Podcasts about Morgan Stanley

Our analysts Andrew Sheets and Martijn Rats discuss why a prolonged disruption of oil flow through the Strait of Hormuz would be unprecedented—and nearly impossible for the market to absorb.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley.Martijn Rats: I'm Martijn Rats, Head of Commodity Research at Morgan Stanley.Andrew Sheets: Today on the program we're going to talk about why investors everywhere are tracking ships through the Strait of Hormuz.It's Wednesday, March 11th at 2pm in London.Andrew Sheets: Martijn, the oil market, which is often volatile, has been historically volatile over the last couple of weeks following renewed military conflict between the United States and Iran.Now, there are a lot of different angles to this, but the oil market is really at the center of the market's focus on this conflict. And so, I think before we get into the specifics, I think it's helpful to set some context. How big is the global oil market and where does the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz fit within that global picture?Martijn Rats: Yeah, so the global oil consumption is a little bit more than a 100 million barrels a day. But that splits in two parts. There is a pipeline market and there is a seaborne market. And when it comes to prices, the seaborne market is really where it's at. If you're sitting in China, you're buying oil from the Middle East, all of a sudden, it's not available. Sure, if there is a pipeline that goes from Canada into the United States, that doesn't really help you all that much.Andrew Sheets: So, it's the oil on the ships that really matters.Martijn Rats: It's the oil on ships that is the flexible part of the market that we can redirect to where the oil is needed. And that is also the market where prices are formed. The seaborne market is in the order of 60 million barrels a day. So, only a subset of the 100 [million]. Now relative to that 60 million barrel a day, the Strait of Hormuz flows about 20 [million]. So, the Strait of Hormuz is responsible for about a third of seaborne supply, which is, of course, very large and therefore, you know, very critical to the system.Andrew Sheets: And I think an important thing we should also discuss here, which we were just discussing earlier today on another call, is – this is a market that could be quite sensitive to actually quite small disruptions in oil. So, can you give just some sense of sensitivity? I mean, in normal times, what sort of disruptions, in terms of barrels of oil, kind of, move markets; get investors' attention?Martijn Rats: Yeah, look, this is part of why this situation is so unusual, and oil analysts really sort of struggle with this. Look normally, at relative to the 100 million barrels a day of consumption, we care about supply demand imbalances of a couple of 100,000 barrels a day. That becomes interesting.If that, increases to say 1 million barrel a day, over- or undersupplied, you can expect prices to move. You can expect them to move by meaningful amounts. We can write research; the clients can trade. You have a tradable idea in front of you. When that becomes 2 to 3 million barrels a day, either side, you have major historical market moving events.So, in [20]08-09, oil famously fell from over 100 [million] down to something like 30 [million], on the basis that the oil market was 2-2.5 million barrel day oversupplied for two quarters. In 2022, we all thought – this actually never happened, but we all thought that Russia was going to lose about 3 million barrel day of supply. And on that basis, just on the basis of the expectation alone, Brent went to $130 per barrel. So, 2-3 [million] either side you have historically large moves. Now we're talking about 20 [million].Andrew Sheets: And I think that's what's so striking. I mean, again, I think investors, people listening to this, they can do that arithmetic too. If this is a market where 2 to 3 million barrels a day have caused some of the largest moves that we've seen in history, something that's 20 [million] is exceptional. And I think it's also fair to say this type of closure of the Strait [of Hormuz] is something we haven't seen before.Martijn Rats: No, which also made it very hard to forecast, by the way. Because the historical track records did not point in that direction, and yet here we are. The historical track record – look, you can look at other major disruptions historically.The largest disruption in the history of the oil market is the Suez Crisis in the mid-1950s that took away about 10 percent of global oil consumption. This is easily double that. So really unusual. If you look at supply and demand shocks of this order of magnitude, you can think about COVID. In April 2020, for one month, at the peak of COVID, when we're all sitting at home. Nobody driving, nobody flying. Yeah, we lost very briefly 20 million barrels a day of demand. Now we're losing 20 million barrels a day of supply. So, look, the sign is flipped, but it's in the same order of magnitude. And yeah, these are unusual events that you wouldn't actually, sort of, forecast them that easily. But that is what is in front of us at the moment.Andrew Sheets: So, I think the next kind of logical question is if shipping remains disrupted, and I'd love for you to talk a little bit about, you know, you're sitting there with satellite maps on your screen tracking shipping, which is – a development. But, you know, what are the options that are available in the region, maybe globally to temporarily balance this supply and create some offset?Martijn Rats: Yeah. So, like of course when we have a big disruption like this one, of course the market is going to try to solve for this. There are a few blocks that we can work with. I'll run you through them one by one, including some of the numbers. But very quickly you arrive at the conclusion that this is; this puzzle – we can't really solve it.Like in 2022, the market was very stressed. We thought Russia was going to lose 3 million barrels a day of supply, but we could move things around in our supply demand model. Russia oil goes to China and India. Oil that they buy, we can get in Europe, we can move stuff around to kind of sort of solve a puzzle.This puzzle is very, very difficult to solve. So, through the Strait of Hormuz, 15 million barrels a day have crude, 5 million barrels a day of refined product, 20 million barrels a day in total. What can we do?Well, the biggest offset, is arguably the Saudi EastWest pipeline. Saudi Arabia has a pipeline that effectively allows it to ship oil to the Red Sea at the Port of Yanbu, where it can be evacuated on tankers there. That pipeline has a capacity of 7 million barrels a day. We think it was probably already flowing at something like 3 million barrels a day. So, there's probably an incremental 4 [million] that can become available through that. That's the biggest block, that we can see of workaround capacity, so to say.After that the numbers do get smaller. The UAE has a pipeline that goes through Fujairah that's also beyond the Strait of Hormuz. We think there is maybe 0.5 million barrel a day of capacity there. Then you're basically, sort of, done within the region, and you have to look globally for other sources of oil.If there are sanctions relief, maybe on Russian oil, you can find a 0.5 million barrel day there. Here, there and everywhere. 100,000 barrels a day, 200,000 barrels a day. But the numbers get…Andrew Sheets: It's still not… So, if you kind of put all of those, you know, kind of, almost in a best-case scenario relative to the 20 million that's getting disrupted.Martijn Rats: If you add another one or two from a massive SPR release, the fastest release from SPR…Andrew Sheets: That's the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.Martijn Rats: Yeah, exactly. Earlier today, we got an announcement, that the IEA is proposing to release 400 million barrels from Strategic Reserve across its member countries. That is a very large number. But – and that is important. But more important is how fast can it flow because the extraction rate from these tanks is not infinite. The fastest ever rate of SPR release is only 1.3 million barrels a day. Now, maybe the circumstances are so extraordinary, we can do better than that and we can get it to 2 [million]. But beyond that, you're really in very, very uncharted territory.So maybe in the region, work around sanctions relief, SPR release, we can probably find like 7 million barrels a day out of a problem that is 20 [million]. You're left with another 13 [million]. The 13 [million] is four times what we thought Russia would lose. So, you're left with this conclusion: Look, this really needs to come to an end.Andrew Sheets: And the other rebalancing mechanism, which again, you know, when we come back to markets and forecasting, this is obviously price. And, you know, you talk about this idea of demand destruction, which I think we could paraphrase as – the price is higher so people use less of it and then you can rebalance the market that way.But give us just a little sense of, you know, as you and your team are sitting there modeling, how do you think about, kind of, the price of oil? Where it would need to go to – to potentially rebalance this the other way.Martijn Rats: Yeah, that price is very high. So, what it's a[n] really interesting analysis to do is to look at the historical frequency distribution of inflation adjusted oil prices.You take 20 years of oil prices. You convert it all in money of the day, adjusted for inflation, and then simply plot the frequency distribution. What you get is not one single bell curve centered around the middle with some variation around the midpoint. You get, sort of, two partially overlapping bell curves.There is a slightly larger one, which is, sort of, the normal regime. Lower prices, 60, 70, 80 bucks. There's a lot of density there in the frequency distribution, that's where we are normally. What's interesting is that actually, if you go from there to higher prices, there are prices that are actually very rare in inflation adjusted terms.Like a [$] 100-110. In nominal terms, we might feel that that has happened. In inflation adjusted terms, these prices are extremely rare. They are way rarer than prices that live even further to the right. [$]130, 140.The oil market has this other regime of these very high prices. If you go back in history, when did those prices prevail? They always prevailed in periods where we asked the same question. What is the demand destruction price? And yeah, to erode demand by a somewhat meaningful quantity, yeah, you end up in that regime. These very high prices, like [$]130. And it's… It's not a gradual scale. You sort of at one point shoot through these levels and that's where you then end up.Andrew Sheets: It's quite, quite serious stuff.Martijn Rats: Well, yeah. Also, because we can casually say in the oil market, ‘Oh, demand erosion has to be the answer.' But we don't erode demand in isolation. Like, you know, diesel is trucking. Yeah, jet is flying. NAFTA is petrochemicals.Andrew Sheets: These are real core parts of economic activity.Martijn Rats: It's all GDP.Andrew Sheets: So maybe Martijn, in conclusion, let me give you a slightly different scenario. Let's say that the conflict goes on for another couple of weeks, but then there is a resolution. Traffic goes back to normal. Walk us through a little bit of what that would mean. You know, kind of how long does it take to get back to normal in a market like this?Martijn Rats: Yeah. So, if you say, weeks, I would say that is an uncomfortable period of time actually.Andrew Sheets: Feel free to use a slightly different scenario.Martijn Rats: If you say days. Let's say next week something happens, the whole thing comes soon to end. Look, then we will have logistical supply chain issues. But look, we can work through that.There is at the moment somewhat of an air pocket in the global oil supply chain. There should be oil tankers on their way to refineries for arrival in April and May that currently are not. So, we will have hiccups and things need to be rerouted and we draw on some inventories here or there, but… And that will keep commodity prices tense, I would imagine. The equity market will probably look through it.We'll have a month or six weeks, not more than two months, I would imagine of logistical issues to sort out. Look, of course, if that, you know, doesn't happen, then we're back in the scenario that we discussed. But yeah, look, that that's equally true. If it's short, we can sort of live with a disruption.Andrew Sheets: It's fair to say that this is a situation where days really matter, where weeks make a big difference.Martijn Rats: Oh, totally. Look, the oil industry has built in various, sort of, compensatory measures, I think. You know, inventories along the supply chains. But nothing of the scale that can work with this. I mean, this is truly yet another order of magnitude.Andrew Sheets: Martijn, thank you for taking the time to talk.Martijn Rats: My pleasure.Andrew Sheets: And thank you as always for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.Important note regarding economic sanctions. This report references jurisdictions which may be the subject of economic sanctions. Readers are solely responsible for ensuring that their investment activities are carried out in compliance with applicable laws.

Our Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Serena Tang discusses how rising oil prices and geopolitical tensions could make stocks and bonds move in the same direction, challenging one of the key principles of portfolio diversification.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's Chief Cross-Asset Strategist. Today: what happens if your main diversification strategy suddenly stops working because of oil price moves? It's Tuesday, March 10th, at 10am in New York. For decades, investors have relied on the idea that stocks and bonds return tend to move in opposite directions. When equities fall, bonds often rise, helping cushion portfolio losses. But that relationship isn't guaranteed. Between 2021 and 2023, coming out of the pandemic, stocks and bonds sold off together, and the traditional 60/40 equity-bond portfolio suffered its worst annual performance in nearly a century. Now, recent geopolitical tensions and rising oil prices are raising a familiar concern for investors: Could that uncertainty dynamic return? At first glance, oil prices may seem like a narrow commodity story. But in reality, they can shape the entire macroeconomic environment. The classic negative correlation between stocks and bonds depends on a fairly simple economic pattern: growth and inflation moving in the same direction. When economic growth accelerates, inflation often rises as well. In that environment, equities may perform well while bonds weaken. But when growth and inflation move in opposite directions, the relationship between stocks and bonds can flip. That's what happened coming out of the pandemic. Bond investors worried about rising inflation, while equity investors were worried about slowing growth. In that scenario, both asset classes' returns declined at the same time.A sustained oil price shock could potentially recreate those conditions. Higher oil prices can push up inflation while also weighing on economic activity – a combination that economists often refer to as stagflation. If markets begin to price in that kind of environment again, the relationship between stocks and bonds could shift back toward that less favorable regime. Despite recent volatility tied to tensions in the Middle East, the relationship between stocks and bonds today still largely reflects the traditional pattern. Overall, stock-bond returns correlation remains negative, meaning bonds can still help diversify equity risk. In fact, correlations between U.S. stocks and 2-year Treasury returns have been trending negative since 2024, and on a longer-term basis they are now extremely negative relative to the past three years. But the key point here is that not all bonds behave the same way. Many investors think of government bonds as a single asset class. But the maturity of the bond – how long it takes to repay – matters a lot for diversification. Shorter-dated bonds, such as 2-year U.S. Treasuries, have maintained stronger negative correlations with equities. Longer-dated bonds, however – particularly the 30-year Treasury – have behaved a bit differently. Their correlation with stocks has been stickier and less negative, partly because markets increasingly view longer-dated bonds as risky. As a result, the difference between how 2-year and 30-year Treasuries move relative to stocks has remained unusually wide for several years. In recent days oil prices have been rising -- linked in part to concerns around the Strait of Hormuz. That's pushing up yields at the front end of the Treasury curve, creating what's known as a bear-flattening. In other words, short-term interest rates are rising faster than long-term ones, reflecting markets placing more emphasis on inflation risks. And that brings us to the key questions for investors: Which risks will dominate from here – is it going to be higher inflation or slower growth? The answer could determine which assets provide better diversifications in the months ahead. So the takeaway is this: Higher oil prices and geopolitical risks could increase the chances that stocks and bonds move together again. But diversification isn't disappearing. It's just becoming more nuanced. For investors, the real question isn't whether bonds diversify portfolios. It's which bonds do. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains why history, technicals and fundamentals suggest a clearer runway for U.S. stocks six months out, despite geopolitical concerns.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley's CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast, I'll be discussing the conflict in Iran and what it means for equities. It's Monday, March 9th at 11:30 am in New York. So, let's get after it. While most believe the current equity market correction began in February, it's clear to me that it actually began last fall when liquidity began to tighten. In fact, back in September I warned that the Fed was not doing enough with the balance sheet – and financial conditions were likely to tighten and cause some stress in equities. Starting in October, that stress manifested as a sharp correction in the most speculative parts of the equity market and crypto currencies. The Fed responded by ending its balance sheet reduction earlier than expected and restarting asset purchases which led to strong equity performance in January. At this point, the correction is very well advanced in both time and price, with many stocks down 30 percent, or more. Meanwhile, dispersion has rarely been higher with the spread between winners and losers the highest we have seen in 20+ years. As usual, the markets got it right by anticipating many of the concerns that are now obvious to all. The questions for equity investors now are what will the world look like in six months and are prices cheap enough to start assuming a better future? The short answer is not yet, but get your shopping lists ready. In many ways, we find ourselves in a very similar position to last year. Recall that the major indices started to accelerate lower in Late February and early March. The concern at the time was centered around tariffs, but like today, equity markets had already been trading poorly for months on concerns that had nothing to do with tariffs. This time around, markets have been worried about AI labor disruption, private credit defaults and liquidity shortages long before the Iran conflict escalated. Corrections typically don't end until the best stocks and highest quality indices get hit and that usually takes a bigger shock, like Liberation Day or war. That process has begun with the S&P 500 having its worst week since October. The other thing to consider is that market levels tend to be tied to where they were a year ago. This year-over-year comparison is very important when thinking about support. Given the sharp decline last year, it tells me we have another month during which the equity markets are likely to struggle. Based on this simple observation and other technical indicators, I think the S&P 500 could trade toward 6300 by early April before our favorable fundamental outlook can take hold again. Does this mean we shouldn't worry about the conflict in Iran taking oil prices sustainably above $100? No, but since no one seems to be able to predict the outcome of military conflicts or oil prices, I am not going to try either. Instead, I am going to assume that in six months, things have likely settled down after this initial surge, much like we saw after Russia invaded Ukraine. Importantly, the spike in oil prices is the result of a logistical logjam in the Straits of Hormuz rather than a shortage of supply. That logjam is a real constraint, but necessity is the mother of ingenuity and will likely be solved. Another reason to be optimistic six months out is the broadening in earnings growth, a trend that remains intact and a key call in our 2026 outlook. Secondarily, the US is much more resilient than Asia and Europe to an oil shock given its energy independence. This should attract investor flows back to the US. And finally, tax incentives for capital spending and tax cuts for individuals in the [One] Big Beautiful Bill should provide a positive offset to the higher oil prices in the short term. On the negative side, the flight to quality and safety could lead to more US dollar strength which is a headwind to global liquidity. Bottom line, oil and US dollar strength is likely to persist until the conflict simmers down. While much of the damage has likely been done to the most vulnerable parts of the equity market, the index remains vulnerable to another 5-7 percent downside in my opinion while crowded stocks could see double digit declines before a final low appears next month. Remember market lows happen faster than tops so be ready to add risk in anticipation of the bull market resuming later this year. Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!

In this week's MBA Admissions podcast we began by discussing the current state of the MBA admissions season. We are now getting close to the end of the interview invite season for Round 2 as top MBA programs begin to release their final decisions. This upcoming week, UNC / Kenan Flagler, Duke / Fuqua, Michigan / Ross, Notre Dame / Mendoza, SMU / Cox and Imperial Business School are releasing their Round 2 decisions. A few MBA programs are also beginning their next admissions rounds, including Georgia / Terry, IESE and Maryland / Smith. Graham highlighted upcoming MBA webinar events. On March 19, we are hosting a series of panel discussions focused on international students who are targeting the top MBA programs in the United States. On May 11, Clear Admit is hosting our in-person MBA Fair in Atlanta. Signups for these events are here: https://www.clearadmit.com/events Graham then highlighted several MBA admissions tips, focusing on Welcome Weekend events, the importance of pre-MBA coursework for MBA applicants, and two that focus on deferred admissions at UPenn / Wharton and Columbia. Finally, Graham addressed the new season of Real Humans Alumni. This week focuses on four alumni from Rice / Jones at Bain, NYU / Stern at BCG, Harvard at Amazon and CMU / Tepper at Morgan Stanley. For this week, for the candidate profile review portion of the show, Alex selected two ApplyWire entries and one DecisionWire entry: This week's first MBA admissions candidate is from India and is looking to pivot from accounting to finance. They are applying next season and still need to take the GMAT exam. This week's second MBA applicant has a 316 GRE score and is planning to retake the GRE before applying next season. We believe they will have a really strong profile if they can raise their GRE score. This week's final MBA candidate is deciding between Fuqua, Goizueta and Owen. This episode was recorded in Paris, France and Cornwall, England. It was produced and engineered by the fabulous Dennis Crowley in Philadelphia, USA. Thanks to all of you who've been joining us and please remember to rate and review this show wherever you listen!

Live from Morgan Stanley's TMT conference, our panel break down where AI is already delivering real returns—and where rapid advances are raising new risks.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist here at Morgan Stanley.Today we've got a special episode on AI adoption. And this is a first in a two-part conversation live from our Technology, Media and Telecom conference.It's Thursday, March 5th at 11am in San Francisco.We're really excited to be here with all of you taping live. And we've got on stage with me. Stephen Byrd, he's our Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research; Josh Baer, Software Analyst; and Lindsay Tyler, TMT Credit Research Analyst.So, Stephen, I want to start with you, pretty broad, pretty high level. We recently published our fifth AI Mapping Survey that identifies how different companies are exposed to the broad AI theme. Can you just share with us some insights from that piece and how stocks are performing with this AI exposure?Stephen Byrd: Yeah, it's interesting. I mean, we've been doing this survey now, thanks to you, Michelle, and your excellent work, for quite a while. And every six months it is pretty telling to see the progression.I would say a few things that got my attention from our most recent mapping was the number of companies that are quantifying the adoption benefits continues to go up quite a bit. And to me that feels like that's going to be table stakes very soon as in every industry you see two or three companies that are really laying out quite specifically what they expect to be able to do with AI and lay out the math. I think that really is going to pull all the other companies to follow suit. So, we're seeing that in a big way.We do see adopters, with real tangible benefits performing well. But a new thing that we're seeing now, of course, in the market is concerns that in some cases adoption can lead to dramatic deflation, disruption, et cetera. That's coming up as well. So, we're seeing greater concerns around disruption as well.But broadly, I'd say a proliferation of adoption, that that universe of companies continues to grow, increases in quantification of the benefits. So, that is good. What's really surprised me though, is the narrative among investors has so quickly moved from those benefits which we've talked about into flipping that to toggle all negative, which I know some of our analysts have to deal with every day. The mapping work suggests significant benefits. But the market is fast forwarding to very powerful AI that is very disruptive in deflation. And that's been a surprise to me.Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm. Josh, I want to bring software into this. Your team has been arguing that AI is actually good for software. And it's really something that you need that application layer to then enable other companies to adopt AI. Can you tell us a little bit about how much GenAI could add to the broader enterprise software market? And how are you thinking about monetization these days?Josh Baer: Of course. I think the best starting place is a reminder that AI is software, and so we see software as a TAM expander. And in many ways, even though this is extremely exciting innovation, it's following past innovation trends where first you see value accrue and market cap accrue to semiconductors, and then hardware and devices, and then eventually software and services. And we do think that that absolutely will occur just given [$]3 trillion in infrastructure investment into data centers and GPUs.There's got to be an application layer that brings all of these productivity and efficiency gains to enterprises and advanced capabilities to consumers as well. And so we see AI more as an evolution for software than a revolution. An evolution of capabilities and expansion of capabilities. LLMs and diffusion engines absolutely unlocked all of these new features of what software can do. But incumbents will play a key role in this unlock.And our CIO surveys really support that. Quarterly we ask chief information officers about their spending intentions, and these application vendors who we cover in the public markets are increasingly selected as vendors that companies will go to, to help deploy and apply AI and LLM technologies.So, to answer your question, we estimate GenAI could unlock [$]400 billion in incremental TAM for software; for enterprise software by 2028. And this is based on looking at the type of work able to be automated, the labor costs associated with that work, the scope of automation, and then thinking about how much of that value is captured typically by software vendors.Michelle Weaver: And you have a bit of a different lens on AI adoption. So, what are some of the ways you're hearing software customers using these AI tools and anything interesting that popped up at the conference?Josh Baer: To echo what Stephen laid out, I mean, all of our software companies are using AI internally, both to drive efficiencies, but also to move faster. So thinking about product. Innovation, you know, the incumbents are able to use all of the same coding tools and, you know, …Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm.Josh Bear: … products geared to developers to move faster and more efficiently on R&D. So, they're doing more. From a sales and marketing perspective, a G&A perspective, every area of OpEx, our software companies are in a great position to deploy the AI tools internally.I think more important[ly], speaking to this TAM and expanded opportunity, is our companies have skews that they're monetizing. It might be a separate suite that incorporates advanced AI functionality. It might be a standalone offering, or it might be embedded into the core platform because the essence of software is AI and it, you know, leading to better retention rates and acceleration from here.Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm. And Stephen, going back to you on the state of play for AI, we had the AI labs here and we heard a lot about the developments and what's to come. So, what's your view on the trajectory for LLM advancements and what are some of the key signposts or catalysts you're watching here?Stephen Byrd: Yeah, this is for me, maybe the most important takeaway of the conference – is this continued non-linear improvement of LLMs, which we've been writing about for quite some time. And just to give you an example, we think many of the labs have achieved a step change up in terms of the compute that they have, in some cases 10 x the amount of compute to train their LLMs. And that [if] the scaling laws hold – and we see every sign that they will – a 10x increase in compute used to train the models results in about a doubling of the model capabilities.Now just let that sink in for a moment. Let's just think about that. A doubling from here in a relatively short period of time is difficult to predict. It's obviously very significant and I think several of the LLM execs at our event sounded to me extremely bullish on what that will be. A lot of that I think will be evident in greater agentic capabilities.But also, I'd say greater creativity. It was about three weeks ago, three of the best physics minds in the world worked with an LLM to achieve a true breakthrough in physics – solving a problem that had never been solved before. A couple of days ago, a math team did the same thing. And so, what we're seeing is sort of these breakthrough capabilities in creativity. This morning I thought Sam speaking to, you know, incredible increases in what these models can do – which also brings risk. You know, I think it was interesting he spoke to, you know, the risk of misalignment, the risk of what these models are doing.But for me, that's the single biggest thing that I'm thinking about, and that's going to be evident in the next several months.Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm.Stephen Byrd: So, you know, on the positive side, it leads to greater benefits from AI adoption. And to Josh's point that, you know – more and more the economy can be addressed by AI, I do get concerned about the risk that that kind of step change will create greater concerns about disruption and deflation.That causes me to think a lot about that dynamic. Interestingly, we think the Chinese labs will not be able to keep pace just for one reason, which is compute. We think the Chinese labs have everything else they need. They have the talent, the infrastructure. They certainly have the energy, power. But they don't have the chips.If what we laid out with the American models turns out to be true, I could see a chain reaction where the Chinese government pushes the Trump administration for full transfer of the best technology to China. And China could use their rare earth trade position to ensure that. So, that's sort of the chain reaction I've been thinking about.Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm. So, let's think about then bottlenecks in the U.S. Power is still one of the main bottlenecks. We had several of the solutions providers here at the conference. So, what are you thinking in terms of the size of the power bottleneck in the U.S. and how are we going to fix that?Stephen Byrd: Yeah, absolutely. I am bullish on the companies that can de-bottleneck power, not just in the U.S., a few other places. Let's go through the math in terms of the problem we face and then the solution.So, we have this very cool – it is cool if you're a nerd – power model that starts in the chip level up, from our semiconductor teams. And from that, we build a global power demand model for data centers. We then apply that to the U.S.Through 2028 we need about 74 gigawatts of data centers, both AI and non-AI to be built in the United States. I don't think we'll be able to achieve that for lots of reasons. But starting from that 74, we have sort of 10 gigs that have been recently built or are under construction. We have 15 gigs of incremental grid access, but after those two, we have to go to unconventional solutions, meaning typically off-grid solutions, over 40 gigawatts of unconventional solutions.So that will be repurposing Bitcoin sites, which could be sort of 10 to 15 gigawatts. That'll be big. Renewable energy, fuel cells will be part of the solution. Gas turbines will be a big part of the solution. Co-locating at a few nuclear plants. I'm less bullish than I used to be on that. But when we net all that out, we think the U.S. is likely to be 10 to 20 percent short of the data center capacity that will need to be in.It's not just a power grid access issue, though, that's a big one. Labor is now showing up as a huge issue. Many of the companies I speak to trying to develop data centers struggle with availability of labor. Electricians being one very tangible example. In the U.S. we need hundreds of thousands of additional electricians.So, for any of your children, like mine, thinking about careers, you know, you'd be surprised [at] the amount of money that people are making in the infrastructure business that does feel like it's a labor shift that's going to have to happen, but it's going to take years. So, in that context, we had a number of the Bitcoin companies at our event here. And the economics of turning a Bitcoin site into hosting a data center are extremely attractive. I mean, extremely attractive.To give you a sense of that. Before this opportunity presented itself to these Bitcoin players, those stocks tended to trade at an enterprise value per watt of about $1 to $2 a watt. Then we started to see these deals in which the Bitcoin players build a data center and lease them to hyperscalers. Those deals – depends a lot on the deal but – have created between $10 and $18 a watt of value. Let me repeat that. 10 to 18 – relative to where these stocks were at 1 to 2.Now many of these stocks have rerated, but not all of them. And there's still quite a bit of upside. And what we've noticed is the economics that the hyperscalers are paying are trending up and up and up. Because of this power shortage that we're dealing with. So, a lot of exciting opportunities are still in the power space.Michelle Weaver: Great. Well, I think that's a good place to wrap this first part of our conversation around AI adoption and the state of play. We'll be back again tomorrow with Part Two, looking at financing and risks.To our panelists, thank you for talking with me. And to our audience, thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

In the second of our two-part panel discussion from Morgan Stanley's TMT conference, our analysts break down the complexity of financing AI's infrastructure and the technological disruption happening across industries.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michelle Weaver: Welcome back to Thoughts on the Market, and welcome to part two of our conversation live from the Technology, Media and Telecom conference. I'm Michelle Weaver, U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist at Morgan Stanley. Today we're continuing our conversation with Stephen Byrd, Josh Baer and Lindsay Tyler. This time looking at financing AI and some of the risks to the story. It's Friday, March 6th at 11am in San Francisco. So yesterday we spoke about AI adoption. And while there's a lot of excitement on this theme, there've also been some concerns bubbling up. Lindsay, I want to start with you around financing. That's another critical component of the AI build out. What's your latest on the magnitude of the data center financing gap, and what role [are] credit markets playing here? Lindsay Tyler: Yeah, in partnership with Thematic Research, Stephen and team, and colleagues across fixed income research last summer, we did put out a note, thinking about the data center financing gap, right? So, Stephen and team modeled a $3 trillion global data center CapEx need over a four-year timeframe. So, in partnership with fixed income across asset classes, we thought: okay, how will that really be funded? And we came to the conclusion that the hyperscalers, the high quality hyperscalers, generate a good amount of cash flow, right? So, there's cash from ops that can fund approximately half of that. But then we think that fixed income markets are critical to fund the rest of the funding gap. And really private credit is the leader in that and then aided by corporate credit and also securitized credit. What we've seen since is that yes, private credit has served a role. There is this difference between private credit 1.0, which is more of that middle market direct lending. And then private credit 2.0, which is more ABF – Asset Based Finance or Asset Backed Finance. And what we see there is an interest in leases of hyperscaler tenants, right? We've also seen in the market over the past nine months or so, investment grade bond issuance by hyperscalers. Obviously, a use of cash flow by hyperscalers. We've seen the construction loans with banks and also private credit per reports. We've also seen high yield bond issuance, which is kind of a new trend for construction financing. We've seen ABS and CMBS as well. And then something new that's emerging in focus for investors is more of a chip-backed or compute contract backed financings, like more creative solutions. We're really in early innings of the spend right now. And so, there is this shift. As we start to work through the construction early phases, the next focus is: okay, but what about the chips? And so, I think a big focus is that, you know, chips are more than 50 percent of the spend for if you're looking at a gigawatt site. And it depends what type of chips and kind of what generation. But that's the next leg of this too. So, it's kind of a focus, you know, for 2026. Michelle Weaver: And how do you view balance sheet leverage and financing when you think about hyperscaler debt raising magnitude and timelines? Lindsay Tyler: So just to bring it down to more of a basic level, if you need compute, you really might need two things, right? A powered shell and then the chips. And so, if you're looking for that compute, you could kind of go in three basic ways. You could look to build the shell and kind of build and buy the whole thing. You could lease the shell, from, you know, a developer, maybe a Bitcoin miner too – that is converted to HBC. And then you kind of buy the chips and you put them in yourselves. Or you could lease all the compute; quote unquote lease, it's more of a contract. In terms of the funding, if you're thinking about the cash flows of some of the big companies – think of that as primarily being put towards chip spend. If you're thinking about the construction that's kind of split between cash CapEx but also leases. And so, what we've seen is that there is more than [$]600 billion of un-commenced lease obligations that will commence over the next two to five years, across the big four or five players. And then my equity counterparts estimate around [$]700 billion of cash CapEx that needs this year for some of those players as well. So, these are big numbers. But that's kind of how, at a basic level, they're approaching some of the financing. It's a split approach. Michelle Weaver: And what have you learned around financing the past few days at the conference? Anything incremental to share there? Lindsay Tyler: Sure. Yeah. I think I found confirmation of some key themes here at the conference. The first being that numerous funding buckets are available. That was a big focus of our note last year is that you can kind of look at asset level financing. You can look at public bonds, you can look at some equity. There are these different funding buckets available.The second is that tenant quality matters for construction financing. I think I've seen this more in the markets than maybe at this conference over the past two to three weeks. But that has been a focus of pricing for the deals, but also market depth for the deals. A third confirmation of a key theme was around the neo clouds and also the GPU as a service business models. Thinking about those creative financings, right. Are they thinking about from their compute counterparties? Would they like upfront payments? Might they look to move financing off [the] balance sheet, if they have a very high-quality investment grade rated counterparty? So, there is some of this evolution around those solutions. And then a fourth key theme is just around the credit support. And Stephen has and I have talked about this around some of the Bitcoin miners – is that, you know, there can be these higher quality investment grade players that might look to lend their credit support. Maybe a lease backstop to other players in the ecosystem in order to get a better pricing on construction financing. And we are seeing some press pickup around how that might play out in chip financing down the road too. Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm. AI driven risk and potential disruption has been a big feature of the price action we've seen year-to-date in this theme. Stephen, what are some asset classes or businesses you see as resistant to some of this disruption? Stephen Byrd: We spend a lot of time thinking about, sort of, asset classes that are resistant to deflation and disruption. And what's interesting is there's actually a handful of economists in the world that are doing remarkable work on this concept. That they would call it the economics of transformative AI. There are three Americans, two Canadians, two Brits, a number of others who are doing really, really interesting work. And essentially what they're looking at is what do economies look like? As we see very powerful AI enter many industries – cause price reductions, deflation… What does that do? They have a lot of interesting takeaways, but one is this idea that the relative value of assets that cannot be deflated by AI goes up. Very simple idea. But think of it this way, I mean, there's only, you know, one principle resort on Kauai. You know, there's a limited amount of metals. And so, what we go through is this list that's gotten a lot of investor attention of resistant asset classes or more of the resistant asset classes that can go up in value. So, there are obvious ones like land, though you have to be a little careful with real estate in the sense that like, office real estate probably wouldn't be where you would go. Nor would you potentially go sort of towards middle income, lower income housing. But more, you know, think of industrial REITs, higher-end real estate. But there are a lot of other categories that are interesting to me. All kinds of infrastructure should be quite resistant, all kinds of critical materials. Metals should do extremely well in this. But then when you go beyond that, it's actually kind of interesting that there; arguably there's a longer list than those classic sort of land and metals examples.Examples here would be compute… Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm. Stephen Byrd: I thought Jensen put it, well, you know, if there's a limited amount of infrastructure available, you want to put the best compute. And ultimately, in some ways, intelligence becomes the new coin of the realm in the world, right? So, I would want to own the purveyors of intelligence. It could include high-end luxury. It could include unique human experiences. So, I don't know how many of y'all have children who are sort of college age. But my children are college age, and they absolutely hate what they would call AI slop.They want legit human content, and they seek it out. And they absolutely hate it when they see bad copies of human content. And so, I think there is a place in many parts of the economy for unique human experiences, unique human content, and it's interesting to kind of seek out where that might be in the economy. So those would be some examples of resistant assets. Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm. Josh, software's been at really the center of this AI disruption debate. How would you compare the current pullback in software multiples to prior periods of peak uncertainty? And do you think any of these concerns are valid? Or how are you thinking about that? Josh Baer: Great question. I mean, software multiples on an EV to sales basis are down 30 – 35 percent just from the fall, I will say. And that's overall in the group. A lot of stocks, multiple handfuls, are down 60-70 percent over the last year. And what's being priced in is really peak uncertainty, a lot of fear. And these multiples, now four times sales – takes us all the way back about 10 years to the shift to cloud. And this time in many ways reminds us of that period of peak fear. In this case, what's being priced in is terminal value risk. We talked about this TAM yesterday. But you know, who is going to win that share? How is it divided from a competitive perspective across these model providers? The LLMs with new entrants. Of course, the incumbents. And this other idea of in-housing. Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm. Josh Baer: So, there's competitive risk, there's business model risk. Are companies going to need to change their pricing models from seat-based to consumption or hybrid. And then last margin risk. Just thinking about the higher input costs and higher capital intensity. And so, you know, all of those fears are being priced in right now. Michelle Weaver: And we, of course though, had a bunch of these companies live with us at the conference. How are they responding to some of these risks? How are they addressing these investor concerns? Josh Baer: Most of the companies here from our coverage are the incumbent software vendors. And I think that the leadership teams did a really nice job coming out and defending their competitive moats and really articulating the story of why they are in a great position to capitalize on the opportunity. And the reasons can vary across different companies. But some of the commonalities are around enterprise grade, trust, security, governance, acceptance from IT organizations.The idea of vibe coding all apps in an organization get squashed when you actually talk to companies and chief information officers. For some companies there's proprietary data moats, network effects. All of that's on top of existing customer relationships. And so, you know, that was the message from the companies that we had. That we're the incumbents. We get to use all of the same innovative AI technology in the same way that all these different competitive buckets do. But we have, you know, that differentiation in that moat. And so, we're in a good place. Michelle Weaver: I want to wrap on a positive note. Stephen, what did you hear at the conference that you're most excited about? Stephen Byrd: I'd say the life sciences. A few investors pointed out that perhaps AI has a PR problem these days. And I do think showing a significant benefit to humanity in terms of improved health outcomes, whether that's just better diagnosis, you know. Away from this event, but I was in India the week before and, you know, AI can have a powerful benefit to the people who suffer the most in terms of providing very powerful medical tools in a distributed manner. So, I'm a big fan there.But you know, in many ways, curing the most challenging diseases plaguing humanity. The kind of problems involved in providing those and developing those cures are perfect for AI. So that, for me – stepping way back – that is by far the most exciting thing. Michelle Weaver: Josh, same to you. What are you most excited about? Josh Baer: From my perspective, it's potentially the turning point for software. The ability to showcase that we are at this inflection point and acceleration. To actually see that it takes time for our software companies to develop new AI technologies. Put that into products that have been tested and proven and go through the enterprise adoption cycle. And that we're at the cusp of more adoption – that's what our survey work says. And to see that inflection, I think can help to rerate this sector. Michelle Weaver: Lindsay, same question for you… Lindsay Tyler: Maybe I'll tie it to markets. I've already had a lot of more conversations with equity investors over the past, how many months? There's a big fixed income focus right now, which is a great, you know, spot and really interesting opportunity in my seat. And there's a lot of interesting structures coming to be right now in the credit space. So, I think it's an exciting time. Michelle Weaver: Lindsay, Stephen, Josh, thank you very much for joining to recap the event and let us know what you learned at the conference. To our audience, thank you for listening here live. And to our audience tuning in, thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen. And share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

John Pollock and Brandon Thurston go through the latest news on the WWE shareholder lawsuit and allegations of communications being deleted, plus Mark Shapiro speaks at the Morgan Stanley conference.00:00:00 Start00:03:29 WWE plaintiffs seek sanctions over deleted Signal messages00:20:23 Judge orders parties in WWE shareholder lawsuit to remove redactions00:28:17 Janel Grant and her counsel speak on behalf of bill to limit usage of NDAs00:34:43 Dr. Carlon Colker loses appeal of order to produce documents00:37:07 Mark Shapiro at Morgan Stanley Tech Conference00:52:20 Paramount+ to combine with HBO Max, UFC on TNT?01:02:55 WWE going to the Middle East01:05:30 TV & streaming numbersMusic courtesy: “Panic Beat” by Ben TramerPOST WrestlingSubscribe: https://postwrestling.com/subscribePatreon: http://postwrestlingcafe.comForum: https://forum.postwrestling.comDiscord: https://discord.com/invite/Q795HhRTwitter/Facebook/Instagram/YouTube: @POSTwrestlingBluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/postwrestling.comWrestlenomicsSubscribe: https://wrestlenomics.com/podcast/Patreon: https://patreon.com/wrestlenomicsSubstack: https://wrestlenomics.substack.com/Twitter/Facebook/Instagram/YouTube: @WrestlenomicsBluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/wrestlenomics.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Matt and Nic are back for another week of news and deals. In this episode:  What Dario Amodei and SBF have in common Trump wades in to the market structure debate and asks the banks to come to the table Why stablecoins are not like banks Kraken Financial gets a skinny Fed master account Visa and Bridge are rolling out stablecoin-linked cards The FBI arrests a suspect accused of stealing $46m in BTC from the US marshalls Morgan Stanley is coming out with their own Bitcoin ETF The Aave token governance controversy rumbles on Kalshi's traders are upset about their "death market" policy Content mentioned in this episode: The CIV Youtube Channel Alpen Labs, Size Matters: Architecting BTC Credit Markets

  Brady and John open with a light exchange about audio issues, spring weather, and using AI to fill in for John's upcoming absence The hosts reflect on how addictive and productive AI tools have become, comparing the experience to having an always-on intelligent collaborator Bitcoin's recent strength stands out, with the hosts noting that it outperformed gold during a real geopolitical scare while ETF inflows remained strong They discuss whether Bitcoin has already put in a price bottom near $60K, while questioning whether the market now faces a “bear market in time” rather than a deeper price collapse Sentiment indicators like Fear & Greed are highlighted as signs that panic may have peaked, even if confidence takes time to rebuild The episode covers macro tailwinds for Bitcoin, including improving manufacturing PMI, weakening jobs data, persistent inflation pressure, and the structural impossibility of reining in US government spending Strategy's continued Bitcoin accumulation is framed as a major long-term signal, while the discussion around Stretch focuses on how Bitcoin-linked financial products are competing with private credit for investor capital The BlackRock private credit withdrawal limits story is used to contrast the opacity and illiquidity of traditional finance with Bitcoin-native alternatives Brady and John review major financial-system developments including Kraken's Fed access, Morgan Stanley launching its own Bitcoin ETF, Coinbase custody scrutiny, and Elon Musk's X Money rollout They close by arguing that Bitcoin is becoming more deeply embedded in the financial system, even if many of the latest policy wins are benefiting crypto and stablecoins more directly than Bitcoin itself   ► For high-net-worth individuals and corporations seeking to build generational wealth with Bitcoin, Swan Private is your guide ✔ https://www.swanbitcoin.com/private?utm_campaign=private&utm_medium=sponsorship&utm_source=podcast&utm_content=swan_signal_live ► Secure your bright orange future with the Swan IRA today! Real Bitcoin, no taxes ✔ https://www.swanbitcoin.com/ira?utm_campaign=ira&utm_medium=sponsorship&utm_source=podcast&utm_content=swan_signal_live ► Secure your Bitcoin with Swan Vault ✔ https://www.swanbitcoin.com/vault?utm_campaign=vault&utm_medium=sponsorship&utm_source=podcast&utm_content=swan_signal_live ► Download the all-new Swan Bitcoin App ✔ https://www.swanbitcoin.com/app?utm_campaign=app&utm_medium=sponsorship&utm_source=podcast&utm_content=swan_signal_live ► Want to learn more about Bitcoin? Check out Welcome To Bitcoin a FREE Introductory course. Learn about Bitcoin in under 1 hour! ✔ https://www.swanbitcoin.com/welcome?utm_campaign=welcome_to_bitcoin&utm_medium=sponsorship&utm_source=podcast&utm_content=swan_signal_live ► Connect with Swan Bitcoin: ✔ Twitter: https://twitter.com/Swan ✔ Instagram: https://instagram.com/SwanBitcoin ✔ LinkedIn: https://linkedin.com/company/swanbitcoin ✔ Threads: https://www.threads.com/@swanbitcoin ✔ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SwanBitcoin/ ✔ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@realswanbitcoin

The K-shaped consumer is redefining the outlook for the U.S. economy. While overall spending remains resilient, growth is increasingly concentrated among higher-income households, creating widening gaps across income levels. As policy shifts, AI adoption, and healthcare innovations reshape behavior, the consumer landscape is becoming more uneven.In this episode of The Bid, host Oscar Pulido is joined by Lisa Yang, Portfolio Manager and Co-Head of the Consumer Industry Group within BlackRock Fundamental Equities, to assess the state of the U.S. consumer heading into 2026. From wage growth and labor market dynamics to fiscal policy, tariffs, and immigration, Lisa explains how macro forces are influencing spending patterns — and why resilience is strongest at the high end. The conversation also explores structural shifts shaping stock market trends, including the rise of value-focused retailers, the impact of GLP-1 weight-loss drugs on food and apparel demand, and how AI-driven “agentic commerce” could transform retail media and brand discovery. As capital markets digest these changes, understanding the nuances of consumer behavior is critical for investors.Key insights from this episode:02:11 Introducing The "Two Speed Consumer"04:26 Yellow Flags Ahead - Why the U.S. Consumer Remains Resilient But increasingly K-shaped05:46 Policy Shocks 2026 - How fiscal policy and tariffs could widen income-driven spending gaps08:45 Why Value Retailers and Discounters are Outperforming12:01 GLP One Ripple Effects - How GLP-1 Drugs Are Reshaping Grocery, Apparel, and Beauty categories14:40 How AI Will Change Shopping Trends - What agentic commerce means for retailers, brands, and advertising models17:43 Other Trends Watchlist - Why Health and Wellness Remains A Durable Long-term Consumer Trend20:02 ConclusionsK-shaped economy, U.S. consumer spending, AI in retail, GLP-1 drugs, capital markets, stock market trends, consumer investing, megaforcesSources: “Advance Monthly Sales for Retail and Food Services” February 2026, United States Census Bureau; US Bureau of Economic Analysis (PCE data); FRED 2026, Bureau of Labor Statistics; Wage Growth Data, January 2026, Federal Reserve of Atlanta; Tax refunds per Morgan Stanley, Piper Sandler estimates; “US food outlook 2026”, Bernstein; “GLP-1 Boom Accelerates Nationwide Shift in Size Curves, Putting $5 Billion in U.S. Apparel Retail Inventory at Risk, According to New Impact Analytics Study”, Global Newswire, September 2025This content is for informational purposes only and is not an offer or a solicitation. Reliance upon information in this material is at the sole discretion of the listener. Reference to any company or investment strategy mentioned is for illustrative purposes only and not investment advice. In the UK and non-European Economic Area countries, this is authorized and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. In the European Economic Area, this is authorized and regulated by the Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets. For full disclosures, visit blackrock.com/corporate/compliance/bid-disclosures.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

John Pollock and Brandon Thurston go through the latest news on the WWE shareholder lawsuit and allegations of communications being deleted, plus Mark Shapiro speaks at the Morgan Stanley conference.Plus, Janel Grant speaks publicly again, and a judge orders that redactions be removed in the WWE shareholder lawsuit. Topics this week include:WWE plaintiffs seek sanctions over deleted Signal messagesJudge orders parties in WWE shareholder lawsuit to remove redactionsJanel Grant speaks on behalf of bill in Connecticut Mark Shapiro at the Morgan Stanley Conference Paramount+ to combine with HBO Max, if the acquisition is approvedUFC could air on TNTCM Punk claims Chamber drew the second-highest arena gateTV & streaming figures for the past weekVIDEO VERSION: https://youtube.com/live/ClYEuDUmTjwAdditional reading:Judge orders parties in WWE shareholder lawsuit to remove redactions - https://www.postwrestling.com/2026/03/05/judge-orders-parties-in-wwe-shareholder-lawsuit-to-remove-redactions-after-challenged-by-reporter/ WWE merger plaintiffs seek sanctions over deleted Signal messages - https://www.postwrestling.com/2026/03/04/wwe-merger-plaintiffs-seek-sanctions-over-deleted-signal-messages-allege-december-2022-vince-mcmahon-ari-emanuel-meeting/ TKO announces quarterly dividend payment - https://www.postwrestling.com/2026/03/04/tko-announces-quarterly-dividend-payment-for-end-of-the-month/ Will AEW become a priority or expendable under Paramount? https://www.postwrestling.com/2026/03/03/will-aew-become-a-priority-or-expendable-under-paramounts-ownership-opinion/ Paramount+ and HBO Max to combine - https://www.postwrestling.com/2026/03/02/paramount-intends-to-combine-paramount-and-hbo-max-if-acquisition-is-approved/ Janel Grant and her counsel speak on behalf of bill to limit usage of NDAs in Connecticut - https://www.postwrestling.com/2026/03/05/janel-grant-and-her-counsel-speak-on-behalf-of-bill-to-limit-usage-of-ndas-in-connecticut/Dr. Carlon Colker loses appeal of order to produce documents showing Vince McMahon paid Janel Grant's medical bills - https://www.postwrestling.com/2026/03/05/dr-carlon-colker-loses-appeal-of-order-to-produce-documents-showing-vince-mcmahon-paid-janel-grants-medical-bills/Music courtesy: “Panic Beat” by Ben TramerPOST WrestlingSubscribe: https://postwrestling.com/subscribePatreon: http://postwrestlingcafe.comForum: https://forum.postwrestling.comDiscord: https://discord.com/invite/Q795HhRTwitter/Facebook/Instagram/YouTube: @POSTwrestlingBluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/postwrestling.comWrestlenomicsSubscribe: https://wrestlenomics.com/podcast/Patreon: https://patreon.com/wrestlenomicsSubstack: https://wrestlenomics.substack.com/Twitter/Facebook/Instagram/YouTube: @WrestlenomicsBluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/wrestlenomics.comSupport this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/wrestlenomics/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Frank and Rob dive into: • Rob's path from UBS and Morgan Stanley to launching NewEdge Wealth. • How NewEdge Wealth and NewEdge Advisors differ and advisor profiles that may fit each platform. • How multi-custody and open architecture models can offer flexibility. • Perspectives of some advisors that have experienced business growth after joining the firm. •  The role of private equity and its innovation in wealth management. • How advisors may use niche marketing strategies and referral initiatives to identify opportunities. Whether you're exploring alternatives to a wirehouse or staying informed on industry developments, this conversation offers a practical look at the choices and trade-offs within today's independent landscape. Want to connect? • Reach out to Frank directly at frank@eliteconsultingpartners.com or send him a DM on LinkedIn. • You can also connect with Rob by emailing RSechan@NewEdgeCG.com or visiting his LinkedIn page. Chapters:   0:00 Introduction 1:02 From Wirehouse Advisor to Building a New Platform 6:30 What Makes Elite Financial Advisors Different 8:08 NewEdge Wealth vs NewEdge Advisors Explained 18:08 Why Multi-Custody & Open Architecture Matter 27:00 How Top Advisors Accelerate Growth After Going Independent 36:09 Private Equity's Role in the Future of Wealth Management 40:46 Why Advisors Should Explore the Independent Model Learn more about Elite and our resources: Elite Consulting Partners | Financial Advisor Transitions https://eliteconsultingpartners.com Elite Marketing Concepts | Marketing Services for Financial Advisors https://elitemarketingconcepts.com Elite Advisor Successions | Advisor Mergers & Acquisitions https://eliteadvisorsuccessions.com JEDI Database Solutions | Technology Solutions for Advisors https://jedidatabasesolutions.com Listen to more Advisor Talk episodes: https://eliteconsultingpartners.com/podcasts/ “Assets “serviced by” the firm includes (i) client assets for which we provide investment advisory services, (ii) client assets for which we provide brokerage services through our affiliate, NewEdge Securities, LLC and (iii) client assets held at affiliated and unaffiliated broker dealers for which we provide supervisory oversight, support services and/or wealth strategy services. Opinions expressed are as of October 7, 2025, and may change without notice. This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice or a recommendation regarding any security, strategy, or business relationship. Past performance does not guarantee future results. References to advisor experiences (including business growth, win rates, or referrals) reflect individual circumstances and are not representative of all advisors or outcomes. Results vary and are not guaranteed. Any testimonials or endorsements presented reflect the speaker's opinion at the time made. If compensation or other benefits were provided in connection with a testimonial or endorsement, that fact will be disclosed. Such statements should not be construed as indicative of future performance or experience for all clients or advisors. Third-party firms, custodians, platforms, or services referenced are independent of NewEdge. Their inclusion does not constitute a recommendation, endorsement, or approval. Where third-party ratings or rankings are cited, the source and date apply; methodologies may differ, and ratings may not predict future performance. NewEdge may have business arrangements with certain third parties that present potential conflicts of interest; details available upon request. NewEdge may receive or provide referrals to or from third parties, including custodians, which may involve compensation or other benefits. Additional information about referral relationships and compensation is available upon request, A copy of the NewEdge's current written disclosure Brochure discussing our advisory services and fees continues to remain available upon request or at www.newedgecg.com. All company names, logos, and trademarks are property of their respective owners and are used for identification only. References to media appearances do not constitute an endorsement.

Carl Quintanilla, David Faber, and Sara Eisen broke down recent labor data - and what it could portend for a big Jobs report tomorrow - before Citi's U.S. Equity Strategist weighed in, and the team got breaking news on Iran. Software stocks staging a big rebound in the early trade as investors work through AI disruption fears - and the CEO of Salesforce pushes back on the 'SAASpocalypse'... Why he says the technology is a good thing for his company, and workers this hour - along with new comments from OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, live at Morgan Stanley's TMT conference.  Plus: Paramount Skydance Chairman & CEO David Ellison joined the team live from Los Angeles - in his first interview since prevailing in the battle for Warner Brothers Discovery... Hear his take on key hurdles ahead, why they paid top dollar to beat Netflix, and more.  Squawk on the Street Disclaimer Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Crypto News: Kraken exchange wins Kansas City Fed approval for limited master account. Morgan Stanley taps Coinbase and BNY Mellon for custody in proposed Bitcoin ETF. Western Union teams with Crossmint to support USDPT stablecoin on Solana. Brought to you by

Top Stories of the DayBitcoin's Consolidation Phase: Bitcoin has retreated toward the $71,000 mark after failing to sustain its breakout above $74,000. While market conviction is currently thin, long-term allocators have reportedly been quietly adding to their positions during recent dips.Link: Bitcoin pulls back to near $71,000NYSE Owner Backs OKX: In a landmark deal, Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) has invested in the OKX exchange at a $25 billion valuation. The partnership plans to bring tokenized stocks and new derivatives to the market later this year.Link: NYSE Parent Invests in OKX at $25B ValuationMorgan Stanley Funds AI-Crypto Pivot: Bitcoin miner Core Scientific secured a massive $1 billion loan facility from Morgan Stanley to expand its data centers for high-performance computing and AI workloads.Link: Core Scientific secures up to $1B credit from Morgan StanleyRevolut's Second U.S. Banking Push: Fintech giant Revolut has officially filed for a U.S. banking license for the second time, aiming for direct access to the Fedwire and ACH payment networks.Link: UK Fintech Revolut Applies for US Banking LicenseThe "Seized Crypto" Heist: Authorities in France have arrested the son of a U.S. government contractor, John Daghita, for allegedly stealing $46 million in crypto from seizure wallets managed by his father's company.Link: Authorities nab suspect accused of stealing $46m in cryptoFederal Charter for Stablecoins: Infrastructure provider ZeroHash has applied to the OCC for a national trust bank charter to streamline its regulated stablecoin operations under a single federal framework.Link: ZeroHash Applies to OCC for National Trust Bank CharterGlobal Adoption Milestones: Cardano's ADA is now a payment option at 137 Spar supermarkets in Switzerland, while Kraken has secured limited master account access from the Kansas City Fed.Link: Cardano's ADA Token Now Accepted at Spar Supermarkets Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We have had some extremely distinguished guests over the last 6 years, but we haven't secured one who combines, a Rhodes Scholar, US Army Colonel, Counter terrorism expert, leading the US's cyber intelligence defence agency, and a lecturer at Oxford and beyond, whilst also having worked at Morgan Stanley, and now CEO at RSAC. Jen plots a journey from Oxford to Westpoint, from Colonel of the US's first Cyber Battalion to the Whitehouse, working under Condoleezza Rice and then chosen by President Biden to create CISA, The US's first cyber defense agency.In a whirlwind, world-wide tour, Jen plots the risks, defines the adversaries, reflects on intelligence, cooperation, and the real and present cyber risks to industries.She offers advice to boards, the existential risks for businesses who think this is just a “technology issue” and leaves us with a stark observation. If the cost of annual cybercrimes were aggregated into one number, it would be equivalent in GDP terms to being the third largest economy in the world! The Money Maze Podcast is kindly sponsored by Schroders, IFM Investors, World Gold Council and LSEG.Sign up to our Newsletter | Follow us on LinkedIn | Watch on YouTube 

US equity futures lower with S&P slightly down. Bonds weaker with US Treasury yields up 3bps. Benchmark Gilt yield is flat in choppy trade. Dollar is firmer. Crude is firmer again. Gold up. Industrial metals mixed. Bitcoin gains. Markets remain focused on energy disruption headlines with articles discussing stag-flationary risks for global economy. Latest Middle East reports highlighted Iranian outreach for talks (later denied), while shifting war aims or timelines remain a source of uncertainty. Iranian attacks on Middle East energy facilities and Hormuz traffic slowdown continue to fan energy supply concerns with Reuters noting Qatar won't return to normal LNG production for at least a month.Companies Mentioned: Senior PLC, TPG Inc, Morgan Stanley

The price of oil surges yet again while U.S. and world markets tank.  That's where we'll start this evening. This is the Business News Headlines for Thursday the 5th day of March, thanks for listening. In other news, a judge has said the Trump Administration must refund tariff money it illegally took from businesses. In yet another new tariff related story a number of states now have sued and we'll share that bit of information. The FBI has announced that it is investigating some suspicious activity. Elon Musk was back in court…think…Twitter. Financial sector layoffs continue this time it is Morgan Stanley. We've got new news about mortgage rates.  We will check the numbers in The Wall Street Report and what's cooking with…Rachael Ray?  We will share. Let's go. Thanks for listening! The award winning Insight on Business the News Hour with Michael Libbie is the only weekday business news podcast in the Midwest. The national, regional and some local business news along with long-form business interviews can be heard Monday - Friday. You can subscribe on  PlayerFM, Podbean, iTunes, Spotify, Stitcher or TuneIn Radio. And you can catch The Business News Hour Week in Review each Sunday Noon Central on News/Talk 1540 KXEL. The Business News Hour is a production of Insight Advertising, Marketing & Communications. You can follow us on Twitter @IoB_NewsHour...and on Threads @Insight_On_Business.

✔️ Bitcoin mean reversion is a restoring drift.✔️ US Bitcoin ETFs have recorded $1.4 billion in inflows✔️ Kraken becomes first crypto bank to receive a Federal Reserve master account ✔️ Morgan Stanley issues new SEC filing for a spot Bitcoin ETF✔️ JP Morgan is having its Blockbuster moment✔️ Chinese EV company signs $1B deal to acquire 10,000 BTC via equity.✔️ Bitwise donating from its ETF profits to Bitcoin developers✔️ Sources:► https://x.com/david_eng_mba/status/2029289939456933934► https://x.com/BitcoinNewsCom/status/2029232148817825829► https://x.com/bitcoinmagazine/status/2029173825829470346?s=52&t=CKH2brGypO5fEYTgQ-EFhQ► https://x.com/BitcoinNewsCom/status/2029270212650918009► https://blog.kraken.com/news/federal-reserve-master-account► https://x.com/bitcoinmagazine/status/2029186176452599967?s=52&t=CKH2brGypO5fEYTgQ-EFhQ► https://www.ainvest.com/news/morgan-stanley-bitcoin-etf-filing-tactical-custody-bet-strategic-misstep-2603/► https://x.com/iiicapital/status/2029026457943515469?s=52&t=CKH2brGypO5fEYTgQ-EFhQ► https://x.com/patrickjwitt/status/2029019502554251704► https://x.com/cointelegraph/status/2029195394945552668?s=52&t=CKH2brGypO5fEYTgQ-EFhQ► https://x.com/bitcoinmagazine/status/2029256061543133663?s=52&t=CKH2brGypO5fEYTgQ-EFhQ► DONATE TO HELP KEONNE AND BILL https://www.change.org/p/stand-up-for-freedom-pardon-the-innocent-coders-jailed-for-building-privacy-tools✔️ Check out Our Bitcoin Only Sponsors!► https://archemp.co/Discover the pinnacle of precision engineering. Our very first product, the bitcoin logo wall clock, is meticulously machined in Maine from a solid block of aerospace-grade aluminum, ensuring unparalleled durability and performance. We don't compromise on quality – no castings, just solid, high-grade material. Our state-of-the-art CNC machining center achieves tolerances of 1/1000th of an inch, guaranteeing a perfect fit and finish every time. Invest in a product built to last, with the exacting standards you deserve.► Join Our telegram: https://t.me/theplebunderground#Bitcoin #crypto #cryptocurrency #dailybitcoinnews #memecoinsThe information provided by Pleb Underground ("we," "us," or "our") on Youtube.com (the "Site") our show is for general informational purposes only. All information on the show is provided in good faith, however we make no representation or warranty of any kind, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, adequacy, validity, reliability, availability, or completeness of any information on the Site. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE SHALL WE HAVE ANY LIABILITY TO YOU FOR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE OF ANY KIND INCURRED AS A RESULT OF THE USE OF THE SHOW OR RELIANCE ON ANY INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THE SHOW. YOUR USE OF THE SHOW AND YOUR RELIANCE ON ANY INFORMATION ON THE SHOW IS SOLELY AT YOUR OWN RISK.

Dag 6 van de oorlog in Iran. Volgens het Witte Huis gaat het prima, maar het is ook de dag dat er (nog steeds) zorgen zijn om de hoge olieprijs. Beleggers wereldwijd vrezen toch dat het de inflatie gaat aanwakkeren. Met alle gevolgen van dien.Deze aflevering kijken we of deze oorlog een 'forever war' wordt en wat dat voor jouw beleggingen betekent. Ook of je je nu al moet wagen aan de 'buy the dip' van analisten van Citi.Ook gaat het deze aflevering over een van Hollands meest bekende techbedrijven. TomTom! Dat ziet oprichter én ceo Harold Goddijn vertrekken. Hij vindt het tijd voor nieuw leiderschap. Tijd om voor ons de balans op te maken: wat heeft hij in die 25 (!) jaar als ceo voor het bedrijf betekend? En kan TomTom nog een keer 25 jaar mee?Hoor je ook over de fabelachtige cijfers van Broadcom (dat de verkoop van AI-chips denkt te vervijfvoudigen), over het record van Boskalis en over de teleurstellende cijfers van China.Ook in deze aflevering: analistenpraatjes. Zogeheten pre-close calls tussen analist en bedrijf beïnvloeden de beurskoers, zegt de AFM. Maar het grijpt niet in. Tot woede van de VEB. Te gast: Erik Mauritz van Trade Republic BNR Beurs is een journalistiek onafhankelijke productie, mede mogelijk gemaakt door Saxo. Over de makers: Jelle Maasbach is presentator van BNR Beurs en freelance financieel journalist. Zijn favoriete aandeel om over te praten is Disney, maar daar lijkt hij de enige in te zijn. Sinds de eerste uitzending van BNR Beurs is 'ie er bij. Maxim van Mil is presentator van BNR Beurs en journalist bij BNR, waar hij zich focust op de financiële markten en ontwikkelingen in de tech-wereld. Je krijgt hem het meest enthousiast als hij kan praten over ASML, of oer-Hollandse bedrijven zoals Ahold of ABN Amro. Jorik Simonides is presentator van BNR Beurs, economieredacteur en verslaggever bij BNR. Hij wordt er vooral blij van als het een keer níet over AI gaat. Milou Brand is presentator van BNR Beurs, freelance podcastmaker en columnist bij het Financieele Dagblad. Jochem Visser is presentator van BNR Beurs, maakt Beursnerd XL en de podcast Onder Curatoren. Vraag hem naar obscure zaken op financiële markten en hij vertelt je waarom het eigenlijk nóg leuker is dan je al dacht. Over de podcast: Met BNR Beurs ga je altijd voorbereid de nieuwe beursdag in. We praten je in een kleine 25 minuten bij over alle laatste ontwikkelingen op de handelsvloer. We blijven niet alleen bij de AEX of Wall Street, maar vertellen je ook waar nog meer kansen liggen. En we houden het niet bij de cijfers, maar zoeken ook iedere dag voor je naar duiding van scherpe gasten en experts. Of je nu een ervaren belegger bent of net begint met je eerste stappen op de beurs, de podcast biedt waardevolle inzichten voor je beleggingsstrategie. Door de focus op zowel de korte termijn als de lange termijn, helpt BNR Beurs luisteraars om de ruis van de markt te scheiden van de essentie. Van Musk tot Microsoft en van Ahold tot ASML. Wij vertellen je wat beleggers bezighoudt, wie de markten in beweging zet en wat dat betekent voor jouw beleggingsportefeuille.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dr. Michael Fredericson works at Stanford University as a Professor of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation. He is widely recognized for his research and clinical work in running injuries, biomechanics, and endurance athlete care, helping runners and athletes worldwide improve performance while staying injury-free.In the conversation today, he discusses running injuries with Vikas. The conversation explores shin splints, knee pain, achilles tendon and flat foot - how to recognize early warning signs, manage training loads, and prioritize recovery. He also breaks down the role of biomechanics, footwear, foot structure, and running form in preventing injuries and improving running efficiency.The podcast reveals the emerging new treatment of shockwave therapy, the benefits of cross-training, and why many beginner runners push too hard too soon. The episode emphasizes that patience, progressive training, and proper recovery are essential pillars of sustainable running performance.About Vikas Singh:Vikas Singh, an MBA from Chicago Booth, worked at Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, APGlobale, and Reliance before coming up with the idea of democratizing fitness knowledge and helping beginners get on a fitness journey. Vikas is an avid long-distance runner, building fitpage to help people learn, train, and move better.For more information on Vikas, or to leave any feedback and requests, you can reach out to him via the channels below:Instagram: @vikas_singhhLinkedIn: Vikas SinghTwitter: @vikashsingh101Subscribe To Our Newsletter For Weekly Nuggets of Knowledge!

Morgan Stanley, Cotsco, Kroger, Broadcom, bajo la lupa de Candela Casanueva, gestora de fondos de Renta 4 Gestora.

Our Deputy Global Head of Research Michael Zezas and Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore assess the potential market outcomes of the Middle East conflict, weighing its possible duration and economic impact.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Deputy Global Head of Research. Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research. Michael Zezas: Today we're discussing the escalating U.S.-Iran conflict, the market reaction, and what investors should be watching for next. It's Wednesday, March 4th at 7:30am in San Francisco. Ariana Salvatore: And 10:30am in New York. Michael Zezas: So, Ariana, I'm in San Francisco at Morgan Stanley's TMT Conference, but obviously events in the Middle East have captured everyone's attention. There's uncertainty around the conflict and really important questions about how it affects all of us. And of course, markets have to discount all sorts of future uncertainty about very specific impacts – to financial asset prices, to commodity prices – and really look at it through that narrow lens.And so, Ariana, the administration has suggested that this conflict and this campaign could last a few weeks. But also it said it could continue as long as it takes. So, what are the clearest signals investors should watch for to gauge duration? Ariana Salvatore: For now, we're focused on three main indicators. First, I would say, and most important, is clarity around the objectives. The president and others in the administration have referenced things like eliminating Iran's missile arsenal, its navy and limiting proxy activity. Those goals are broader than the earlier focus on just the nuclear programs. Each objective, of course, implies a different timeline. A narrower objective likely means a shorter engagement. Broader ambitions, conversely, would extend it. So that's the first thing. Second, obviously extremely important is traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. We'd viewed a full closure as unlikely, given the economic consequences for Iran itself. But tanker flows have at least temporarily fallen close to zero, and that's significant because production across the region has not been impaired. This is not about oil fields going offline. It's about whether or not oil can actually move. If shipping lanes normalize within weeks, markets can recalibrate. However, if flows remain materially curtailed beyond five weeks, the risks rise meaningfully. Third, the frequency of strikes and proxy activity. Sustained or escalating engagement would suggest a longer conflict. Signs of diplomacy, on the other hand, might indicate de-escalation. Michael Zezas: Right. So, let's build on that and talk about oil. And our colleague, Martijn Rats has really laid this out with a lot of different scenarios. But what we're seeing right now is that when it comes to oil, this is really a shock to the transport of it, not necessarily a shock to its production. So, oil supply exists. The question is really – can it be delivered or not? So, if tanker flows normalize and the geopolitical risk premium fades, what Martijn is saying is that global oil prices could move back towards $60 to $65 a barrel. If the logistical disruption lasts four to five weeks, then prices maybe trade in the $75 to $80 range. And if disruption extends beyond five weeks and flows are materially constrained, then you could see a situation where oil prices have to rise towards $120 or $130 a barrel. And at that level, demand destruction is what becomes the balancing mechanism in setting price for oil. So, one signal to watch is longer dated oil prices. Early month contracts can spike during geopolitical stress, but a sustained move materially above $80 to $85 [per] barrel would likely require longer dated prices to move higher as well. And that might signal that markets believe the disruption is persistent and not temporary. Ariana, what about natural gas here? How does gas situation fit into the energy story? Ariana Salvatore: As of this recording, Qatar has halted liquified natural gas production putting roughly 20 percent of global supply at risk. Prices have, as you might expect, risen sharply, which likely reflects expectations of a relatively short disruption. If exports were to resume quickly, prices could retrace. But, of course, if the outage lasts longer, prices could move meaningfully higher. Again, duration of the conflict is really critical here. Michael Zezas: So, let's bring this back to the U.S. Ariana, how does this conflict feed into the domestic, political and economic backdrop? Ariana Salvatore: When we're thinking about the midterm elections later this year, the way we see it, the clearest transmission channel is gasoline prices. Polling shows a majority of Americans oppose military action related to Iran, but voters typically prioritize domestic issues: things like inflation, cost of living, affordability over foreign policy. However, there's a very clear caveat here. If oil prices stay elevated, gasoline prices rise, and that's where this becomes politically more salient. Michael Zezas: Right, and so our economists and our chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen has been all over this. And the way he assesses it is if oil prices remain about 10 percent higher than where they were before the conflict for several months, headline inflation would likely rise by 0.3 percent before dissipating. Historically, oil price shocks primarily affect headline inflation rather than underlying inflation. That's an important distinction that they point out. So maybe that could delay Federal Reserve rate cuts, even if policymakers ultimately look through the move. But if oil prices rise enough to weaken economic activity, particularly in the labor market or consumer spending, then our economists say the Fed could pivot toward easing despite elevated inflation. Ariana Salvatore: So, given that backdrop, what's the simple takeaway for investors in stocks or bonds? Michael Zezas: Right. So, I think we have to think about this in terms of duration of conflict and economic impact. So, if tanker flows normalize within a few weeks and oil prices move back towards that $60 to $65 range, then our economists are saying economic damage would be limited. And historically geopolitical events alone have not led to sustained volatility for U.S. equities. So, in that environment, our cross-asset team points out that stocks would likely remain supported. If instead, oil prices remain elevated long enough to push inflation higher and weigh on growth, the picture would change. A sharp and persistent rise in oil prices – that can pose a risk to the duration of the business cycle, and in that scenario, we'd expect stocks to struggle. Importantly, bonds may not provide the same diversification benefit if inflation remains sticky as a consequence of all of this. We could see stock and bond prices move in the same direction. That could challenge traditional balanced portfolios. Ariana Salvatore: And what are we seeing specifically in U.S. Treasury markets? Michael Zezas: So, as Matt Hornbach and our global macro strategy team have pointed out here, you've got two competing forces in the U.S. Treasury market. There's been some demand for safety, but investors are also focused on the risk that higher oil prices would lift inflation. So far, inflation concerns have taken precedence over growth concerns. How long that balance holds – that might depend on incoming data, especially labor market data. If you get weaker labor market data suggesting that growth could weaken, then you could see treasuries rally more meaningfully and yields come down. If you don't see that and inflation concerns dominate, then maybe you're not going to see yields come down as much. And bonds rally as much. Ariana Salvatore: So, stepping back, it seems like the key variables remain tanker traffic, longer dated oil prices and duration of the conflict itself. Michael Zezas: I think that's right. Ariana, thanks for speaking with me. Ariana Salvatore: Always a pleasure, Mike. Michael Zezas: And thanks to our listeners for joining us. We'll continue tracking developments and what they mean for markets. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague.Important note regarding economic sanctions. This report references jurisdictions which may be the subject of economic sanctions. Readers are solely responsible for ensuring that their investment activities are carried out in compliance with applicable laws.

This is the All Local 4pm update for March 4, 2026

We are delighted to host Rose Uzunova on this episode of the Mangu.tv podcast series. Rose is currently chief community officer at the Psychedelic Science of Funders Collaborative PCFC, where she cultivates a network of informed, connected philanthropists to drive systemic change in psychedelic science. Previously, she spent over 15 years in finance, including roles on Wall Street, before transitioning into philanthropy and impact-driven community building. As an unreasonable mentor, she merges her financial acumen with heart-centred leadership, fostering collaboration and innovation in global, social and scientific initiatives. Her background combines strategic vision, fundraising capacity and a deep interest in advancing psychedelic research through community funding and advocacy.Rose reflects on her childhood in communist Bulgaria, filled with arts and self-discovery. She speaks about her transition to a more academic environment, and her decision to move to Wisconsin, which gave her better social, academic and professional opportunities. Rose discusses her time in finance with top firms like Morgan Stanley and BlackRock, before her interests shifted towards spiritual healing and psychedelics. She shares her first experience with Ayahuasca and her journey with The Medicine of the Four Directions. Giancarlo and Rose speak about the use of psychedelic medicine and the need for therapy and careful integration. They highlight the importance of creating safe spaces for psychedelic use, ensuring thorough medical history assessments, follow-ups, and integration support. Rose shares her life's purpose, to be a channel for dharmic work for the benefit of all beings' happiness and freedom from suffering.

In this episode of IPS Finance, we discuss Morgan Stanley's bold prediction that Sensex could cross 1 lakh, and what this means for long-term investors. The episode also breaks down the latest Services PMI data, trends in Gold and Silver ETFs, and provides a clear explanation of opportunities and risks in Oil & Gas stocks. A concise market-focused analysis to help investors understand macro signals and sector movements before making investment decisions.

Our Hong Kong/China Transportation & Infrastructure Analyst Qianlei Fan discusses how China's travel industry is shifting from a post-pandemic rebound to a multi-year expansion.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Qianlei Fan, Morgan Stanley's Hong Kong / China Transportation Analyst. Today, I'll share my thoughts on why travel is quickly emerging as one of [the] key drivers of China's economic rebalancing.It's Tuesday, March the 3rd, at 2pm in Hong Kong. I've just gotten back from my Lunar New Year trip to mainland China. With the longest Chinese New Year break in history, people were out roaming, exploring, laughing, and the whole country felt like it was buzzing with people on a mission to enjoy every minute. According to the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, total domestic tourism spending recorded a robust 19 percent year-on-year growth during the holiday. In fact, China's tourism industry isn't just rebounding after the pandemic. It's entering a structurally stronger phase, supported by policy tailwinds, demographic shifts, and a clear pivot toward experience-driven consumption. By 2030, tourism revenue could reach RMB 12 trillion – equal to roughly USD $1.7 trillion – implying 11 percent annual growth from the mid-2020s. Over the next five years, cumulative domestic and inbound revenue may approach RMB 50 trillion, or USD $7.2 trillion. That scale makes travel more than a cyclical recovery – it's becoming a core pillar of China's consumption-led growth. We expect tourism's share of GDP to rise to about 6.7 percent by 2030, up from 4.8 percent in 2024.Domestic travel remains the backbone. People aren't just traveling again; they're traveling more than before. Policy is reinforcing demand. Extended public holidays, new school breaks, and event-driven tourism are boosting activity. In 2025 alone, around 3,000 large-scale performances attracted more than 43 million attendees. And spending reflects that shift. Domestic tourism spending reached RMB 6.3 trillion in 2025, about 11 percent above pre-COVID levels. Even with slightly lower spend per trip, more frequent travel is lifting overall revenue.International travel is emerging as a second growth engine. By 2030, inbound travel could represent 16 percent of total tourism revenue. In late 2025, inbound visitor growth in major cities was up about 30–50 percent year-over-year, supported by expanded visa-free access, which now accounts for the majority of foreign arrivals. These visitors often stay longer and spend more. Outbound travel is strengthening too. International air traffic grew 22 percent in 2025, far outpacing domestic growth, and now contributes a meaningful share of airline revenue. Demographics and technology are reinforcing the trend. Younger consumers prioritize travel, while older households – with substantial savings – are beginning to spend more as services improve. At the same time, smart hotels, virtual reality attractions, and data-driven operations are enhancing engagement and willingness to pay. This isn't just pent-up demand. It's policy, demographics, technology, and supply aligning at once. – with travel at the center of China's consumption story.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our guest on the podcast today is David Bach. David is the author of 12 national bestselling books, including The Latte Factor; Smart Women Finish Rich; Start Late, Finish Rich; and The Automatic Millionaire. He just released the 20th anniversary edition of The Automatic Millionaire. David was a longtime contributor to NBC's Today show and a featured guest on the Oprah Winfrey Show. He also produced and hosted two public television specials, Smart Women Finish Rich and The Automatic Millionaire. David started his career at Morgan Stanley where he was a senior vice president and partner of The Bach Group. Episode Highlights 00:00:00 Moving Abroad, Early Retirement, and the Shifting Media Landscape 00:11:46 The Importance of Sabbaticals and Health Expectancy 00:19:39 Saving to Spending, New Tax on IRA Withdrawals, and Long-Term Effect of Deficits 00:34:39 Key Updates to The Automatic Millionaire and Automatic Contributions 00:37:59 Why Everyone Needs Access to Being an Investor 00:42:02 How to Start Investing Young and How to Catch Up Later in Life 00:47:26 How Inflation Affects Retirement Goals and The Benefits of Homeownership More From Morningstar 6 Lessons From My 6-Week Mini-Retirement The Best Strategies for Consistent Retirement Spending 7 Steps to Estimating Your In-Retirement Cash Flow Needs If you have a comment or a guest idea, please email us at TheLongView@Morningstar.com. Follow Christine Benz (@christine_benz) and Ben Johnson (@MstarBenJohnson) on X, and Christine Benz, Amy Arnott, and Ben Johnson on LinkedIn. Visit Morningstar.com for new research and insights from Christine, Ben, and Amy. Subscribe to Christine's weekly newsletter, Improving Your Finances. If you want more Morningstar podcasts, check out The Morning Filter and Investing Insights. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Listen and subscribe to Money Making Conversations on iHeartRadio, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, www.moneymakingconversations.com/subscribe/ or wherever you listen to podcasts. New Money Making Conversations episodes drop daily. I want to alert you, so you don’t miss out on expert analysis and insider perspectives from my guests who provide tips that can help you uplift the community, improve your financial planning, motivation, or advice on how to be a successful entrepreneur. Keep winning! Two-time Emmy and Three-time NAACP Image Award-winning, television Executive Producer Rushion McDonald interviewed Sonia Balfour-Fears. Here you go — a clean, structured summary of the Sonia Balfour‑Fears interview with Rushion McDonald, plus purpose, key takeaways, and notable quotes, all based on the transcript you provided. SUMMARY OF THE INTERVIEW In this Money Making Conversations Masterclass episode, Rushion McDonald interviews Sonia Balfour‑Fears, a high‑ranking Global Sports & Entertainment Director and Financial Advisor at Morgan Stanley. Sonia discusses the Black wealth gap, financial literacy, investing basics, barriers that minorities face in wealth-building, and the realities of long-term investing. She emphasizes education, discipline, and access as critical factors for closing the wealth gap. She also explains how investors of different ages—from young adults to retirees—share a common need: guidance and a financial plan. Sonia breaks down misconceptions about stock market participation, cryptocurrency, “hot stocks,” risk tolerance, dividend investing, and the best way to start investing even with small amounts of money. Throughout the interview, Sonia provides approachable frameworks for beginners—emergency funds, diversified investing, index funds—and stresses that it’s never too late to begin investing, even at age 60 or older. PURPOSE OF THE INTERVIEW The interview aims to: 1. Educate listeners on financial literacy Sonia explains fundamentals such as emergency funds, risk tolerance, asset allocation, diversification, and long‑term wealth building. 2. Address misconceptions about minority participation in investing She clarifies that minority participation is rising but that more people need professional guidance rather than DIY risk-taking. 3. Provide practical starting points for new investors She gives clear steps for people with small amounts of money and explains how to build wealth intentionally. 4. Encourage multigenerational financial conversations Sonia discusses creating the first African‑American mother‑daughter wealth management team, emphasizing the importance of knowledge transfer. 5. Inspire listeners to rethink age and investing She strongly argues that it is never too late to start building wealth. KEY TAKEAWAYS 1. Closing the Black Wealth Gap Requires Knowledge + Access Wealth-building is tied to discipline, education, and opportunity. Financial literacy helps people understand how money works so they can build long-term wealth..txt) 2. Discipline Is as Important as Income Sonia compares investing discipline to waking up early, exercising, and staying consistent with lifestyle habits..txt) 3. Everyone — Young or Old — Needs Professional Financial Guidance Clients in their 20s and clients nearing retirement share a common need:a roadmap created by someone who does this every day..txt) 4. Minorities Are Investing More — But Not Always With Advisors Many young minorities enter through crypto or apps, but they often lack solid planning..txt) 5. Cryptocurrency Isn’t for Everyone Morgan Stanley limits Bitcoin access to accredited investors with at least $1M on the platform due to high volatility..txt) 6. How to Start Investing: Build an Emergency Fund First 6 months of expenses if single; 3 months if married. After that, “start where you are”—even $100/month..txt) 7. Avoid “Hot Stock” Thinking Sonia discourages short-term stock chasing. Recommends S&P 500 index funds instead of individual picks..txt) 8. Risk Tolerance Shapes Your Portfolio Aggressive = stocks. Conservative = more fixed income. Use personal behavior (e.g., gambling habits) to assess risk comfort..txt) 9. It Is Never Too Late to Invest A 60-year-old caller is reminded she could live to 90–95; that’s 30 years to grow investments..txt) 10. Dividend Stocks Provide Strong Income Today Dividend-paying stocks often yield more income than bonds in today’s market..txt) NOTABLE QUOTES (from transcript) On Closing the Wealth Gap “Education is another way… to understand the different components of building wealth.”.txt) On Discipline “It’s the discipline to really… be intentional about understanding what your money can do for you.”.txt) On Minority Participation “I really see a lot more minorities getting into investing… but working with a financial professional, not as many.”.txt) On Crypto + Risk “We set the criteria very high because the potential for loss is tremendous. So is the potential for gain.”.txt) On Starting with Small Amounts “You start where you are. And if it’s $100 a month, that’s where you start.”.txt) On ‘Hot Stocks’ “Our team primarily focuses on longer‑term investing… it’s all about asset allocation.”.txt) On Being 60 and Beginning to Invest “It is definitely, definitely not too late… If you’re close to 60, we anticipate you’ll live to 90 or 95.”.txt) On Dividend Investing “You get more income from dividends these days than you do from bonds.”.txt) #SHMS #STRAW #BESTSteve Harvey Morning Show Online: http://www.steveharveyfm.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In episode 166, we sit down with Ashley Craig of Patriotic Millionaires to unpack how extreme wealth inequality took hold in the United States and what it will actually take to fix it. Ashley breaks down why “tax the rich, pay the people, and spread the power” isn't just a slogan - it's a roadmap.Ashley Craig is a former finance and audit professional who has spent her career working primarily for large corporations like The Walt Disney Company, Interpublicgroup, and Morgan Stanley. Craig is a life-long environmentalist, advocate for fair taxation, and corporate social responsibility. She retired from corporate work in 2022 and currently volunteers with political and social causes.Resources:* Patriotic Millionaires* Books by Patriotic Millionaires:* Pay the People! Why Fair Pay Is Good for Business and Great for Americaby John Driscoll, Morris Pearl, and The Patriotic Millionaires* Tax the Rich! How Lies, Loopholes, and Lobbyists Make the Rich Even Richer by Morris Pearl, Erica Payne, and The Patriotic MillionairesConnect with United SHE Stands:* Substack* Instagram* TikTok* YouTube* Threads* Buy us a coffee ☕️This episode was edited by Kevin Tanner. Learn more about him and his services here:* Website* Instagram This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.unitedshestands.com/subscribe

SUMMARY DEL SHOW Futuros caen fuerte por escalada en Medio Oriente: crudo más caro vuelve a presionar crecimiento e inflación y complica el timing de recortes de la Fed. Golpe directo a semis: KOSPI $KOSPI se desploma ~7%, Samsung $SSNLF y SK Hynix $HXSCF caen ~10%–11%; contagio en EE. UU. pega a $NVDA, $AMD, $AVGO, $MU, $ASML y $LRCX. Morgan Stanley sube $NVO a Equal weight, pero recorta PT y ve 2026 como transición; destaca tracción de Wegovy Pill y mantiene a $LLY como rival clave.

Summary:In this episode, we analyze the latest watch industry trends, market share shifts, and the impact of marketing strategies. We also delve into detailed insights from the 2025 Morgan Stanley watch report, discussing brand performances, market dynamics, and future outlooks.Timestamps:00:00 Introduction and Watch Talk02:59 Selling the NIbadan Grenchen and Watch Preferences06:00 Brand Marketing and Consumer Perception09:00 Tudor's 100th Anniversary and Future Releases11:50 Rolex vs Omega: Market Share Dynamics18:00 Insights from the Morgan Stanley Watch Report24:07 Swatch Group and Brand Performance Analysis29:42 The State of the Swiss Watch Industry31:58 Emerging Brands and Market Dynamics35:07 Rolex's Market Dominance and Business Model39:07 Market Trends: Value vs. Volume43:10 The Impact of AI on Market Insights47:02 High-End Watch Market Trends51:13 The Future of Watch Brands55:02 The Role of Smartwatches in the Market59:52 Conclusion and Predictions for 2026Give us a follow, and feel free to reach out to us on Instagram: @lumeplottersOr… leave us an audio comment using the link below, and we may just play it in an upcoming episode: https://www.speakpipe.com/lumeplotters

Oil is surging, LNG flows are threatened, and defense stocks are flying - but are markets underestimating the inflation shock? In this episode of Market View, hosted by Michelle Martin , we unpack how a widening Middle East conflict is rippling across global markets. Crude jumps past $78, gold climbs, and LNG futures explode as Qatar halts production - yet US equities steady on hopes oil stays below the $100 danger zone flagged by Morgan Stanley. Defense names like Palantir, Lockheed Martin and ST Engineering rise, while travel and aviation players including Singapore Airlines, Cathay Pacific and SATS face pressure. Meanwhile, Nvidia doubles down on photonics with Coherent and Lumentum, CrowdStrike gets an upgrade, and Apple rolls out a lower-cost iPhone 17e. We break down what matters for inflation, rate cuts, and sector rotation - and where smart money may hide if energy volatility persists.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Listen and subscribe to Money Making Conversations on iHeartRadio, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, www.moneymakingconversations.com/subscribe/ or wherever you listen to podcasts. New Money Making Conversations episodes drop daily. I want to alert you, so you don’t miss out on expert analysis and insider perspectives from my guests who provide tips that can help you uplift the community, improve your financial planning, motivation, or advice on how to be a successful entrepreneur. Keep winning! Two-time Emmy and Three-time NAACP Image Award-winning, television Executive Producer Rushion McDonald interviewed Sonia Balfour-Fears. Here you go — a clean, structured summary of the Sonia Balfour‑Fears interview with Rushion McDonald, plus purpose, key takeaways, and notable quotes, all based on the transcript you provided. SUMMARY OF THE INTERVIEW In this Money Making Conversations Masterclass episode, Rushion McDonald interviews Sonia Balfour‑Fears, a high‑ranking Global Sports & Entertainment Director and Financial Advisor at Morgan Stanley. Sonia discusses the Black wealth gap, financial literacy, investing basics, barriers that minorities face in wealth-building, and the realities of long-term investing. She emphasizes education, discipline, and access as critical factors for closing the wealth gap. She also explains how investors of different ages—from young adults to retirees—share a common need: guidance and a financial plan. Sonia breaks down misconceptions about stock market participation, cryptocurrency, “hot stocks,” risk tolerance, dividend investing, and the best way to start investing even with small amounts of money. Throughout the interview, Sonia provides approachable frameworks for beginners—emergency funds, diversified investing, index funds—and stresses that it’s never too late to begin investing, even at age 60 or older. PURPOSE OF THE INTERVIEW The interview aims to: 1. Educate listeners on financial literacy Sonia explains fundamentals such as emergency funds, risk tolerance, asset allocation, diversification, and long‑term wealth building. 2. Address misconceptions about minority participation in investing She clarifies that minority participation is rising but that more people need professional guidance rather than DIY risk-taking. 3. Provide practical starting points for new investors She gives clear steps for people with small amounts of money and explains how to build wealth intentionally. 4. Encourage multigenerational financial conversations Sonia discusses creating the first African‑American mother‑daughter wealth management team, emphasizing the importance of knowledge transfer. 5. Inspire listeners to rethink age and investing She strongly argues that it is never too late to start building wealth. KEY TAKEAWAYS 1. Closing the Black Wealth Gap Requires Knowledge + Access Wealth-building is tied to discipline, education, and opportunity. Financial literacy helps people understand how money works so they can build long-term wealth..txt) 2. Discipline Is as Important as Income Sonia compares investing discipline to waking up early, exercising, and staying consistent with lifestyle habits..txt) 3. Everyone — Young or Old — Needs Professional Financial Guidance Clients in their 20s and clients nearing retirement share a common need:a roadmap created by someone who does this every day..txt) 4. Minorities Are Investing More — But Not Always With Advisors Many young minorities enter through crypto or apps, but they often lack solid planning..txt) 5. Cryptocurrency Isn’t for Everyone Morgan Stanley limits Bitcoin access to accredited investors with at least $1M on the platform due to high volatility..txt) 6. How to Start Investing: Build an Emergency Fund First 6 months of expenses if single; 3 months if married. After that, “start where you are”—even $100/month..txt) 7. Avoid “Hot Stock” Thinking Sonia discourages short-term stock chasing. Recommends S&P 500 index funds instead of individual picks..txt) 8. Risk Tolerance Shapes Your Portfolio Aggressive = stocks. Conservative = more fixed income. Use personal behavior (e.g., gambling habits) to assess risk comfort..txt) 9. It Is Never Too Late to Invest A 60-year-old caller is reminded she could live to 90–95; that’s 30 years to grow investments..txt) 10. Dividend Stocks Provide Strong Income Today Dividend-paying stocks often yield more income than bonds in today’s market..txt) NOTABLE QUOTES (from transcript) On Closing the Wealth Gap “Education is another way… to understand the different components of building wealth.”.txt) On Discipline “It’s the discipline to really… be intentional about understanding what your money can do for you.”.txt) On Minority Participation “I really see a lot more minorities getting into investing… but working with a financial professional, not as many.”.txt) On Crypto + Risk “We set the criteria very high because the potential for loss is tremendous. So is the potential for gain.”.txt) On Starting with Small Amounts “You start where you are. And if it’s $100 a month, that’s where you start.”.txt) On ‘Hot Stocks’ “Our team primarily focuses on longer‑term investing… it’s all about asset allocation.”.txt) On Being 60 and Beginning to Invest “It is definitely, definitely not too late… If you’re close to 60, we anticipate you’ll live to 90 or 95.”.txt) On Dividend Investing “You get more income from dividends these days than you do from bonds.”.txt) #SHMS #STRAW #BESTSupport the show: https://www.steveharveyfm.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Listen and subscribe to Money Making Conversations on iHeartRadio, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, www.moneymakingconversations.com/subscribe/ or wherever you listen to podcasts. New Money Making Conversations episodes drop daily. I want to alert you, so you don’t miss out on expert analysis and insider perspectives from my guests who provide tips that can help you uplift the community, improve your financial planning, motivation, or advice on how to be a successful entrepreneur. Keep winning! Two-time Emmy and Three-time NAACP Image Award-winning, television Executive Producer Rushion McDonald interviewed Sonia Balfour-Fears. Here you go — a clean, structured summary of the Sonia Balfour‑Fears interview with Rushion McDonald, plus purpose, key takeaways, and notable quotes, all based on the transcript you provided. SUMMARY OF THE INTERVIEW In this Money Making Conversations Masterclass episode, Rushion McDonald interviews Sonia Balfour‑Fears, a high‑ranking Global Sports & Entertainment Director and Financial Advisor at Morgan Stanley. Sonia discusses the Black wealth gap, financial literacy, investing basics, barriers that minorities face in wealth-building, and the realities of long-term investing. She emphasizes education, discipline, and access as critical factors for closing the wealth gap. She also explains how investors of different ages—from young adults to retirees—share a common need: guidance and a financial plan. Sonia breaks down misconceptions about stock market participation, cryptocurrency, “hot stocks,” risk tolerance, dividend investing, and the best way to start investing even with small amounts of money. Throughout the interview, Sonia provides approachable frameworks for beginners—emergency funds, diversified investing, index funds—and stresses that it’s never too late to begin investing, even at age 60 or older. PURPOSE OF THE INTERVIEW The interview aims to: 1. Educate listeners on financial literacy Sonia explains fundamentals such as emergency funds, risk tolerance, asset allocation, diversification, and long‑term wealth building. 2. Address misconceptions about minority participation in investing She clarifies that minority participation is rising but that more people need professional guidance rather than DIY risk-taking. 3. Provide practical starting points for new investors She gives clear steps for people with small amounts of money and explains how to build wealth intentionally. 4. Encourage multigenerational financial conversations Sonia discusses creating the first African‑American mother‑daughter wealth management team, emphasizing the importance of knowledge transfer. 5. Inspire listeners to rethink age and investing She strongly argues that it is never too late to start building wealth. KEY TAKEAWAYS 1. Closing the Black Wealth Gap Requires Knowledge + Access Wealth-building is tied to discipline, education, and opportunity. Financial literacy helps people understand how money works so they can build long-term wealth..txt) 2. Discipline Is as Important as Income Sonia compares investing discipline to waking up early, exercising, and staying consistent with lifestyle habits..txt) 3. Everyone — Young or Old — Needs Professional Financial Guidance Clients in their 20s and clients nearing retirement share a common need:a roadmap created by someone who does this every day..txt) 4. Minorities Are Investing More — But Not Always With Advisors Many young minorities enter through crypto or apps, but they often lack solid planning..txt) 5. Cryptocurrency Isn’t for Everyone Morgan Stanley limits Bitcoin access to accredited investors with at least $1M on the platform due to high volatility..txt) 6. How to Start Investing: Build an Emergency Fund First 6 months of expenses if single; 3 months if married. After that, “start where you are”—even $100/month..txt) 7. Avoid “Hot Stock” Thinking Sonia discourages short-term stock chasing. Recommends S&P 500 index funds instead of individual picks..txt) 8. Risk Tolerance Shapes Your Portfolio Aggressive = stocks. Conservative = more fixed income. Use personal behavior (e.g., gambling habits) to assess risk comfort..txt) 9. It Is Never Too Late to Invest A 60-year-old caller is reminded she could live to 90–95; that’s 30 years to grow investments..txt) 10. Dividend Stocks Provide Strong Income Today Dividend-paying stocks often yield more income than bonds in today’s market..txt) NOTABLE QUOTES (from transcript) On Closing the Wealth Gap “Education is another way… to understand the different components of building wealth.”.txt) On Discipline “It’s the discipline to really… be intentional about understanding what your money can do for you.”.txt) On Minority Participation “I really see a lot more minorities getting into investing… but working with a financial professional, not as many.”.txt) On Crypto + Risk “We set the criteria very high because the potential for loss is tremendous. So is the potential for gain.”.txt) On Starting with Small Amounts “You start where you are. And if it’s $100 a month, that’s where you start.”.txt) On ‘Hot Stocks’ “Our team primarily focuses on longer‑term investing… it’s all about asset allocation.”.txt) On Being 60 and Beginning to Invest “It is definitely, definitely not too late… If you’re close to 60, we anticipate you’ll live to 90 or 95.”.txt) On Dividend Investing “You get more income from dividends these days than you do from bonds.”.txt) #SHMS #STRAW #BESTSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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

This episode dives into the surprisingly emotional world of fixed income investing, exploring whether traditional bond funds like BND still make sense or if newer laddered bond ETFs offer a psychological edge by returning principal at a set maturity date. Don and Tom unpack how these ETFs compare to CD ladders, why capital gains should never be expected from bonds, and how investor psychology often drives the preference for “certainty.” They also congratulate Dimensional Fund Advisors on reaching $1 trillion in assets, discuss whether laddering target-date funds makes planning easier or just more complicated, and answer listener questions about transferring accounts from Morgan Stanley to Vanguard and managing tax consequences along the way. 0:04 Bonds vs. crypto — why fixed income feels boring but matters 1:02 Why bonds exist in portfolios (stability, income, not growth) 2:18 Introduction to laddered bond ETFs (Invesco, iShares, Vanguard) 3:51 Bond returns in 2025 and the “don't expect capital gains” rule 5:03 The psychological problem with bond funds (they never mature) 6:54 How target-maturity bond ETFs differ from traditional bond funds 11:28 Yield comparisons across laddered maturities vs. BND 13:14 When laddered ETFs might make sense (income timing, certainty) 15:09 Dimensional Fund Advisors reaches $1 trillion in assets 19:57 Listener: Laddering target-date funds instead of bonds 23:19 Listener: Transferring IRA and taxable accounts to Vanguard Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

MRKT Matrix - Monday, March 2nd S&P 500 teeters, cutting earlier losses as traders buy the dip after U.S.-Iran attacks (CNBC) Jamie Dimon expects cyber, terror attacks in retaliation for Iran strikes (CNBC) Jamie Dimon Says Iran Conflict Won't Be Major Inflationary Hit (WSJ) Hedge funds rethink emerging market bets after US-Israel strikes on Iran (FT) Geopolitics Bets Hit a Record on Polymarket as Iran War Escalates (Bloomberg) Mortgage rates jump sharply higher after Iran strikes, reversing last week's decline (CNBC) Apple Debuts iPhone 17e and M4 iPad Air, Starting Product Wave (Bloomberg) NVIDIA Announces Strategic Partnership With Lumentum to Develop State-of-the-Art Optics Technology (Nvidia) Nvidia's stock is stuck. Morgan Stanley says it's time to buy again (CNBC) Anthropic's Claude Goes Down Amid ‘Unprecedented Demand' (Bloomberg) Musk's X, xAI to Pay Back $17.5 Billion Debt as SpaceX IPO Nears (Bloomberg) --- Subscribe to our newsletter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://riskreversalmedia.beehiiv.com/subscribe⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ MRKT Matrix by RiskReversal Media is a daily AI powered podcast bringing you the top stories moving financial markets Story curation by RiskReversal, scripts by Perplexity Pro, voice by ElevenLabs

In this episode of Market Maker by AmplifyME, we sit down with Nick Leeson to explore trading psychology, risk management and what it takes to survive public failure after the collapse of Barings Bank and more than $1.3 billion in losses.At just 25 years old, Leeson was running a derivatives operation in Singapore during the high-pressure culture of 1990s banking. What followed brought down a 233-year-old institution and became one of the most infamous events in modern financial history. But this conversation goes far beyond the headlines.We examine the psychology behind catastrophic risk, the pressure to succeed at a young age, and how ego and fear of failure can quietly distort decision-making. Nick reflects on the culture inside investment banking at the time, the compounding effect of hidden mistakes, and what resilience really means after prison, public scrutiny and rebuilding a life from scratch.For anyone pursuing a career in trading, investment banking or financial markets, this episode offers a rare and candid perspective on ambition, accountability and the true cost of unchecked pressure.Market Maker by AmplifyME brings you conversations with the people who've experienced the highs and lows of global financial markets and the lessons they learned along the way.(00:00) The Rogue Trader Story(02:25) Growing Up & First Ambitions(04:36) Entering the City(10:24) Morgan Stanley & Big Bang(14:33) Fast Promotions in Finance(22:44) Joining Barings(25:06) Singapore at 25(29:41) When Pressure Builds(31:57) Managing Without Mentors(34:14) Getting on With Everyone(37:38) Status, Culture & Ego(42:14) Stress Was Off The Charts(42:58) The Losses Spiral(48:35) Ethics & Accountability(52:14) Fear of Failure(55:45) Prison & Resilience

Crypto News: Barclays is exploring the creation of a blockchain platform for processes like payments. Morgan Stanley doubles down on crypto, files for bank charter to custody digital assets and offer staking. PYUSDx, a stablecoin tokenization framework from PayPal and MoonPay. Brought to you by

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

Stocks selling off to close out the week, as investors digested a hot inflation report. The credit-linked concerns weighing on banks, credit card companies and asset managers, and the stocks one top bank analyst is leaning into on the weakness. Plus, the software slump continues with the IGV software ETF down more than 20% so far this year, but Morgan Stanley's Katerina Simonetti is laying out where she sees some opportunity in the tech tumble. Fast Money Disclaimer Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

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

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

In this Greatest Hits episode of Advisor Talk, Frank LaRosa sits down with Cetera CEO Mike Durbin for a wide-ranging, candid conversation about ownership structure, affiliation flexibility, M&A strategy, custody decisions, and what it really means to build a “forever home” for advisors. From private equity misconceptions to succession solutions, this episode explores how advisors can think strategically - not reactively - about their long-term growth. Mike shares insights from his 35-year career working directly with financial advisors, including leadership roles at Morgan Stanley and Fidelity, and explains why he returned to the independent space to help shape the next decade of advisor evolution   You'll hear discussion around: • Why multi-custody and multi-clearing can be a strategic advantage. • How private equity ownership can create stability instead of short-term pressure. • The importance of affiliation flexibility as careers evolve. • Why succession solutions should exist inside a firm - not outside it. • How large firms can still create community and localized support. • What “growth support” really looks like beyond recruiting deals. • Why diversification of revenue matters in a changing rate environment. Rather than focusing solely on headline recruiting deals or advisor headcount, this episode centers on a more important theme: Are you aligned with a partner that helps you play offense - not just react to change? As Mike states, it has never been a better time to be in the wealth management business - but it is changing quickly.   If you're a financial advisor evaluating independence, succession, M&A, or long-term firm alignment, this Greatest Hits conversation offers perspective on how to think about scale, ownership, and growth in a dynamic industry. Chapters: 01:03 – Episode Intro 04:10 – Mike's Background 09:16 – Private Equity & Ownership 14:35 – Affiliation Flexibility 26:24 – Multi-Custody Strategy 32:30 – M&A & Consolidation 37:31 – Scale vs Community 40:06 – Recruiting Economics 44:00 – Growth & Marketing Support 50:26 – Playing Offense Learn more about Elite and our resources: Elite Consulting Partners | Financial Advisor Transitions https://eliteconsultingpartners.com Elite Marketing Concepts | Marketing Services for Financial Advisors https://elitemarketingconcepts.com Elite Advisor Successions | Advisor Mergers & Acquisitions https://eliteadvisorsuccessions.com JEDI Database Solutions | Technology Solutions for Advisors https://jedidatabasesolutions.com Listen to more Advisor Talk episodes: https://eliteconsultingpartners.com/podcasts/

This week on The Business of Watches, we go behind the scenes with the man who compiles and crunches the numbers for the Morgan Stanley Swiss Watcher report, the most influential and widely read annual financial league table on the industry. Oliver Müller has been around the sector for some three decades, beginning his career at Omega before executive roles at a series of brands, including Laurent Ferrier, where he served as Chief Executive Officer. He's now a consultant to the industry and has helped shape brand strategy and positioning for the likes of Akrivia and Rexhep Rexhepi, among others.  Müller's most high-profile gig these days is compiling the estimates of Swiss brand revenue and volumes for the Morgan Stanley report. It's the top league table for the sector, and he tells us how he calculates and decides on the estimates that get published. Not everyone is a fan. Swatch Group has long criticized the report, now in its 9th edition, and Müller tells us why he believes Swatch and its leadership don't always appreciate the numbers. But first, Hodinkee founder Ben Clymer drops in for his Business of Watches debut. Ben tells us about his recent trip to Geneva and what he's hearing from some of the big brand executives. He also gives us his take on some of the data deep inside the Morgan Stanley report.  Show Notes  1:30 Ben Clymer (Hodinkee)  2:11 Watches of Switzerland Group 4:10 Gold price 4:42 USDxCHF 6:40 Audemars Piguet CEO Ilaria Resta Drives Double-Digit Sales Increase For Brand's 150th Anniversary Year 10:20 Cartier Santos de Cartier in Titanium (And Steel) — The Watches You Want From Cartier, Whether You Know It Or Not (Hodinkee) 12:55 Cartier's NSO – Or "New Special Order" –  Watch Program Is Over, At Least As We Know It (Hodinkee) 15:00 LuxeConsult (Oliver Müller) 15:15 Morgan Stanley 18:15 Richard Mille 18:34 Bucherer 24:13 When Banks Try To Unlock The Watchmaking Secret (Le Temps) (In French) 32:47 F.P. Journe  32:50 H. Moser & Cie. 37:30 MB&F 39:20 Raymond Weil 39:25 Frederique Constant 39:30 Christopher Ward 43:05 Jacob & Co. 44:00 How The Five Time Zone Shaped Modern Watch Culture (Hodinkee Malaika Crawford) 49:20 Tudor sales slump by 23% but Rolex turnover ticks up 5% to CHF 10.6 billion (Watchpro) 53:20 IWC 54:15  Jaeger-LeCoultre 59:20 Richemont Sells Baume & Mercier 1:01:30 Swatch Group Brands 1:06:20 Rolex careers and work locations including Biel / Bienne 

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

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