Podcasts about Morgan Stanley

Preston sits down with Jon Melton to explore his shift from Morgan Stanley to Bitcoin, insights on Silvergate Bank's crypto strategy, and the future of Bitcoin-backed finance. They delve into lending models, the impact of regulation, and how Jon sees banks engaging with digital assets going forward. IN THIS EPISODE YOU'LL LEARN: 00:00 - Intro 04:31 - How Jon transitioned from Morgan Stanley to the Bitcoin world. 06:32 - The impact of Wences Casares on Jon's Bitcoin conviction. 08:43 - What made Zappo a pioneer in Bitcoin custody. 09:42 - Silvergate Bank's unique approach to cryptocurrency banking. 14:50 - Reasons behind Silvergate's decision to wind down operations. 20:09 - The importance of over-collateralization in Bitcoin lending. 23:10 - Why Unchained avoids rehypothecation in its lending model. 27:25 - How Bitcoin loans might integrate with real estate in the future. 33:38 - The Federal Reserve vs. Treasury Department on stablecoin policy. 37:49 - Why Jon remains bullish on Bitcoin and its role in future finance. Disclaimer: Slight discrepancies in the timestamps may occur due to podcast platform differences. BOOKS AND RESOURCES Website: Unchained Capital. Related Article: Revisiting Unchained's Core Lending Principles by Jon Melton. Related article: Core Lending Principles. Related article: The Plot to Destroy Silvergate by Nic Carter. Related Video: Banking, Crypto, and an Upcoming Regulatory Overhaul with Caitlin Long and John Maxfield. Check out all the books mentioned and discussed in our podcast episodes ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Enjoy ad-free episodes when you subscribe to our ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Premium Feed⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. NEW TO THE SHOW? Join the exclusive ⁠⁠⁠⁠TIP Mastermind Community⁠⁠⁠⁠ to engage in meaningful stock investing discussions with Stig, Clay, Kyle, and the other community members. Follow our official social media accounts: ⁠⁠⁠⁠X (Twitter)⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠LinkedIn⁠⁠⁠⁠ | | ⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠Facebook⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠TikTok⁠⁠⁠⁠. Check out our ⁠⁠⁠⁠Bitcoin Fundamentals Starter Packs⁠⁠⁠⁠. Browse through all our episodes (complete with transcripts) ⁠⁠⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠⁠. Try our tool for picking stock winners and managing our portfolios: ⁠⁠⁠⁠TIP Finance Tool⁠⁠⁠⁠. Enjoy exclusive perks from our ⁠⁠⁠⁠favorite Apps and Services⁠⁠⁠⁠. Get smarter about valuing businesses in just a few minutes each week through our newsletter, ⁠⁠⁠⁠The Intrinsic Value Newsletter⁠⁠⁠⁠. Learn how to better start, manage, and grow your business with the ⁠⁠⁠⁠best business podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠. SPONSORS Support our free podcast by supporting our ⁠⁠⁠⁠sponsors⁠⁠⁠⁠: SimpleMining Hardblock AnchorWatch Human Rights Foundation Cape Unchained Vanta Shopify Onramp Abundant Mines Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://theinvestorspodcastnetwork.supportingcast.fm

Can a central bank simply announce an inflation target and get everyone to believe it? Our Global Economist Arunima Sinha looks at the cases of South Africa and Brazil to explain why it's a subject of decades-long debate. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Arunima Sinha: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Arunima Sinha, Global Economist at Morgan Stanley. Today I'm going to talk about how inflation targets of central banks matter for market participants and economic activity.It's Tuesday, August 12th at 10am in New York. Tariff driven inflation is at the center of financial market debates right now. The received wisdom is that a central bank should look through one-off increases in prices if – and it is an important if – inflation expectations are anchored low enough. Inflation targets, inflation expectations, and central bank credibility have been debated for decades. The Fed's much criticized view that COVID inflation would be transitory was based on the assumption that anchored inflation expectations would pull inflation down. The Fed is more cautious now after four years of above target inflation. Can a central bank simply announce an inflation target and get everyone to believe it? Far away from the U.S., the South Africa Reserve Bank, SARB, is providing a real time experiment. The SARB's inflation target was originally a range of 3 to 6 per cent, with an intention to shift to 2 to 4 percent over time. At its last meeting, the SARB announced that it was going to target the bottom end of the range, de facto shifting to a 3 percent target. A decision by the Ministry of Finance in the coming months is likely necessary to formalise the outcome, but the SARB has succeeded in pulling inflation down. It has established credibility, but we suspect that more work is needed to anchor inflation expectations firmly at 3 percent. Key to the SARS challenge, as the Fed's – the central bank cannot control all the drivers of inflation in the short run. For South Africa, fiscal targets and exchange rate movements are prime examples. The experience in Brazil offers insight for South Africa. The BCB adopted an inflation target in 1999 following the end of the currency peg that helps the transition away from hyperinflation. The target was initially set at 8 percent, lowered to 4.5 percent in 2005, and then lowered again to 3 percent in 2024.Fiscal outcomes, market expectations, and currency volatility have been hard to contain. The lessons apply to South Africa and also the Fed. Successful inflation targeting relies on a clear framework, but also on institutional strength and political consensus. For South Africa, as inflation falls ex-ante real interest rates will rise. That outcome will be necessary to restrain the economy enough to make sure that the path to 3 percent is achieved. For an open EM economy, there likely needs to be consistency by both monetary and fiscal authorities with regard to short-term pressures, both internal and external. While we ultimately expect the SARB to be able to anchor inflation expectations, the journey may not be a quick one; and that journey will likely depend on keeping real interest rates on the higher side to ensure the convergence.We take the experiences of South Africa and Brazil to be informative globally. Simply announcing an inflation target likely does not solve the problem. The Fed, for example, spent much of the 2010s hoping to get inflation up to target – while now ironically, inflation in the US has run above target for almost half a decade. Whether the lingering effects of the COVID inflation has affected the price setting mechanism is unclear, as is whether tariff driven inflation will exacerbate the situation. Our read of the evidence is that inflation expectations and central bank credibility come from hitting the target, not from announcing it. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share thoughts on the market with a friend or colleague today.

In this episode of Behind the Uniform - Season 3 - we feature sophomore running back Jordan Marshall. The former Ohio high school player of the year reflects upon his decision to commit to Michigan over Ohio State, emphasizing the culture and people in Ann Arbor among the key reasons why. He recalls the emotions he felt during the coaching staff changes and explains why he maintained his commitment. The conversation turns to his freshman season, the memorable victory over Ohio State, and the significance of the rivalry especially to players from those states like himself. Marshall highlights his performance in the bowl game against Alabama before attention shifts to insights gleaned from Behind the Uniform's financial literacy boot camp. Marshall shares lessons learned from the "Playbook for Prosperity" seminar with the University of Michigan Credit Union stressing the importance of budgeting, and David Himich from The Himich Group at Morgan Stanley on long-term financial planning. The interview concludes with Marshall discussing his readiness for a leadership role in the offense, sharing his early impressions of Bryce Underwood, and sharing his reaction to Jeremiah Smith's promise that Ohio State will not lose Michigan again as long as he's in a Buckeye uniform. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Morgan Stanley Research looks at how changes in demographics, ownership, and distribution can boost tech adoption to revolutionize the global sports industry. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Cesar Medina: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Cesar Medina, Morgan Stanley's Latin America Technology, Media, and Telecom Analyst. Today – we discuss what's driving the digital revolution in global sports. And what it means for fans as well as investors. It's Monday, August 11th, at 10am in New York.These days, watching a sporting event at home usually means streaming the big game on a large 4K HDR screen. Maybe even 8K for premium events. You might access real time stats from a supporting app or social media on a secondary device. Maybe even have a group chat with friends. But imagine a game with real-time personalized stats. Immersive alternate camera angles. Or even experiencing the match from a player's perspective—all powered by AI. These innovations are already being tested and rolled out in select leagues. Global sports generates half a trillion dollars in annual revenues. Despite all that cash, until very recently the industry was slow to embrace digital technology, lagging behind movies and music. Now that's changing – and fast.So, what's driving this transformation? Three powerful forces are closing this digital gap. One – younger, tech-savvy audiences demanding more immersive and personalized experiences. Two – new distribution models, with digital platforms stepping into the arena. And three – institutional investment, bringing capital and a push for modernization. You might ask – what does this all mean for fans, investors, and the future of entertainment? Let's start with fans. Today's sports fans aren't just watching—they're interacting, betting, gaming, and sharing. And younger fans are leading the charge. They are spending more time online and expect hyper-personalized content. They're more interested in individual athletes than teams, and they engage through social media, fantasy sports, and interactive platforms. Surveys show that fans under 35 are significantly more likely to spend money on sports if the experience is digital-first. Some leagues have seen viewership jump by 40 percent after introducing interactive features. Others are using AI to personalize content, boosting engagement and revenue. Digital transformation isn't just about watching games though—it's about reimagining the entire ecosystem. When it comes to live events, smart venues are using AI to adjust ticket prices based on weather, opposing team, and demand. Some are even using facial recognition for faster entry and purchases. Streaming platforms are making broadcasts more interactive, while combating piracy with predictive tech. As for engagement, fantasy sports, esports, and betting are booming. AI-driven platforms are helping fans make smarter picks—and spend more. Altogether, these innovations could boost global sports revenues by over 25 percent, adding more than $130 billion in value. While North America leads in monetization, Emerging Markets are catching up fast. In India, Brazil, and the Middle East, for example, sports franchises are seeing double-digit growth in value—sometimes outpacing traditional media. And here's the kicker: many of these regions have younger populations and faster-growing digital adoption. That's a recipe for serious growth. Meanwhile, niche sports and women's leagues are also gaining global traction, expanding the definition of mainstream entertainment. Of course, this transformation of the sports industry faces real hurdles—technical expertise, budget constraints, and cultural resistance among coaches and athletes. But the incentives are clear. And as more capital flows into sports—from private equity to sovereign wealth funds—digital transformation is becoming a strategic priority. So, what's the biggest takeaway? Global sports is no longer just about what happens on the field. It's about how fans experience it—on their phones, in their homes, and in the stadiums of the future. So whether you're an investor, a fan, or just someone who loves a good underdog story, this is a game worth watching. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Welcome to Episode 233 of Pelo Buddy TV, an unofficial Peloton podcast & Peloton news show. This week we cover the following topics: Peloton announced another round of layoffs during their latest earnings call. Morgan Stanley is predicting a $5/month price increase starting next year. Corey Farrell has been hired as Peloton's new CIO. Peloton has said they will provide “ample notice” if they change the support for the Peloton Guide. A new artist series featuring Oasis took place this week. Hannah Corbin is teasing she has a new program coming out this fall. Peloton highlighted some classes in “This Week at Peloton.” The German language “Summer Break” class series is back. There is also a German language “Combo of the Month” stack collection There is another in-person class at PSNY for Chase Sapphire Reserve credit card holders. Susie Chan & Jeffrey McEachern will lead a shakeout run before the Sydney Marathon. Happy Birthday to Jess Sims, Alex Toussaint, and Olivia Amato. Selena Samuela has teamed up with Spotify for an audiobook challenge Selena Samuela is having twins. Matty Maggiacomo & Tunde Oyeneyin are co-hosting the Athlete Ally Action Awards. Rebecca Kennedy was on the LivBtr podcast. Class Picks of the Week Enjoy the show? Become a Pelo Buddy TV Supporter!  Find details here: https://www.pelobuddy.com/membership-account/membership-levels/ You can find links to full articles on each of these topics from the episode page here: https://www.pelobuddy.com/pelo-buddy-tv-episode-233/ The show is also available via YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/PeloBuddy This episode is hosted by Chris Lewis (#PeloBuddy) and Holly Kabler (#Crabbie_KakeS).

Our U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist Michelle Weaver discusses what back-to-school spending trends reveal about consumer sentiment and the U.S. economy.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist here at Morgan Stanley.Today -- we're going back to school! A look at the second biggest shopping season in the U.S.. And what it can tell us about the broader market.It's Friday, August 8th, at 10am in New York.It's that time of the year again. With parents, caregivers and students making shopping lists for back-to-school supplies. And it's not just limited to school supplies and backpacks. It probably also includes laptops or tablets, smart phones and, of course, the latest clothes. For investors, understanding how consumers are feeling—and spending—right now is critical. Why? Because back-to-school spending tells us a lot about consumer sentiment. And this month's data has been sending some mixed but meaningful signals.Let's start with the mood on Main Street. According to our latest proprietary consumer survey, confidence in the economy is sliding. Just under one-third of consumers think the economy will improve over the next six months—which is down from 37 percent last month and 44 percent in January. And that's a pretty big drop from the start of the year. Meanwhile, half of all consumers expect the economy to get worse.Household finances are also feeling the squeeze. While around 40 percent expect their financial situation to improve, closer to 30 percent expect it to worsen. The net score is still positive, but down from last month and even more so from January.The takeaway? Consumers are feeling the pinch—and inflation remains their number one concern.We did see a bit of a brighter picture though around tariff fears. And tariffs are definitely still a worry, but we're past that point of peak fear. This month, over a third of consumers said they're “very concerned” about tariffs—down from 43 percent in April, post Liberation Day. And fewer people are planning to cut back on spending because of them: that number is just 30 percent now, compared to over 40 percent a few months ago.In fact, almost 30 percent of consumers actually plan to spend more despite tariffs. That's a sign of resilience—and perhaps necessity—as families prepare for the school year.And that brings us back to back-to-school shopping, which is a relative bright spot.Nearly half of U.S. consumers have already shopped or are planning to shop for the school year—right in line with what we saw in previous years. Among those shoppers, 47 percent are spending more than last year, while only 14 percent plan to spend less. That's a significant net positive at 34 percent.What's in the cart? More than 90 percent of shoppers are buying apparel, footwear, and school supplies. Apparel leads, followed by footwear, followed by supplies.If we look beyond the classroom at other things people are spending on, travel is still a priority. Around 60 percent of consumers plan to travel over the next six months, with visiting friends and family as the top reason. That's consistent with where we were a year ago and shows that experiences still matter—even in uncertain times.The big takeaway from all this data: Consumer sentiment is cooling, but spending—especially spending for seasonal needs—is holding up. Back-to-school categories like apparel and footwear are outperforming, making them potential bright spots for retailers.As we head into fall, keep your eyes on U.S. consumers. They're not just shopping for school—they're also signaling where the market could be headed next.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.

Morgan Stanley, in a 2024 report, wrote that water is now the top asset of interest for investors in both the United States and Europe. We dive into the subject with water investing expert David Grumhaus, president, CIO and senior portfolio manager at Duff & Phelps, as well as the cover profile for the June 2025 edition of Real Assets Adviser magazine. (07/2025)

Morgan Stanley, in a 2024 report, wrote that water is now the top asset of interest for investors in both the United States and Europe. We dive into the subject with water investing expert David Grumhaus, president, CIO and senior portfolio manager at Duff & Phelps, as well as the cover profile for the June 2025 edition of Real Assets Adviser magazine. (07/2025)

So far, markets have shown resilience, despite the volatility. However, our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets points out that economic data might tell a different story over the next few months, with a likely impact on yields.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript ----- Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Today – how a tricky two months could feel a lot like stagflation, and a lot different from what we've had so far this year.It's Thursday, August 7th, at 2pm in London. For all the sound and fury around tariffs in 2025, financial markets have been resilient. Stocks are higher, bond yields are lower, credit spreads are near 20-year tights, and market volatility last month plummeted.Indeed, we sense increasing comfort with the idea that markets were tested by tariffs – after all we've been talking about them since February – and weathered the storm. So far this year, growth has generally held up, inflation has generally come down, and corporate earnings have generally been fine.Yet we think this might be a bit like a wide receiver celebrating on the 5-yard line. The tricky impact of tariffs? Well, it might be starting to show up in the data right now, with more to come over the next several months.When thinking about the supposed risk from tariffs, it's always been two fold: higher prices and then also less activity, given more uncertainty for businesses, and thus weaker growth.And what did we see last week? Well, so-called core-PCE inflation, the Fed's preferred inflation measure, showed that prices were once again rising and at a faster rate. A key report on the health of the U.S. jobs market showed weak jobs growth. And key surveys from the Institute of Supply Management, which are followed because the respondents are real people in the middle of real supply chains, cited lower levels of new orders, and higher prices being paid.In short, higher prices and slower growth. An unpleasant combo often summarized as stagflation.Now, maybe this was just one bad week. But it matters because it is coming right about the time that Morgan Stanley economists think we'll see more data like it. On their forecasts, U.S. growth will look a lot slower in the second half of the year than the first. And specifically, it is in the next three months, which should show higher rates of month-over-month inflation, while also seeing slower activity.This would be a different pattern of data that we've seen so far this year. And so if these forecasts are correct, it's not that markets have already passed the test. It's that the teacher is only now handing it out. For credit, we think this could make the next several months uncomfortable and drive some modest spread widening. Credit still has many things going for it, including attractive yields and generally good corporate performance. But this mix of slower growth and higher inflation, well, it's new. It's coming during an August/September period, which is often somewhat more challenging for credit. And all this leads us to think that a strong market will take a breather.Thank you, as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

Trevor Stuart was born in Florida, but raised in Seattle. He was the son of a tech CFO and an Episcopalian minister - so he learned life at many different angles. He graduated from Boston College, and went into investment banking at Morgan Stanley. Beyond that, he worked at RelateIQ prior to being acquired by Salesforce, which then led him to start his own thing. Outside of tech, he's married and expecting his first child soon. He lives in Sonoma, and loves wine - which type depends on his mood and the time of year.At RelateIQ, Trevor and his team had a core problem - pushing more code, and looking to move faster, but limiting the amount of quality issues. His co-founder built the early workings of a system he had seen at LinkedIn, around gate keeping features. Eventually, post acquisition of this company, they decided to start building this solution on their own... which led them toward their own acquisition.This is the creation story of Split andHarness.SponsorsPaddle.comSema SoftwarePropelAuthPostmanMeilisearchMailtrap.TECH Domains (https://get.tech/codestory)Linkshttps://www.harness.io/https://www.harness.io/blog/split-joins-forces-with-harnesshttps://www.linkedin.com/in/trevorbstuart/Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/code-story-insights-from-startup-tech-leaders/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

In this episode, we are joined by Dr. Aruni Bhatnagar, who is a scientist and a professor at the university of Louisville. He is also an expert in environmental cardiology. Vikas and Dr. Bhatnagar discussed pollution, its impact on running and overall health.The key points discussed during the conversation are:- the importance of a good cardiovascular system and how smoking and pollution impacts it- the role of VO2 max- PM levels and their meaning in terms of pollution- how and when should runners go for their runs to avoid impact of pollution- importance of medical diagnosis and what tests to undertakeAbout 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!

Until now, the AI buildout has largely been self-funded. Our Chief Fixed Income Strategist Vishy Tirupattur and our Head of U.S. Credit Strategy Vishwas Patkar explain the role of credit markets to fund a potential financing gap of $1.5 trillion as spending on data centers and hardware keeps ramping up.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: And I'm Vishwas Patkar, Head of U.S. Credit Strategy at Morgan Stanley.Vishy Tirupattur: Today we want to talk about the opportunities and challenges in the credit markets, in the context of AI and data center financing.It's Wednesday, August 6th at 3pm in New York.Vishy Tirupattur: So, Vishwas spending on AI and data centers is really not new. It's been going on for a while. How has this CapEx been financed so far predominantly? What has changed now? And why do we need greater involvement of credit markets of different stripes?Vishwas Patkar: You're right, Vishy. So, CapEx on AI is certainly not new. So last year the hyperscalers alone spent more than $200 billion on AI related CapEx. What changes from here on, to your question, is the numbers just ramp up sharply. So, if you look at Morgan Stanley's estimates leveraging work done by our colleague Stephen Byrd over the next four years, there's about [$]2.9 trillion of CapEx that needs to be spent across hardware and data center bills.So what changes is, while CapEx so far has been largely self-funded by hyperscalers, we think that will not be the case going forward. So, when we leverage the work that has been done by our equity research colleagues around how much the hyperscalers can spend, we've identified a [$]1.5 trillion financing gap that has to be met by external capital. And we think credit would play a big role in that.Vishy Tirupattur: A financing gap of [$]1.5 trillion. Wow. That's a big number, by any measure. You talked about multiple credit channels that would need to be involved. Can you talk about rough sizing of these channels?Vishwas Patkar: Yep. So, we looked at four broad channels in the report that went out a few weeks ago. So, that [$]1.5 trillion gap breaks out into roughly [$]800 billion across private credit, which we think will be led by asset-based finance. Another [$]200 billion we think will come from Investment Grade rated bond issuance from the large tech names. Another [$]150 billion comes through securitized credit issuance via data center ABS and CMBS. And then finally there is a [$]350 billion plug that we've used. It's a catchall term for all other forms of financing that can cover sovereign spend, PE (private equity), VC among others,Vishy Tirupattur: The technology sector is fairly small within the context of corporate grade markets. You are estimating something like [$]200 billion of financing to come from this channel. Why not more?Vishwas Patkar: So, I think it comes down to really willingness versus ability. And, you know, you raise a good point. Tech names certainly have a lot of capacity to issue debt. And when I look at some of the work done by my colleague Lindsay Tyler in this report, the big four hyperscalers alone could issue over [$]600 billion of incremental debt without hurting their credit ratings.That said, our assumption is that early in the CapEx cycle, companies will be a little hesitant to do significantly debt funded investments as that might be seen as a suboptimal outcome for shareholder returns. And that's why we have reduced the magnitude of how much debt issuance could be vis-a-vis the actual capacity some of these companies have.So, Vishy, I talked about private credit meeting about half of the investment gap that we've identified and within that asset-based finance being a very important channel. So, what is ABF and why do you expect it to play such a big role in financing AI and data centers?Vishy Tirupattur: So, ABF is a very broad term for financing arrangements within the context of private credit. These are financing arrangements that are secured by loans and contractual cash flows such as leases – either with hard assets or without hard assets. So, the underlying concept itself is pretty widely used in securitizations.So, the difference between ABF structures and ABS structures is that the ABF structures are highly bespoke. They enable lots of customization to fit the specific needs of the investors and issuers in terms of risk tolerance, ratings, returns, duration, term, et cetera.So, ABS structures, on the other hand, are pretty standardized structures, you know, driven mainly by rating agencies – often requiring fairly stabilized cash flows with very strict requirements of lessee characteristics and sometimes residual value guarantees, in cases where hard assets are actually part of the collateral package.So, ABF opens up a wider range of possible structures and financing options to include assets that are on different stages of development. Remember, this is a very nascent industry. So, there are data centers that are fully stabilized cash flows, and there are data centers that are in very early stages of building with just land, or land and power access just being established.So, ABF structures can really do it in the form of a single asset or single facility financing or could include a portfolio of multiple assets and facilities that are in different stages of development.So, put all these things together, the nascent nature and the bespoke needs of data center financing call for a solution like ABF.Vishwas Patkar: And then taking a step back. So, as you said, the [$]1.5 trillion financing gap; I mean, that's a big number. That's larger than the size of the high yield market and the leveraged loan market.So, the question is, who are the investors in these structures, and where do you think the money ultimately comes from?Vishy Tirupattur: So, there is really a favorable alignment here of significant and substantial dry powder across different credit markets. And they're looking for attractive yields with appeal to a sticky investor base. This end investor base consists of investors such as insurance companies, sovereign wealth funds, pension funds, endowments, and high net worth retail individuals.Vishy Tirupattur: These are looking for scalable high quality asset exposures that can provide diversification benefits. And what we are talking about in terms of AI and data center financing precisely fall into that kind of investment. And we think this alignment of the need for capital and need for investments, that bridges this gap for [$]1.5 trillion that we're talking about here.So, my final question to you, Vishwas, is this. Where could we be wrong in our assessment of the financing through the various credit market channels?Vishwas Patkar: With the caveat that there are a lot of assumptions and moving parts in the framework that we build, I would flag really two risks. One macro, one micro.The macro one I would talk about in the context of credit market capacity. A lot of the favorable dynamics that you talked about come from where the level of rates are. So, if the economy slows and yields were to drop sharply, then I think the demand that credit markets are seeing could come into question, could see a slowdown over the coming years.The more micro risks, I think really come from how quickly or how slowly AI gets monetized by the big tech names. So, while we are quite optimistic about revenue generation a few years out, if in reality revenues are stronger than expected, then you could see more reliance on the public markets.So, for instance, the 200 billion of corporate bond issuance is likely going to be skewed higher in a more optimistic scenario. On the flip side, if there is mmuch ore uncertainty around the path to revenue generation, and if you see hyperscalers pulling back a bit on CapEx – then at the margin that could push more financing to the way of credit markets. In which case the overall [$]1.5 trillion number could also be biased higher.So those are the two big risks in my view.Vishy Tirupattur: So, Vishwas, any way you look at it, these numbers are big. And whether you are involved in AI or whether you're thinking about credit markets, these are numbers and developments that you cannot ignore.So, Vishwas, thanks so much for joining.Vishwas Patkar: Thank you for having me on Vishy.Vishy Tirupattur: And 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.

Mike Wilson, Chief US Equity Strategist at Morgan Stanley discusses why he has a higher conviction on the market heading into 2026. He is joined by Bloomberg's Tom Keene and Paul Sweeney.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There's a dichotomy between the pace of job growth and the unemployment rate. Our Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen and Global Head of Macro Strategy Matthew Hornbach analyze how the Fed might address this paradox.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy.Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist.Matthew Hornbach: Today – a look back at last week's meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee or FOMC, and the path for rates from here.It's Tuesday, August 5th at 10am in New York.Mike, last week the Fed met for the fifth time this year. The committee didn't provide a summary of their economic projections, but they did update their official policy statement. And of course, Chair Powell spoke at the press conference. How would you characterize the tone of both?Michael Gapen: Yeah, at first the statement I thought took on a slightly dovish tone for two reasons. One, unexpected; the other expected. So, the committee did revise down their assessment of growth and economic activity. They had previously described the economy as growing at a quote, ‘solid pace,' and now they said, you know, the incoming data suggests that growth and economic activity moderated.So that's true. That's actually our view as well. We think the data points to that. The second reason the statement looked a little dovish, and this was expected is the Fed received two dissents. So, Governors Bowman and Waller both dissented in favor of a 25 basis point rate cut at the July meeting.But then the press conference started. And I would characterize that as Powell having at least some renewed concerns around persistence of inflation. So, he did recognize or acknowledge that the June inflation data showed a tariff impulse. But I'd say the more hawkish overtones really came in his description of the labor market, which I know were going to get into.And we've been kind of wondering and, you know, asking implicitly – is the Fed ever going to take a stand on what constitutes a healthy and/or weak labor market? And Powell, I think put down a lot of markers in the direction; that said, it's not so much about employment growth, it's about a low unemployment rate. And he kept describing the labor market as solid, and in healthy condition, and at full employment. So, the combination of that suggests it's a higher bar, in our mind, for the Fed to cut in September.Matthew Hornbach: And on the labor market, if we could dig a little bit deeper on that point. It did seem to me certainly that Powell was channeling your views on the labor market.Michael Gapen: Well, I wish I had that power but thank you.Matthew Hornbach: Well. I'd like to now channel your views – and of course his views – to our listeners. Can you just go a little bit deeper into this dichotomy that you've been highlighting between the pace of job growth and the unemployment rate itself?Michael Gapen: Yeah. Our thesis and what we've laid out coming into the year, and we think the data supports, is the idea that immigration controls have really slowed growth in the labor force. And what that means is the break-even rate of employment has come down.So even as economic growth has slowed and demand for labor has slowed, and therefore employment growth has slowed – the unemployment rate has stayed low, and there's some paradox in that. Normally when employment growth weakens, we think the economy's rolling over; the Fed should be easing.But in an environment of a very slow growing labor force, the two can coincide. And there's tension in that, we recognize. But our view is – the more the administration pushes in the direction of restraining immigration, the more likely it is you'll see the combination of low employment growth, but a low unemployment rate. And our view is that still means the labor market is tight.Matthew Hornbach: Indeed, indeed. Just one last question from me. How are you thinking about the Fed's policy path from here? In particular, how are you looking at the remaining data that could get the Fed to cut rates in September?Michael Gapen: Yeah, I think that there's no magic sauce here, if you will; or secret sauce. Powell, you know, essentially is laying out a case where it's more likely than not inflation will be deviating from the 2 percent target as tariffs get passed through to consumer prices. And the flag that he planted on the labor market suggests maybe they're leaning in the direction of thinking the unemployment rates is likely to stay low.So, we just need more revelations on this front. And the gap between the July and the September FOMC meetings is the longest on the Fed's calendar. So, they will see two inflation reports and two labor market reports. And again, it just to provide context and color, right? What I think Powell was doing was positioning his view against the two dissents that he received. So where, for example, Governor Waller laid out a case where weaker employment growth could justify cuts, Powell was reflecting the view of the rest of the committee that said, ‘Well, it's not really employment growth, it's about that unemployment rate.'So, when these data arrive, we'll be kind of weighing both of those components. What does employment growth look like going forward? How weak is it? And what's happening to that unemployment rate?So, if the Fed's doing its job, this shouldn't be magic. If the labor market's obviously rolling over, you'll get cuts later this year. If not, we think our view will play out and the Fed will be on the sideline through, you know, early 2026 before it moves to rate cuts then.So Matt, what I'd like to do is kind of turn from the economics over to the rates views. How did the rates market respond to the meeting, to the statement, to the press conference? How are you thinking about the market pricing of the policy path into your end?Matthew Hornbach: So initially when the statement was released, as you noted, it had a dovish flavor to it. And so, we had a small repricing in the interest rate market, putting a little bit of a higher probability, on the idea that the Fed would lower rates in September. But then as Chair Powell began the press conference and started to articulate his views around both inflation and the labor market we saw the market take out some probability that the Fed would lower rates in September.And where it ended up at the end of that particular day was putting about a 50 percent probability on a rate cut and as a result of 50 percent probability of no rate cut; leaving the data to really dictate where the pricing of that meeting would go from there.That to me speaks to this data dependence of the Fed, as you've discussed. And I think that in the coming weeks we get more of this data that you talked about, both on the inflation side of the mandate and on the labor market side of the mandate. And ultimately, if they end up, going in September, I would've expected the market to have priced most of that in, ahead of the meeting. And if they end up not cutting rates in September, then naturally the market will have moved in that direction ahead of time.And again, I think what ends up happening in September will be critical for how the market ends up pricing the evolution of policy in November and December. But to me, what I think is more interesting is your view on 2026. And in that regard, the market is still some distance away from your view, that the Fed goes about 175 basis points in 2026.Michael Gapen: Yeah, I mean, we're still thinking the lagged effects of tariffs and immigration will slow the economy enough to get more Fed cuts than the market's thinking. But, you know, we'll see if that happens. And maybe that's a topic we can turn back to in upcoming Thoughts on the Market.But what I'd like to do is ask you this. I've been reading some of your recent work on term premiums. And in my view, had this really interesting analysis about how the market prices Fed policy and how U.S. Treasury yields then adjust and move.You highlighted that Treasury yields built in a term premium after April 2nd. What's happening with that term premium today?Matthew Hornbach: Yeah. The April 2nd Liberation Day event catalyzed an expansion of term premia in the Treasury market. And ultimately what that means is that Treasury yields went up relative to what people were thinking about the path of Fed policy, And of course, the risks that they were thinking about in the month of April were risks related to trade policy. Those risks have diminished somewhat, I would argue in the subsequent months as the administration has been announcing deals with some of our trading partners. And then the market's focus turned to supply and what was going to happen with U.S. Treasury supply. And then, of course, the reaction of investors to that coming supply.And I would say, given what the Treasury announced last week, which was – it had no intention of raising supply, in the next several quarters. In our view is that the U.S. Treasury will not have to raise supply until the early part of 2027. So way off in the distance. So, investors are becoming more comfortable taking on duration risk in their portfolios because some of that uncertainty that opened up after April 2nd has been put away.Michael Gapen: Yeah, I can see how the substantial tariff revenue we're bringing in could affect that story. So, for example, I think if you annualize the run rates on tariffs, you'll get something over $300 billion in a 12-month period. And that certainly will have an impact on Treasury supply.Matthew Hornbach: Indeed. And so, as we make our way through the month of August, we'll get an update to those tariff revenues. And also, towards the end of August, we will have the economic symposium in Jackson Hole, where Chair Powell will give us his updated thoughts on what is the outlook for the economy and for monetary policy. And Mike, I look forward to catching up with you after that.Thanks for taking the time to talk today.Michael Gapen: Great speaking with you Matt.Matthew Hornbach: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Is this market just taking a breather before launching its next leg higher or has momentum grinded to a halt? We discuss with Trivariate's Adam Parker, Robinhood's Stephanie Guild and Truist's Keith Lerner. Plus, Morgan Stanley's Sherry Paul breaks out her private wealth playbook. And, Jim Stewart – who wrote the book on Disney – tells us what he is watching from that company's report tomorrow morning. 

Spriha Tucker is the Field CTO at Buildkite, where she plays a pivotal role in bridging the gap between Buildkite's engineering teams and its clients. A two-time Y-Combinator founder, Spriha previously co-founded Aviator, a developer productivity platform, which served customers like Slack, Figma, Doordash, Bosch, and others. Her prior experience includes Product Management at Google on developer tools, data, infrastructure and search ads, and at Microsoft, on platform tooling. Spriha also taught as an instructor at General Assembly and spent time as a Quantitative Trader at Morgan Stanley, focusing on developing trading models and trade execution algorithms for equities. She holds a Bachelor's degree in Econometrics and a Master's in Computer Science from the University of Pennsylvania.You can find Spriha on the following sites:LinkedInXGitHubHere are some links provided by Spriha:BuildkitePLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO THE PODCASTSpotifyApple PodcastsYouTube MusicAmazon MusicRSS FeedYou can check out more episodes of Coffee and Open Source on https://www.coffeeandopensource.comCoffee and Open Source is hosted by Isaac Levin

Here's the harsh truth: If your business model can't survive a spreadsheet, it won't survive the market.Every year, ambitious founders pour months into product, pitch, and brand—yet the single biggest reason startups die isn't funding, it's flawed modeling.What are the four variables investors use to spot winners before anyone else?In this episode, investor and hands-on builder Alex Oppenheimer (Founder & GP at Verissimo Ventures, ex-Facebook IPO, ex-NEA, Monday.com advisor) reveals why most startup advice misses the point—and how the best founders reverse-engineer success long before a single euro is raised.

In this episode, I sat down with Eric Johnson, CEO of SurveyMonkey, to explore his journey from Princeton to being CEO of Survey Monkey. Eric shares key leadership lessons, tips for current and aspiring CEOs, and how to build trust in teams. We also talk about the tough lessons he's learned along the way, his thoughts on AI's role in business, and his experience at companies like CBS, Morgan Stanley and Survey Monkey. Eric's Linkedin Page - https://www.linkedin.com/in/eric-johnson-0618a71/ Rallen's Rant Spotify Page - https://open.spotify.com/show/3gcUGQrJzDdCxYKnWfbSjG Rallen's Rant YouTube Page - https://www.youtube.com/@Richieallen2 Richie's Instagram Page - https://www.instagram.com/richie_allen23/

Economic data looks backward while equity markets are looking ahead. Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains why this delays the Federal Reserve in both cutting and hiking rates – and why this is a feature of monetary policy, not a bug.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 why economic data can be counterintuitive for how stocks trade. It's Monday, August 4th at 11:30am in New York. So, let's get after it. Since the lows in April, the rally in stocks has been relentless with no tradable pullbacks. I have been steadfastly bullish since early May primarily due to the V-shaped recovery in earnings revisions breadth that began in mid-April. The rebound in earnings revisions has been a function of the positive reflexivity from max bearishness on tariffs, the AI capex cycle bottoming, and the weaker U.S. dollar. Now, cash tax savings from the One Big Beautiful Bill are an additional benefit to cash flow which should drive higher capital spending and M&A. As usual, stocks have traded ahead of the positive sentiment and the lagging economic data – which leads me to the main point for today. Weak labor data last week may worry some investors in the short term. But ultimately we see that as just another positive catalyst for stocks. Further deterioration would simply get the Fed to start cutting rates sooner and more aggressively.The bond market seems to agree and is now pricing a 90 percent chance of a Fed cut in September, and the 2-year Treasury yield is 80 basis points below the fed[eral] funds rate. This spread is not nearly as severe as last summer when it reached 200 basis points. However, it will widen further if next month's labor data is disappointing again. While weaker economic data could lead to further weakness in equities, the labor data is arguably the most backward-looking data series we follow. It's also why the Fed tends to be late with rate cuts. Meanwhile, inflation metrics are arguably the second most backward looking data, which explains why the Fed also tends to be late in terms of hiking rates. In my view, it's a feature of monetary policy, not a bug. Finally, in my opinion, the bond market's influence is more important than President Trump's public calls for Powell to cut rates. The equity market understands this dynamic, too—which is why it also gets ahead of the Fed at various stages of the cycle. We noted in our Mid-Year Outlook that April was a very durable low for equities that effectively priced a mild recession. To fully appreciate this view, one must acknowledge that equities were correcting for the 12 months leading up to April with the average stock down close to 30 percent at the lows. More importantly, it also coincided with a major trough in earnings revisions breadth. In short, Liberation Day marked the end of a significant bear market that began a year earlier. Remember, equity markets bottom on bad news and Liberation Day was the last piece of a long string of bad news that formed the bottom for earnings revisions breadth that we have been laser focused on. To bring it home, economic data is backward looking, earnings revisions and equity markets are forward looking. April was a major low for stocks that discounted the weak economic data we are seeing now. It was also the trough of the rolling recession that we have been in for the past three years and marked the beginning of a rolling recovery and a new bull market. For those who remain skeptical, it's important to recognize that the unemployment typically rises for 12 months after the equity market bottoms in a recession. Once the growth risk is priced, it's ultimately a tailwind for margins and stocks, as positive operating leverage arrives and the Fed cuts significantly. Based on this morning's rebound in stocks, it looks like the equity markets agree. 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!

David Clark is joined by Claudia Kwan, Managing Director at North Star Impact Funds and recipient of the Outstanding Individual Achievement Award at the Impact Investment Summit. A former Morgan Stanley trader and now one of Australia's leading voices in sustainable capital, Claudia shares how impact investing is evolving beyond its philanthropic roots to deliver returns competitive with traditional strategies. For investors who have historically prioritised financial performance over social outcomes, this episode challenges assumptions highlighting how capital can be deployed to sectors like affordable housing, electrification, and healthcare without compromising on economic returns. Key highlights: * Why measurable social and environmental outcomes are becoming part of mainstream investing. * How impact-aligned portfolios can deliver returns in line with traditional benchmarks. * NorthStar's values-driven, institutional-grade investment approach. * Claudia's journey as a female leader in the investment banking industry. Great perspective on why purpose and performance are no longer mutually exclusive.

Wir sehen nach dem Abverkauf am Freitag eine technische Gegenbewegung. Viele Marktteilnehmer gehen allerdings davon aus, dass wir im S&P 500 einen Test der 50-Tageslinie sehen werden, die bei 6170 Punkten liegt. Wie auch Ende letzter Woche, lösten schwache Arbeitsmarktdaten zwischen Ende Juli und Anfang August 2024 ein raschen, aber temporären Rücklauf aus. Tesla tendiert nach der Ausgabe eines Zahlungspakets an Elon Musk freundlich. Berkshire Hathaway tendiert nach den Zahlen wiederum leicht freundlich. Auch wenn der Gipfel der Berichtssaison hinter uns liegt, werden diese Woche rund 100 Unternehmen im S&P 500 Ergebnisse melden. Im Fokus stehen unter anderem AMD, Airbnb, Disney, DoorDash, Eli Lilly, Microchip, Shopify, Trade Desk und Uber. Morgan Stanley empfiehlt die Aktien von Disney im Vorfeld der Zahlen an diesem Montag zum Kauf, mit einem Kursziel von $140. Die Bank of America erwartet wiederum bei DoorDash besser-als-erwartete Ergebnisse, und empfiehlt den Wert zum Kauf, mit einem Ziel $285. Abonniere den Podcast, um keine Folge zu verpassen! ____ Folge uns, um auf dem Laufenden zu bleiben: • X: http://fal.cn/SQtwitter • LinkedIn: http://fal.cn/SQlinkedin • Instagram: http://fal.cn/SQInstagram

Wir sehen nach dem Abverkauf am Freitag eine technische Gegenbewegung. Viele Marktteilnehmer gehen allerdings davon aus, dass wir im S&P 500 einen Test der 50-Tageslinie sehen werden, die bei 6170 Punkten liegt. Wie auch Ende letzter Woche, lösten schwache Arbeitsmarktdaten zwischen Ende Juli und Anfang August 2024 ein raschen, aber temporären Rücklauf aus. Tesla tendiert nach der Ausgabe eines Zahlungspakets an Elon Musk freundlich. Berkshire Hathaway tendiert nach den Zahlen wiederum leicht freundlich. Auch wenn der Gipfel der Berichtssaison hinter uns liegt, werden diese Woche rund 100 Unternehmen im S&P 500 Ergebnisse melden. Im Fokus stehen unter anderem AMD, Airbnb, Disney, DoorDash, Eli Lilly, Microchip, Shopify, Trade Desk und Uber. Morgan Stanley empfiehlt die Aktien von Disney im Vorfeld der Zahlen an diesem Montag zum Kauf, mit einem Kursziel von $140. Die Bank of America erwartet wiederum bei DoorDash besser-als-erwartete Ergebnisse, und empfiehlt den Wert zum Kauf, mit einem Ziel $285. Ein Podcast - featured by Handelsblatt. +++Erhalte einen exklusiven 15% Rabatt auf Saily eSIM Datentarife! Lade die Saily-App herunter und benutze den Code wallstreet beim Bezahlen: https://saily.com/wallstreet +++ +++EXKLUSIVER NordVPN Deal ➼ https://nordvpn.com/Wallstreet Jetzt risikofrei testen mit einer 30-Tage-Geld-zurück-Garantie!+++ +++ Alle Rabattcodes und Infos zu unseren Werbepartnern findet ihr hier: https://linktr.ee/wallstreet_podcast +++ Der Podcast wird vermarktet durch die Ad Alliance. Die allgemeinen Datenschutzrichtlinien der Ad Alliance finden Sie unter https://datenschutz.ad-alliance.de/podcast.html Die Ad Alliance verarbeitet im Zusammenhang mit dem Angebot die Podcasts-Daten. Wenn Sie der automatischen Übermittlung der Daten widersprechen wollen, klicken Sie hier: https://datenschutz.ad-alliance.de/podcast.html

July was action-packed for LNG names. On July 11 Morgan Stanley raised their price target on NextDecade (NEXT) to $15, having last moved it to $10 in October 2022. The stock rose 18% to $10.77 on the news and added further gains during the month. Morgan Stanley's upgrade was the only news of note, but […]

①A robot 6S store opens in south China's Shenzhen②China tops global AI model count with over 1,500 large models released③Shanghai unveils plan to build globally leading demonstration zone for high-level autonomous driving④Long-stay tourism boom ignites "cool economy" in highlands⑤Morgan Stanley issues first panda bond in China's interbank market

While investors may now better understand President Trump's trade strategy, the economic consequences of tariffs remain unclear. Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Michael Zezas and our Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen offer guidance on the data they are watching.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy. Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Chief U.S. Economist. Michael Zezas: Today ongoing effects of tariffs on the U.S. economy. It is Friday, August 1st at 8am in New York. So, Michael, lots of news over the past couple of weeks about the U.S. making trade agreements with other countries. It's certainly dominated client conversations we've had, as I'm assuming it's probably dominated conversations for you as well. Michael Gapen: Yeah certainly a topic that never goes away. It keeps on giving at this point in time. And I guess, Michael, what I would ask you is, what do you make of the recent deals? Does it reduce uncertainty in your mind? Does it leave uncertainty elevated? What's your short-term outlook for trade policy? Michael Zezas: Yeah, I think it's fair to say that we've reduced the range of potential outcomes in the near term around tariff rates. But we haven't done anything to reduce longer term uncertainties in U.S. trade policy. So, consider, for example, over the last couple of weeks, we have an agreement with Japan and an agreement with Europe – two pretty substantial trading partners – where it appears, the tariff rate that's going to be applied is something like 15 percent. And when you stack up these deals on one another, it looks like we're going to end up in an average effective tariff rate from the U.S. range of kind of 15 to 20 percent. And if you think back a couple of months, that range was much wider and we were potentially talking about levels in the 25 to 30 percent range. So, in that sense, investors might have a bit of a respite from the idea of kind of massive uncertainty around trade policy outcomes. However, longer term, these agreements really just are kind of principles that are set out for behavior, and there's lots of trip wires that could create future potential escalations. So, for example, with the Europe deal, part of the deal is that Europe will commit to purchase a substantial amount of U.S. energy. There's obvious questions as to whether or not the U.S. can actually supply that amidst its own energy needs that are rising substantially over the course of the next year. So, could we end up in a situation where six months to a year from now if those purchases haven't been made – the U.S. sort of presses forward and the administration threatens to re-escalate tariffs again. Really hard to know, but the point is these arrangements have lots of contingencies and other factors that could lead to re-escalation. But it's fair to say, at least in the near term, that we're in a landing place that appears to be somewhat smaller in terms of the range of potential outcomes. Now, I think a question for investors is going to be – how do we assess what the effects of that have been, right? Because is it fair to say that the economic data that we've received so far maybe isn't fully telling the story of the effects that are being felt quite yet. Michael Gapen: Yeah, I think that's completely right. We've always had the view that it would take several months or more just for tariffs to show up in inflation. And if tariffs primarily act as a tax on the consumer, you have to apply that tax first before economic activity would moderate. So, we've long been forecasting that inflation would begin to pick up in June. We saw a little of that. But it would accelerate through the third quarter, kind of peaking around the August-September period. So, I'd say we've seen the first signs of that, Michael, but we need obviously follow through evidence that it's happening. So, we do expect that in the July, August and September inflation reports, you'll see a lot more evidence of tariffs pushing goods prices higher. So, we'll be dissecting all the details of the CPI looking for evidence of direct effects of tariffs, primarily on goods prices, but also some services prices. So, I'd put that down as the first marker, and we've seen some, early evidence on that. The second then, obviously, is the economy's 70 percent consumption. Tariffs act as a regressive tax on low- and middle-income consumers because non-discretionary purchases are a larger portion of their consumption bundle and a lot of goods prices are as well. Upper income households tend to spend relatively more money on leisure and recreation services. So, we would then expect growth in private consumption, primarily led by lower and middle-income spending softening. We think the consumer would slow down. But into the end of the year. Those are the two main markers that I would point to. Michael Zezas: Got it. So, I think this is really important because there's certainly this narrative amongst clients that we talk to that markets may have already moved on from this. Or investors may have already priced in the effects – or lack thereof – of some of this tariff escalation. Now we're about to get some real evidence from economic data as to whether or not that view and those assumptions are credible. Michael Gapen: That's right. Where we were initially on April 2nd after Liberation Day was largely embargo level tariffs. And if those stayed in place, trade volumes and activity and financial market asset values would've collapsed precipitously. And they were for a few weeks, as you know, but then we dialed it back and got out of that. So, yeah, we would say it's wrong to conclude that the economy , has absorbed these tariffs already and that they won't have,, a negative effect on economic activity. We think they will just in the base case where tariffs are high, but not too high, it just takes a while for that to happen. Michael Zezas: And of course, all of that's kind of core to our multi-asset outlook right now where a slowing economy, even with higher recession probabilities can still support risk assets. But of course, that piece of it is going to be very complicated if the economic data ends up being worse than you suspect. Now, any evidence you've seen so far? For example, we had a GDP report earlier this week. Any evidence from that data as to where things might go over the next few months?Michael Gapen: Yeah, well, another data point on trade policy and trade policy uncertainty really causing a lot of volatility in trade flows. So, if you recall, there's big front running of tariffs in the first quarter. Imports were up about 37 percent on the quarter; that ended in the second quarter, imports were down 30 percent. So net trade was a big drag on growth in the first quarter. It was a big boost to growth in the second. But we think that's largely noise. So, what I would say is we've probably level set import and export volumes now. So, do trade volumes from here begin to slow? That's an unresolved question. But certainly, the large volatility in the trade and inventory data in Q1 and Q2 GDP numbers are reflective of everything that you're saying about the risks around trade policy and elevated trade policy uncertainty. Second, though, I would say, because we started out the quarter with Liberation Day tariffs, the business sector, clearly – in our mind anyway – clearly responded by delaying activity. Equipment spending was only up 4 to 5 percent on the quarter. IP was up about 6 percent. Structures was down 10 percent. So, for all the narrative around AI-related spending, there wasn't a whole lot of spending on data centers and power generation in the second quarter.So, what you speak to about the need to reduce some trade policy uncertainty, but also your long run trade policy uncertainty remains elevated? I would say we saw evidence in the second quarter that all of that slowed down capital spending activity. Let's see if the One Big Beautiful Bill act can be a catalyst on that front, whether animal spirits can come back. But that's the other thing I would point to is that, business spending was weak and even though the headline GDP number was 3 percent, that's mainly a trade volatility number. Final sales to domestic purchasers, which includes consumption and business spending, was only up 1.1 percent in the quarter. So, the economy's moderating; things are cooling. I think trade policy and trade policy uncertainty is a big part of that story.Michael Zezas: Got it. So maybe this is something of a handoff here where my team had been really, really focused and investors have been really, really focused on the decision-making process of the U.S. administration around tariffs. And now your team's going to lead us through understanding the actual impacts. And the headline numbers around economic data are important, but probably even more important is the underlying. Is that fair? Michael Gapen: I think that's fair. I think as we move into the third quarter, like between now and when the Fed meets in, September, again, they'll have a few more inflation reports, a few more employment reports. We're going to learn a lot more than about what the Fed might do. So, I think the activity data and the Fed will now become much more important over the next several months than where we've been the past several months, which is about, has been about announcements around trade. Michael Zezas: All right. Well then, we look forward to hearing more from you and your team in the coming months. Well Michael, thanks for taking the time to talk to me. Michael Gapen: Thanks for having me on. Michael Zezas: And to our audience, thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review and tell your friends about the podcast. We want everyone to listen.

In this episode of Behind the Uniform - Season 3 - we feature freshman wide receiver, Andrew Marsh. One of the centerpieces of Michigan's 2025 recruiting class, Marsh reflects upon the beginning of his transition from high school to college as an early enrollee. He recalls his first significant play in spring ball and expresses his readiness to contribute to the passing game. He praises the growth of the receiver room and mentions the support from quarterbacks and shares his early impressions of freshman signal caller Bryce Underwood. Marsh also touches on his financial literacy education thanks to counsel from Morgan Stanley, his business ventures, and the importance of off-field preparation. The interview concludes with his anticipation of the rigors of fall camp and with him looking forward to making an impact in his first season. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

President Trump called for the Bureau of Labor Statistics Commissioner just hours after the agency reported slowing U.S. job growth. Allianz' Mohamed El-Erian gives us his first reaction to that breaking news. Plus, stocks sank in the final hour of trade. Morgan Stanley's Chis Toomey weighs in on that massive move – and tells us where he sees the recent rally headed. And, we hear from a star analyst following Apple's blowout numbers.  

China's economy is expected to maintain steady momentum in the second half of the year amid continuous policy support, with international institutions' raised growth forecasts reflecting strengthened confidence in the world's second-largest economy, economists and analysts said.经济学家和分析师表示，在持续的政策支持下，中国经济预计将在下半年保持稳定增长态势。国际机构上调的经济增长预测反映了对全球第二大经济体信心的增强。With the country's top leadership having clearly signaled consistent macro policy support to sustain the economic rally, they said that measures in the pipeline may include more consumption subsidies, additional public investment in urban renewal and accelerated reduction of housing market inventory.鉴于国家高层已明确表示将继续提供稳定的宏观经济政策支持以维持经济复苏态势，他们表示，即将出台的措施可能包括增加消费补贴、加大对城市更新的公共投资以及加快减少房地产市场的库存。Their comments came as the International Monetary Fund significantly raised its forecast for China's full-year economic growth to 4.8 percent in its World Economic Outlook Update report on Tuesday, up 0.8 percentage point compared with its forecast in April.就在他们发表上述言论之际，国际货币基金组织在周二发布的《世界经济展望更新报告》中大幅上调了对中国经济全年增长的预期，将这一预期值上调至4.8%，较其4月份的预测值高出0.8个百分点。The revision reflects the Chinese economy's stronger-than-expected activity in the first half of the year and the significant reductions in tariffs between China and the US, the IMF report said, as China received the largest upgrade in forecast among major economies.The IMF, which nudged the full-year global growth forecast for 2025 from 2.8 percent to 3 percent, also revised China's growth forecast for 2026 upward by 0.2 percentage point to 4.2 percent, due in part to lower effective tariff rates than previously assumed in the April forecast.More signs of de-escalation in Sino-US trade tensions emerged on Tuesday. Based on the consensus achieved during the third round of China-US economic and trade talks in Stockholm, Sweden, both sides will continue pushing for a continued extension by 90 days of the pause on 24 percent reciprocal tariffs of the US, as well as countermeasures by China.国际货币基金组织的报告称，此次修订反映了中国上半年经济活动超出预期的强劲表现，以及中美之间关税的大幅下调。报告指出，中国在主要经济体中获得了最大的经济预期上调幅度。国际货币基金组织将2025年全球全年经济增长预期从2.8%上调至3%，同时还将2026年中国经济增长预期上调0.2个百分点至4.2%，部分原因是实际关税率低于此前4月份预测中的水平。周二，中美贸易紧张局势缓和的迹象进一步显现。根据在瑞典斯德哥尔摩举行的第三轮中美经济与贸易谈判达成的共识，双方将继续推动将美国对华24%的互惠关税暂停措施再延长90天，并采取中国的相应措施。The IMF's upward revision follows major international financial institutions, such as Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, UBS and Nomura, which raised their expectations for China's economic growth, thanks to a 5.3 percent year-on-year expansion in the first half.国际货币基金组织此次上调预期，是由于包括摩根士丹利、高盛、瑞银和野村证券在内的各大国际金融机构提高了对中国经济增长的预期。这得益于上半年中国经济同比增长5.3%。Citing factors such as China's robust GDP growth of 5.2 percent in the second quarter, Goldman Sachs said in a report on Monday that it retains its overweight stance on Chinese equities in a regional context, while revising its 12-month target for the MSCI China Index to 90 from 85. The MSCI China Index is a stock market index that tracks the performance of large and mid-cap Chinese companies listed in both China and abroad.高盛在周一发布的一份报告中指出，鉴于中国第二季度经济增速高达5.2%等种种因素，其仍认为在区域范围内增持中国股票是合理的，并将摩根士丹利资本国际中国指数的12个月目标值从85调整至90。摩根士丹利资本国际中国指数是一个追踪在国内外上市的大型及中型中国公司表现的股票市场指数。Zhang Bin, a nonresident senior fellow at the China Finance 40 Forum and a national political adviser, said that China's economic growth has been resilient this year, as industrial production maintained solid momentum while exports to other regions offset the decline of exports to the US.张斌是“中国金融40人论坛”的非驻会高级研究员，也是国家政治顾问。他表示，今年中国的经济增长表现强劲，工业生产保持了稳定增长态势，同时对其他地区的出口弥补了对美国出口的下降。With 5.3 percent first-half growth, Zhang said that China's full-year GDP growth target of about 5 percent should be well within reach. However, he noted that the challenge of insufficient demand — and, therefore, pressures on the labor and capital markets — may intensify in the second half amid lingering property market weakness and the unfolding impact of US tariffs on exports.上半年经济增长率为5.3%，张表示，中国全年约5%的GDP增长目标应该完全能够实现。不过他指出，由于需求不足所带来的挑战（进而给劳动力和资本市场带来压力）在下半年可能会加剧，原因在于房地产市场持续疲软以及美国对出口产品加征关税所带来的影响仍在持续。This has necessitated further macro policy support, said Zhang, who suggested the issuance of additional government bonds in the second half to boost public investment in urban renewal.The Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China Central Committee held a tone-setting meeting on Wednesday that made arrangements for economic work in the second half of the year. The meeting emphasized that macro policies should continue to exert force and be strengthened at an appropriate time, calling for efforts to expand consumer demand by ensuring and improving people's living standards, carrying out high-quality urban renewal, and consolidating the capital market's trend of stabilization and improvement.张表示，这需要进一步的宏观政策支持。他建议在下半年发行更多政府债券，以促进城市更新领域的公共投资。中共中央政治局周三召开了一次具有指导意义的会议，对下半年的经济工作进行了安排。会议强调，宏观政策应持续发力，并在适当的时候加强力度，要求通过保障和提高人民生活水平、开展高质量的城市更新以及巩固资本市场稳定向好的趋势等方式，努力扩大消费需求。Wang Qing, chief macroeconomic analyst at Golden Credit Rating International, said the meeting indicated that macro policies will continue to focus on growth stabilization in the second half.金信国际首席宏观经济分析师王青表示，此次会议表明，下半年宏观政策仍将侧重于促进经济增长的稳定。Anticipated measures include further interest rate cuts, consumption subsidies in more sectors such as travel, and greater advancements in using government bonds to purchase unsold property stock for affordable housing purposes, Wang said.王表示，预计采取的措施包括进一步降低利率、在更多领域（如旅游领域）提供消费补贴，以及在利用政府债券购买未售出的房产以用于保障性住房方面取得更大进展。 economic growth forecastn.经济增长预测/ˌiːkəˈnɒmɪkɡrəʊθ ˈfɔːkɑːst/macro policy supportn.宏观政策支持/ˈmækrəʊˈpɒləsi səˈpɔːt/

Lisa Shalett, our Wealth Management CIO, and Andrew Sheets, our Head of Corporate Credit Research, conclude their discussion of American Exceptionalism, factoring in fixed income, in the second of a two-part episode.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Lisa Shalett: And I'm Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management. Andrew Sheets: Today – a today a concluding look at the theme of American exceptionalism and how it factors into fixed income. It's Thursday, July 31st at 4pm in London. Lisa Shalett:  And it's 11am here in New York. So, Andrew, it's my turn to ask you some questions. And yesterday we talked a lot about equity markets, globalization, some of the broader macro shifts. But I wanted to zoom in on the credit markets today and one of our themes in the American Exceptionalism paper was the constraints of debts and deficits and how they play in. With U.S. debts level soaring and interest costs rising, how concerned should investors be? Andrew Sheets: So, you alluded to this a bit on our discussion yesterday that we are in a very interesting divide where you have inequality between very well-off companies and weaker companies that aren't doing as well. You have a lot of division within households between those who are, doing better and struggling more with the rate environment. But you know, I think we also see that the large deficits that the U.S. Federal government are running are in some ways largely mirrored by very, very good private sector financial positions. In aggregate U.S. households have record levels of assets relative to debt at the end of 2024; in aggregate the financial position of the U.S. equity market has never been better. And so, this is a dynamic where lending to the private sector, whether that is to parts of the residential mortgage market or to the corporate credit market, does have some advantages; where not just are you dealing with arguably a better trend of financial position, but you're just getting less issuance. I think there are a number of factors that could cause the market to cause the difference of yield between the government debt and that private sector debt – that so-called spread – to be narrower than it otherwise would be.Lisa Shalett: Well, that's a pretty interesting and provocative idea because, one of the hypotheses that we laid out in our paper is that perhaps one of the consequences of this extraordinary period of monetary stimulus of financial repression and ultra low rates, of massive regulation of the systemically important banking system, has been the explosion of shadow banks, and the private credit markets. Our thesis is they're a misallocation of capital. Has there been excess risk taking – in that area? And how should we think about that asset class, number one? And, number two, are they increasingly, a source of liquidity and issuance, or are they a drain on the system? Andrew Sheets: This is, kind of, where your discussion of normalization is is so interesting because in aggregate household balance sheets are in very good shape; in aggregate corporate balance sheets are in very good shape. But I do think there's a distinct tail of the market. Lets call it 5 percent of the high yield market, where you really are looking at a corporate capital structure that was designed for for a much lower level of rates. It was designed for maybe a immediately post COVID environment where rates were on the floor and expected to stay there for a long period of time. And so, if we are moving to an environment where Fed funds is at 3 or 4. Or as you mentioned – hey, maybe you could justify a rate even a little bit higher and not be wildly off. Well then, you just have the wrong capital structure. You have the wrong level of leverage; and it's actually hard to do much about that other than to restructure that debt, or look to change it in a larger way. So, I think we'll see a dynamic similar to the equity market – where there is less dispersion between the haves and have nots. Lisa Shalett: As we kind of think about where there could be pockets of opportunity in credit and in private credit, both public and private credit, and where there could be risks. Can you just help me with that and explore that a little bit more? Andrew Sheets: I think where credit looks most interesting is in some ways where it looks most boring. I think where the case for credit is strongest is – the investment grade market in the U.S. pays 5.25 percent. A 6 percent long run return might be competitive with certain investors' long-term equity market forecasts, or at least not a million miles off. I think though the other area where this is going to be interesting is – do we see significantly more capital intensity out of the tech sector? And a real divide between fixed income and equities is that tech has so far really been an equity story.Lisa Shalett: Correct. Andrew Sheets: But this data center build out is just enormous. I mean, through 2028, our analysts at Morgan Stanley think it's close to $3 trillion with a 't'. And so there's a lot of interest in how can credit markets, how can private credit markets fund some of this build out; and there are opportunities and risks around that. And you know, something that I think credit's going to play an interesting part of. Lisa Shalett: And in that vision do you see the blurring of lines or a more competitive market between public and private? Andrew Sheets: I do think there's always a little bit of a funny nature about credit where it's not always clear why a particular corporate loan would need to be traded every day, would need to be marked every day. I think it is a little bit different from the equity market in that way. And I think you're also seeing a level of sophistication from investors who now have the ability to traffic across these markets and move capital between these markets, depending on where they think they're being better compensated or where there's better opportunities. So, I think we're kind of absolutely seeing the blur of these lines. And again, I think private credit has until recently been somewhat synonymous with high-yield lending, riskier lending, lower rated lending. Lisa Shalett: Correct. Yeah. Andrew Sheets: And, yet, the lending that we're seeing to some of this tech infrastructure is, you could argue, maybe more similar to Investment Grade lending – both in terms of risk, but also it pays a lot less. And so again, this is kind of an interesting transition where you're seeing a broader scope and absolutely, I think, more blurring of the line between these markets. Lisa Shalett: So, let's just switch gears a little bit and pull out from credit to the broader diversified cross-asset portfolio. And some of those cross-asset correlations are starting to break down; and we go through these periods where stocks and bonds are more often than not positively correlated in moving together. How are you beginning to think about duration risk in this environment? And have you made any adjustments to how you think about portfolio construction in light of these potentially shifting changes in correlations across assets?Andrew Sheets:  I think there are kind of maybe two large takeaways I would take from this. First is I do think the big asset where we've seen the biggest change is in the U.S. dollar. The U.S. dollar, I think, for a lot of the period we've been discussing on these two episodes, was kind of the best of both worlds. And recently that's just really broken down. And so, I think, when we think about the reallocation to the rest of the world, the focus on diversification, I think this is absolutely something that is top of mind among non-U.S. investors that we're talking to, which is almost the U.S. equity piece is kind of a separate conversation.The other piece though, is some of this debate around yields and equities – and do equities fear higher rates or lower rates? Which one of those is the biggest problem? And there's a question of magnitude that's a little interesting here. Rates going higher might be a little bit more of a problem for the S&P 500 than rates going lower. That rates going higher might be more consistent with the scenario of temporary higher inflation. Maybe rates go lower [be]cause the market gets more excited about Federal Reserve cuts.But I think in terms of scenarios where – like where is the equity market really going to have a problem? Well, it's really going to have a problem if there's a recession. So, even though I think bonds have been less effective diversifiers, I really do think they're still going to serve a very healthy, helpful purpose around some of those potentially kind of bigger dynamics. Lisa Shalett: Yeah that very much jives with the way we've been thinking about it, particularly within the context of managing private wealth, where very often we're confronted with the, the question: What about 60-40? Is 60-40 dead? Is 60-40 back? Like, you talk about not wanting to hedge, I don't want to hedge either. But the answer to the question we agree is somewhat nuanced. Right?We do agree that this perfect world of negative correlations between stocks and bonds that we enjoyed for a good portion of the last 15 years probably is over. But that doesn't mean that bonds, and most specifically that 5 - 10 year part of the curve, doesn't have a really important role to play in portfolios. And the reason I say that is that one of the other elements of this conversation that we haven't really touched on is valuation and expected returns.I know that when I speak of the valuation-oriented topics and the CAPE ratio when expected 10-year returns, everyone's eyes glaze over and roll to the back of their head and they say, ‘Oh, here she goes again.' But look, I am in the camp that says an awful lot of growth has already been discounted and already been priced. And that it is much more likely that U.S. equities will return something closer to long run averages. So that's not awful. The lower volatility of a fixed income asset that's returning 6s and 7s has a definite role to play in portfolios for wealth clients who are by and large long term oriented investors who are not necessarily attempting to exploit 90-day volatility every quarter. Andrew Sheets:   Without putting too fine of a point on it, I think when that question of is 60-40 over is phrased, I kind of think the subtext is often that it's the bond side, the 40 side that has a problem. And not to be the Fixed Income Defender on this podcast, but you could probably more easily argue that if we're talking about, well, which valuation is more stretched, the equity side or the bond side? I think it's the equity side that has a more stretched valuation.Lisa Shalett: Without a doubt, without a doubt. Andrew Sheets:  Well, Lisa, thanks again for taking the time to talk. Lisa Shalett: Absolutely great to speak with you, Andrew, as always. Andrew Sheets: And thanks again for listening to this two-part conversation on American exceptionalism, the changes coming to that and how investors should position. And to our listeners, a reminder to take a moment to please review us wherever you listen. It helps more people find the show. And if you found this conversation insightful, tell a friend or colleague about Thoughts on the Market today.*****Lisa Shalett is a member of Morgan Stanley's Wealth Management Division and is not a member of Morgan Stanley's Research Department. Unless otherwise indicated, her views are her own and may differ from the views of the Morgan Stanley Research Department and from the views of others within Morgan Stanley.

Links & ResourcesFollow us on social media for updates: ⁠Instagram⁠ | ⁠YouTube⁠Check out our recommended tool: ⁠Prop Stream⁠Thank you for tuning in! If you enjoyed this episode, please rate, follow, and review our podcast. Don't forget to share it with friends who might find it valuable. Stay connected for more insights in our next episode!

The Morgan Stanley wealth advisor discusses what advisors need to know to successfully serve Next-Gen clients. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We have been focusing on a number of important topics that require detailed attention to it.  In this episode, I discuss the basics of protein, its key functions and the consumption guidelines.  You will learn the sources of protein, how and when to consume protein and is it harmful to you at any stage.  You will also understand more about how vegetarians can fulfil their protein requirements through food and supplements.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!

In the first of a two-part episode, Lisa Shalett, our Wealth Management CIO, and Andrew Sheets, our Head of Corporate Credit Research, discuss whether the era of “American Exceptionalism” is ending and how investors should prepare for a global market rebalancing. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Lisa Shalett: And I'm Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management. Andrew Sheets: Today, the first of two episodes tackling a fascinating and complex question. Is American market dominance ending? And what would that mean for investors?It's Wednesday, July 30th at 4pm in London. Lisa Shalett: And it's 11am here in New York. Andrew Sheets: Lisa, it's so great to talk to you again, and especially what we're going to talk about over these two episodes. , a theme that's been coming up regularly on this podcast is this idea of American exceptionalism. This multi-year, almost multi-decade outperformance of the U.S. economy, of the U.S. currency, of the U.S. stock market. And so, it's great to have you on the show, given that you've recently published on this topic in a special report, very topically titled American Exceptionalism: Navigating the Great Rebalancing.So, what are the key pillars behind this idea and why do you think it's so important? Lisa Shalett: Yeah. So, I think that that when you think about the thesis of American exceptionalism and the duration of time that the thesis has endured. I think a lot of investors have come to the conclusion that many of the underpinnings of America's performance are just absolutely inherent and foundational, right? They'll point to America as a, economy of innovation. A market with regulation and capital markets breadth and depth and liquidity a market guided by, , laws and regulation, and a market where, heretofore, we've had relatively decent population growth. All things that tend to lead to growth. But our analysis of the past 15 years, while acknowledging all of those foundational pillars say, ‘Wait a minute, let's separate the wheat from the chaff.' Because this past 15 years has been, extraordinary and different. And it's been extraordinary and different on at least three dimensions. One, the degree to which we've had monetary accommodation and an extraordinary responsiveness of the Fed to any crisis. Secondly, extraordinary fiscal policy and fiscal stimulus. And third, the peak of globalization a trend that in our humble opinion, American companies were among the biggest beneficiaries of exploiting, despite all of the political rhetoric that considers the costs of that globalization. Andrew Sheets: So, Lisa, let me go back then to the title of your report, which is the Great Rebalancing or navigating the Great Rebalancing. So, what is that rebalancing? What do you think kind of might be in store going forward? Lisa Shalett: The profound out performance, as you noted, Andrew, of both the U.S. dollar and American stock markets have left the world, , at an extraordinarily overweight position to the dollar and to American assets.And that's against a backdrop where we're a fraction of the population. We're 25 percent of global GDP, and even with all of our great companies, we're still only 33 percent of the profit pool. So, we were at a place where not only was everyone overweight, but the relative valuation premia of American equity assets versus equities outside or rest of world was literally a 50 percent premium. And that really had us asking the question, is that really sustainable? Those kind of valuation premiums – at a point when all of these pillars, fiscal stimulus, monetary stimulus, globalization, are at these profound inflection points. Andrew Sheets: You mentioned monetary and fiscal policy a bit as being key to supercharging U.S. markets. Where do you think these factors are going to move in the future, and how do you think that affects this rebalancing idea? Lisa Shalett: Look, I mean, I think we went through a period of time where on a relative basis, relative growth, relative rate spreads, right? The, the dispersion between what you could earn in U.S. assets and what you could earn in other places, and the hedging ratio in those currency markets made owning U.S. assets, just incredibly attractive on a relative basis. As the U.S. now kind of hits this point of inflection when the rest of the world is starting to say, okay, in an America first and an America only policy world, what am I going to do? And I think the responses are that for many other countries, they are going to invest aggressively in defense, in infrastructure, in technology, to respond to de-globalization, if you will. And I think for many of those economies, it's going to help equalize not only growth rates between the U.S. and the rest of the world, but it's going to help equalize rate differentials. Particularly on the longer end of the curves, where everyone is going to spending money. Andrew Sheets: That's actually a great segue into this idea of globalization, which again was a major tailwind for U.S. corporations and a pillar of this American outperformance over a number of years.It does seem like that landscape has really changed over the last couple of decades, and yet going forward, it looks like it's going to change again. So, with rising deglobalization with higher tariffs, what do you think that's going to mean to U.S. corporate margins and global supply chains? Lisa Shalett: Maybe I am a product of my training and economics, but I have always been a believer in comparative advantage and what globalization allowed. True free trade and globalization of supply chains allowed was for countries to exploit what they were best at – whether it was the lowest cost labor, the lowest cost of natural resources, the lowest cost inputs. And America was aggressive at pursuing those things, at outsourcing what they could to grow profit margins. And that had lots of implications. And we weren't holding manufacturing assets or logistical assets or transportation assets necessarily on our balance sheets. And that dimension of this asset light and optimized supply chains is something in a world of tariffs, in a world of deglobalization, in a world of create manufacturing jobs onshore, where that gets reversed a bit. And there's going to be a financial cost to that. Andrew Sheets: It's probably fair to say that the way that a lot of people experience American exceptionalism is in their retirement account. In your view, is this outperformance sustainable or do you think, as you mentioned, changing fiscal dynamics, changing trade dynamics, that we're also going to see a leadership rotation here? Lisa Shalett: Our thesis has been, this isn't the end of American exceptionalism, point blank, black and white. What we've said, however, is that we think that the order of magnitude of that outperformance is what's going to close, , when you start burdening, , your growth rate with headwinds, right? And so, again, not to say that that American assets can't continue to, to be major contributors in portfolios and may even, , outperform by a bit. But I don't think that they're going to be outperforming by the magnitude, kind of the 450 - 550 basis points per year compound for 15 years that we've seen. Andrew Sheets: The American exceptionalism that we've seen really since 2009, it's also been accompanied by really unprecedented market imbalances. But another dimension of these imbalances is social and economic inequality, which is creating structural, and policy, and political challenges. Do these imbalances matter for markets? And do you think these imbalances affect economic stability and overall market performance? Lisa Shalett: People need to understand what has happened over this period. When we applied this degree of monetary and fiscal, stimulus, what we essentially did was massively deleverage the private sector of America, right? And as a result, when you do that, you enable and create the backdrop for the portions of your economy who are less interest rate sensitive to continue to, kind of, invest free money. And so what we have seen is that this gap between the haves and the have nots, those who are most interest rate sensitive and those who are least interest rate sensitive – that chasm is really blown out.But also I would suggest an economic policy conundrum. We can all have points of view about the central bank, and we can all have points of view about the current chair. But the reality is if you look at these dispersions in the United States, you have to ask yourself the question, is there one central bank policy that's right for the U.S. economy? I could make the argument that the U.S. GDP, right, is growing at 5.5 percent nominal right now. And the policy rate's 4.3 percent. Is that tight?Andrew Sheets: Hmm. Lisa Shalett: I don't know, right? The economists will tell me it's really tight, Lisa – [be]cause neutral is 3. But I don't know. I don't see the constraints. If I drill down and do I say, can I see constraints among small businesses? Yeah. I think they're suffering. Do I see constraints in some of the portfolio companies of private equity? Are they suffering? Yeah. Do they need lower rates? Yeah. Do the lower two-thirds of American consumers need lower rates to access the housing market. Yeah. But is it hurting the aggregate U.S. economy? Mm, I don't know; hard to convince me. Andrew Sheets: Well, Lisa, that seems like a great place to actually end it for now and Thanks as always, for taking the time to talk. Lisa Shalett: My pleasure, Andrew. Andrew Sheets: And that brings us to the end of part one of this two-part look at American exceptionalism and the impact on equity and fixed income markets. Tomorrow we'll dig into the fixed income side of that debate.Thank you as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen, and also tell a friend or colleague about us today.*****Lisa Shalett is a member of Morgan Stanley's Wealth Management Division and is not a member of Morgan Stanley's Research Department. Unless otherwise indicated, her views are her own and may differ from the views of the Morgan Stanley Research Department and from the views of others within Morgan Stanley.

AI adoption, dollar weakness and tax savings from the Big Beautiful Bill are some of the factors boosting our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson's confidence in U.S. stocks.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 will discuss what's driving my optimism on stocks. It's Tuesday, July 29th at 11:30am in New York. So, let's get after it. Over the past few weeks, I have been leaning more toward our bull case of 7200 for the S&P 500 by the middle of next year. This view is largely based on a more resilient earnings and cash flow backdrop than anticipated. The drivers are numerous and include positive operating leverage, AI adoption, dollar weakness, cash tax savings from the Big Beautiful Bill, and easy growth comparisons and pent-up demand for many sectors in the market. While many are still focused on tariffs as a headwind to growth, our analysis shows that tariff cost exposures for S&P 500 industry groups is fairly contained given the countries in scope and the exemptions that are still in place from the USMCA. Meanwhile, deals are being signed with our largest trading partners like Japan and Europe that appear favorable to the U.S. Due to the lack of pricing power, the main area of risk in the stock market from tariffs is consumer goods; and that's why we remain underweight that sector. However, the main tariff takeaway for investors is that the rate of change on policy uncertainty peaked in early April. This is the primary reason why earnings guidance bottomed in April as evidenced by the significant inflection higher in earnings revisions breadth—the key fundamental factor that we have been focused on. Of course, the near-term set up is not without risks. These include still high long-term interest rates, tariff-related inflation and potential margin pressure. As a result, a correction is possible during the seasonally weak third quarter, but pull-backs should be shallow and bought. In addition to the growth tailwinds already cited, it's worth pointing out that many companies also face very easy growth comparisons. I've had a long standing out of consensus view that the U.S. has been experiencing a rolling recession for the last three years. This fits with the fact that much of the soft economic data that has been hovering in recession territory for much of that period as well—things like purchasing manager indices, consumer confidence, and the private labor market. It also aligns with my long-standing view that government spending has helped to keep the headline economic growth statistics strong, while much of the private sector and many consumers have been crowded out by that heavy spending which has also kept the Fed too tight. Meanwhile, private sector wage growth has been in a steady decline over the last several years, and payroll growth across Tech, Financials and Business Services has been negative – until recently. Conversely, Government and Education/Health Services payroll growth has been much stronger over this time horizon. This type of wage growth and sluggish payroll growth in the private sector is typical of an early cycle backdrop. It's a key reason why operating leverage inflects in early cycle environments, and margins expand. Our earnings model is picking up on this underappreciated dynamic, and AI adoption is likely to accelerate this phenomenon. In short, this is looking more and more like an early cycle set up where leaner cost structures drive positive operating leverage after an extended period of wage growth consolidation. Bottom line, the capitulatory price action and earnings estimate cuts we saw in April of this year around Liberation Day represented the end of a rolling recession that began in 2022. Markets bottom on bad news and we are transitioning from that rolling earnings recession backdrop to a rolling recovery environment. The combination of positive earnings and cash flow drivers with the easy growth comparisons fostered by the rolling EPS recession and the high probability of the Fed re-starting the cutting cycle by the first quarter of next year should facilitate this transition. The upward inflection we're seeing in earnings revisions breadth confirms this process is well underway and suggests returns for the average stock are likely to be strong over the next 12-months. In short, buy any dips that may occur in the seasonally weak quarter of the 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!

“It looks to us like we’re having a rolling recovery,” says Mike Wilson, chief investment officer and chief US equity strategist at Morgan Stanley, as he explains the factors behind his bullish outlook for markets into next year. He speaks with Bloomberg's Jonathan Ferro and Lisa AbramowiczSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jed Finn is the Head of Wealth Management at Morgan Stanley, where he leads one of the world's largest and most sophisticated wealth management platforms. Since joining the firm, he has played a central role in its strategic growth, spearheading large-scale integrations, key acquisitions like E*TRADE and Solium, and the adoption of cutting-edge technologies. Under his leadership, Morgan Stanley has expanded its client base from 2.5 million to over 20 million and grown assets under management from $2.5 trillion to $6 trillion. A strong advocate for data-driven strategy and advisor collaboration, Finn is helping redefine the future of wealth management. This week, Jack talks with Jed about the firm's evolution into a wealth management powerhouse. Jed details how Morgan Stanley has consolidated client relationships, embraced AI and global strategies, and built an ecosystem capable of delivering institutional-grade services to individual clients. He shares how early engagement, integrated capabilities, and relentless execution have positioned the firm as an industry leader—and how Morgan Stanley continues to push the boundaries of what's possible in wealth management. In this episode: (00:00) - Intro (02:23) - Morgan Stanley's growth strategies (09:00) - Jed's continued pursuit of the new sales growth strategy (10:20) - The three key trends shaping Morgan Stanley's future strategies (16:10) - The pillars of how Morgan Stanley executes and delivers opportunities (20:39) - Jed's interests outside of work Quotes "Wealth management is a scale business, and you need to have the scale to keep up with all the demands in terms of resources, whether it's changes in regulations, technology changes, product proliferation, or changing preferences of clients and advisors." ~ Jed Finn "At Morgan Stanley, we want to give you an experience that builds trust and confidence so that when you're ready to establish an advice relationship, we make an introduction to a financial advisor." ~ Jed Finn "If we listen to the best practitioners in the industry tell us what they need to serve their clients most effectively, and then deliver it to them, good things are going to happen." ~ Jed Finn Links  Jed Finn on LinkedIn Morgan Stanley Eaton Vance E*TRADE Shareworks | Morgan Stanley at Work Carta Connect with our hosts LifeYield Jack Sharry on LinkedIn Jack Sharry on Twitter Subscribe and stay in touch Apple Podcasts Spotify LinkedIn Twitter Facebook

Executive titles don't guarantee financial clarity. That's what Liz Dennis, Managing Director and Head of Global Client Coverage at Morgan Stanley, finds in her work with company leaders.In this episode of Invested at Work, host Rodney Bolden speaks with Liz about the unique financial challenges facing today's executives. They discuss some of the blind spots executives might have when it comes to their finances, and how equity compensation, strategic planning and proactive HR support can make a real difference in driving engagement, retention and well-being for this group. Visit MorganStanley.com/atwork for more insights on workplace financial benefits. Invested at Work is brought to you by Morgan Stanley at Work, hosted by Rodney Bolden. Our executive producers are Fiona Kelsey and Lisa Boyce. Our production partner is Sequel Media Inc.This material has been prepared for educational purposes only. It does not provide individually tailored investment advice. It has been prepared without regard to the individual financial circumstances and objectives of persons who receive it. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC (“Morgan Stanley”) recommends that investors independently evaluate particular investments and strategies, and encourages investors to seek the advice of a Morgan Stanley Financial Advisor. The appropriateness of a particular investment or strategy will depend on an investor's individual circumstances and objectives. Important information about your relationship with your Financial Advisor and Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC when using a Financial Planning tool. When your Financial Advisor prepares a Financial Plan, they will be acting in an investment advisory capacity with respect to the delivery of your Financial Plan. To understand the differences between brokerage and advisory relationships, you should consult your Financial Advisor, or review our Understanding Your Brokerage and Investment Advisory Relationships brochure available at https://www.morganstanley.com/wealth-relationshipwithms/pdfs/understandingyourrelationship.pdfClients have sole responsibility for making all investment decisions with respect to the implementation of a Financial Plan. You may implement the Financial Plan at Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC or at another firm. If you engage or have engaged Morgan Stanley, it will act as your broker, unless you ask it, in writing, to act as your investment adviser on any particular account. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC (“Morgan Stanley”), its affiliates and Morgan Stanley Financial Advisors and Private Wealth Advisors do not provide tax or legal advice. Clients should consult their tax advisor for matters involving taxation and tax planning and their attorney for matters involving trust and estate planning, charitable giving, philanthropic planning and other legal matters. Asset allocation and diversification do not assure a profit or protect against loss. Individuals executing a 10b5-1 trading plan should keep the following important considerations in mind:(1) 10b5-1 trading plans should be reviewed and approved by the legal and compliance department of the individual's company.(2) Most companies will permit 10b5-1 trading plans to be entered into only during open window periods.(3) Recent rule changes will require a mandatory cooling-off period between the execution of a 10b5-1 trading plan (or a modification) and the first sale pursuant to the plan (or the first sale following such modification).(4) 10b5-1 trading plans do not alter the nature of restricted and/or control stock or regulatory requirements that may otherwise be applicable (e.g., Section 16, Section 13).(5) 10b5-1 trading plans that are terminated early may weaken or cause the individual to lose the benefit of the affirmative defense.(6) 10b5-1 trading plans may require a cessation of trading activities at times when lockups may be required at the company (e.g., secondary offerings).(7) Recent rule changes will require companies to publicly disclose material terms of Section 16 director and officer 10b5-1 trading plans, and the early termination of such plans.Artificial intelligence (AI) is subject to limitations, and you should be aware that any output from an AI-supported tool or service made available by the Firm for your use is subject to such limitations, including but not limited to inaccuracy, incompleteness, or embedded bias. You should always verify the results of any AI-generated output. The term “Family Office Resources” is being used as a term of art and not to imply that Morgan Stanley and/or its employees are acting as a family office pursuant to Investment Advisers Act of 1940. Employee stock plan solutions are offered by E*TRADE Financial Corporate Services, Inc., Solium Capital LLC, Solium Plan Managers LLC and Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC (“MSSB”), which are part of Morgan Stanley at Work. Morgan Stanley at Work services and stock plan accounts are provided by wholly owned subsidiaries of Morgan Stanley. Morgan Stanley at Work stock plan accounts were previously referred to as Shareworks, StockPlan Connect or E*TRADE stock plan accounts, as applicable. © 2025 Morgan Stanley. All rights reserved.CRC# 4607214 06/25

Our Head of ASEAN Research Nick Lord discusses how Singapore's technological innovation and market influence are putting it on track to continue rising among the world's richest countries.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Nick Lord, Morgan Stanley's Head of ASEAN Research.Today – Singapore is about to celebrate its 60th year of independence. And it's about to enter its most transformative decade yet.It's Monday, the 28th of July, at 2 PM in Singapore.Singapore isn't just marking a significant birthday on August 9th. It's entering a new era of wealth creation that could nearly double household assets in just five years. That's right—we're projecting household net assets in the city state will grow from $2.3 trillion today to $4 trillion by 2030.So, what's driving this next chapter?Well, Singapore is evolving from a safe harbor for global capital into a strategic engine of innovation and influence driven by three major forces. First, the country's growing role as a global hub. Second, its early and aggressive adoption of new technologies. And last but not least, a bold set of reforms aimed at revitalizing its equity markets.Together, these pillars are setting the stage for broad-based wealth creation—and investors are taking notice.Singapore is home to just 6 million people, but it's already the fourth-richest country in the world on a per capita basis. And it's not stopping there.By 2030, we expect the average household net worth to rise from $1.6 million to an impressive $2.5 million. Assets under management should jump from $4 trillion to $7 trillion. And the MSCI Singapore Index could gain 10 percent annually, potentially doubling in value over the next five years. Return on equity for Singaporean companies is also set to rise—from 12 percent to 14 percent—thanks to productivity gains, market reforms, and stronger shareholder returns.But let me come back to this first pillar of Singapore's growth story. Its ambition to become a hub of hubs. It's already a major player in finance, trade, and transportation, Singapore is now doubling down on its strengths.In commodities, it handles 20 percent of the world's energy and metals trading—and it could become a future hub for LNG and carbon trading. Elsewhere, in financial services, Singapore's also the third largest cross-border wealth booking centre, and the third-largest FX trading hub globally. Tourism is also a key piece of the puzzle, contributing about 4 percent to GDP. The country continues to invest in world-class infrastructure, events, and attractions keeping the visitors—and their dollars—coming.As for technology – the second key pillar of growth – Singapore is going all in. It's becoming a regional hub for data and AI, with Malaysia and Japan also in the mix. Together, these countries are expected to attract the lion's share of the $100 billion in Asia's data center and GenAI investments this decade.Worth noting – Singapore is already a top-10 AI market globally, with over 1,000 startups, 80 research facilities, and 150 R&D teams. It's also a regional leader in autonomous vehicles, with 13 AVs currently approved for public road trials. And robots are already working at Singapore's Changi Airport.Finally, despite its economic strength, Singapore's stock market had long been seen as sleepy — dominated by a few big banks and real estate firms. But that's changing fast and becoming the third pillar of Singapore's remarkable growth story.This year, the government rolled out a sweeping set of reforms to breathe new life into the market. That includes tax incentives, regulatory streamlining, and a $4 billion capital injection from the Monetary Authority of Singapore to boost liquidity—especially for small- and mid-cap stocks.We also expect that there will be a push to get listed companies more engaged with shareholders, encouraging them to communicate their business plans and value propositions more clearly. The goal here is to raise Singapore's price-to-book ratio from 1.7x to 2.3x—putting it on a par with higher-rated markets like Taiwan and Australia.So, what does all this mean for investors?Well, Singapore is not just celebrating its past—it's building its future. With smart policy, bold innovation, and a clear vision, it's positioning itself as one of the most dynamic and investable markets in the world.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

This week I was listening to Merryn Talks Money. My old boss and great friend, Merryn Somerset Webb, was discussing portfolio allocation - which assets should make up the 40 in a 60:40 bond-to-equity portfolio - with Nataliia Lipikhana, executive director at JP Morgan . Merryn asked if bitcoin should be one of the assets to include, alongside gold. Lipikhana, who, until then, had spoken widely, fluently and knowledgeably about a range of subjects, suddenly stonewalled.“We don't cover it so we can't talk about it,” she said.Awkward pause.Merryn laughs. “At all?”“No,” says Lipikhana.Another pause.“Ok,” says Merryn. “Totally understand,” and she changed the subject.This is a symptom of something much bigger that has been at play throughout the institutional world, and not just in the UK, since the emergence of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.They've been shadowbanned.We know of course about the UK's Financial Conduct Authority, how its regulations went against the pronouncements of various Chancellors, and how it effectively excluded UK citizens from the sector. Something similar has long been happening at the institutional level. “Most private banks will not accept bitcoin ETF orders for their clients, despite being able to deal with elective professionals,” a fund manager friend (who prefers to stay anonymous) tells me. “This applies in countries where there is no ban because the bank will have links to London. Even in the US, the traditional institutions will ban bitcoin internally.”Here's a list of the biggest holders of the iShares gold ETF. Many of banking's biggest names are there.Now here's a list of the iShares bitcoin ETF's biggest holders. There is nothing like the same institutional weight.(Goldman and Morgan Stanley will be market making on behalf of hedge fund clients)“Lipikhana probably feels she might get the sack if she comments on bitcoin,” my fund manager friend continues. “So she doesn't”.You know my saying, “A bubble is a bull market in which you don't have a position”. For years now, banks have been talking their clients away from this sector, often using that argument that it's a bubble. This pre-dates the ETFs by ten years or more.Wall Street and the City don't like bitcoin because they didn't get there first. Smelly private investors did. They missed out on this epic opportunity and, rather than embrace it, they ignore it.They don't control it. They can't manipulate it. Don't talk about bitcoin. Perhaps it'll go away.Well, it hasn't and it won't. It is here to stay.Now with the emergence of the both the ETFs and the bitcoin treasury companies, bitcoin is edging its way further and further into the financial mainstream.“You get bitcoin at the price you deserve,” runs the saying. Ain't it so.What this means for investors is that there is a huge wall of institutional money that is still to come into the sector. It will eventually. Bitcoin is the most technologically advanced money in history. Now that real estate is gone as a vehicle to protect against currency debasement (too highly legislated and taxed), the need for an effective savings vehicle is only greater. Bitcoin is the best savings vehicle there is.I love gold. You know I do. I think it has an enormous strategic role to play in the coming years, and should play a part in every portfolio. But bitcoin appreciates by more. It beats stocks. It beats bonds. It beats commodities.But JP Morgan would rather not comment.If you enjoyed this post, please like or share - it helps :)PS Don't forget my brilliant book about bitcoin, if you want to learn more about the space. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.theflyingfrisby.com/subscribe

Joining the AI race also requires building out massive physical infrastructure. Our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets explains why credit markets may play a critical role in the endeavor.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Today – how the world may fund $3 trillion of expected spending on AI. It's Friday July 25th at 2pm in London.Whether you factor it in or not, AI is rapidly becoming a regular part of our daily lives. Checking the weather before you step out of the house. Using your smartphone to navigate to your next destination, with real time traffic updates. Writing that last minute wedding speech. An app that reminds you to take your medication or maybe reminds you to power off your device.All of these capabilities require enormous physical infrastructure, from chips to data centers, to the electricity to power it all. And however large AI is seen so far, we really haven't seen anything yet. Over the next five years, we think that global data center capacity increases by a factor of six times. The cost of this spending is set to be extraordinary. $3 trillion by the end of 2028 on just the data centers and their hardware alone. Where will all this money come from? In a recent deep dive report published last week, a number of teams within Morgan Stanley Research attempted to answer just that. First, large cap technology companies, which are also commonly called the hyperscalers. Well, they are large and profitable. We think they may fund half of the spending out of their own cash flows. But that leaves the other half to come from outside sources. And we think that credit markets – corporate bonds, securitized credit, asset-backed finance markets – they're gonna have a large role to play, given the enormous sums involved.For corporate bonds, the asset class closest to my heart, we estimate an additional $200 billion of issuance to fund these endeavors. Technology companies do currently borrow less than other sectors relative to their cash flow, and so we're starting from a relatively good place if you want to be borrowing more – given that they're a small part of the current bond market. While technology is over 30 percent of the S&P 500 Equity Index, it's just 10 percent of the Investment Grade Bond Index.Indeed, a relevant question might be why these companies don't end up borrowing more through corporate bonds, given this relatively good starting position. Well, some of this we think is capacity. The largest non-financial issuers of bonds today have at most $80 to $90 billion of bonds outstanding. And so as good as these big tech businesses are, asking investors to make them the largest part of the bond market effectively overnight is going to be difficult. Some of our thinking is also driven by corporate finance. We are still in the early stages of this AI build out where the risks are the highest. And so, rather than take these risks on their own balance sheet, we think many tech companies may prefer partnerships that cost a bit more but provide a lot more flexibility. One such partnership that you'll likely to hear a lot more about is Asset Backed Finance or ABF. We see major growth in this area, and we think it may ultimately provide roughly $800 billion of the required funding.The stakes of this AI build out are high. It's not hyperbole to say that many large tech companies see this race to develop AI technology as non-negotiable. The cost of simply competing in this race, let alone winning it – could be enormous. The positive side of this whole story is that we're in the early innings of one of the next great runs of productive capital investment, something that credit markets have helped fund for hundreds of years. The risks, as can often be the case with large spending, is that more is built than needed; that technology does change, or that more mundane issues like there not being enough electricity change the economics of the endeavor.AI will be a theme set to dominate the investment debate for years to come. Credit may not be the main vector of the story. But it's certainly a critical part of it. Thank you as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

This week on Breaking Battlegrounds, Congressman Pat Harrigan joins Chuck and Sam to discuss his new bill cracking down on foreign espionage from China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, his national security wins in the NDAA, and why young Americans should consider joining the military. He also weighs in on U.S. support for Ukraine and removing Chinese influence from defense infrastructure. Next, Zach Fletcher stops by in studio to highlight the America 250 Tour, a patriotic celebration traveling to all 50 states in honor of the nation's 250th anniversary. Then, RNC Chairman Michael Whatley outlines ongoing election integrity efforts across key states like Arizona and Michigan, including lawsuits to clean up voter rolls and defend ballot deadlines. Finally, financial analyst Gary Gygi breaks down the pros and cons of passive versus active investing. And as always, stay tuned for Kiley's Corner, where she gives an update on Bryan Kohberger and the Idaho 4 case and discusses the verdict of the five hockey players accused of sexual assault after winning the 2018 World Junior Championship.www.breakingbattlegrounds.voteTwitter: www.twitter.com/Breaking_BattleFacebook: www.facebook.com/breakingbattlegroundsInstagram: www.instagram.com/breakingbattlegroundsLinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/breakingbattlegroundsTruth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@breakingbattlegroundsShow sponsors:Invest Yrefy - investyrefy.comOld Glory DepotSupport American jobs while standing up for your values. OldGloryDepot.com brings you conservative pride on premium, made-in-USA gear. Don't settle—wear your patriotism proudly.Learn more at: OldGloryDepot.comDot VoteWith a .VOTE website, you ensure your political campaign stands out among the competition while simplifying how you reach voters.Learn more at: dotvote.vote4Freedom MobileExperience true freedom with 4Freedom Mobile, the exclusive provider offering nationwide coverage on all three major US networks (Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile) with just one SIM card. Our service not only connects you but also shields you from data collection by network operators, social media platforms, government agencies, and more.Use code ‘Battleground' to get your first month for $9 and save $10 a month every month after.Learn more at: 4FreedomMobile.comAbout our guest:Congressman Pat Harrigan brings a lifetime of service, leadership, and innovation to the U.S. House of Representatives. A combat-decorated Green Beret and a successful entrepreneur, Congressman Harrigan has dedicated his career to tackling challenges—on the battlefield, in business, and now in Congress.After graduating from the United States Military Academy at West Point with a degree in Nuclear Engineering, Congressman Harrigan commissioned as an Infantry officer and was stationed at Fort Wainwright, Alaska. He deployed to Afghanistan as a young Platoon Leader, commanding a remote combat outpost in the heart of the Arghandab Valley. At just 23 years old, Congressman Harrigan managed over 350 personnel and $100 million in infrastructure and equipment, gaining invaluable experience in high-pressure leadership.Recognizing the need for even greater expertise in unconventional warfare, Congressman Harrigan volunteered for and earned the Green Beret. As a member of the U.S. Army Special Forces, he returned to Afghanistan to lead operations in increasingly complex and volatile environments. For his service, he was awarded two Bronze Stars in recognition of his leadership and effectiveness in combat. These experiences shaped his understanding of the critical connection between accountability, mission success, and guiding teams under pressure.While serving in the military, Congressman Harrigan and his wife Rocky launched a small firearms business out of their home. Rooted in North Carolinian values of hard work and ingenuity, the company grew rapidly. What began in their living room quickly scaled into a thriving enterprise, producing American-made defense products that support national security. Today, the company operates out of a state-of-the-art manufacturing facility in Western North Carolina, creating jobs and fostering innovation for the region.The fall of Afghanistan marked a turning point for Congressman Harrigan. Watching the consequences of failed leadership unfold, he knew he had to act. Motivated by his dedication to his country and a desire to restore strength and accountability to Washington, Congressman Harrigan stepped forward to serve in Congress.Now, as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Congressman Harrigan applies the same principles that guided him in the Army and in business: bold leadership, unshakable integrity, and a commitment to delivering results.Congressman Harrigan and his wife Rocky have been married for 13 years and are the proud parents of two daughters, Reagan and McKinley. As North Carolina's voice in Congress, Pat is dedicated to serving the hardworking families and communities of the Tenth District. In every role—whether leading soldiers, growing a business, or serving his constituents—Congressman Harrigan remains dedicated to building a stronger, more secure America.-Zachary Fletcher's love for America runs deep. With over 12 years of marketing experience – including leadership roles in Fortune 500 companies – he now directs the America 250 Tour, overseeing national marketing and operations for this historic, state-by-state celebration of our nation's founding.Inspired by his mother, Kimberly Fletcher, founder of Moms for America, Zachary joined the movement to uplift mothers and preserve America's core values. He lives in Branson, Missouri, with his wife and two children, and is passionate about faith, freedom, and raising the next generation to love their country.-Michael Whatley has been a Republican activist for 40 years. He has served as the Chairman of the North Carolina Republican Party where he has led our Republican Candidates to unprecedented victories in each of the last two election cycles and has been named as General Counsel for the Republican National Committee where he will oversee all national election integrity programs.Since volunteering for Jesse Helms and President Ronald Reagan in 1984 as a sophomore at Watauga High School, Michael has knocked on doors, worked on phone banks, put out yard signs, recruited & trained volunteers and raised money for Republicans in Local, Legislative, Congressional, Senatorial and Presidential races from one end of North Carolina to the other.As a member of the Florida Recount Team, Michael fought to protect George W. Bush's historically close win and then served President Bush as a Senior Official at the Department of Energy.Michael got to see first-hand how important winning elections is for helping the citizens of North Carolina serving as Chief of Staff for Senator Elizabeth Dole.In 2015, Michael answered the call to help Donald J. Trump in North Carolina and helped deliver the Old North State for President Trump in both the 2016 and 2020 election cycles.Michael has earned a Bachelor's Degree in History from the University of North Carolina–Charlotte, a Master's Degree in Religion from Wake Forest University, a Master's Degree in Theology from the University of Notre Dame and a Law Degree from the Notre Dame Law School. He served as a Federal Law Clerk to the Honorable Robert Potter in Charlotte.Michael lives in Gaston County with his wife and three children and serves as a member of the vestry for his church.-Mr. Gary Gygi was hired by the Investment firm Dean Witter (became Morgan Stanley) after college and worked for the firm for about 15 years. During this time he achieved the position of First Vice President, Investment and branch manager of the Midvale, Utah office. Mr. Gygi won numerous sales awards and held the position of Branch Managed Money Coordinator and Branch Insurance Coordinator. Mr. Gygi left Morgan Stanley in 2003 to join the Investment management firm of Smoot Miller Cheney (later became SMC Capital) as a Senior Vice President. Mr. Gygi holds a dual registration so while affiliating with Smoot Miller Cheney; he also was a registered rep with Independent broker/dealer WBB Securities, LLC. In 2008, Mr. Gygi left SMC Capital to found Gygi Capital Management as President and CEO. Gygi Capital serves the Institutional and individual marketplace with investment management solutions. Gygi Capital is a State regulated Registered Investment Advisory firm located in Cedar Hills, Utah. Gygi affiliates with Union Capital Co. which is an independent broker/dealer firm.Contact Gary at Gygi Capital Management: (801) 649-3879 Get full access to Breaking Battlegrounds at breakingbattlegrounds.substack.com/subscribe

The Trump administration unveiled a 28-page AI Action Plan, outlining more than 90 policy actions, with an ambition for the U.S. to win the AI race. Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy Michael Zezas, and U.S. Public Policy Strategist Ariana Salvatore, explain why investors need to keep an eye on AI policy.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, U.S. Public Policy Strategist.Michael Zezas: Today we're diving into the administration's newly released AI action plan. What's in It, what it means for markets, and where the challenges to implementation might lie.It's Thursday, July 24th at 10am in New York.Things are not all quiet on the policy front, but with the fiscal bill having passed Congress and trade tensions simmering ahead of the new August 1st deadline, clients are asking what the administration might focus on that investors might need to know more about.Well, this week it seems to be AI.The White House just unveiled its sweeping AI Action Plan, the first big policy-signaling document since the administration canceled the implementation of former President Biden's AI Diffusion Rule. So, Ariana, what do we need to focus on here?Ariana Salvatore: This document is basically the administration signaling how it intends to cement America's role in the global development of AI – through a mix of both domestic and global policy initiatives. There are over 90 policy actions outlined in the document across three main pillars: innovation, infrastructure, and global leadership.Michael Zezas: That's right. And even though there's still some important details to flesh out here in terms of what these initiatives might practically mean, it's worth delving into what the different areas are outlining and what it might mean for investors here.Ariana Salvatore: So first on the innovation front. The plan calls for removing regulatory barriers to AI development, encouraging open-source models, and investing in interpretability and robustness. There's also a push throughout the document to build world class data sets and accelerate AI adoption across the federal agencies.Michael Zezas: Infrastructure is another main pillar here, and keeping with the theme of loosening regulation, the plan includes fast tracking permits for data centers, expanding access to federal land, and improving grid interconnection for power generation. There's also a call to stabilize the existing grid and prioritize dispatchable energy sources like nuclear and geothermal.But that's where we may see some of these frictions emerge. As our colleague Stephen Byrd has talked about quite a bit, the grid remains a major constraint for power generation; and even with some of these executive orders, the President's ability to control scaling power capacity is somewhat limited.Many of these policy tools to increase energy production to facilitate more data centers will likely have to be addressed by Congress, especially if any of these policy changes are to be more durable.Ariana Salvatore: One area where the executive actually does have pretty broad discretion to control is trade policy, and this document focused a lot on the U.S.' role in the world as we see increasing AI competition on a global scale.So, to that point, the third pillar is around global leadership. Specifically, the plan calls for the U.S. to export its full AI stack – hardware, models, standards – to allies, while simultaneously tightening export controls on rivals. China's clearly a focal point here, and that's one that is explicitly called out in the document.Michael Zezas: Right. And so, it all seems part of a proposal to form in International AI Alliance built on shared values and open trade; and the plan explicitly frames AI leadership as a strategic priority in the multipolar world.It calls for embedding U.S. AI standards and global governance bodies while using export controls and diplomatic tools to limit adversarial influence. But you know, importantly, something we'll have to track here is what exactly are these standards going to be and how that will shape how industry in the U.S. around AI has to behave. Those details are not yet forthcoming.So, there's a couple of threads here across all of this; deregulation, pushing for more energy generation, trade policy aspects. Ariana, what do you think it all means for investors? Are there key sectors here that face more constraints or face more tailwinds that investors need to know about?Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, so really two key takeaways from this document. First of all, AI policy is a priority for the administration, and we're seeing them pursue efforts to reduce regulatory barriers to data center construction. Although those could run into some legal and administrative hurdles. All else equal reduction in data center, build time and cost benefits owners of natural gas fired and nuclear power plants. So, you should see a tailwind to the power and utility sector.Secondly, this document and the messaging from the President makes AI a national security issue. That's why we see differentiated treatment for China versus the rest of the world, which is also reflected in the administration's approach to the broader trade relationship and dovetails well with our expectation for higher tariffs on China at the end of this year versus the global baseline.Michael Zezas: Right. So, if AI becomes a national and economic security issue, which is what this document is signaling, it's one of the reasons you should expect that these tariff increases globally – but with a skew towards China – are probably durable. And it's something that we think is reflected in the sector preferences or equity strategy team, for example, with some caution around the consumer sector.Ariana Salvatore: That's right. So, plan to watch as this unfolds.Michael Zezas: That's it for today's episode of Thoughts on the Market. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our U.S. Media & Entertainment Analyst Benjamin Swinburne discusses how GenAI is transforming content creation, distribution and also raising some serious ethical questions. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ben Swinburne, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Media and Entertainment Analyst. Today – GenAI is poised to shake up the entertainment business. It's Wednesday, July 23, at 10am in New York.It's never been easier to create art for anyone – with a little help from GenerativeAI. You can transform photos of yourself or loved ones in the style of a popular Japanese movie studio or any era of visual art to your liking. You can create a short movie by simply typing in a few prompts. Even I can speak to youin several different languages. I can ask about the weather:Hvordan er været i dag?Wie ist das wetter heute?आज मौसम कैसा है? In the media and entertainment industry, GenAI is expected to bring about a seismic shift in how content is made and consumed. A recent production used AI to de-age actors and recreate the likeness of a deceased performer—cutting what used to take hundreds of VFX artists a year to just a few months with a small team. There are many other examples of how GenAI is revolutionizing how stories are told, from scriptwriting and editing to visual effects and dubbing. In music, GenAI is helping music labels identify emerging talent and generate new compositions. GenAI can even create songs using the voices of long-gone artists – potentially extending revenue far beyond an artist's lifetime. GenAI-driven tools have the potential to reduce TV and film production costs by 10–30 percent, with animation and post-production among the biggest savings opportunities. GenAI could also transform how content reaches audiences. Recommendation engines can become even more predictive, using behavioral data to serve up exactly what listeners want—sometimes before we know what we want. And there's more studios can achieve in post production. GenAI can already dub content in multiple languages, even syncing mouth movements to match the new dialogue. This makes global distribution faster, cheaper, and more culturally relevant. With better engagement comes better monetization. Platforms will use GenAI to introduce new pricing tiers, targeted advertising, and personalized superfan content that taps into niche audiences willing to pay more. But all this innovation brings up profound ethical concerns. First, there's the issue of consent and copyright. Can GenAI tools legally use an actor's name, likeness or voice? Then there's the question of authorship. If an AI writes a script or composes a song, who owns the rights? The creator or the GenAI model? Labor unions are understandably worried. In 2023, AI was a major sticking point in negotiations between Hollywood studios and writers' and actors' guilds. The fear? That AI could replace human jobs or devalue creative work. There are also legal battles. Multiple lawsuits are underway over whether AI models trained on copyrighted material without permission violate intellectual property laws. The outcomes of these cases could reshape the entire industry. But here's a big question no one can ignore: Will audiences care if content is AI-generated? Some consumers are fascinated by AI-created music or visuals, while others crave the emotional depth and authenticity that comes from human storytelling. Made-by-humans could become a premium label in itself. Now, despite GenAI's rapid rise, not every corner of entertainment is vulnerable. Live sports, concerts, and theater remain largely insulated from AI disruption. These experiences thrive on real-time emotion, unpredictability, and human connection—things AI can't replicate. In an AI-saturated world, the value of live events and sports rights will rise, favoring owners of sports rights and live platforms. So where do we go from here? By and large, we're entering an era where storytelling is no longer limited by budget or geography. GenAI is lowering the barriers to entry, expanding the creative class, and reshaping the economics of media. The winners in this new landscape will likely be companies that can scale—platforms with massive user bases, deep data pools, and the engineering talent to integrate GenAI seamlessly. But there's also room for agile newcomers who can innovate faster than the incumbents and disrupt the disrupters. No doubt, as the tools get better, the questions get harder. And that's where the real story begins. 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.

Plus: President Trump leverages global trade disputes to protect the interests of the U.S. technology sector. And, regulators investigate Morgan Stanley over whether it properly vetted its clients for money-laundering risks. Kate Bullivant hosts.  Sign up for WSJ's free What's News newsletter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Our Chief Asia Economist Chetan Ahya discusses three key decisions that will determine Asia's international investment position and affect currency trends. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia Economist.Today – an issue that's gaining traction in boardrooms and trading floors: the three big decisions Asia investors are facing right now.It's Tuesday, July 22nd, at 2 PM in Hong Kong.So, let's start with the big picture.Over the past 13 years, Asia's international investment position has doubled to $46 trillion. A sizable proportion of that is invested in U.S. assets.But the recent weakness in the U.S. dollar gives rise to three important questions for investors across Asia: Should they diversify away from U.S. assets? How much of Asia's incremental savings should be allocated to the U.S.? Or should they hedge their U.S. exposure more aggressively?First on the diversification debate. Investors are voicing concern over the U.S. macro outlook, given the twin deficits. At the same time, our U.S. economics team continues to see growth slowing, as better than expected fiscal impulse in the near term will not fully offset the drag from tariffs and tighter immigration policies. This convergence in U.S. growth and interest rates with global peers—and continued debate about the U.S. dollar's safe haven status has already led to U.S. dollar depreciation. And our macro strategists expect further depreciation of the U.S.D by another 8-9 percent by [the] second quarter of next year. So what is the data indicating? Are investors already diversifying? Let's look at Asia's security portfolio as that data is more transparently available. Out of the total international investment of $46 trillion dollars, Asia's securities portfolio alone is worth $21 trillion. And of that, $8.6 trillion is in U.S. assets as of [the] first quarter of 2025. Now here's an interesting point: China's holding had already peaked in 2013, but Asia ex-China's holdings of U.S. assets has been increasing. Asia ex-China's U.S. holdings hit a record $7.2 trillion in the first quarter, largely driven by equities. In other words, in aggregate, Asia investors are not diversifying at the moment. But they are allocating less from their incremental savings. Asia's current account surplus remains high—at $1.1 trillion in the first quarter. And even if it narrows a bit from here, the structural surplus means Asia's total international investment position will keep growing. However, incremental allocations to the U.S. are beginning to decline. The share of U.S. assets in Asia's securities portfolio peaked at 41.5 percent in the fourth quarter of 2024 and started to dip in the first quarter of this year. In fact, our global cross asset strategist Serena Tang notes that Asian investors have reduced net buying of U.S. equities in the second quarter. Finally, let's talk about hedging. Asian investors have started to increase hedging of their U.S. investment position and we see increased hedging demand as one reason why Asian currencies have strengthened recently. Take Taiwan life insurance—often seen as [a] proxy for broader trends. While their hedge ratios were still falling in the first quarter, they started increasing again in the second. That lines up with the sharp appreciation of [the] Taiwanese dollar in the second quarter. Meanwhile, the currencies of other economies with large U.S. asset holdings have also appreciated since the dollar's peak. These are clear signals to us that increasing hedging demand is influencing foreign exchange markets.All in all, Asia's $46 trillion investment position gives it an enormous influence. Whether investors decide to diversify, allocate less or stay the course, and how much to hedge will affect currency trends going forward.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

As Fed Chair Jerome Powell's term ends next year, our Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter discusses the potential policy impact of a so-called “shadow Fed chair”.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. And today – well, there's a topic that's stirring up a lot of speculation on Wall Street and in Washington. It's this idea of a Shadow Fed Chair. It's Monday, July 21, at 2 PM in New York. Let's start with the basics. Fed Chair Jerome Powell's term expires in May of next year. And look at any newspaper that covers the economy or markets, and you will see that President Trump has been critical of monetary policy under Chair Powell. Those facts have led to a flurry of questions: Who might succeed Chair Powell? When will we know? And—maybe most importantly—how should investors think about these implications? President Trump has been clear in his messaging: he wants the Fed to cut rates more aggressively. But even though it seems clear that there will be a new Chair in June of next year, market pricing suggests a policy rate just above 3 percent by the end of next year. That level is lower than the current Fed rate of 4.25 [percent] to 4.50 [percent], but not aggressively so. In fact, Morgan Stanley's base case is that the policy rate is going to be even a bit lower than market pricing suggests. So why this disconnect? First, although there are several names that have been floated by media sources, and the Secretary of the Treasury has said that a process to select the next Chair has begun, we really just don't know who Powell's successor would be. News reports suggest we will get a name by late summer though. Another key point, from my perspective, is even when Powell's term as Chair ends, the Fed's reaction function—which is to say how the Fed reacts to incoming economic data—well, it's probably not going to change overnight. The Federal Open Market Committee, or the FOMC, makes policy and that policy making is a group effort.  And that group dynamic tends to restrain sudden shifts in policy. So, even after Powell steps down, this internal dynamic could keep policy on a fairly steady course for a while. But some changes are surely coming. First, there's a vacancy on the Fed Board in January. And that seat could easily go to Powell's successor—before the Chair position officially changes.  In other words, we might see what people are calling a Shadow Chair, sitting on the FOMC, influencing policy from the inside.Would that matter to markets?Possibly. Especially if the successor is particularly vocal and signals a markedly different stance in policy.  But again, the same committee dynamics that should keep policy steady so far might limit any other immediate shifts. Even with an insider talking. As importantly, history suggests that political appointees often shed their past affiliations once they take office, focusing instead on the Fed's dual mandate: maximum sustainable employment and stable prices.But there are always quirky twists to most stories: Powell's seat on the Board doesn't actually expire when his term as Chair ends. Technically, he could stay on as a regular Board member—just like Michael Barr did after stepping down as the Vice Chair for Supervision. Now Powell hasn't commented on all this, so for now, it's just a thought experiment. But here's another thought experiment: the FOMC is technically a separate agency from the Board of Governors. Now, by tradition, the chair of the board is picked by the FOMC to be chair of the FOMC, but that's not required by law. In one version of the world, in theory, the committee could choose someone else. Would that happen?  Well, I think that's unlikely. In my experience, the Fed is an institution that has valued orthodoxy and continuity. But it's just a reminder that rules aren't always quite as rigid as they seem. And regardless, the Chair of the Fed always matters. While the FOMC votes on policy, the Chair sets the tone, frames the debate, and often guides where consensus ends up. And over time, as new appointees join the Board, the new Chair's influence will only grow. Even the selection of Reserve Bank Presidents is subject to a Board veto, and that would give the Chair indirect sway over the entire FOMC.Where does all of this leave us? For now, this Shadow Chair debate is more of a nuance than the primary narrative. We don't expect the Fed's reaction function to change between now and May. But beyond that, the range of outcomes starts to widen more and more and more.  Until then, I would say the bigger risk to our Fed forecast isn't politics. It's our forecast for the economy—and on that front we remain, as always, very humble. Well, thanks for listening. And 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.

Markets may seem calm following recent policy headlines, but for Michael Zezas, our Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy, investors may need to wait on more data to assess whether the macroenvironment will remain stable.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy. Today: Why there's no summer slowdown yet for U.S. policy catalysts for the financial markets. It's Friday, July 18th at 8am in New York. The past week and a half has seen many major policy, events and headlines relevant to the outlook for financial markets. This includes more speculation by the U.S. administration over leadership at the Fed, more information about the deficit impact of the new fiscal bill, and – perhaps most tangibly – announcements of new tariffs that, if they take effect, will be a meaningful step up from already elevated levels. It would all suggest a weaker growth outlook and less overseas demand for U.S. assets. Yet major financial markets seem to have shrugged it all off. The S & P and the U.S. dollar are up about 1 percent over that time, and Treasury yields are modestly higher. So, what's going on? Two possibilities to consider, and it implies investors should pay more attention than they may be inclined to this summer. First, when it comes to the impact of tariffs on the economy, it's possible we're dealing with a delayed impact. The effective average U.S. tariff rate shot up from 3 to 4 percent earlier this year to 13 percent, and if recent announcements go through, that could exceed 20 percent. That's a major escalation in costs for U.S. companies and consumers and something our economists argue takes growth down to 1 percent and elevates the possibility of a recession. But our economists also point out that we may not be experiencing these cost increases quite yet. History suggests several months of lag between implementation and economic impact as companies leverage existing lower cost inventory before making tough decisions on pricing and managing their own costs. That means hard economic data likely does not yet tell us about the impact or lack thereof of tariffs, but that may change in the coming months. Second. It's also possible that the recent announcements of tariff increases don't tell us the whole story. As my colleagues in our equity strategy team point out, corporate America's cost base is most sensitive to the U.S.' largest trading partners – China, Mexico, Canada, and Europe. As we've discussed in prior episodes, we see tariff rate increases as likely on all these trading partners as tough negotiations continue. However, the details will matter greatly if rates are increased, but with a healthy dose of exceptions or quotas. Even if they diminish over time, then the real impact could be significantly blunted. In that case, markets would resume taking cues from other factors such as earnings revisions and forward-looking expectations around AI driven productivity. So bottom line, market movements suggest investors are assuming benign U.S. policy outcomes. But there's plenty of developments to track in the coming weeks and months to test if those assumptions will hold. Trade policy details and hard economic data are key among them. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review, and tell your friends about the podcast. We want everyone to listen.

The dollar's bearish run is likely to affect U.S. equity markets. Michelle Weaver, our U.S. Thematic & Equity Strategist, and David Adams, our Head of G10 FX Strategy, discuss what investors should consider.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 at Morgan Stanley. David Adams: And I'm Dave Adams, head of G10 FX Strategy here at Morgan Stanley. Michelle Weaver: Our colleagues were recently on the show to talk about the impact of the weak dollar on European equities. And today we wanted to continue that conversation by looking at what a weak U.S. dollar means for the U.S. equity market.It's Thursday, July 17th at 2pm in London. Morgan Stanley has a bearish view on the U.S. dollar. And this is something our chief global FX strategist James Lord spoke about recently on the show. But Dave, I want to go over the outlook again, since Morgan Stanley has a really differentiated view on this. Do you think the dollar will continue to depreciate during the remainder of the year? David Adams: We do, and we do. We have been dollar bears this whole year, and it has been very out of consensus. But we do think the weakness will continue and our forecasts remain one of the most bearish on the street for the dollar. The dollar has had its worst first half of the year since 1973, and the dollar index has fallen about 10 percent year to date, but we think we're at the intermission rather than the finale. The second act for the dollar weakening trend should come over the next 12 months as U.S. interest rates and U.S. growth rates converge to that of the rest of the world. And FX hedging of existing U.S. assets held by foreign investors adds further negative risk premium to the dollar. The result is that we're looking for yet another 10 percent drop in the dollar by the end of next year. Michelle Weaver: That's really interesting and a differentiated view for Morgan Stanley. When I think about one of the key themes that we've been following this year, it's the multipolar world or a shift away from globalization to more localized spheres of influence. This is an important element to the dollar story.How have tariffs impacted currency and your outlook? David Adams: Tariffs play a key role in this framework. Tariffs have a positive impact on inflation, but a negative impact on U.S. growth. But the inflation impact comes faster and the negative impact on growth and employment that comes a bit later. This puts the Fed in a really tough spot and it's why our economists are pretty out of consensus in calling for both no cuts this year, and a much faster and deeper pace of cuts in 2026. The results for me in FX land is that the market is underestimating just how low the Fed will go and just how low U.S. rates will go, in general. Tariffs play a big role in helping to generate this rate convergence, and rate differentials are a fundamental driver of currencies. The more that U.S. rates are going to fall, the more likely it is that the dollar keeps falling too. Michelle Weaver: Tariffs have certainly impacted heavily on our view for the U.S. equity market and it's something that no asset class is not impacted by really. Given the volatility and the magnitude of the move we've seen this year, are foreign investors hedging more? David Adams: We do think they've started hedging more, but the bulk of the move is really ahead of us. Foreign investors own a massive amount of U.S. assets. European investors alone own $8 trillion of U.S. bonds and stocks, and that's only about a quarter of total foreign ownership of U.S. assets. Now when foreign investors buy U.S. assets, they have to sell their currency and buy the dollar. But at some point, you're going to have to bring that money back, so you're going to have to sell the dollar and buy back your home currency again. If the dollar rises over this period, you've made a gain, congratulations. But if it falls, you've made a loss. Now a lot of foreign investors will hedge this currency risk, and they'll use instruments like forwards and options to do so. But in the case of the U.S., we found that a lot of foreign investors really choose not to hedge this exposure, particularly on the equity side. And this reflects both a view that the dollar would appreciate; so, they want to take that gain. But it also reflects the dollar's negative correlation to equities. So, what's changing now? Well, a lot of investors are starting to rethink this decision and add those FX hedges, which really means dollar selling. Now, there's a lot of factors motivating their decision to hedge. One, of course is price. If U.S. rates are going to converge meaningfully to the rest of the world – like we expect – that flattens out the forward curve and makes those forwards cheaper to buy to hedge. But the breakdown in correlations that we've seen more broadly, the uptick in policy volatility and uncertainty, and the sell off in the dollar that we've already seen year to date, have all increased the relative benefit of FX hedging. Now, Michelle, I often get asked the question, that's a nice story, but is hedging actually picking up? And the answer is yes. The initial data suggests that hedging has picked up in the second quarter, but because of the size of U.S. asset holdings and given how much it was initially unhedged, we could be talking about a significant long-term flow. We have a lot more to go from here. Michelle Weaver: Yeah. David Adams: We estimated that just over half of Europe's $8 trillion holdings are unhedged. And if hedge ratios pick up even a little bit, we could be talking about hundreds of billions of dollars in flow. And that's just from Europe. But Michelle, I wanted to ask you. What do you think a weaker dollar means for U.S. companies? Michelle Weaver: The weaker dollar is a substantial underappreciated tailwind for U.S. multinational earnings, and this is because these companies sell products overseas and then get paid in foreign currency. So, when the dollar's down, converting that foreign revenue back into dollars, gives them a nice boost, something that domestic only companies aren't going to benefit from. And this is called the translation effect. Recently we've seen earnings revisions breadth, essentially a measure of whether analysts are getting more optimistic or pessimistic start to turn up after hitting typical cycle lows. And based on our house view for the dollar, there's likely more upside ahead based on that relationship for revisions over the next year. David Adams: Interesting. Interesting. And is this something you're hearing about from companies on things like earnings calls? Michelle Weaver: No, this dynamic isn't being highlighted much on earnings calls. Typically, companies talk about foreign exchange effects when the dollar's strengthening and provides a headwind for corporate earnings. But when we're in the reverse scenario like we are now with the dollar weakening and getting a boost to earnings, we tend to not hear as much discussion, which is why I called this an underappreciated tailwind. And according to your team's forecast, we still have a substantial amount of weakening to go and thus a substantial amount of benefit for U.S. companies to go. David Adams: Yeah, that makes sense. And who do you think benefits most from this dynamic? Are there any sectors or investment styles that look particularly good here? Michelle Weaver: Mm hmm. So generally, it's the large cap companies that stand to gain the most from this dynamic, and that's because they do more business overseas. If we look at foreign revenue exposure for different indices, around 40 percent of the S & P 500's revenue comes from outside the U.S., while that's just 22 percent for the Russell 2000 Small Cap Index. But the impact of a weaker dollar isn't the same across the board. Foreign revenue exposure and earnings revision sensitivity to the dollar vary quite a bit, when we look at the sector and the industry group level. From a foreign revenue exposure perspective, Tech Materials and Industrials have the highest foreign revenue exposure and thus can benefit a lot from that dynamic we've been talking about. When we look from an earnings revisions perspective, Capital Goods, Materials, Software and Tech Hardware have the most earnings revisions, sensitivity to a weaker dollar, so they could also benefit there. David Adams: So, I guess this brings us to the million-dollar question that all of our listeners are asking. What do we do with this information? What does this mean for investors? Michelle Weaver: So as the dollar, continues to weaken, investors should keep a close eye on the industries and companies poised to benefit the most – because in this multipolar world, currency dynamics are not just a macro backdrop, but an important driver of earnings and equity performance.Dave, thank you for taking the time to talk. And to our listeners, thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen to the show and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

U.S. tariffs have had limited impact so far on inflation and corporate earnings. Our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets explains why – and when – that might change.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I'm going to talk about why tariffs are showing up everywhere – but the data; and why we think this changes this quarter. It's Wednesday, July 16th at 2pm in London. Investors have faced tariff headlines since at least February. The fact that it's now mid-July and markets are still grinding higher is driving some understandable skepticism that they're going to have their promised impact. Indeed, we imagine that maybe more of one of you is groaning and saying, ‘What? Another tariff episode?' But we do think this theme remains important for markets. And above all, it's a factor we think is going to hit very soon. We think it's kind of now – the third quarter – when the promised impact of tariffs on economic data and earnings really start to come through. My colleague Jenna Giannelli and I discussed some of the reasons why, on last week's episode focused on the retail sector. But what I want to do next is give a little bit of that a broader context. Where I want to start is that it's really about tariff impact picking up right about now. The inflation readings that we got earlier this week started to show US core inflation picking up again, driven by more tariff sensitive sectors. And while second quarter earnings that are being reported right about now, we think will generally be fine, and maybe even a bit better than expected; the third quarter earnings that are going to be generated over the next several months, we think those are more at risk from tariff related impact. And again, this could be especially pronounced in the consumer and retail sector. So why have tariffs not mattered so much so far, and why would that change very soon? The first factor is that tariff rates are increasing rapidly. They've moved up quickly to a historically high 9 percent as of today; even with all of the pauses and delays. And recently announced actions by the US administration over just the last couple of weeks could effectively double this rate again -- from 9 percent to somewhere between 15 to 20 percent.A second reason why this is picking up now is that tariff collections are picking up now. US Customs collected over $26 billion in tariffs in June, which annualizes out to about 1 percent of GDP, a very large number. These collections were not nearly as high just three months ago. Third, tariffs have seen pauses and delayed starts, which would delay the impact. And tariffs also exempted goods that were in transit, which can be significant from goods coming from Europe or Asia; again, a factor that would delay the impact. But these delays are starting to come to fruition as those higher tariff collections and higher tariff rates would suggest. And finally, companies did see tariffs coming and tried to mitigate them. They ordered a lot of inventory ahead of tariff rates coming into effect. But by the third quarter, we think they've sold a lot of that inventory, meaning they no longer get the benefit. Companies ordered a lot of socks before tariffs went into effect. But by the third quarter and those third quarter earnings, we think they will have sold them all. And the new socks they're ordering, well, they come with a higher cost of goods sold. In short, we think it's reasonable to expect that the bulk of the impact of tariffs and economic and earnings data still lies ahead, especially in this quarter – the third quarter of 2025. We continue to think that it's probably in August and September rather than June-July, where the market will care more about these challenges as core inflation data continues to pick up. For credit, this leaves us with an up in quality bias, especially as we move through that August to September period. And as Jenna and I discussed last week, we are especially cautious on the retail credit sector, which we think is more exposed to these various factors converging in the third quarter. Thank you as always for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen; and also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

Our analysts Paul Walsh, James Lord and Marina Zavolock discuss the dollar's decline, the strength of the euro, and the mixed impact on European equities.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Paul Walsh: Welcome to Thoughts on the Markets. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's Head of European Product. And today we're discussing the weakness we've seen year-to-date in the U.S. dollar and what this means for the European stock market.It's Tuesday, July the 15th at 3:00 PM in London.I'm delighted to be joined by my colleagues, Marina Zavolock, Morgan Stanley's Chief European Equity Strategist, and James Lord, Morgan Stanley's Chief Global FX Strategist.James, I'm going to start with you because I think we've got a really differentiated view here on the U.S. dollar. And I think when we started the year, the bearish view that we had as a house on the U.S. dollar, I don't think many would've agreed with, frankly. And yet here we are today, and we've seen the U.S. dollar weakness proliferating so far this year – but actually it's more than that.When I listen to your view and the team's view, it sounds like we've got a much more structurally bearish outlook on the U.S. dollar from here, which has got some tenure. So, I don't want to steal your thunder, but why don't you tell us, kind of frame the debate, for us around the U.S. dollar and what you're thinking.James Lord: So, at the beginning of the year, you're right. The consensus was that, you know, the election of Donald Trump was going to deliver another period of what people have called U.S. exceptionalism.Paul Walsh: Yeah.James Lord: And with that it would've been outperformance of U.S. equities, outperformance of U.S. growth, continued capital inflows into the United States and outperformance of the U.S. dollar.At the time we had a slightly different view. I mean, with the help of the economics team, we took the other side of that debate largely on the assumption that actually U.S. growth was quite likely to slow through 2025, and probably into 2026 as well – on the back of restrictions on immigration, lack of fiscal stimulus. And, increasingly as trade tariffs were going to be implemented…Paul Walsh: Yeah. Tariffs, of course…James Lord: That was going to be something that weighed on growth.So that was how we set out the beginning of the year. And as the year has progressed, the story has evolved. Like some of the other things that have happened, around just the extent to which tariff uncertainty has escalated. The section 899 debate.Paul Walsh: Yeah.James Lord: Some of the softness in the data and just the huge amounts of uncertainty that surrounds U.S. policymaking in general has accelerated the decline in the U.S. dollar. So, we do think that this has got further to go. I mean, the targets that we set at the beginning of the year, we kind of already met them. But when we published our midyear outlook, we extended the target.So, we may even have to go towards the bull case target of euro-dollar of 130.Paul Walsh: Mm-hmm.James Lord: But as the U.S. data slows and the Fed debate really kicks off where at Morgan Stanley U.S. Economics research is expecting the Fed to ultimately cut to 2.5 percent...Paul Walsh: Yeah.Lord: That's really going to really weigh on the dollar as well. And this comes on the back of a 15-year bull market for the dollar.Paul Walsh: That's right.James Lord: From 2010 all the way through to the end of last year, the dollar has been on a tear.Paul Walsh: On a structural bull run.James Lord: Absolutely. And was at the upper end of that long-term historical range. And the U.S. has got 4 percent GDP current account deficit in a slowing growth environment. It's going to be tough for the dollar to keep going up. And so, we think we're sort of not in the early stages, maybe sort of halfway through this dollar decline. But it's a huge change compared to what we've been used to. So, it's going to have big implications for macro, for companies, for all sorts of people.Paul Walsh: Yeah. And I think that last point you make is absolutely critical in terms of the implications for corporates in particular, Marina, because that's what we spend every hour of every working day thinking about. And yes, currency's been on the radar, I get that. But I think this structural dynamic that James alludes to perhaps is not really conventional wisdom still, when I think about the sector analysts and how clients are thinking about the outlook for the U.S. dollar.But the good news is that you've obviously done detailed work in collaboration with the floor to understand the complexities of how this bearish dollar view is percolating across the different stocks and sectors. So, I wondered if you could walk us through what your observations are and what your conclusions are having done the work.Marina Zavolock: First of all, I just want to acknowledge that what you just said there. My background is emerging markets and coming into covering Europe about a year and a half ago, I've been surprised, especially amid the really big, you know, shift that we're seeing that James was highlighting – how FX has been kind of this secondary consideration. In the process of doing this work, I realized that analysts all look at FX in different way. Investors all look at FX in different way. And in …Paul Walsh: So do corporates.Marina Zavolock: Yeah, corporates all look at FX in different way. We've looked a lot at that. Having that EM background where we used to think about FX as much as we thought about equities, it was as fundamental to the story...Paul Walsh: And to be clear, that's because of the volatility…Marina Zavolock: Exactly, which we're now seeing now coming into, you know, global markets effectively with the dollar moves that we've had. What we've done is created or attempted to create a framework for assessing FX exposure by stock, the level of FX mismatches, the types of FX mismatches and the various types of hedging policies that you have for those – particularly you have hedging for transactional FX mismatches.Paul Walsh: Mm-hmm.Marina Zavolock: And we've looked at this from stock level, sector level, aggregating the stock level data and country level. And basically, overall, some of the key conclusions are that the list of stocks that benefit from Euro strength that we've identified, which is actually a small pocket of the European index. That group of stocks that actually benefits from euro strength has been strongly outperforming the European index, especially year-to-date.Paul Walsh: Mm-hmm.Marina Zavolock: And just every day it's kind of keeps breaking on a relative basis to new highs. Given the backdrop of James' view there, we expect that to continue. On the other hand, you have even more exposure within the European index of companies that are being hit basically with earnings, downgrades in local currency terms. That into this earning season in particular, we expect that to continue to be a risk for local currency earnings.Paul Walsh: Mm-hmm.Marina Zavolock: The stocks that are most negatively impacted, they tend to have a lot of dollar exposure or EM exposure where you have pockets of currency weakness as well. So overall what we found through our analysis is that more than half of the European index is negatively exposed to this euro and other local currency strength. The sectors that are positively exposed is a minority of the index. So about 30 percent is either materially or positively exposed to the euro and other local currency strength. And sectors within that in particular that stand out positively exposed utilities, real estate banks. And the companies in this bucket, which we spend a lot of time identifying, they are strongly outperforming the index.They're breaking to new highs almost on a daily basis relative to the index. And I think that's going to continue into earning season because that's going to be one of the standouts positively, amid probably a lot of downgrades for companies who have translational exposure to the U.S. or EM.Paul Walsh: And so, let's take that one step further, Marina, because obviously hedging is an important part of the process for companies. And as we've heard from James, of a 15-year bull run for dollar strength. And so most companies would've been hedging, you know, dollar strength to be fair where they've got mismatches. But what are your observations having looked at the hedging side of the equation?Marina Zavolock: Yeah, so let me start with FX mismatches. So, we find that about half of the European index is exposed to some level of FX mismatches.Paul Walsh: Mm-hmm.Marina Zavolock: So, you have intra-European currency mismatches. You have companies sourcing goods in Asia or China and shipping them to Europe. So, it's actually a favorable FX mismatch. And then as far as hedging, the type of hedging that tends to happen for companies is related to transactional mismatches. So, these are cost revenue, balance sheet mismatches; cashflow distribution type mismatches. So, they're more the types of mismatches that could create risk rather than translational mismatches, which are – they're just going to happen.Paul Walsh: Yeah.Marina Zavolock: And one of the most interesting aspects of our report is that we found that companies that have advanced hedging, FX hedging programs, they first of all, they tend to outperform, when you compare them to companies with limited or no hedging, despite having transactional mismatches. And secondly, they tend to have lower share price volatility as well, particularly versus the companies with no hedging, which have the most share price volatility.So, the analysis, generally, in Europe of this most, the most probably diversified region globally, is that FX hedging actually does generate alpha and contributes to relative performance.Paul Walsh: Let's connect the two a little bit here now, James, because obviously as companies start to recalibrate for a world where dollar weakness might proliferate for longer, those hedging strategies are going to have to change.So just any kind of insights you can give us from that perspective. And maybe implications across currency markets as a result of how those behavioral changes might play out, I think would be very interesting for our listeners.James Lord: Yeah, I think one thing that companies can do is change some of the tactics around how they implement the hedges. So, this can revolve around both the timing and also the full extent of the hedge ratios that they have. I mean, some companies who are – in our conversations with them when they're talking about their hedging policy, they may have a range. Maybe they don't hedge a 100 percent of the risk that they're trying to hedge. They might have to do something between 80 and a hundred percent. So, you can, you can adjust your hedge ratios…Paul Walsh: Adjust the balances a bit.James Lord: Yeah. And you can delay the timing of them as well.The other side of it is just deciding like exactly what kind of instrument to use to hedge as well. I mean, you can hedge just using pure spot markets. You can use forward markets and currencies. You can implement different types of options, strategies.And I think this was some of the information that we were trying to glean from the survey was this question that Marina was asking about. Do you have a limited or advanced hedging program? Typically, we would find that corporates that have advanced programs might be using more options-based strategies, for example. And you know, one of the pieces of analysis in the report that my colleague Dave Adams did was really looking at the effectiveness of different strategies depending on the market environment that we're in.So, are we in a sort of risk-averse market environment, high vol environment? Different types of strategies work for different types of market environments. So, I would encourage all corporates that are thinking about implementing some kind of hedging strategy to have a look at that document because it provides a lot of information about the different ways you can implement your hedges. And some are much more cost effective than others.Paul Walsh: Marina, last thought from you?Marina Zavolock: I just want to say overall for Europe there is this kind of story about Europe has no growth, which we've heard for many years, and it's sort of true. It is true in local currency terms. So European earnings growth now on consensus estimates for this year is approaching one percent; it's close to 1 percent. On the back of the moves we've already seen in FX, we're probably going to go negative by the time this earning season is over in local currency terms. But based on our analysis, that is primarily impacted by translation.So, it is just because Europe has a lot of exposure to the U.S., it has some EM exposure. So, I would just really emphasize here that for investors; so, investors, many of which don't hedge FX, when you're comparing Europe growth to the U.S., it's probably better to look in dollar terms or at least in constant currency terms. And in dollar terms, European earnings growth at this point are 7.6 percent in dollar terms. That's giving Europe the benefit for the euro exposure that it has in other local currencies.So, I think these things, as FX starts to be front of mind for investors more and more, these things will become more common focus points. But right now, a lot of investors just compare local currency earnings growth.Paul Walsh: So, this is not a straightforward topic, and we obviously think this is a very important theme moving through the balance of this year. But clearly, you're going to see some immediate impact moving through the next quarter of earnings.Marina and James, thanks as always for helping us make some sense of it all.James Lord: Thanks, Paul.Marina Zavolock: Thank you.Paul Walsh: And to our listeners out there, thank you as always for tuning in.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.