just wondering, you know, if there's any way to just kind of put some numbers around, you know, what are kind of the upper limits of how much these kind of tax drags, you know, can have on performance?Lisa Shalett Yeah. So that's a great question. So over time, through the studies that we've done, we believe that tax optimization in any given year can add, you know, somewhere between 200 and 300 full basis points to portfolio performance, literally by reducing that tax bill through intelligent tax loss harvesting, intelligent product selection, you know, choosing products that are more tax efficient, et cetera.Andrew Sheets Well, Lisa, I think that's a great place to end it. Thanks for taking the time to talk. We hope to have you back soon.Lisa Shalett Absolutely, Andrew. Happy New Year!Andrew Sheets As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show.

With inflation on the minds of consumers and the Fed reacting with a sharp turn towards tightening, 2022 may be a year for investors to focus on incorporating tax-efficient strategies into their portfolios. Morgan Stanley Wealth Management's Chief Investment Officer Lisa Shalett and Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets discuss.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, chief cross asset strategist for Morgan Stanley Research.Lisa Shalett And I'm Lisa Shalett, chief investment officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management.Andrew Sheets And today on the podcast, we'll be discussing the importance of tax efficiency as a pillar of portfolio construction. It's Tuesday, January 25th at three p.m. in London.Lisa Shalett And it's 10:00 a.m. here in New York.Andrew Sheets Lisa, welcome back to the podcast! Now, as members of Morgan Stanley Wealth Management's Global Investment Committee, we both agree that the current portfolio construction backdrop is increasingly complicated and constrained. But tax considerations are also important, and this is something you and your team have written a lot on recently. So I'd really like to talk to you about both of these issues, both the challenges of portfolio construction and some of the unique considerations around tax that can really make a difference to the bottom line of investment returns. So Lisa, let's start with that current environment. Can you highlight why we believe that standard stock bond portfolios face a number of challenges going forward?Lisa Shalett We've been through an extraordinary period over the last 13 years where both stocks and bonds have benefited profoundly from Federal Reserve policy, just to put it bluntly, and, you know, the direction of overall interest rates. And so, our observation has been that, you know, over the last 13 years, U.S. stocks have compounded at close to 15% per year, U.S. bonds have compounded at 9% per year. Both of those are well above long run averages. And so we're now at a point where both stocks and bonds are quite expensive. They are both correlated to each other, and they are both correlated to a large extent with Federal Reserve policy. And as we know, Federal Reserve policy by dint of what appears to be inflation that is not as transitory as the Fed originally thought is causing the Fed to have to accelerate their shift in policy. And I think, as we noted over the last three to six weeks, you know, the Fed's position has gone from, you know, we're going to taper and have three hikes to we're going to taper be done by March. We may have as many as four or five hikes and we're going to consider a balance sheet runoff. That's an awful lot for both stocks and bonds to digest at the same time, especially when they're correlated with one another.Andrew Sheets And Lisa, you know, if I can just dive into this a little bit more, how do you think about portfolio diversification in that environment you just described, where both stocks and bonds seem increasingly linked to a single common factor, this this direction of Federal Reserve policy?Lisa Shalett One of the things that we've been emphasizing is to take a step back and to recognize that diversification can happen beyond the simple passive betas of stocks and bonds, which we would, you know, typically represent by, you know, exposures to things like the S&P 500 or a Barclays aggregate. And so what we're saying is, within stocks, you've got to really make an effort to move away from the indexes to higher active managers who tend to take a diversified approach by sector, by style, by market cap. And within fixed income, you know, we're encouraging, clients to hire what we've described as non-core managers. These are managers who may have the ability to navigate the yield curve and navigate the credit environment by using, perhaps what are nontraditional type products. They may employ strategies that include things like preferred shares or covered call strategies, or own asset backed securities. These are all more esoteric instruments that that hiring a manager can give our clients sources of income. And last, you know, we're obviously thinking about generating income and diversification using real assets and alternatives as well.Andrew Sheets And so, Lisa, one other thing you know, related to that portfolio construction challenge, I also just want to ask you about was how you think about inflation protection. I mean, obviously, I think a lot of investors are trying to achieve the highest return relative to the overall level of prices relative to inflation. You know, how do you think from a portfolio context, investors can try to add some inflation protection here in a smart, you know, intelligent way?Lisa Shalett So you know what we've tried to say is let's take a step back and think about, you know, our forecast for, you know, whether inflation is going to accelerate from here or decelerate. And you know, I think our position has broadly been that that we do think we're probably at a rate of change turning point for inflation, that we're not headed for a 1970s style level of inflation and that, you know, current readings are probably, you know, closer to peak than not and that we're probably going to mean revert to something closer to the, you know, two and a half to three and a half percent range sooner rather than later. And so in the short term, you know, we've tried to take an approach that says, not only do you want to think about real assets, these are things like real estate, like commodities like gold, like energy infrastructure linked assets that have historically provided some protection to inflation but really go back to those tried and true quality oriented stocks where there is pricing power. Because, you know, 2.5-3.5% Inflation is the type of inflation environment where companies who do have very strong brands who do have very moored competitive positions tend to be able to navigate, you know, better than others and pass some of that the cost increases on to consumers.Andrew Sheets So, Lisa, that takes me to the next thing I want to talk to you about. You know, investors also care about their return after the effects of tax, and the effects of tax can be quite complex and quite varied. So, you know, as you think about that challenge from a portfolio construction standpoint, why do you think it's critical that investors incorporate tax efficient investing strategies into their portfolios?Lisa Shalett Well, look, you know, managing, tax and what we call tax drag is always important. And the reason is it's that invisible levy, if you will, on performance. Most of our clients are savvy enough to suss out, you know, the fees that they're paying and understand how the returns are, you know, gross returns are diluted by high fees. But what is less obvious is that some of the investment structures that clients routinely use-- things like mutual funds, things like limited partnership stakes-- very often in both public and private settings, are highly tax inefficient where, you know, taxable gain pass throughs are highly unpredictable, and clients tend to get hit with them. And so that's, you know, part of what we try to do year in, year out is be attentive to making sure that the clients are in tax efficient strategies. That having been said, what we also want to do is minimize tax drag over time. But in a year like 2022, where you know, we're potentially looking at low single digit or even negative returns for some of these asset classes, saving money in taxes can make the difference between, you know, an account that that is at a loss for the full year or at a gain. So there's work to be done. There's this unique window of opportunity right now in the beginning of 2022 to do it. And happily, we have, you know, some of these tools to speed the implementation of that type of an approach.Andrew Sheets So Lisa, let's wrap this up with how investors can implement this advice with their investments. You know, what strategies could they consider? And I'm also just wondering, you know, if there's any way to just kind of put some numbers around, you know, what are kind of the upper limits of how much these kind of tax drags, you know, can have on performance?Lisa Shalett Yeah. So that's a great question. So over time, through the studies that we've done, we believe that tax optimization in any given year can add, you know, somewhere between 200 and 300 full basis points to portfolio performance, literally by reducing that tax bill through intelligent tax loss harvesting, intelligent product selection, you know, choosing products that are more tax efficient, et cetera.Andrew Sheets Well, Lisa, I think that's a great place to end it. Thanks for taking the time to talk. We hope to have you back soon.Lisa Shalett Absolutely, Andrew. Happy New Year!Andrew Sheets As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show.

Abby Joseph Cohen, Columbia University Professor & Former Goldman Sachs Senior Investment Strategist, says the Fed is doing a great job with its signaling. Lisa Shalett, Morgan Stanley Wealth Management CIO, still sees a 10%-15% correction ahead for mega cap tech names. Tony Crescenzi, PIMCO Market Strategist, Portfolio Manager and Member of the Firm's Investment Committee, says there's a battle brewing over rate hike expectations between the market and the Fed. Robert Hormats, Tiedemann Advisors Managing Director, explains why Russia is trying to prevent instability in Kazakhstan. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

After a fascinating career at Goldman Sachs, Lisa Shalett “retired” in 2015 - and two years later started what has become Extraordinary Women on Boards, EWOB, a peer-to-peer community of hundreds of women directors from the US and around the world, focused on advancing board excellence, modernizing governance and increasing board diversity. In this episode Lisa talks about how Extraordinary Women on Boards started, how its membership exploded and how it has become an extraordinary force in advancing diversity and excellence on boards.   Thanks for listening! We love our listeners! Drop us a line or give us guest suggestions here.   Links   Extraordinary Women on Boards (ewobnetwork.com)   Lisa Shalett LinkedIn   Quotes   When I look back on my somewhat eclectic career, twenty years of which were at Goldman Sachs, there were a lot of things that I did that ended up preparing me for what has become Extraordinary Women on Boards…it's funny how my background danced in and out of risk-related topics and content-related topics and suddenly here I am spending a lot of time on those issues.   How Extraordinary Women on Boards came about Extraordinary Women on Boards was unplanned, and after a career of paying attention to pain points and wish lists and identifying opportunities that largely comes from covering really important and smart clients, I found myself in a situation where having "left the building," so to speak, wandering the streets of New York, I was meeting a number of women who were at the same life stage that I was then at: having stepped away from an accomplished career and trying to put together, I think what we call portfolio careers or portfolio lives. I was very lucky to, quite unintentionally, end up on two boards, a public and a VC-backed board, and the women that I was meeting were also starting to serve on boards as part of their portfolios, and I found it quite amusing that the most interesting thing that these women would relate to in my background was that we were all on boards and we were all starting our board careers. That led to 15 coffees in a row on the topic of boards, and in particular, a few needs and pain points that just kept emerging that led me to believe that I should bring this group of women who were all board directors together to meet each other. What I was hearing during was as follows; number one, women board directors wanted to meet more women who were already on boards. Often they were the only woman on their board at that time. That was in 2016, not that long ago, and the first meeting of what became Extraordinary Women on Boards, even though intended as a one-off event was in the beginning of 2017. These women wanted to talk about their board work. It's not enough to have to claw your way into the board room, you want to be excellent in the boardroom. You want your board to be excellent. And there was something so inspiring about women who wanted to talk with other women board directors in order to just crush it in the boardroom. One of the other things that I was hearing was that despite there being many excellent forums, there was often a situation in which women felt talked over. There's been a lot of research about how that sometimes can happen, no offense to men, but sometimes that happens, and therefore these forums weren't really allowing a dialogue in the way that these women wanted.   Impact of the Pandemic When the pandemic hit, and anyone in this audience serving on any kind of board and certainly I'm sure the two of you remember vividly, it became a serious firehose experience. There was chaos. Boards were meeting 24/7. There were risks that folks were aware of, but that suddenly were all happening at the same time, and no one had really thought about the convergence of all those risks. And then there were completely new risks and issues on the table that no one had ever really discussed before, and so there was a tremendous need to get together and have discussions and really curate those discussions.   I remember one of the things from those days was there was suddenly so much information available. Your board was meeting all the time. You wanted to stay on top of everything. You only had kind of a tunnel vision of what your board was focused on, so it seemed like a compelling opportunity to bring people together, to compare notes, to get a horizontal view, and focus on all of these new risks.   It's funny, I've sat in the same room, for now it feels like two years, and met through Zoom hundreds of truly extraordinary women, and we all would get together and have fantastic discussions. The goal was to leave the Zoom even smarter, go back to your boards and be even more influential, bring really good insights and figure out what the emerging best practices were going to be.     What Extraordinary Women on Boards Offers We offer educational sessions that are really interactive, engaging Zoom sessions on important topics for board directors, and they're not topics that are discussed everywhere in the same way. We really try to come up with an interesting angle, always yielding, per my Goldman training, “actionable insights,” and what are the questions that you can bring back to your boardroom.   We also curate a newsletter every week, which really scans the environment quite eclectically for articles that ought to be relevant for board directors and why. We have meet-and-greets so that people can still meet each other in Zoom, and we came up with a great format.   We also try to find our members board opportunities because one of the pain points that we've heard emerge is that, despite what you're told- which is once you get on your first board, it's easy to get on subsequent boards  - that is just not true. We love when people looking for diverse candidates reach out to tap our community of experienced directors.     Creating an environment to really learn I mean, my gosh, you've had a successful career, but sometimes in the context of board work, especially if you're new to boards, there are some super basic questions. You shouldn't feel embarrassed to ask those questions. Everybody has those questions. And so creating an environment where there's immediate respect, you feel included, you feel welcomed, and there's an assumption that we're all going to learn from each other, I think that's what helps the magic to happen.   One of the things that happens with Extraordinary Women on Boards is that we feel as if there are these really smart questions that need to be asked. There's new information or best practices in this world of emerging best practices that the boardrooms need to hear. You can then go back to your boardroom and feel confident that you've got an insight that maybe the rest of the board might not have.     Big Ideas/Thoughts I often think there's so much effort put into finding a board director and not enough effort put into onboarding, as you mentioned. There needs to be much more intentionality around that because that's going to make or break the success of that board director. And especially when they're diverse, you want them to be successful, but to make someone feel like an only and just say, "Great, here's your seat," is not enough. Boards have cultures, and it's so interesting to think about the dynamics in the room -- so how are you setting the board up for success by bringing on any new member? It's incredibly important.   It's so interesting because when someone joins a board as a new board director they might be a very experienced board member on other boards, but they have joined a new board and there's this weird dance that happens where someone doesn't want to be so presumptuous as to immediately start asking questions, even though they might be incredibly thoughtful.  There's a whole “beginner's mind” thing that you don't want to ruin the newness of somebody's observations. You want to solicit it. So few times do boards solicit that from new board directors, "What are your impressions? How do you think about that?" There's such an opportunity for feedback that's missed - what a waste!

Original Release on September 30th, 2021: Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management, discusses the new shape of retail investing and the impact on markets.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets This week we are bringing you 4 encores of deep dives into different kinds of investing we consider at Morgan Stanley. Thanks to all our listeners for a great year and happy holidays!Andrew Sheets Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley Research.Lisa Shalett And I'm Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management.Andrew Sheets And today on the podcast, we'll be discussing the retail investing landscape and the impact on markets. It's Thursday, September 30th, at 2p.m. in London.Lisa Shalett And it's 9:00 a.m. here in New York City.Andrew Sheets Lisa, I wanted to have you on today because the advice from our wealth management division is geared towards individual investors, what we often call retail clients instead of institutional investors. You tend to take a longer-term perspective. As chief investment officer, you're juggling the roles of market analyst, client adviser and team manager ultimately to help clients with their asset allocation and portfolio construction.Andrew Sheets Just to take a step back here, can you just give us some context of the level of assets that Morgan Stanley Wealth Management manages and what insight that gives you potentially into different markets?Lisa Shalett Sure. The wealth management business, especially after the most recent acquisition of E-Trade, oversees more than four trillion dollars in assets under management, which gives us a really extraordinary view over the private wealth landscape.Andrew Sheets That's a pretty significant stock of the market there we have to look at. I'd love to start with what you're hearing right now. How are private investors repositioning portfolios and thinking about current market conditions?Lisa Shalett The individual investor has been important in terms of the role that they're playing in markets over the last several years as we've come out of the pandemic. What we've seen is actually pretty enthusiastic participation in markets over the last 18 months with folks, you know, moving, towards their maximum weightings in equities. Really, I think over the last two to three months, we've begun to see some profit taking. And that motivation for some of that profit taking has kind of come in two forms. One is folks beginning to become concerned that valuations are frothy, that perhaps the Federal Reserve's level of accommodation is going to wane and, quite frankly, that markets are up a lot. The second motivation is obviously concern about potential changes in the U.S. tax code. Our clients, the vast majority of whom manage their wealth in taxable accounts, even though there is a lot of retirement savings, many of them are pretty aggressive about managing their annual tax bill. And so, with uncertainty about whether or not cap gains taxes are going to go up in in 2022, we have seen some tax management activity that has made them a little bit more defensive in their positioning, you know, reducing some equity weights over the last couple of weeks. Importantly, our clients, I think, are different and have moved in a different direction than what we might call overall retail flow where flows into ETFs and mutual funds, as you and your team have noted, has continued to be quite robust over, you know, the last three months. Andrew Sheets So, Lisa, that's something I'd actually like to dig into in more detail, because I think one of the biggest debates we're having in the market right now is the debate over whether it's more accurate to say there's a lot of cash on the sidelines, so to speak, that investors are still overly cautious, they have money that can be put into the market. You know, kind of versus this idea that markets are up a lot, a lot of money has already flowed in and actually investors are pretty fully invested. So, you know, as you think of the backdrop, how do you think about that debate and how do you think people should be thinking about some of the statistics they might be hearing?Lisa Shalett So our perspective is, and we do monitor this on a month-to-month basis has been that, you know, somewhere in the June/July time frame, you know, we saw, our clients kind of at maximum exposures to the equity market. We saw overall cash levels, had really come down. And it's only been in the last two to three weeks that we've begun to see, cash levels rebuilding. I do think that that's somewhat at odds with this thesis that there's so much more cash on the sidelines. I mean, one piece of data that we have been monitoring is margin debt and among retail individual investors, we've started to see margin debt, you know, start to creep up. And that's another indication to us that perhaps this idea that there's tons of cash on the sidelines may, in fact, not be the case, that people are, "all in and then some," you know, may be something worth exploring in the data because we're starting to see that.Andrew Sheets So, Lisa, the other thing you mentioned at the onset was a focus on the tax environment, and that's the next thing I wanted to ask you about. You know, I imagine this is an issue that's at the top of minds of many investors. And your thoughts on both what sort of reactions we might get to different tax changes and also your advice to how individuals and family offices should navigate this environment.Lisa Shalett Yeah, so that's a fantastic question, because in virtually every meeting, you know, that I'm doing right now, this question, comes up of, you know, what should we be doing? And we usually talk to clients on two levels. One is on it in terms of their personal strategies. And what we always talk about is that they should not be making changes in anticipation of changes in the law unless they're really in need of cash over the next year or two. It's really a 12-to-18-month window. In which case we would say, you know, consult with your accountant or your tax advisor. But typically, what we say is, you know, the changes in the tax law come and go. And unless you have an imminent, you know, cash flow need, you should not be making changes simply based on tax law. The second thing that we often talk about is this idea or this mythology among our client base that changes in the tax law, you know, cause market volatility. And historically that there's just no evidence for that. And so, like so many other things there's, you know, headline risk in the days around particular news announcements. But when you really look at things on a 3-month, 6-month, you know, 12- and 24-month, trailing basis on some of these things, they end up not really being the thing that drives markets.Andrew Sheets Lisa, one of the biggest questions—well, you know, certainly I'm getting but I imagine you're getting as well—is how to think about the ratio of stocks and bonds together within a portfolio. You know, there's this old rule of thumb, kind of the 60/40, 60% stocks, 40% bonds in portfolio construction. Do you think that's an outdated concept, given where yields are, given what's happening in the stock market? And how do you think investors should think about managing risk maybe differently to how they did in the past?Lisa Shalett That's a fantastic question. And it's one that we are confronted with, you know, virtually every day. And what we've really tried to do is take a step back and, make a couple of points. Number one, talk about, goals and objectives and really ascertain, you know, what kinds of returns are necessary over what periods of time and what portion of that return, you know, needs to be in current cash flow, you know, annualized income. And try to make the point that perhaps generating that combination of capital appreciation and income needs to be constructed, if you will, above and beyond the more traditional categories of cash, stocks and bonds given where we are in terms of overall valuations and how rich the valuations are in both stocks and bonds, where we are in terms of cash returns after inflation, and with regards to whether or not stocks and bonds at the current moment are actually behaving in a way that, you know, you're optimizing your diversification.Lisa Shalett So with all those considerations in mind, what we have found ourselves doing is speaking to the stock portion of returns as being comprised not only of, you know, the more traditional long-only strategies that we diversify by sector and by, you know, global regions. But we're including thinking about, you know, hedged vehicles and hedge fund vehicles as part of those equity exposures and how to manage risk. When it comes to the fixed income portion of portfolios, there's a need to be a little bit more creative in hiring managers who have a mandate that can allow them to use things like preferred shares, like bank loans, like convertible shares, like some asset backs, and maybe even including some dividend paying stocks in, their income generating portion of the portfolio. And what that has really meant to your point about the 60-40 portfolio is it's meant that we're kind of recrafting portfolio construction across new asset class lines, really. Where we're saying, OK, what portion of your portfolio and what products and vehicles can we rely on for some equity like capital appreciation and what portion of the portfolio and what strategies can generate income. So, it's a lot more mixing and matching to actually get at goals.Andrew Sheets As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts App. It helps more people find the show.

Your board of directors can make or break you. In fact, Reid believes, the wrong board member can break your company faster than the right board member can make it. Learn the five vital mindset shifts that can help you create a better board, with insights from Mellody Hobson, the co-CEO of Ariel Investments and the chair of the Starbucks board, along with Lisa Shalett, co-founder of Extraordinary Women on Boards, and Shishir Mehrotra, founder and CEO of Coda (Reid's on their board). These universal lessons don't only speak to founders assembling their very first board, or board directors looking for best practices – they also offer important advice for team-building across the board.Read a transcript of this episode: https://mastersofscale.comSubscribe to the Masters of Scale weekly newsletter: http://eepurl.com/dlirtXSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In August 2020, I told listeners that Tesla was a stock that would be a strong performer. And, has it ever--shares of TSLA are up about 1400% since then.  Nonetheless, shares of Tesla became quite volatile this week amid news that Elon Musk was selling a portion of his stock. On Friday we learned he was selling not just his $5 billion stake from earlier in the week but an additional $687 millions. The reality is -- Elon Musk may still sell even more. After all, he promised his Twitter users in a tweet that he'd sell 10% of his stake. But, does that mean we should sell too?  Let's just say: I am reluctant to bet against such an innovative company like Tesla. Its potential, with Musk in the driver's seat (pun intended) is limitless. Although Rivian is the new darling of Wall Street, I'd say it's pretty nice to own a piece of the company that has already proven itself. In this episode of my Trish Regan Show podcast, I take a look at investing in the Electric Vehicle sector as a whole -- and believe me, there are some interesting comparisons with history going all the way back to Henry Ford and the Model T. Plus, why is this stock market rally making everyone so nervous? Do we really think the Fed will make a drastic move? The CIO of Morgan Stanely, Lisa Shalett, is telling clients she is "concerned that Fed policy is divorced from fundamentals." Is she right? Probably. Nonetheless, realists know that these markets are still going higher but remain vulnerable to a pullback. This is why diversification is critical. Diversify, diversify, diversify I already say. And, in this show, I have some ideas on how you can do that.  Join me here and get more online at https://TrishIntel.com Support the show: https://trishregan.store/ See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Brad Lander, Member of the New York City Council and candidate for Comptroller, discusses the future of New York City's economy. Michael Sonnenfeldt, Founder & Chairman of Tiger 21, discusses how the ultra-wealthy are investing right now. Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer at Morgan Stanley Wealth Management, talks markets and investing. Jay Hatfield, Founder & CEO of Infrastructure Capital Advisors, discusses the markets and latest infrastructure themes. Hosted by Paul Sweeney and Matt Miller. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Consumer saving is up, way up. But whether investors put this money into the markets may have more to do with how much wealth is already in play.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, October 15th at 2:00 p.m. in London. Over the course of the pandemic, strong government support and some of the difficulties of spending money as usual, led to a large surge in consumer savings. This was a global trend, seen from the U.S. to Europe to China. For markets, one of the most bullish arguments out there is that these savings can still come into the market. In sports terms, there's cash sitting on the sidelines waiting to come into the game. But we think this story is more complicated. Yes, there are a lot of savings out there by almost every measure that we look at. But to continue with the analogy, while investors may have cash sitting on the sidelines, they also have a lot of wealth already on the field. To put some numbers around this, the amount of cash currently held in US Money Market funds is about 20% of gross domestic product relative to a 30-year average of 15%. But total household wealth, that is the value of all the homes, stocks, bonds, businesses and stamp collections, is now about 590% of GDP, 170pp higher than its average over that same 30-year period. So, yes, overall Americans are holding more cash than normal, but they also have more, a lot more, of everything else. Meanwhile, that everything else is riskier. Stocks, which generally represent the most volatile asset that most households hold has been a growing share of this overall wealth. U.S. households now hold more stocks relative to their other assets than at any time in history. It's possible that people decide to put more money into the market, but many may decide that they already have a reasonable amount of exposure as it is. Indeed, this echoes the comments of someone with real world insights into this dynamic: Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management. Recently on this podcast, Lisa mentioned similar dynamics within the over $4T of assets managed by Morgan Stanley's Wealth Management Group - cash holdings were still ample, but exposure to the equity market for investors was historically high, as market gains have boosted the value of these stock holdings. For investors, we think this has two important implications. First, we think the figures above suggest that many investors actually do have quite a bit of exposure to the market already relative to history. That exposure could rise But while it's always more fun to imagine a market that has to rise because everybody needs to be more invested, we just don't think that that is what the household data really suggests. Second, that high exposure means that fundamentals, rather than more risk taking, may be more important to getting the market to move higher. Strong earnings growth has been an under-appreciated boost to markets this year and will be important for further strength. Third quarter earnings season, which is now beginning, will be an especially important element to watch around the world. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.

On part two of this special episode, Lisa Shalett and Andrew Sheets dive into meme stocks and individual investor trading advantages… and pitfalls.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets Welcome to Thoughts of the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley Research.Lisa Shalett And I'm Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management.Andrew Sheets And today on part 2 of the podcast, I'll be continuing my discussion with Lisa on the retail investing landscape and the impact on markets. It's Friday, October 1st, at 2p.m. in London.Lisa Shalett And it's 9:00 a.m. here in New York City.Andrew Sheets So, Lisa, over the last 12 months, we've seen a real boom in the amount of activity in the stock market from these so-called retail investors. And, you know, given your perspective over several market cycles, you know, what do you think is kind of similar and different in terms of individual investor activity now versus what we've seen in the past?Lisa Shalett So you know what's similar to episodes of retail participation that we've seen in the past? I think the first is momentum and crowding. So, as we know in prior market cycles, you know, periods like a 1999-2000 tech bubble, for example. We had a lot of enthusiasm around stocks that perhaps didn't have great profit fundamentals or whose valuation paradigms shifted to expand beyond things like profit to things like, you know, share of eyeballs and things of that nature. And we're you know, we've certainly during this market cycle with the emergence of, you know, zero commission trading platforms, you know, seen some of that type of activity where stocks seem to be moving based on other dynamics, be they momentum, be they you know, social media chatter.Lisa Shalett Obviously, I think one of the things that is different is this role of social media. I think that this idea that a set of investors will crowd or attempt to drive the market through social media postings is an interesting one, if you will. And I think we're going to need to see how it plays out. But I think what we know is very often when we get into periods in the market where we're drawing in a large share of brand-new investors, you know, they are not particularly experienced and they, you know, seemingly have had success by dint of, you know, the benign nature of the environment, which is what we've kind of had. We've had a relatively low vol, high central bank involvement environment. We know how these parties tend to end. And since this seems to happen every couple of times in a generation, this generation of new investors, I think, you know, may be set up to, you know, quote unquote, learn the hard way. But that remains to be seen.Andrew Sheets Lisa, I know another question that you spend a lot of time thinking about is whether or not investors should look to be active or passive in how they're trying to take exposure to markets. How are you thinking about that and kind of what type of environment do you think we're in today?Lisa Shalett We try to take a pretty, you know, systematic and methodical and analytic approach to the active/passive decision. We want to make sure that when we're giving advice that if we think that there's idiosyncratic alpha opportunity out there above and beyond what, you know, the passive market can deliver and we're asking our clients to pay for it, that it's there and with high probability and that it exists. And so, you know, what are the environments where that tends to be true? What we have found is it tends to be environments where you have large valuation dispersions in the market, where you have high levels of controversy in terms of earnings estimate dispersion, tends to be environments where there could be policy inflection points. And so based on some of those type of variables, over the last two to three months, our models have moved us to a maximum setting towards active management. When we look at the passive index today, one of the things that, you know, we continue to point out to our clients is the extent to which the S&P 500 index, for example, has become very concentrated in a short list number of names. So, you know, we contrast that recommendation that we're making right now for a maximum stock picking or maximum active manager selection stance with, you know, perhaps where we were at the beginning of the cycle last March when policy actions are so profound in terms of driving liquidity and the stimulus was coming from the federal government. When you're in an environment where "the rising tide lifts all the boats" and performance dispersion is very narrow and you have, you know, very high breadth where, you know, almost all stocks are rising and they're rising together. Those are certainly markets that are very well played using the passive index. But that's how we make that contrast. And today we are trying to encourage our clients to move to a more active stance where they're reducing their vulnerability to some of the characteristics of the S&P 500 index that we think are fragile.Andrew Sheets Very interesting. So, Lisa the last question I want to ask you is when you think about that retail, that individual investor, what do you think are actually the advantages that this group has, maybe underappreciated advantages? And then what do you think are kind of some of the most common pitfalls that you see and strategies to try to avoid?Lisa Shalett Yeah, no, that's a great question. So, one of the advantages of being an individual investor is you can truly take a long-term view. At least most of our clients can. And so, they don't need to worry about, "mark to market," they don't need to worry about quarterly returns and quarterly benchmarks. They don't even need to worry about benchmarks at all, quite frankly. And that allows the individual investor to take a long view, to be patient to utilize tools like dollar cost averaging in over time and to not necessarily have to buy into the pressures of market timing.Lisa Shalett I think the pitfalls for individual investors are you know, individual investors are just that, they are individuals. Individual investors tend to be motivated by very human behavioral finance concepts of fear and greed. And so, I think one of the things that very often we as private wealth advisors battle are emotions. And when our clients, you know, feel a degree of fear, they will do things that potentially are drastic, i.e., they will, you know, sell and take profit and incur a tax event and get out of the market. And then the challenges of market timing, as we know, are always twofold. Right? If you're going to get out, you've got to have a discipline of when to get back in. And we know that those two things: getting in and getting out, are very hard to do and do well without destroying wealth, without concretizing losses and without, you know, leaving money on the table. So, you know, I think the value of advice, as we always say, is keeping clients in that first bucket, keeping them attached to a long run, process driven plan that avoids market timing, that allows you to take the long view, that measures things in years, not quarters and months, and avoid some of the pit falls.Andrew Sheets I think that's a great place to end it. Lisa, thanks for taking the time to talk and we hope to have you back soon.Lisa Shalett Thank you very much, Andrew. I appreciate it.Andrew Sheets As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts of the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts App. It helps more people find the show.

On part one of this Special Episode, Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management, discusses the new shape of retail investing and the impact on markets.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets Welcome to Thoughts of the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley Research.Lisa Shalett And I'm Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management.Andrew Sheets And today on the podcast, we'll be discussing the retail investing landscape and the impact on markets. It's Thursday, September 30th, at 2p.m. in London.Lisa Shalett And it's 9:00 a.m. here in New York City.Andrew Sheets Lisa, I wanted to have you on today because the advice from our wealth management division is geared towards individual investors, what we often call retail clients instead of institutional investors. You tend to take a longer-term perspective. As chief investment officer, you're juggling the roles of market analyst, client adviser and team manager ultimately to help clients with their asset allocation and portfolio construction.Andrew Sheets Just to take a step back here, can you just give us some context of the level of assets that Morgan Stanley Wealth Management manages and what insight that gives you potentially into different markets?Lisa Shalett Sure. The wealth management business, especially after the most recent acquisition of E-Trade, oversees more than four trillion dollars in assets under management, which gives us a really extraordinary view over the private wealth landscape.Andrew Sheets That's a pretty significant stock of the market there we have to look at. I'd love to start with what you're hearing right now. How are private investors repositioning portfolios and thinking about current market conditions?Lisa Shalett The individual investor has been incredibly important in terms of the role that they're playing in markets over the last several years as we've come out of the pandemic. What we've seen is actually pretty enthusiastic participation in in markets over the last 18 months with folks, you know, moving, towards their maximum weightings in equities. Really, I think over the last two to three months, we've begun to see some profit taking. And that motivation for some of that profit taking has as kind of come in two forms. One is folks beginning to become concerned that valuations are frothy, that perhaps the Federal Reserve's level of accommodation is going to wane and, quite frankly, that markets are up a lot. The second motivation is obviously concern about potential changes in the U.S. tax code. Our clients, the vast majority of whom manage their wealth in taxable accounts, even though there is a lot of retirement savings, many of them are pretty aggressive about managing their annual tax bill. And so, with uncertainty about whether or not cap gains taxes are going to go up in in 2022, we have seen some tax management activity that has made them a little bit more defensive in their positioning, you know, reducing some equity weights over the last couple of weeks. Importantly, our clients, I think, are different and have moved in a different direction than what we might call overall retail flow where flows into ETFs and mutual funds, as you and your team have noted, has continued to be quite robust over, you know, the last three months. Andrew Sheets So, Lisa, that's something I'd actually like to dig into in more detail, because I think one of the biggest debates we're having in the market right now is the debate over whether it's more accurate to say there's a lot of cash on the sidelines, so to speak, that investors are still overly cautious, they have money that can be put into the market. You know, kind of versus this idea that markets are up a lot, a lot of money has already flowed in and actually investors are pretty fully invested. So, you know, as you think of the backdrop, how do you think about that debate and how do you think people should be thinking about some of the statistics they might be hearing?Lisa Shalett So our perspective is, and we do monitor this on a month-to-month basis has been that that, you know, somewhere in the June/July time frame, you know, we saw, our clients kind of at maximum exposures to the equity market. We saw overall cash levels, had really come down. And it's only been in the last two to three weeks that we've begun to see, cash levels rebuilding. I do think that that's somewhat at odds with this thesis that there's so much more cash on the sidelines. I mean, one piece of data that we have been monitoring is margin debt and among retail individual investors, we've started to see margin debt, you know, start to creep up. And that's another indication to us that perhaps this idea that there's tons of cash on the sidelines may, in fact, not be the case, that people are, "all in and then some," you know, may be something worth exploring in the data because we're starting to see that.Andrew Sheets So, Lisa, the other thing you mentioned at the onset was a focus on the tax environment, and that's the next thing I wanted to ask you about. You know, I imagine this is an issue that's at the top of minds of many investors. And your thoughts on both what sort of reactions we might get to different tax changes and also your advice to how individuals and family offices should navigate this environment.Lisa Shalett Yeah, so that's a fantastic question, because in virtually every meeting, you know, that I'm doing right now, this question comes up of, you know, what should we be doing? And we usually talk to clients on two levels. One is on it in terms of their personal strategies. And what we always talk about is that they should not be making changes in anticipation of changes in the law unless they're really in need of cash over the next year or two. It's really a 12-to-18-month window. In which case we would say, you know, consult with your accountant or your tax advisor. But typically, what we say is, you know, the changes in the tax law come and go. And unless you have an imminent, you know, cash flow need, you should not be making changes simply based on tax law. The second thing that we often talk about is this idea or this mythology among our client base that changes in the tax law, you know, cause market volatility. And historically that there's just no evidence for that. And so, like so many other things there's, you know, headline risk in the days around particular news announcements. But when you really look at things on a 3-month, 6-month, you know, 12- and 24-month trailing basis on some of these things, they end up not really being the thing that drives markets.Andrew Sheets Lisa, one of the biggest questions—well, you know, certainly I'm getting but I imagine you're getting as well—is how to think about the ratio of stocks and bonds together within a portfolio. You know, there's this old rule of thumb, kind of the 60/40, 60% stocks, 40% bonds in portfolio construction. Do you think that's an outdated concept, given where yields are, given what's happening in the stock market? And how do you think investors should think about managing risk maybe differently to how they did in the past?Lisa Shalett Yeah, look, that's a fantastic question. And it's one that we are confronted with, you know, virtually every day. And what we've really tried to do is take a step back and make a couple of points. Number one, talk about goals and objectives and really ascertain what kinds of returns are necessary over what periods of time and what portion of that return, you know, needs to be in current cash flow, you know, annualized income. And try to make the point that perhaps generating that combination of capital appreciation and an income needs to be constructed, if you will, above and beyond the more traditional categories of cash, stocks and bonds given where we are in terms of overall valuations and how rich the valuations are in both stocks and bonds, where we are in terms of cash returns after inflation, and with regards to whether or not stocks and bonds at the current moment are actually behaving in a way that, you know, you're optimizing your diversification.Lisa Shalett So with all those considerations in mind, what we have found ourselves doing is speaking to the stock portion of returns as being comprised not only of, you know, the more traditional long-only strategies that we diversify by sector and by, you know, global regions. But we're including thinking about, you know, hedged vehicles and hedge fund vehicles as part of those equity exposures and how to manage risk. When it comes to the fixed income portion of portfolios, there's a need to be a little bit more creative in hiring managers who have a mandate that can allow them to use things like preferred shares, like bank loans, like convertible shares, like some asset backs, and maybe even including some dividend paying stocks in their income generating portion of the of the portfolio. And what that has really meant to your point about the 60-40 portfolio is that we're kind of recrafting portfolio construction across new asset class lines, really. Where we're saying, OK, what portion of your portfolio and what products and vehicles can we rely on for some equity like capital appreciation and what portion of the portfolio and what strategies can generate income. So, it's a lot more mixing and matching to actually get at goals.Andrew Sheets Tomorrow I'll be continuing my conversation with Lisa Shalett on retail investing and the implications for markets. As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts of the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts App. It helps more people find the show.

Lisa Shalett at Morgan Stanley predicts an S&P 500 correction, but sees good deals elsewhere. Ed Yardeni talks inflation and babies. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Aaron Emigh, CEO and Co-Founder of Brilliant, discusses the outlook for the smart home technology market. Josh Wingrove, White House Correspondent for Bloomberg News, talks about President Biden's vaccination mandate for federal employees. Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer at Morgan Stanley Wealth Management, discusses the markets. Nathan Shetty, Head of Multi Asset at Nuveen, talks private markets. Hosted by Paul Sweeney and Matt Miller. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In Part Two of our series on how to be an effective compliance officer, RANE Founder David Lawrence speaks to Lisa Shalett, Former Goldman Sachs Partner; Advisor to Startups; Board Director; Founder and Brand-builder about how to be an effective compliance officer, the compliance role in reputation management, and about her latest project, Extraordinary Women on Boards (EWOB).Individuals and organizations turn to RANE, for risk intelligence that cuts through the hype to focus on what they need to know, what to expect, and what to do. The hub of RANE's service is the democratization of information and expertise. Subscribe to RANE’s Core Membership and let RANE power your business to success. Go to ranenetwork.com.

In this current global business environment, organizations must be both quick and nimble to adapt to the constantly changing government regulations — domestically as well as globally. Compliance Officers work both internally and externally to make sure everyone in an organization - and the organization itself - follows the rules. Simple missteps could bring hefty fines, legal woes, and, importantly, damage to a company’s reputation. In this RANE Insights podcast, Founder David Lawrence speaks to Lisa Shalett, Former Goldman Sachs Partner; Advisor to Startups; Board Director; Founder and Brand-builder --- about compliance across the board.Individuals and organizations turn to RANE, for risk intelligence that cuts through the hype to focus on what they need to know, what to expect, and what to do. Are you a Business? Go to ranenetwork.com to learn more about how RANE can power your business to success.

CELEBRATING INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY: Karen Mills, Former Small Business Administrator and Senior Fellow at Harvard Business School, on the landscape for women entrepreneurs. Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer at Morgan Stanley Wealth Management, on her current investment outlook. Regina Mayor, Global Energy Head at KPMG, on what the surprise OPEC decision means for oil markets. Naureen Malik, nat gas and power markets reporter for Bloomberg, on Tesla plugging a secret mega-battery into the Texas grid. Hosted by Paul Sweeney and Matt Miller (Lisa Abramowicz filling in for Matt Miller).

As a former Partner and the Global Head of Brand Marketing and Digital Strategy for Goldman Sachs from 2010 to 2014 in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, Lisa Shalett possesses a breadth of experience leading through change and adversity. Currently founder of a dynamic community, Extraordinary Women on Boards, Lisa is known as a connector of people and ideas with a mindset for growth. In this episode, she shares her insight on what it means to lean in to the upside of risk and uncertainty, understand your inner strengths and lead with empathy – even during unfamiliar and difficult times.Listen here, or subscribe on iTunes, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.For more resources that will help you Take Command of your leadership potential, visit www.dalecarnegie.com 

Dan Ives, Managing Director and Equity Analyst at Wedbush Securities, on Apple's electric car venture. Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer at Morgan Stanley Wealth Management, on why financials are the #1 investment pick. David Garrity, Chief Market Strategist for Laidlaw & Co, and Partner at BTblock, discusses the "Laidlaw 5" forecasts for 2021. Sam Fazeli Senior Pharmaceutical Analyst and Head of EMEA Research for Bloomberg Intelligence, discusses his column: “How Worrisome Is This U.K. Virus Variant?” Hosted by Paul Sweeney and Vonnie Quinn (Paul Sweeney out.)

Your challenge is to look within and ask yourself, does your language reflect inclusivity? I believe we work diligently to be inclusive. I work hard to ensure that my son feels comfortable in the kitchen and doing house chores in the same way my daughters feel comfortable doing yard work and the like. I focus on NOT saying things like “that's what girls do” or “don't be such a girl.” I want all of my children to learn all that they can, enjoy all that they enjoy, and be supported for who they are and who they are becoming. Period. That's how we all love our children. Our businesses and the people within them are similar, right? We want our employees to grow and learn, feel empowered, be successful, overcome, and take themselves to the next level. We want them to be outstanding. So how do we shape them and encourage them in the same way we are purposeful about shaping our kids, our nieces and nephews, or how we would envision shaping younger kids given the chance? In another great Harvard Business Review article Noah Zandan and Lisa Shalett tackled this exact thing. As I read it, it struck me as to how many times I had heard leaders around me say things they were recommending we avoid using. For example, a leader that constantly says “I” is not inclusive. “I did this, I did that, I accomplished this.” No one wants to work for someone who takes credit for everything. That's not inclusive nor does it create the team environment. That's every person for him or herself. Another one they mentioned was the word “manpower.” It took a lot of manpower to accomplish that." Well, I'm not a man and many of you aren't as well. So that's not necessarily inclusive. I say “guys" all of the time and I have to catch myself. Guys is a term I use constantly to equal “team” or “people.” But the reality is that that term isn't inclusive. So I have to keep working on getting that out of my leadership language. Last but not least they mentioned an example related to age. “You're too young to remember this.” Doesn't that shut you down? Why would you want to keep listening if you know you aren't going to relate to it? I think about other comments when people say “your husband or your wife” instead of saying “your partner” to be fully inclusive. Or even making assumptions about marriage status, parent status, etc. Anything that is said in a way that wouldn't include everyone will alienate someone. As we have talked about, when it's your marketing strategy and you are trying to repel those customers you don't want, that's fine. But when you are leading a team of amazing human beings, you want everyone to feel valued, included, and a part of the team. What words do you use that could potentially make others feel like an outsider? How will you work on adjusting that to be more inclusive? Be Legendary!

Thomas Barkin, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond President, expects strong U.S. growth in the third quarter. Lisa Shalett, Morgan Stanley Wealth Management CIO, says she's "shocked” markets haven't been more tumultuous amid the uncertainty over another fiscal stimulus package. Daniel Boulud, Chef and Restaurateur, discusses the return of indoor dining in New York City. Nouriel Roubini, NYU Stern School of Business Professor and NourielToday.com Host, discusses the “severe” market risks he sees from the U.S. presidential election. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Thomas Barkin, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond President, expects strong U.S. growth in the third quarter. Lisa Shalett, Morgan Stanley Wealth Management CIO, says she’s "shocked” markets haven’t been more tumultuous amid the uncertainty over another fiscal stimulus package. Daniel Boulud, Chef and Restaurateur, discusses the return of indoor dining in New York City. Nouriel Roubini, NYU Stern School of Business Professor and NourielToday.com Host, discusses the “severe” market risks he sees from the U.S. presidential election.

Barry Ritholtz, Bloomberg Opinion columnist and Host of Masters of Business, lays out the most useless phrases in finance. Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer: Wealth Management for Morgan Stanley, on why we're still in correction territory. Ben Steverman, Personal Finance Editor for Bloomberg, discusses his latest Businessweek story: "Harvard’s Chetty Finds Economic Carnage in Wealthiest ZIP Codes." Sarah Ponczek, Bloomberg cross-asset reporter, on insider selling and the reflation trade unwinding. Hosted by Paul Sweeney and Vonnie Quinn. 

A big question now for women in finance is how to manage in the new economic reality. Who will have a part in it and who is in danger of being left behind. In the latest episode of Finance Forward, we talk to finance power player and former Goldman Sachs partner Lisa Shalett about learning from the crisis. Join the conversation with hosts Afsaneh Beschloss and Caroline Atkinson.

Lisa Shalett, founder of Extraordinary Women on Boards and an experienced board director, explains why trust is so critical in today's business climate. In this interview with David Reimer, CEO Americas at Merryck & Co. and Executive Editor of People + Strategy, Shalett discusses how boards can explore the levels of trust that surround an organization. (length 41:55)

Lisa Shalett, Morgan Stanley Wealth Management Chief Investment Officer, says a pickup in capital spending intentions is a reason to remain bullish on the U.S. recovery. Michelle Meyer, Bank of America Head of U.S. Equities, says the U.S. economy is starting to approach healing and recovery phase. Henrietta Treyz, Veda Partners Director of Economic policy, says Congress is still stalled on both stimulus and infrastructure spending. Shahab Jalinoos, Credit Suisse Global Head of FX Strategy, says the nominal rate of the dollar does not offer any significant yield pickup. Daniel Boulud, Chef & Restaurateur, says fine dining is suffering at the moment, but its not dead due to Covid-19. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Lisa Shalett, Morgan Stanley Wealth Management Chief Investment Officer, says a pickup in capital spending intentions is a reason to remain bullish on the U.S. recovery. Michelle Meyer, Bank of America Head of U.S. Equities, says the U.S. economy is starting to approach healing and recovery phase. Henrietta Treyz, Veda Partners Director of Economic policy, says Congress is still stalled on both stimulus and infrastructure spending. Shahab Jalinoos, Credit Suisse Global Head of FX Strategy, says the nominal rate of the dollar does not offer any significant yield pickup. Daniel Boulud, Chef & Restaurateur, says fine dining is suffering at the moment, but its not dead due to Covid-19.

Stephen Roach, senior fellow at Yale University and former chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia, discusses his column: "How the Coming Crash in the Dollar Will Unfold." Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer: Wealth Management for Morgan Stanley, on why clients are holding onto cash. Andrew Browne, Editorial Director for Bloomberg New Economy, on how former National Security Advisor John Bolton's book damages Trump's China stance. June Grasso, Legal Analyst and Host of Bloomberg Law, on the Supreme Court decision to stop the Trump Administration from canceling DACA. Hosted by Paul Sweeney and Vonnie Quinn. 

Lisa Shalett, Morgan Stanley Wealth Management Chief Investment Officer, says the fear trade has been holding the U.S. dollar up in the near term. Ian Sheperdson, Pantheon Macroeconomics Founder & Chief Economist, says markets are expecting further aid from the U.S. government. Peter Hayes, Head of BlackRock's Municipal Bonds Group, says states and cities are facing a liquidity issue rather than a solvency issue. Freya Beamish, Pantheon Macroeconomics Chief Asia Economist, says the recovery in China is likely to underperform in the second half of the year. Joshua Sharfstein, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health Vice Dean for Public Health Practice and Community Engagement, says there are a lot of positive signs that there is evidence of immunity, but a case hasn't been proven yet. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Lisa Shalett, Morgan Stanley Wealth Management Chief Investment Officer, says the fear trade has been holding the U.S. dollar up in the near term. Ian Sheperdson, Pantheon Macroeconomics Founder & Chief Economist, says markets are expecting further aid from the U.S. government. Peter Hayes, Head of BlackRock's Municipal Bonds Group, says states and cities are facing a liquidity issue rather than a solvency issue. Freya Beamish, Pantheon Macroeconomics Chief Asia Economist, says the recovery in China is likely to underperform in the second half of the year. Joshua Sharfstein, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health Vice Dean for Public Health Practice and Community Engagement, says there are a lot of positive signs that there is evidence of immunity, but a case hasn't been proven yet.

Sam Fazeli, Director of Research: EMEA for Bloomberg Intelligence, on Gilead's positive trial for a potential coronavirus treatment. Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer: Wealth Management for Morgan Stanley, discusses why she wants clients to avoid S&P indices and to actively manage stock picks. David Garrity, Chief Market Strategist for Laidlaw & Co, and Partner at BTblock, discusses Google, Facebook and Big Tech earnings. Brooke Sutherland, Bloomberg Opinion Industrials columnist, on the stark reality for Boeing.

Host Hanna Gebremedhin and her business partner Lisa Shalett have launched Speak Volumes to bring conversations about non-profit innovation to the next generation of social justice warriors, advocates, and artists. 

Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer, Wealth Management for Morgan Stanley, discusses her investment outlook and strategy. John Butler, Senior Telecom Services & Equipment Analyst for Bloomberg Intelligence, to preview Apple earnings and discuss how the coronavirus is hitting supply chains. Christopher Balding, Associate Professor at Fulbright University Vietnam and a Bloomberg Opinion columnist, on Xi Jinping's response to the coronavirus. John Kilduff, Founder of Again Capital, on the big risk to oil markets from the coronavirus. Hosted by Lisa Abramowicz and Paul Sweeney.

Lisa Shalett is a Managing Partner & Head of Strategic Innovation at Brookfield Asset Management, a position she took after a year-long ‘retirement’ during which she advised startups and worked as an angel investor. Brookfield is an alternative asset management firm that focuses on long lasting investments in areas such as real estate. Lisa is an expert in the field of investment banking and financial services following her impressive 20 year career at Goldman Sachs, one of the largest investment banks in the world. At Goldman, Lisa held numerous positions including Global Head of Brand Marketing and Digital Strategy, managing the company’s brand during the 2008 financial crisis. The post 232: How to Handle Super Challenging Clients at Work w/ Lisa Shalett, Brookfield Asset Management [K-Cup DoubleShot] appeared first on Time4Coffee.

Lisa Shalett is a Managing Partner & Head of Strategic Innovation at Brookfield Asset Management, a position she took after a year-long ‘retirement’ during which she advised startups and worked as an angel investor. Brookfield is an alternative asset management firm that focuses on long lasting investments in areas such as real estate. Lisa is an expert in the field of investment banking and financial services following her impressive 20 year career at Goldman Sachs, one of the largest investment banks in the world. The post 231: Unexpected Entry-Levels Jobs in Business & Financial Services w/ Lisa Shalett, Brookfield Asset Management [K-Cup SingleShot] appeared first on Time4Coffee.

Lisa Shalett is a Managing Partner & Head of Strategic Innovation at Brookfield Asset Management, a position she took after a year-long ‘retirement’ during which she advised startups and worked as an angel investor. Brookfield is an alternative asset management firm that focuses on long lasting investments in areas such as real estate. Lisa is an expert in the field of investment banking and financial services following her impressive 20 year career at Goldman Sachs, one of the largest investment banks in the world. The post 172: What It’s Like To Work in Investment Banking at Goldman Sachs w/ Lisa Shalett, Brookfield Asset Management [Main T4C episode] appeared first on Time4Coffee.

Despite a potential recession on the horizon, homebuyers don’t seem to be dissuaded from entering our market. Today’s topic is one I’ve been talking about for over a year and a half, and it’s something that will start creating major headlines in the mainstream media: a possible recession on the horizon. According to four prominent surveys (the first of which was conducted by The Wall Street Journal) of economists who believed that a recession was going to happen soon, 22% thought it would occur this year, 46% thought it would happen next year, 18% thought it would happen in 2021, and 14% predicted it would happen sometime after 2021.   With that in mind, Realtor.com is quoted as saying, “Nearly 70 percent of home shoppers this spring think the U.S. will enter a recession in the next three years, but that hasn’t stopped them from trying to close on a home.” This reiterates a point I’ve been making all along: A recession doesn’t automatically equate to a housing crisis, and people don’t seem to be putting off their home buying plans. Also, more and more economists are starting to think that perhaps a recession isn’t right around the corner.  To quote Lisa Shalett, chief investment officer of wealth management at Morgan Stanley, “I’m not convinced a recession is coming soon…I see an improving housing market (low rates help), a rebound in bank lending, a tight labor market, higher oil prices, and well-behaved credit markets. All these point to a stable U.S. economic outlook.” In other words, people are feeling pretty good about the economy. At 2:23 in the video above, you can see a chart from the 2018 NAR Aspiring Home Buyers Profile that shows that the percentage of non-owners who want to own a home in the future has gradually increased over the course of 2018.  “More and more economists are starting to think that perhaps a recession isn’t right around the corner.” The pending and existing home sales reports have been volatile, but consumer traffic hasn’t yet reached the levels we experienced at this same time last year. However, as you can see in the slide at 3:16, the number of buyers who are coming into the market has increased over the past three months. What are their reasons for buying? There are several different reasons, some of which are in conflict with the others. What about sellers? As it turns out, the top reasons people decide to sell vary by age. As you can see at 3:48 in the video, younger sellers tend to sell because their home is too small, whereas older sellers sell because their home is too large or requires too much upkeep. In a sense, each side is selling the type of inventory that the other side wants.  That’s a wrap on my latest market update—if you have any more questions about our market, please don’t hesitate to give me a call or send me an email.  If you plan on selling your home soon, you’re invited to attend my next Home Selling Sharks seminar on June 18. There, you’ll learn everything you need to know in order to sell quickly and for top dollar. To register and learn more, visit my website www.homesharkseminar.com.  I hope to hear from you soon!

Lisa Shalett, Morgan Stanley Wealth Management CIO, says the last decade has been "a magical time" for companies to raise capital. George Bory, Wells Fargo Head of Fixed Income Research, says there's a real conundrum in the bond market. Eileen Burbidge, Passion Capital Partner, says Twitter's success will depend on their ability to control abusive behavior on their platform. Megan Greene, Manulife Asset Management Global Chief Economist, thinks GDP data are not as positive as the headline might suggest.  Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Host Jonathan Ferro spoke with Luke Kawa, Cross-asset reporter at Bloomberg News, about U.S. GDP and earnings. Jon also spoke with Michael McKee, international economics and policy correspondent for Bloomberg, about trade talks and the week ahead. Nick Maroutsos, Janus Henderson Investors Co-Head of Global Bonds, to discusses the Fed's next moves. Lisa Shalett, Morgan Stanley Wealth Management Chief Investment Officer, discussed the evolution of IPO's in the last decade.

Lisa Shalett, Morgan Stanley Wealth Management CIO, says the last decade has been "a magical time" for companies to raise capital. George Bory, Wells Fargo Head of Fixed Income Research, says there's a real conundrum in the bond market. Eileen Burbidge, Passion Capital Partner, says Twitter's success will depend on their ability to control abusive behavior on their platform. Megan Greene, Manulife Asset Management Global Chief Economist, thinks GDP data are not as positive as the headline might suggest. 

Lisa Shalett is a Managing Partner & Head of Strategic Innovation at Brookfield Asset Management, a position she took after a year-long ‘retirement’ during which she advised startups and worked as an angel investor. Lisa is an expert in the field of investment banking and financial services, acquiring wisdom from her impressive 20 year career at Goldman Sachs, one of the largest investment banks in the world. A Partner at Goldman, Lisa also held numerous other positions including Global Head of Brand Marketing and Digital Strategy, managing the company’s brand during the 2008 financial crisis. Prior to entering the financial services world, Lisa lived and worked in Japan and got her East Asian Studies degree from Harvard University, and later her MBA from the Harvard Business School. Lisa is an exceptional leader and strategic thinker who loves solving problems. Energized on life rather than caffeine, she makes time for coffee today in this T4C Espresso Shots episode to answer those key questions that you need to know if you are pursuing a career in financial services. The post 115: How to Break Into Banking & Financial Services w/ Lisa Shalett, Brookfield Asset Management [Espresso Shots] appeared first on Time4Coffee.

Interviewing business executives and leaders is one way I grow and learn. Especially when talking to women business leaders, I find that I walk away encouraged and enlightened. And of course, I especially enjoy it when one happens to be my friend. That’s the case today with former Goldman Sachs partner Lisa Shalett and former WNBA president Donna Orender, who joined me to talk about Donna’s recently released book, WOWsdom! The Girl's Guide to the Positive and the Possible. Seven out of ten girls feel they don't measure up academically, physically, or socially. 74% of girls feel they are under pressure to please everyone. These statistics confirm what we already know: the leaders of tomorrow need our support today. Filled with letters, activities, and no-nonsense advice from influencers, including Lisa, Queen Sugar actress Tina Lifford, CNN Editor-at-Large Kelly Wallace, founder of the Muhammad Ali Center Lonnie Ali, superstar athlete Annika Sorenstam and a certain radio show and podcast host, WOWsdom! celebrates the WOW of girls and the WISDOM of women. In letters written to themselves, women, men, and girls from all walks of life - artists, athletes, actors, business leaders, entrepreneurs, students, doctors, scientists, and humanitarians - share their hard-earned wisdom for girls who are seeking guidance and inspiration as they begin their personal and professional journeys.   Creating a world where the leaders of today help shape and inspire the leaders of tomorrow is what WOWsdom! is all about. “Better Off” is sponsored by Betterment. We love feedback so please leave us a rating or review in Apple Podcasts. "Better Off" theme music is by Joel Goodman, www.joelgoodman.com. Connect with me at these places for all my content: http://www.jillonmoney.com/  https://twitter.com/jillonmoney  https://www.facebook.com/JillonMoney  https://www.instagram.com/jillonmoney/  https://www.youtube.com/c/JillSchlesinger  https://www.linkedin.com/in/jillonmoney/  http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/jill-on-money  https://apple.co/2pmVi50

Ian Shepherdson, Pantheon Macroeconomics Chief Economist, says uncertainty about the tariff war is proving to be painful. Lisa Shalett, Morgan Stanley Wealth Management Head of Investment and Portfolio Strategies, advises her clients to have the maximum level of diversification in equity markets. Paul Sankey, Mizuho Oil Analyst and Managing Director, observes the global economy is stronger than people appreciate. And Brad DeLong, UC Berkeley Professor of Economics, says the 21st century won't be an American century if President Trump's trade and immigration policies continue.                                                Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Ian Shepherdson, Pantheon Macroeconomics Chief Economist, says uncertainty about the tariff war is proving to be painful. Lisa Shalett, Morgan Stanley Wealth Management Head of Investment and Portfolio Strategies, advises her clients to have the maximum level of diversification in equity markets. Paul Sankey, Mizuho Oil Analyst and Managing Director, observes the global economy is stronger than people appreciate. And Brad DeLong, UC Berkeley Professor of Economics, says the 21st century won't be an American century if President Trump's trade and immigration policies continue.                                               

In this episode of Success Stories, Lisa Shalett, Head of Investment & Portfolio Strategies for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management speaks with Catherine Robson about the behaviours of incredibly successful investors, why it was never her plan to work on Wall Street and shares her best career advice.

We have moved into an age when both the speed at which things progress and the technologies which are available to us have made it possible that effective collaborations, even outside of company teams, are not only possible but preferable. On this episode of the podcast, I've invited Lisa Shalett to talk with me about what it takes to create effective collaborations. Lisa is a former Goldman Sachs Partner, an advisor to startups, and angel investor, mentor, Brand Builder, and so much more. Her experience with both large and small companies makes her uniquely qualified to speak to this issue with authority and insight. Take the time to listen, you will learn many practical things that you can apply to your situation immediately. When you’re a small team you have no choice except to collaborate In a small, fast-growing company one of the biggest challenges is to sort through the chaos that often accompanies the rapid success being experienced. Things are coming at you all the time and it's hard to know when to focus on one area or at what point you should switch to another. In Lisa Shalett’s opinion, small companies have no choice but to collaborate because they have limited resources and must depend on their colleagues to get things done. When I asked Lisa for her advice for smaller companies she provided some incredible insights about the mindsets and approaches to collaboration that can help startups move forward successfully and more rapidly than before. You will enjoy what she has to share, so be sure you listen. The key pieces of successful collaborations between companies One of the most beneficial ways to collaborate is with other companies that are complementary to what your company is doing. Lisa Shalett recommends that entrepreneurs and founders do everything they can to get warm introductions to those in positions of leadership at the companies with which they would like to collaborate. Warm introductions are much easier ways into the sphere of influence of successful people than just going in cold - so it is worth your time to find the right people to make those introductions for you. She also says it is important to do your homework. Make sure you understand the values and direction of the company you want to collaborate with and can articulate why you value the same things and how it would be beneficial for your teams to work together. That is just one example of the kinds of wisdom Lisa shares on this episode. We face unique new challenges in our digital age. In this conversation, Lisa Shalett suggests some of the first things to address when addressing the challenges The digital age in which we live is brought a myriad of challenges that no one could have predicted. What are some of the ways we can effectively approach those challenges and come out on the other side wiser and more effective? Lisa Shalett says that we have to first learn to question why we do things the way that we do them. A close examination of our current practices and the reasons behind them can reveal inefficiencies and areas where new ideas could bring about an entirely different result. We should also be curious as to whether there are ways technology can make our processes simpler, or smarter. These are the kinds of things Lisa has learned in her long and successful career and she shares them generously on this episode. Always try to be learning. Recognize that you may learn your best lessons from entirely different contexts When I asked Lisa Shalett to share her best tips for those who are leading new companies, she advised a certain mindset before anything else: Always be learning. She has discovered that learning comes in all shapes and sizes and often from sources you wouldn't expect. It's been her experience that you often learn your best lessons from a myriad of seemingly unrelated contexts. She also emphasized that it is important to notice the similarities that exist between various options. This provides a window of insight into the possibilities of collaboration, new approaches, and more. I truly enjoyed this conversation with Lisa. She continues to be an inspiration and example for me as I pursue greater success in my journey. I hope you find her to be an inspiring mentor as well. Outline of This Episode [1:14] Lisa’s definition of collaboration: a mindset and an activity [2:54] The most successful collaborations Lisa has engaged in [6:39] The similarities and differences between large and small businesses [11:28] Key factors to make good collaborations happen between organizations [19:27] Tips for becoming a better master of collaboration Resources & People Mentioned Lisa Shalett on LinkedIn (write a short note and introduce a topic to discuss) Connect with Erica Erica@cotentialgroup.com Linkedin.com/in/ericadhawan Twitter.com/edhawan Facebook.com/ericadhawan  

This week’s episode is a story of career agility, embracing change, and living with intention. Lisa Shalett is a former Goldman Sachs partner, now board director and startup investor/advisor. At Goldman, Lisa held numerous leadership roles, including Japanese Equities, Global Compliance and Brand Marketing/Digital Strategy. She shares with us her approach to these transitions or “reinventions:” the danger of viewing your skills in narrow contexts (such as your current job); controlling your narrative as you change roles; or simply, asking your boss “What’s keeping you up at night?” We then discuss post-retirement life, driven in part by family considerations. Yet retirement isn’t as worry free as we perceive it to be, especially when identity and career are so intertwined. One must navigate FOMO, the (perceived) loss of relevance, maintaining one’s “edge,” and yes — even for retired Goldman partners — the emotional irrationality of negative cash flow burn arising from entrepreneurship. And her advice to those currently in the grind, make sure you carve out the space to call “time out” — so that a minimum you can reflect on the trifecta of life, family, and career. Full Show Notes: http://bit.ly/radpod8 E-mail Newsletter: http://bit.ly/RadReads