Podcasts about Morgan Stanley

Crypto News: Trump says he's instructing unnamed representatives to buy $200 billion in MBS in a bid to narrow mortgage spreads and bring down rates. This in addition to other QE activities will bring more liquidity to markets. Morgan Stanley continues crypto push, plans wallet in the second half of 2026. Brought to you by

Deezy goes over the HUGE news from Morgan Stanley. After Bitcoin and Solana, they have just now filed paperwork for an ETH ETF! When you see the 3 charts, and think of the bullish catalysts, a $9K ETH may be easier than you think! 

Brian Nowak: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Brian Nowak, Morgan Stanley's Head of U.S. Internet Research. Andrew Percoco: And I'm Andrew Percoco, Head of North America Autos and Shared Mobility Research. Brian Nowak: Today we're going to talk about why we think 2026 could be a game changer and a point of inflection for autonomous vehicles and autonomous driving. It's Thursday, January 8th at 10am in New York. So, Andrew, let's get started. Have you ridden an autonomous car before? Andrew Percoco: Yeah, absolutely. Took a few in L.A., took one in San Francisco not too long ago. Pretty seamless and interesting experience to say the least. Brian Nowak: Any accidents or awkward left turns? Or did you feel pretty comfortable the whole time? Andrew Percoco: No, I felt pretty comfortable the whole time. No edge cases, no issues. So, all five star reviews for me. Brian Nowak: Andrew, we think your answer is going to be a lot more common as we go throughout 2026. As autonomous availability scales throughout more and more cities. Things are changing quickly. And we kind of look at our model on a city-by-city basis. We think that overall availability for autonomous driving in the U.S. is going to go from about 15 percent of the urban population at the end of 2025 to over 30 percent of the urban population by year end 2026. Andrew Percoco: Yeah, totally agree. Brian, I'm just curious. Like maybe layout for us, you know, what you're expecting for 2026 in more detail in terms of city rollouts, players involved and what we should be watching for throughout the next, you know, nine to 12 months. Brian Nowak: We have multiple new cities across the United States where we expect Waymo, Tesla, Zoox, and others to expand their fleet, expand autonomous driving availability, and ultimately make the product a lot more available and commonplace for people. There are also new potential edge cases that we think we're going to see. We're going to have our first snow cities with Waymo expected to launch in Washington, D.C.; potentially in Colorado, potentially in Michigan. So, we could have proof of concept that autonomous driving can also work in snow throughout [20]26 and into 2027 as well. So, in all, we think as we sit here at the start of [20]26, one year from now, there's going to be a lot more people who are going to say: I'm using an autonomous car to drive me around in my everyday practice. Andrew Percoco: Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. And I guess, what do you think the drivers are to get us there, right? There's also some concerns about safety, adoption, you know, cost structure. What are the main drivers that really make this growth algorithm work and really scales the robotaxi business for some of the key players? Brian Nowak: Part of it is regulatory. You know, we are still in a situation where we are dealing with state-by-state regulatory approvals needed for these autonomous vehicles and autonomous fleets to be built. We'll see if that changes, but for now, it's state by state regulation. After that, it comes down to technology, and each of the platforms needs to prove that their autonomous offerings are significantly safer than human driving. That is also linked to regulatory approval. And so, when we think about fleets becoming safer, proving that they can drive people more miles without having an accident than even a human can – we think about the autonomous players then scaling up their fleets. To make the cars and fleets available to more people. That is sort of the flywheel that we think is going to play out throughout 2026. The other part that we're very focused on across all the players from Waymo to Tesla to Zoox and others is the cost of the cars. And there is a big difference between the cost of a Waymo per mile versus the cost of a Tesla per mile. And we think one of the tension points, Andrew, that you can, you can talk about a little bit here, is the difference in the safety data and what we see on Tesla as of now versus Waymo – versus the cost advantage that Tesla has. So, talk about the cost advantage that Tesla has through all this as of right now. Andrew Percoco: Yeah, definitely. So, you know, as you mentioned, Tesla today has a very clear cost advantage over many of the robotaxi peers that they're competing with. A lot of that's driven by their vertical integration, and their sensor suite, right? So, their vehicle, the cost of their vehicle is – call it $35,000. You've got the camera only sensor approach. So, you don't have lidar, expensive lidar, and radar in the vehicle. And that's just really driven a meaningful cost improvement and cost advantage. On our math about a 40 percent cost advantage relative to Waymo today. Now going forward, you know, as you mentioned, I think the key hurdle here or bottleneck, that Tesla still needs to prove is their safety. And can they reach the same safety standards as a human driver? And, you know, the improvement that you've seen from Waymo. You know, to put some numbers around this. Based on publicly available data in Austin, Tesla's getting in a crash, you know, every about, call it every 50,000 miles; Waymo is closer to every 400,000 miles per crash. So today, Waymo is the leader on safety.I think the one important caveat that I want to mention here is that's on a relatively small number of miles driven for Tesla. They've only driven about 250,000 miles in Austin, whereas Waymo's driven close to, I think, a hundred million miles cumulatively. So, when you look back, I think this is going to be the kind of key catalyst and key data point for investors to watch is – how that data improves over the course of 2026. If you track Waymo – Waymo's data improved substantially as their miles driven improved, and as they launched into new cities.We'd expect Tesla to follow a similar trend. But that's going to be a huge catalyst in validating this camera only approach. If that happens, Tesla's not limited in scale, they're not limited in manufacturing capacity. You can meaningfully see them expand… Or you can see them expand quite quickly once they prove out that safety requirement. Brian Nowak: I think it's a great point because, you know, one of the other big debates that we are all going to have to monitor in the AV space throughout 2026 is: How quickly does Tesla completely pull the safety drivers, and how quickly do they scale up production of the vehicles? Because one of the bank shots around autonomous driving is actually the rideshare industry. You know, we have partnerships; some partnerships between Waymo and Uber and Waymo and Lyft. But Tesla is not partnering with anyone. And so, I think the extent to which we see a faster than expected ramp up in deployment from Tesla can have a lot of impact. Not only on autonomous adoption, competition with Waymo, but also the rideshare industry.So how do you think about the puts and takes on Tesla and sort of removing the drivers and scaling up the fleet this year? What should we be watching? Andrew Percoco: Yeah, so they've already made some strides there in Austin. They've pulled the safety monitor. They haven't opened that up to the public yet without the safety monitor. They're still testing, presumably in that geography. They need to be extremely careful in terms of, you know, the regulatory compliance and making sure they're doing this in a safe way. Ultimately that's what matters most to them. We do expect them to roll it out to the public without the safety monitor in 2026. Whether or not, that's the first quarter or the third quarter – is a little bit tougher to predict. But I think it's reasonable to assume whatever the timeline is, they're going to make sure it's the safest way possible to ensure that there's, you know, no unintended consequences as it relates to regulation, et cetera. I think one, also; one important data point or interesting data point here. You know, we model, I think, a 100 percent CAGR in miles driven, autonomous miles driven through 2032. You can talk a little bit about, you know, what the implications for rideshare, but I think important. It's important to contextualize that would still only represent less than 1 percent of total U.S. miles driven in the U.S. So substantial growth over the next, call it six or seven years. But still a massive TAM to be tapped into beyond 2032. And I think the key there is – what's the cost reduction roadmap look like? And can we get robotaxis to a point where they are cheaper than personal car ownership? And could robotaxis at some point disrupt the car ownership process? Brian Nowak: Yeah. And the other more important point around rideshare will be how much do these autonomous offerings expand the addressable market for rideshare and prove to be incremental? As opposed to being cannibalistic on existing ride share rides. Because you're right that, you know, even our out year autonomous projections still have it less than 1 percent of the total trips. But the question is how much does that add to ride share? Because in some scenarios, those autonomous trips could end up being 20 to 30 percent of the rideshare industry. This matters for Uber and Lyft because while they are partnering Waymo and other autonomous players across a handful of markets, they're not partnered in all the markets. And in some markets, Waymo is going alone. Tesla is going at it alone. And so when we look at our model and we say as of 2024, Uber and Lyft make up 100 percent of the ride share industry based on the current partnerships, which includes Waymo and Tesla and all; and Zoox and all the players, we think that Uber and Lyft will only make up 30 percent of the autonomous driving market. And so it's really important for the rideshare industry that when, number one, we see AV's being incremental to the TAM; and two, that Uber and Lyft are able to continue to add more partnerships over time to drive more of that overall long-term AV opportunity and participate in all this rideshare industry over the next five years. Andrew Percoco: I think it's really clear that the future of autonomous vehicles is here and we've reached an inflection point; and there's a lot of interesting catalysts and data points for us and for investors to watch for throughout 2026.So Brian, thanks again for taking the time to talk. Brian Nowak: Andrew, great speaking with you. 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.

Morgan Stanley makes a major bet on crypto adoption by filing for in-house Bitcoin and Solana ETFs, a sharp reversal that signals real demand inside its massive wealth management network and another step toward crypto becoming table stakes for traditional finance. The episode also covers MSCI's decision to keep MicroStrategy in its indexes, the resulting rebound across crypto treasury companies and miners, and why index inclusion still matters so much for price action. Finally, there's an update from Washington, where a crypto market structure bill heads toward a contentious committee vote, with stablecoin yield, AML provisions, and banking lobby pressure setting up one of the clearest regulatory showdowns yet. Enjoying this content? SUBSCRIBE to the Podcast: https://pod.link/1438693620 Watch on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@TheBreakdownBW Subscribe to the newsletter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://blockworks.co/newsletter/thebreakdown⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Join the discussion: https://discord.gg/VrKRrfKCz8 Follow on Twitter: NLW: https://twitter.com/nlw Breakdown: https://twitter.com/BreakdownBW

Jeff Park is a Partner & Chief Investment Officer at ProCap Financial. In this conversation, we break down the outlook for 2026, how bitcoin is positioned within global markets, and what shifting capital flows mean as major institutions like Morgan Stanley enter the space. Jeff also shares insights on geopolitics, artificial intelligence, and why these forces are increasingly shaping bitcoin and broader financial markets.=======================Simple Mining makes Bitcoin mining simple and accessible for everyone. We offer a premium white glove hosting service, helping you maximize the profitability of Bitcoin mining. For more information on Simple Mining or to get started mining Bitcoin, visit https://www.simplemining.io/=======================Uphold is the easiest way to buy and sell crypto unlike any other platform allowing you to trade in just one step between any supported asset. Check them out at ⁠https://uphold.sjv.io/K0RXra.⁠ This video includes a paid sponsorship with Uphold. I'm compensated by Uphold for promoting its products and services and may receive commissions from referrals. Terms apply. Not available in all jurisdictions. Digital assets are risky and may result in the total loss of your capital.=======================Bitwise is one of the largest and fastest-growing crypto asset managers, with more than $15 billion in client assets across an expanding suite of investment solutions—including the world's largest crypto index fund—plus products spanning Bitcoin, Ethereum, DeFi, and crypto equities. In addition to managing assets, Bitwise helps investors stay informed about the fast-moving crypto market. Every week, CIO Matt Hougan breaks down what's happening in crypto in five minutes or less. Read the latest at https://experts.bitwiseinvestments.com/cio-memos. Certain Bitwise investment products may be subject to the extreme risks associated with investing in crypto assets. Visit https://bitwiseinvestments.com/disclosures to learn more.=======================Timestamps:0:00 – Intro1:59 – Bitcoin setup for 2026: positioning, flows, leverage4:35 – Volatility + drawdowns: are bear markets changing?7:49 – The “ideological investor” & 3 forces shaping 202613:48 – Venezuela bitcoin rumors & geopolitics driving markets20:15 – Gold/jewelry drama & verifying what's real23:06 – AI content & implications for the next generation34:05 – Morgan Stanley launching Bitcoin ETF & Solana ETF

Our Chief Fixed Income Strategist Vishy Tirupattur is joined by Dan Toscano, the firm's Chairman of Markets in Private Equity, unpack how credit markets are changing—and what the AI buildup means for the road ahead.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. Today is a special edition of our podcast. We are joined by Dan Toscano, Chairman of Markets in Private Equity at Morgan Stanley, and a seasoned practitioner of credit markets over many, many credit cycles. We will get his thoughts on the ongoing evolution and revolution in credit marketsIt's Wednesday, January 7th at 10am in New York. Dan, welcome.Dan Toscano: Glad to be here.Vishy Tirupattur: So, to get our – the listeners familiar with your journey, can you talk a little bit about your experience in the credit markets, and how you got to where we are today?Dan Toscano: Yeah, sure. So, I've been doing this a long time. You used the nice word seasoned. My kids would refer to it as old. But I started in this journey in 1988. And to make a long story short, my first job on Wall Street was buying junk bonds in the infancy of the junk bond market, when most of what we were financing were LBOs. So, if you're familiar with Barbarians at the Gate, one of the first bonds we bought were RJR Nabisco reset notes. And I've been doing this ever since, so over almost four decades now.Vishy Tirupattur: So, the junk bond market evolved into high yield market, syndicated loan market, CLO market, financial crisis. So, talk to us about your experiences during this transition.Dan Toscano: Yeah. I mean, one of the things these markets do is they finance evolution in industries. So, when I think back to the early days of financing leveraged buyouts, they were called bootstrap deals. The first deal I did as an intermediary on Wall Street as opposed to as an investor, was a buyout with Bain Capital in 1993. At the time, Bain Capital had a $600 million AUM private equity platform. Think about that in the scale of what Bain Capital does in private equity today. You know, back then it was corporate carve outs, and trying to make the global economy more efficient. And you remember the rise of the conglomerate. And so, one of the early things we financed a lot of was the de-conglomeration of big corporates. So, they would spin off assets that were not central to the business or the strengths that they had as an organization.So, that was the early days of private equity. There was obviously the telecom build out in the late 90's and the resulting bust. And then into the GFC. And we sit here today with the distinctions of private capital, private credit, public credit, syndicated credit, and all the amazing things that are being financed in, you know, what I think of as the next industrial revolution.Vishy Tirupattur: In terms of things that have changed a lot – a lot also changed following the financial crisis. So, if you dig deep into that one thing that happened was the introduction of leveraged lending guidelines. Can you talk about what leveraged lending guidelines did to the credit markets?Dan Toscano: Yeah, I mean, it was a big change for underwriters because it dictated what you could and couldn't participate in as an underwriter or a lender, and so it really cut off one end of the market that was determined by – and I think the thing most famously attributed to the leveraged lending guidelines was this maximum leverage notion of six times leverage is the cap. Nothing beyond that. And so that really limited the ability for Wall Street firms to underwrite and distribute capital to support those deals.And inadvertently, or maybe by plan, really gave rise to the growth in the private credit market. So, when you think about everything that's going on in the world today, including, which I'm sure we'll talk about, the relaxation of the leveraged lending guidelines, it was really fuel for private credit.Vishy Tirupattur: So private credit, this relaxation that you mentioned, you know, a few weeks ago, the FDIC and the OCC withdrew the leveraged lending guidelines in total. What do you expect that will do to the private credit markets? Will that make private credit market share decrease and bank market share increase?Dan Toscano: I think many people think of these as being mutually exclusive. We've never thought of it that way. It exists more on a continuum. And so, what I think the relaxation of those guidelines or the elimination of those guidelines really frees the banks to participate in the entire continuum, either as lenders or as underwriters.And so, in addition to the opportunity that gives the banks to really find the best solutions for their clients, I think this will also continue the blurring of distinctions between public market credit and private market credit. Because now the banks can participate in all of it. And when you think about what defines in people's minds – public credit versus private credit, in many cases it's driven by what terms look like. Customary terms for a syndicated bond or loan versus a private credit loan.Also, who's participating in it. You know, these things have been blurring, right? There's a cost differential or a perceived cost differential that has been blurring for some time now. That will continue to happen, in my opinion anyway.Vishy Tirupattur: I totally agree with you, Dan, on that. I think not only the distinction between public credit and private credit, but also within the various credit channels – secured, unsecured, securitized, structured – all these distinctions are also blurring. So, in that context, let's talk a little bit more about what private credit's focus has been and where private credit focus will be going forward. So, what we'll call private credit 1.0. Focused predominantly on lending to small and medium-sized enterprises. And we now see that potentially changing. What is driving private credit 2.0 in your mind?Dan Toscano: Well, the elephant in the room is digital infrastructure. Absolutely. When you think about the scale of what is happening, the type of capital that's required for the build out, the structure you need around it, the ability to use elements of structure. You mentioned several of them earlier. To come up with an appropriate risk structure for lending is really where the market is heading. When you think about the trillions of dollars that we anticipate is needed for the technology industry to complete this transformation – not just around digital infrastructure, but around everything associated with it.And the big one I think of most often is power, right? So, you need capital to build out sources of power, and you need capital to build out the data centers to be able to handle the compute demand that is expected to be there. This is a scale unlike anything we have ever seen. It is the backbone of what will be the next industrial revolution.We've never seen anything like this in terms of the scale of the capital needed for the transformation that is already underway.Vishy Tirupattur: We are very much on board with this idea as well, Dan, in terms of the scale of the investment, the capital investment that is needed. So, when you look ahead for 2026, what worries you about the ind ustrial revolution financing that is underway?Dan Toscano: Given all that's going on in the world, this massive capital investment that's going on globally around digital infrastructure, we've never seen this before. And so, when I look at the capital raising that has been done in 2025 versus what will be done in 2026, I think one of the differences that we have to be mindful of is – nothing's gone wrong while we were raising capital in 2025 because we were very much in the infancy of these buildouts. Once you get further into these buildouts and the capital raises in 2025 that are funding the development of data centers start to season, problems will emerge. The essence of credit risk is there will be problems and it's really trying to predict and foresee where the problems will be and make sure you can manage your way through them.That is the essence of successful credit investing. And so there will definitely be issues when you think about the scale of the build out that is happening. Even if you look just in the U.S., where you need access to all sorts of commodities to build out. And you know, people focus on chips, but you also need steel and roofing, and importantly labor.And as we talk to people about the build outs, one of the concerns is supply of labor supply and cost of labor. So, when you run into situations where maybe a project is delayed a bit, or the costs are a bit more than what was expected, there will be a reaction. And we haven't had that yet. We will start to see that in 2026 and how investors and the markets react to that, I think will be very important. And I'm a little bit worried that there could be some overreaction because people have trained themselves in 2025 to think of like, ‘I'm operating in a perfect environment,' because we haven't really done anything yet. And now that we've done something, something can and will go wrong. So, you know, we'll see how that plays out.I am very fixated in 2026 on the laws of supply and demand. When I think about what's going on right now, we usually have visibility on demand. And we usually have some level of visibility on supply. Right now, we have neither – and I say that in a positive way. We don't know how big the demand is in the capital world to fund these projects. We don't know how big that can be. And almost with every passing day, the supply – and what we're hearing from our clients about what they need to execute their plans – continues to grow in a way that we don't know where it ends. And the scale, we're talking trillions of dollars, right? Not billions, not millions, but trillions.And so, I look at that – not so much as something I worry about, but something I'm really curious about. Will we run out of money to fund all of the ambitions of the Industrial Revolution? I don't think so. I think money will find great projects, but when you think about the scale of what we're looking at, we've never seen anything like it before. And it will be fascinating to watch as the year goes on.Vishy Tirupattur: Thanks Dan. That's very useful. And thanks for taking the time to speak to us and share your wisdom and insights. Dan Toscano: Well, it's great to be here.Vishy Tirupattur: And to our audience, thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share thoughts on the market with a friend or colleague today

Crypto News: Wall Street giant Morgan Stanley files for bitcoin and solana ETFs. Walmart has launched Bitcoin and ETH trading via its OnePay app. Jupiter launches JupUSD stablecoin backed by BlackRock's BUIDL fund.Brought to you by ✅ VeChain is a versatile enterprise-grade L1 smart contract platform https://www.vechain.org/ 

Bernstein says Bitcoin and the broader crypto market have likely “bottomed,” keeping big upside targets in play, while traditional finance keeps leaning in with Morgan Stanley filing for new Bitcoin and Solana ETFs as spot Bitcoin ETF inflows rebound. We'll also cover why 2026 is shifting from “writing crypto rules” to actually making them work—across accounting, stablecoins, and tax reporting—as the industry moves from hype to hard compliance.

Deezy covers the latest BULLISH news for Solana. Morgan Stanley just changed their stance on SOL and when you combine this with the charts, Solana is looking to have a FANTASTIC 2026! 

Ethereum is on the verge of a massive institutional breakout! In today's episode, we're diving into the bombshell news that Morgan Stanley has officially filed for a Spot Ethereum ETF, signaling a major shift in how the world's largest banks view the second-largest cryptocurrency.

Our Deputy Director of Global Research Michael Zezas and our U.S. Public Policy Strategist Ariana Salvatore discuss the implications of the U.S action in Venezuela for global markets, foreign and domestic policy.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Deputy Global Head of Research for Morgan Stanley. Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research. Michael Zezas: Today we're talking about the latest events in Venezuela and its implications for global markets.It's Tuesday, January 6th at 10am in New York. So, Ariana, before we get into it: Long time listeners might have noticed in our intro, a changeup in our titles. Ariana, you're stepping in to lead day-to-day public policy research. Ariana Salvatore: That's right. And Mike, you're taking on more of a leadership role across the research department globally. Michael Zezas: Right, which is great news for both of us. And because the interaction between public policy choices and financial markets is as critical as ever, and because collaboration is so important to how we do investment research at Morgan Stanley – tapping into expertise and insight wherever we can find it – you're still going to hear from one of – and sometimes both of us – here on Thoughts on the Market on a weekly basis. Ariana Salvatore: And this week is a great example of this dynamic as we start the New Year with investors trying to decide what, if anything, the recent U.S. intervention in Venezuela means for the outlook for markets. Michael Zezas: Right. So, to that point, the New Year's barely begun, but it's already brought a dramatic geopolitical situation: The U.S. capture and arrest of Venezuela's President Nicolas Maduro – an event that can have far reaching implications for oil markets, energy, equities, sovereign credit, and politics. Ariana, thinking from the perspective of the investor, what's catching your attention right now? Ariana Salvatore: I think clients have been trying to get their arms around what this means for the future of U.S. foreign policy, as well as domestic policy making here too. On the first point, I would say this isn't necessarily a surprise or out of step with the goals that the Trump administration has been at least rhetorically emphasizing all year. Which is to say we think this is really just another data point in a pre-existing longer term trend toward multipolarity. Remember that involves linkage of economic and national security interest. It comes with its own set of investment themes, many of which we've written about, but one in particular would be elevated levels of defense spending globally, as we're in an increasingly insecure geopolitical world. Another tangible takeaway I would say is on the USMCA review. I think the U.S. has likely even more leverage in the upcoming negotiations, and likely is going to push even harder for Mexico to put up trade barriers or take active steps to limit Chinese investment or influence in the country. Enforcement here obviously will be critical, as we've said. And ultimately, we do still think the review results in a slightly deeper trade integration than we have right now. But it's possible that you see tariffs on non-USMCA compliant goods higher, for example, throughout these talks. Michael Zezas: And does this affect at all your expectations for domestic policy choices from the U.S.? Ariana Salvatore: I think it's important to emphasize here that we're just seeing an increasingly diminished role for Congress to play. The past year has been punctuated by one-off US foreign policy actions and a usage of executive authority over a number of different policy areas like immigration, tariffs, and so on. So, I would say the clearest takeaway on the domestic front is we're seeing a policy making pattern that is faster and more unilateral, right? If you don't need time for consensus building on some of these issues, decisions are being made by a smaller and smaller group of people. That in itself just increases policy uncertainty and risk premia, I would say across the board. But Mike, let's turn it back specifically to Venezuela. One of the most important questions is on – what this all means for global oil markets. What are our strategists saying there? Michael Zezas: Yeah. So, oil markets are the natural first place to look when it comes to the impact of these geopolitical events. And the answer more often than not is that the oil market tends not to react too much. And that seems to be the case here following the weekend's Venezuela developments. That's because we don't expect there to be much short-term supply impact. Over the medium-term risks to Venezuela's production skew higher. But while Venezuela famously holds one of the largest oil reserves in the world – it's about 17 percent of the world's oil reserves – in terms of production, its contribution is relatively small. It's less than 1 percent of global output. So, among the top 10 reserve holders, Venezuela is by far the smallest producer. So, you wouldn't expect there to be any real meaningful supply impact in the markets, at least in the near term. So, one area where there has been price movement is in the market for Venezuela sovereign bonds. They have been priced for low recovery values and the potential restructuring that was far off. But now with the U.S. more involved and the prospect of greater foreign investment into the country's oil production, investors have been bidding up the bond price in anticipation of potentially a sooner restructuring and higher recovery value for the bonds. Ariana Salvatore: Right. And to that point, our EM sovereign credit strategists anticipate limited spillover to broader LatAm sovereign credit. Any differentiation is more likely to reflect degrees of alignment with the U.S. and exposure to oil prices and potential increases in Venezuelan production, which could leave Mexico and Columbia among relative under underperformers. Michael Zezas: Right. And this seems like it's going to be an important theme all year because the U.S. actions in Venezuela seem to be a demonstration of the government's willingness to intervene in the Western Hemisphere to protect its interests more broadly. Ariana Salvatore: That's right. So, it's a topic that we could be spending much more time talking about this year. Michael Zezas: Great. Well, Ariana, thanks for taking the time to talk. Ariana Salvatore: Great speaking with you, Mike. Michael Zezas: And as a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen; and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

The Crypto Town Hall kicked off 2026 with host Scott Melker and panelists discussing Bitcoin's sideways action amid fading year-end selling pressure, whale accumulation in BTC/ETH, massive ETF inflows, and renewed altcoin strength (ETH, SOL, XRP flipping key MAs). Topics included Morgan Stanley's new Bitcoin and Solana trust filings, Venezuela's political shift and rumored Bitcoin reserve, Ledger's latest data breach risks, self-custody warnings, government fraud/waste, and California's billionaire tax proposal. The panel highlighted institutional adoption, geopolitical tailwinds, and building market optimism as key drivers for 2026 growth.

The fuse has been lit!

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson discusses key catalysts that investors may be missing, but that are likely to boost U.S. equities in 2026.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley's CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I'll be discussing the converging market forces bolstering our bullish outlook for 2026. It's Monday, January 5th at 11:30am in New York. So, let's get after it. The New Year is usually a time to look forward. But today, I want to take a step back and talk about what the market is missing. A series of bullish catalysts are lining up at the same time, and the market is still underestimating their collective impact. There's been a lot of focus on individual positives—solid earnings growth, further Fed easing—but in our view, the real story is how these forces are reinforcing one another. Deregulation, positive operating leverage, accommodative monetary policy, and increasingly supportive fiscal policy are all working in the same direction. And as we head into mid-term elections later this year, these policy levers are likely to stay supportive.Importantly, this isn't a market that's already priced for the outcomes I envision. Positioning in cyclical trades remains relatively light, and sentiment in economically sensitive areas is far from exuberant. That combination—of improving fundamentals with cautious positioning—is exactly what tends to characterize the early stages of a recovery. I continue to believe these tailwinds are most underappreciated in cyclical areas like Consumer Discretionary Goods, Financials, Industrials, and small- and mid-cap stocks. Many of the indicators we track are only just beginning to turn higher. This doesn't look late-cycle to me—it looks early in what I have deemed to be a rolling recovery. One reason investors have been hesitant is the sluggishness of traditional business-cycle indicators, particularly the ISM Manufacturing Purchasing Managers Index. There's been a reluctance to press cyclical trades until those gauges clearly re-accelerate; and beneath that hesitation is a lingering anxiety that the U.S. economy could even slip back into a growth scare. My view is different. I believe a three year rolling recession ended with Liberation Day. If that's true, then the moderate softness we're now witnessing in lagging labor data is constructive for equities because it keeps the Fed leaning dovish for longer and more aggressive—a positive for equities. I see the second half of 2025 as the bottoming process for key macro indicators; with 2026 shaping up as a year of re-acceleration. Longer-cycle analysis supports this. Specifically, the 45-month cycle of the ISM Manufacturing Purchasing Managers Index points to a rebound. That recovery has been delayed—but not cancelled. Another tailwind that doesn't get nearly enough attention is energy prices. Gasoline prices in particular are sitting near five-year lows, which is providing real economic relief for lower- and middle-income consumers. That cushion matters, especially as other parts of the economy firm. This past weekend's events in Venezuela argue for lower oil prices for longer. From a sector standpoint, Financials stand out as the key beneficiary of deregulation and these stocks have been great performers over the past year in anticipation of these changes. I think there is more to go in 2026. Housing could be another important piece of the recovery. Subdued wage growth and falling rents may pressure home prices, while some builders are prioritizing volume over margins. While that may cap profitability for the builders, it could unlock housing velocity and feed into a more dovish inflation backdrop. Of course, there are also risks. Liquidity has been our top concern since September, and markets have reflected that through weakness in speculative assets. The good news is that the Fed has responded by ending quantitative tightening early and restarting asset purchases through the Reserve Management Program. This effectively adds liquidity to a system that was showing signs of stress this past several months. Another risk is a renewed slowdown in AI CapEx, particularly as markets demand clearer payback from debt-funded spending. And geopolitically, the U.S. intervention in Venezuela raises new questions. Strategically, it reinforces U.S. influence in the Western Hemisphere and supports our ‘Run It Hot' thesis—but the key wildcard remains whether China chooses to react. Net-net, we think the balance of risks and rewards still favor leaning into this early-cycle recovery and our bullish outlook for US equities in 2026. 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!

Our U.S. Economist Heather Berger discusses how larger tax refunds in 2026 could boost income and help support consumer balance sheets throughout the year.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market and Happy New Year! I'm Heather Berger, from Morgan Stanley's US Economics Team. On today's episode – why U.S. consumers can expect higher tax refunds, and what that means for the overall economy. It's Friday, January 2nd, at 10am in New York.As we kick off 2026, it's not just a fresh start. It's also the time when tax refund season is right around the corner. For many of us, those refunds aren't just numbers on a page; they shape the way we budget for many everyday expenses. The timing and size of our refunds this year could make a real difference in how much we're able to save, spend, or get ahead on bills.In the wake of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, this year's tax refund season is shaping up to be bigger than usual. The new fiscal bill packed in a variety of tax cuts for consumers. It also included spending cuts to programs such as SNAP benefits and Medicaid, but most of those cuts don't pick up until later this decade. Altogether, this means that we'll likely see personal incomes and spending power get a boost in 2026.Many of the new deductions and tax credits for consumers in the bill were made retroactive to the 2025 fiscal year. These include deductions for tips and overtime, a higher child tax credit, an increased senior deduction, and a higher cap on state and local tax deductions, among others. The retroactive portion of these measures should be reflected in tax refunds early this year. Overall, we're expecting these changes to increase refunds by 15 to 20 percent on average. And different groups will benefit from different parts of the bill. For example, the higher state and local tax cap is likely to help high-income consumers the most, while deductions for tips and overtime will be most valuable to middle-income earners.Historically, U.S. consumers receive about 30 to 45 percent of tax refunds by the end of February, with then 60 to 70 percent arriving by the end of March. Because of the new tax provisions, we're anticipating a noticeable boost in personal income during the first quarter of the year. While we do also expect this legislation to encourage higher spending, it's unlikely that we'll see spending rise as sharply as income right away. According to surveys, most consumers say they use their refunds mainly for saving or paying down debt. This can lead to healthier balance sheets, which is shown by higher prepayment rates and fewer loan delinquencies during the tax refund season.When people choose to spend all or some of their tax refunds, they typically put that money toward everyday needs, travel, new clothes, or home improvements. Looking ahead, we do still see some near-term headwinds to spending, such as expected increases in inflation from tariffs and the expiration of the Affordable Care Act credits, which will most affect low-income consumers. As we progress throughout the year, though, we're anticipating steady growth in real consumer spending as the labor market stabilizes, inflation decelerates, and lagged effects of easier monetary policy flow through. On top of that, this year's larger tax refunds should give another lift to household spending.The boost to spending, along with other corporate provisions in the bill, should give the broader economy a push this year too. We expect the bill as a whole to support GDP growth in 2026.  But it then becomes a drag on growth in later years when more of the spending cuts take effect.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.

C dans l'air du 2 janvier 2026 - IA : demain tous chômeurs ?Présentation de Salhia BrakhliaL'intelligence artificielle (IA) prend de plus en plus de place dans nos vies. Elle commence même à remplacer certains emplois et suscite de ce fait une inquiétude grandissante. Aux Etats-Unis, la mutation a déjà commencé. Dans le secteur du conseil, le géant Accenture a annoncé pas moins de 12 000 licenciements. L'ampleur de ce plan social est inédite dans ce domaine d'activité et traduit une certitude : l'adaptation à l'IA n'est plus une option. Un signal fort dans un secteur historiquement fondé sur le capital humain.Dans le secteur bancaire européen, ce sont de plus de 200 000 emplois qui pourraient être supprimés d'ici à 2030, selon une étude de la banque Morgan Stanley relayée par le Financial Times. Ces perspectives posent question quant à la façon dont le marché du travail va être façonné dans le futur. Malgré les craintes d'une menace pour l'emploi, des analyses soulignent que l'IA n'élimine pas les postes mais transforme les missions, en concentrant l'effort humain sur les tâches complexes et stratégiques. Si l'IA automatise déjà une grande partie des tâches répétitives, l'humain demeure en effet un atout dans de nombreux domaines, comme les relations commerciales.Les États-Unis, qui se déjà sont emparés de ce marché, cherchent à accroitre leur avance. Dans cette optique, le président Donald Trump a lancé il y a un an le projet Stargate. Chiffré à 500 milliards de dollars, il est destiné à bâtir les centres de données géants de la future génération d'IA. Le programme est élaboré par OpenAI, la firme qui a lancé ChatGPT, la société d'investissement japonaise SoftBank et le géant du numérique Oracle. Les poids lourds mondiaux du numérique comme Amazon, Microsoft ou encore Facebook devraient profiter des retombées. Pour l'heure, leur capitalisation boursière atteint des sommets... Et commence à préoccuper les investisseurs et les autorités financières. Ces derniers craignent qu'il s'agisse d'une bulle et que tout s'effondre comme un château de cartes.La rupture technologique introduite par l'IA a des répercussions dans le domaine militaire, ce qui constitue enjeu majeur. Quelles places occuperont par exemple les robots et les drones sur le champ de bataille ? La question se pose déjà. Le 1er mai 2024, la France a ainsi annoncé la création de l'Agence ministérielle de l'intelligence artificielle de défense (AMIAD), rattachée directement au ministre des Armées. Bertrand Rondepierre dirige cette structure pensée pour doter la défense française de capacités souveraines en IA. Une équipe de C dans l'air l'a rencontré.L'IA va-t-elle nous priver de dizaines, voire de centaines de milliers d'emplois dans un proche avenir ?Une bulle financière est-elle en train de se former dans le secteur de l'IA ?Comment l'IA va-t-elle modifier le visage des guerres à venir ?Nos experts :- Nicolas Bouzou - Économiste – Directeur fondateur du cabinet Astérès - Chroniqueur à L'Express- Emmanuel Duteil - Directeur de la rédaction – L'Usine Nouvelle- Isabelle Ryl - Vice-présidente Intelligence artificielle - Université Paris Sciences & Lettres (PSL)- Guillaume Grallet - Journaliste – Le Point - Auteur de « Voyage aux frontières de l'intelligence artificielle »

After 968 episodes and nearly a decade, I'm pausing the Goal Digger Podcast. Season one is complete, and I'm so excited about what comes next. I've been searching for women who stepped back at the height of their careers not from crisis or failure but from peace, intention, and pure joy. Those stories are rare, so I'm modeling it in real time: what it looks like when a woman makes a conscious, celebratory choice to step away from something that's working because she's designed her life to have that freedom. Here's what lights me up about this: the through line of my entire business has always been about getting back your time. Me being able to make this choice right now, to pause a thriving seven-figure revenue stream while my business continues to run beautifully, is the ultimate proof that everything I've taught actually works. This is the goal we've been digging for all along. I'm not disappearing, I'm expanding. My courses, email list, and programs are still thriving and I'll be even more present and creative in those spaces. Will there be a season two? Maybe. I'm wide open to whatever magic emerges. Stay connected on my email list where I'm personally writing weekly: https://jennakutcher.com/penpals If you've been wondering what it looks like to build something meaningful, enjoy your success, and choose what comes next from a place of abundance and possibility, this one's for you. Goal Digger Facebook Community: https://www.facebook.com/groups/goaldiggerpodcast/ Goal Digger Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/goaldiggerpodcast/ Goal Digger Show Notes: https://jennakutcherblog.com/a-new-chapter-for-goal-digger Thanks to our Goal Digger Sponsors: Sign up for your $1/month Shopify trial period at http://shopify.com/goaldigger. Find a co-host today at http://airbnb.com/host. Check out What Should I Do With My Money? from Morgan Stanley. Listen now at https://mgstnly.lnk.to/bqe8HiAC!GD.  Visit http://www.spectrum.com/freeforlife to learn how you can get Business Internet Free Forever. Experience the power of a Dell PC with Intel Inside®, backed by Dell's price match guarantee. Shop now at https://www.dell.com/deals. Your dream wardrobe's one click away. Visit https://www.revolve.com/goaldigger for 15% off your first order with code GOALDIGGER.

Original Release Date: November 25, 2025Our Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen breaks down how growth, inflation and the AI revolution could play out in 2026.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michael Gapen: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist.Today I'll review our 2026 U.S. Economic Outlook and what it means for growth, inflation, jobs and the Fed.It's Tuesday, November 25th, at 10am in New York.If 2025 was the year of fast and furious policy changes, then 2026 is when the dust settles.Last year, we predicted slow growth and sticky inflation, mainly because of strict trade and immigration policies – and this proved accurate. But this year, the story is changing. We see the U.S. economy finally moving past the high-uncertainty phase. Looking ahead, we see a return to modest growth of 1.8 percent in 2026 and 2 percent in 2027. Inflation should cool but it likely won't hit the Fed's 2 percent target. By the end of 2026, we see headline PCE inflation at 2.5 percent, core inflation at 2.6 percent, and both stay above the 2 percent target through 2027. In other words, the inflation fight isn't over, but the worst is behind us.So, if 2025 was slow growth and sticky inflation, then 2026 and [20]27 could be described as moderate growth and disinflation. The impact of trade and immigration policies should fade, and the economic climate should improve. Now, there are still some risks. Tariffs could push prices higher for consumers in the near term; or if firms cannot pass through tariffs, we worry about additional layoffs. But looking ahead to the second half of 2026 and beyond, we think those risks shift to the upside, with a better chance of positive surprises for growth.After all, AI-related business spending remains robust and upper income consumers are faring well. There is reason for optimism. That said, we think the most likely path for the economy is the return to modest growth. U.S. consumers start to rebound, but slowly. Tariffs will keep prices firm in the first half of 2026, squeezing purchasing power for low- and middle-income households. These households consume mainly through labor market income, and until inflation starts to retreat, purchasing power should be constrained.Real consumption should rise 1.6 percent in 2026 and 1.8 [percent] in 2027 – better, but not booming. The main culprit is a labor market that's still in ‘low-hire, low-fire' mode driven by immigration controls and tariff effects that keep hiring soft. We see unemployment peaking at 4.7 percent in the second quarter of 2026, then easing to 4.5 percent by year-end. Jobs are out there, but the labor market isn't roaring. It'll be hard for hiring to pick up until after tariffs have been absorbed.And when jobs cool, the Fed steps in. The Fed is cutting rates – but at a cost. After two 25 basis point rate cuts in September and October, we expect 75 basis points more by mid 2026, bringing the target range to 3.0-3.25 percent. Why? To insure against labor market weakness. But that insurance comes with a price: inflation staying above target longer. Think of it as the Fed walking a tightrope—lean too far toward jobs, and inflation lingers; lean too far toward inflation, and growth stumbles. For now the Fed has chosen the former.And how does AI fit into the macro picture? It's definitely a major growth driver. Spending on AI-related hardware, software, and data centers adds about 0.4 percent to growth in both 2026 and 2027. That's roughly 20 percent of total growth. But here's the twist: imports dilute the impact. After accounting for imported tech, AI's net contribution falls sharply. Still, we expect AI to boost productivity by 25-35 basis points by 2027, over our forecast horizon, marking the start of a new innovation cycle. In short: AI is planting the seeds now for bigger gains later.Of course, there are risks to our outlook. And let me flag three important ones. First, demand upside – meaning fiscal stimulus and business optimism push growth higher; under this scenario inflation stays hot, and the Fed pauses cuts. If the economy really picks up, then the Fed may need to take back the risk management cuts it's putting in now. That would be a shock to markets. Second, there's a productivity upside – in which case AI delivers bigger productivity gains, disinflation resumes, and rates drift lower. And lastly, a potential mild recession where tariffs and tight policy bite harder, GDP turns negative in early 2026, and the Fed slashes rates to near 1 percent. So in summary: 2026 looks to be a transition year with less drama but more nuance, as growth returns and inflation cools, while AI keeps rewriting the playbook.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.

Original Release Date: December 3, 2025Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy Michael Zezas and Chief Global Cross-Asset Strategist Serena Tang address themes that are key for markets next year.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.Serena Tang: And I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's Chief Global Cross-Asset Strategist.Michael Zezas: Today we'll be talking about key investor debates coming out of our year ahead outlook.It's Wednesday, December 3rd at 10:30am in New York.So, Serena, it was a couple weeks ago that you led the publication of our cross-asset outlook for 2026. And so, you've been engaging with clients over the past few weeks about our views – where they differ. And it seems there's some common themes, really common questions that come up that represent some important debates within the market.Is that fair?Serena Tang: Yeah, that's very fair. And, by the way, I think those important debates, are from investors globally. So, you have investors in Europe, Asia, Australia, North America, all kind of wanting to understand our views on AI, on equity valuations, on the dollar.Michael Zezas: So, let's start with talking about equity markets a bit. And one of the common questions – and I get it too, even though I don't cover equity markets – is really about how AI is affecting valuations. One of the concerns is that the stock market might be too high, might be overvalued because people have overinvested in anything related to AI. What does the evidence say? How are you addressing that question?Serena Tang: It is interesting you say that because I think when investors talk about equities being too high, of valuations – AI related valuations being very stretched, it's very much about parallels to that 1990s valuation bubble.But the way I approach it is like there are some very important differences from that time period, from valuations back then. First of all, I think companies in major equity indices are higher quality than the past. They operate more efficiently. They deliver strong profitability, and in general pretty solid free cash flow.I think we also need to consider how technology now represents a larger share of the index, which has helped push overall net margins to about 14 percent compared to 8 percent during that 1990s valuation bubble. And you know, when margins are higher, I think paying premium for stocks is more justified.In other words, I think multiples in the U.S. right now look more reasonable after adjusting for profit margins and changes in index composition. But we also have to consider, and this is something that we stress in our outlook, the policy backdrop is unusually favorable, right? Like you have economists expecting the Fed to continue easing rates into next year. We have the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that could lower corporate taxes, and deregulation is continuing to be a priority in the U.S.And I think this combination, you know, monetary easing, fiscal stimulus, deregulation. That combination rarely occurs outside of a recession. And I think this creates an environment that supports valuation, which is by the way why we recommend an overweight position in U.S. equities, even if absolute and relative valuation look elevated.Michael Zezas: Got it. So, if I'm hearing you right, what I think you're saying is that comparisons to some bubbles of the past don't necessarily stack up because profitability is better. There aren't excesses in the system. Monetary policy might be on the path that's more accommodative. And so, when compared against all of that, the valuations actually don't look that bad.Serena Tang: Exactly.Michael Zezas: Got it. And sticking with the equity markets, then another common question is – it's related to AI, but it's sort of around this idea that a small set of companies have really been driving most of the growth in the market recently. And it would be better or healthier if the equity market were to perform across a wider set of companies and names, particularly in mid- and small cap companies. Is that something that we see on the horizon?Serena Tang: Yes. We are expecting U.S. stock earnings to sort of broaden out here and it's one of the reasons why our U.S. equity strategy team has upgraded small caps and now prefer it over large caps. And I think like all of this – it comes from the fact that we are in a new bull market. I think we have a very early cycle earnings recovery here. I mean, as discussed before, the macro environment is supportive. And Fed rate cuts over the next 12 months, growth positive tax and regulatory policies, they don't just support valuations. They also act as a tailwind to earnings.And I think like on top of that, leaner cost structures, improving earnings revisions, AI driven efficiency gains. They all support a broad-based earnings upturn. and our U.S. equity strategy team do see above consensus 2026 earnings growth at 17 percent. The only other region where we have earnings growth above consensus in 2026 is Japan; for both Europe and the EM we are below, which drive out equal weight and slight underweight position in those two indices respectively.Michael Zezas: Got it. And so, since we can't seem to get away from talking about AI and how it's influencing markets, the other common question we get here is around debt issuance related to AI.So, our colleagues put together a report from earlier this year talking about the potential for nearly $3 trillion of AI related CapEx spending over the next few years. And we think about half of that is going to have to be debt financed. That seems to be a lot of debt, a lot of potential bonds that might be issued into the market – which, are credit investors supposed to be concerned about that?Serena Tang: We really can't get away from AI as a topic. And I think this will continue because AI-related CapEx is a long-term trend, with much of the CapEx still really ahead. And I think this goes to your question. Because this really means that we expect nearly another [$]3 trillion of data center related CapEx from here to 2028. You know, while half of the spend will come from operating cash flows of hyperscalers, it still leaves a financing gap of around [$]1.5 trillion, which needs to be sourced through various credit channels.Now, part of it will be via private credit, part of it would be via Asset Backed Securities. But some of it would also be via the U.S. investment grade corporate credit bond space. So, add in financing for faster M&A cycle, we forecast around [$]1 trillion in net investment grade bond issuance, you know, up 60 percent from this year.And I think given this technical backdrop, even though credit fundamentals should stay fine, we have doubled downgraded U.S. investment grade corporate credit to underweight within our cross asset allocation.Michael Zezas: Okay, so the fundamentals are fine, but it's just a lot of debt to consume over the next year. And so somewhat strangely, you might expect high yield corporate bonds actually do better.Serena Tang: Yes, because I think a high yield doesn't really see the same headwind from the technical side of things. And on the fundamentals front, our credit team actually has default rates coming down over the next 12 months, which again, I think supports high yield much better than investment grade.Michael Zezas: So, before we wrap up, moving away from the equity markets, let's talk about foreign exchange. The U.S. dollar spent much of last year weakening, and that's a call that our team was early to – eventually became a consensus call. It was premised on the idea that the U.S. was going to experience growth weakness, that there would also be these questions among investors about the role of the dollar in the world as the U.S. was raising trade barriers. It seemed to work out pretty well.Going into 2026 though, I think there's some more questions amongst our investors about whether or not that trend could continue. Where do we land?Serena Tang: I think in the first half of next year that downward pressure on the dollar should still persist. And you know, as you said, we've had a very differentiated view for most of this year, expecting the dollar to weaken in the first half versus G10 currencies. And several things drive this. There is a potential for higher dollar negative risk premium, driven by, I think, near term worries about the U.S. labor markets in the short term. And as investors, I think, debate the likely composition of the FOMC next year. Also, you know, compression in U.S. versus rest of the world. Rate differentials should reduce FX hedging costs, which also adds incentive for hedging activity and dollar selling.All this means that we see downward pressure on the dollar persisting in the first half of next year with EUR/USD at 123 and USD/JPY at 140 by the end of first half 2026.Michael Zezas: All right. Well, that's a pretty good survey about what clients care about and what our view is. So, Serena, thanks for taking the time to talk with me today.Serena Tang: And thank you for inviting me to the show today.Michael Zezas: And to our audience, thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review and share the podcast. We want everyone to listen.

In this episode of The Distribution, Brandon Sedloff sits down with Jeff Beckham to discuss building institutional real estate platforms, generating operational alpha, and scaling founder-led investment firms. Jeff walks through his career from investment banking to global real estate investing and explains how those experiences shaped his approach as Chief Investment Officer at Buckingham. The discussion dives deep into Buckingham's focus on the living sector, vertical integration, and why discipline and process matter most in today's market environment.  They discuss: • Jeff's career path from Morgan Stanley to leading investment platforms across Europe and the US • Why Buckingham focuses exclusively on the living sector across multifamily, student housing, build-to-rent, and active adult • How vertical integration across development, construction, and property management drives operational alpha • The investment case for Midwest, Southeast, and Mountain West markets versus coastal markets • Balancing entrepreneurial deal-making with institutional processes, accountability, and scale Links: Buckingham Companies - https://buckingham.com/ Jeff on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/w-jeffrey-beckham-2ab2712/ Brandon on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/bsedloff/ Juniper Square - https://www.junipersquare.com/ Topics: (00:00:00) - Intro (00:04:54) - Jeff's career journey (00:12:20) - Joining Buckingham and real estate insights (00:19:51) - Buckingham's investment strategy (00:28:45) - The appeal of build-to-rent (BTR) housing (00:29:43) - Investment strategies in the living sector (00:31:18) - Challenges and opportunities in the living sector (00:35:47) - Operational focus and deal sourcing (00:38:57) - Role and responsibilities of a CIO (00:44:09) - Building systems for future growth (00:46:37) - Balancing immediate and long-term goals (00:52:29) - Excitement for future opportunities (00:53:55) - Conclusion and contact information

Drew's back on the mic after a few years, and honestly, I wasn't sure what this conversation would uncover. We've been married for fourteen years, together for half of our lives, and we're standing at this threshold where both girls are finally in school full-time and we're asking ourselves: what do we actually want now? Not what we're supposed to want. Not what comes next on the achievement timeline. But what lights us up, what grounds us, what makes us feel alive. Drew never thought he'd be a stay-at-home dad. He definitely never thought he'd be the guy with chickens and a garden and a therapist he calls every week. But here we are, doing the deep work on ourselves both individually and as a couple, figuring out how to lead our marriage differently, how to raise kids who see activism and community service as normal, how to build a life that doesn't require us to be in a constant state of rush. We talk about intuition as a business superpower, why I'm actually an introvert who hates small talk, what happens when you finally stop performing and start slowing down, and the advice Drew would give to anyone partnered with an ambitious woman. This isn't some polished marriage advice episode. It's two people mid-journey, mid-evolution, learning that the best parts of life are often the simplest ones. If you've ever wondered what it looks like to build a marriage that doesn't follow traditional roles, if you're trying to figure out how to grow together while also growing individually, or if you're in a season where you're rediscovering who you are outside of your roles, this one's for you. Goal Digger Facebook Community: https://www.facebook.com/groups/goaldiggerpodcast/ Goal Digger Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/goaldiggerpodcast/ Goal Digger Show Notes: https://jennakutcherblog.com/real-talk-about-marriage-parenthood-and-growth Thanks to our Goal Digger Sponsors: Sign up for your $1/month Shopify trial period at http://shopify.com/goaldigger. Find a co-host today at http://airbnb.com/host. Check out What Should I Do With My Money? from Morgan Stanley. Listen now at https://mgstnly.lnk.to/bqe8HiAC!GD.  Visit http://www.spectrum.com/freeforlife to learn how you can get Business Internet Free Forever. Experience the power of a Dell PC with Intel Inside®, backed by Dell's price match guarantee. Shop now at https://www.dell.com/deals. Your dream wardrobe's one click away. Visit https://www.revolve.com/goaldigger for 15% off your first order with code GOALDIGGER.

Go to www.LearningLeader.com for full show notes The Learning Leader Show with Ryan Hawk This is brought to you by Insight Global. If you need to hire one person, hire a team of people, or transform your business through Talent or Technical Services, Insight Global's team of 30,000 people around the world has the hustle and grit to deliver. My Guest: Brian Kelly is the founder of The Points Guy, which he built from a side hustle blog into a travel media empire that he sold for $28 million. At 42, he's now an angel investor in 15+ companies, including Bilt (valued at $11 billion). In this conversation, he shares lessons on manifestation, selling too early, building yourself into the brand, and why vulnerability beats wins in interviews. Key Learnings (in Brian's words) In 1995, I was 12 years old, and I was great with computers, so I started booking all of my dad's travel for work. He'd pay me $10 per booking. Then it turned into points, when my dad showed me all the American and US Air miles he had. "If you can figure out how to use all of them, we can go on a family trip."  And the rest is history. That was my first real, oh wait, this points thing is amazing. Points were a way for us to live a fabulous lifestyle.  I grew up thinking we were poor, but I really wanted to live a fabulous life. My parents were very humble and did not spend money lavishly. For me I always wanted to travel. When I was a kid, I would spin the globe and be like, This is where I'm going. I would actually research Oman. Somehow genetically, I got this gene of I need to be rich and travel the world. I used to call Mercedes, get all of their glossy pamphlets for all their new cars, and I would cut them out and stick them on my wall.  Manifesting alone won't make you wealthy, but visioning helps. I do believe being able to visualize what it looks like and taste it and get close to it helps you take the smaller steps to actually achieve it. When I think of my investments, I actually envision what they're gonna be. I envision that they're multi-billion-dollar companies. I believe it unlocks a level of pushing you to reach these mini steps that you can't see throughout the process. I started The Points Guy in 2010, but there were already Titan bloggers. I for sure felt imposter syndrome, but I saw that what they lacked was creativity. Points and miles are very clinical. Very few people were translating that for an audience. I knew I had an opportunity. I'm in my twenties, living in New York City. I'm gonna explain what everyday people need to know. Building a media brand became my moat. No one else in the points world was doing media. Doing media's frightening. While it was scary going on TV the first couple times (I almost fainted), I knew that each time I did it, I got better. That was the moat I would build. I would build The Points Guy into a brand more so than any of the others who had come before me. I saw from the beginning to double and triple down on that strategy of building something that's more than just a blog, but a lifestyle that people want to achieve. "I made a million bucks in my first six months of just blogging, but using affiliate links." In 2011, within six months of learning about affiliate marketing, I made six figures a month using the credit card links in my blog.  I was still working at Morgan Stanley. My mom was like, this sounds too good to be true. You can't leave Morgan Stanley. I was making like $300,000 a month in affiliate. Meanwhile, at Morgan Stanley, my salary is $70,000 a year. But it didn't pay right away. My parents actually lent me $10,000 just to pay my rent. I remember where I was in Madrid when that first Chase deposit of $490,000 hit from months of back pay on the blog. I sold for $28 million because I thought the industry would collapse. When Bankrate offered me $28 million in May 2012, I kind of had this negative mindset over where the industry was going. About a hundred blogs started when people knew they could make money on affiliates. Most bloggers have zero business sense. They were writing stuff like, "Cancel your Amex, cancel your Chase, cancel, cancel. Then get new cards." I saw this really bad business sense, very shortsighted greediness. I'm watching this thinking they're gonna pull the rug. Do I regret selling? Yes, the company is way more than what I sold it for. But at the time, you always have to remember what the landscape was. We're coming out of the recession. There were still a lot of weak indicators. Building myself into the brand gave me leverage. I had a three and a half year earnout. Over that time, the business really started to grow, but then I realized, well, I am also the business. So, the more press I did, when I negotiated with that parent company to stay on, they paid me a lot of money and still a cut of the business to grow it as CEO. It's kind of crazy to think 13 years after selling, I'm still here. But because I built myself as a core part of the business as The Points Guy, I've been able to stay on with less risk, getting paid well to do what I love. I'm more of the brand visionary, the consumer person. I'm very much an ideas person. When we're speaking with our longtime clients or pitching new ones, that's really where my special sauce is used and not in the day-to-day. People are not mind readers. In 2020, I had this breakdown where I thought I would actually leave. I went to the owners, and I was like, I just can't do it anymore. They said, "Brian, we've been waiting for you to say that. You don't need to be CEO. We have plenty of smart people." It was this aha moment. I think in life we often think polar, black or white. That's advice I give to people. Whether it's your parent company, your boss, your mentor, people are not mind readers. While there is risk to leveling with someone and saying, "Hey, this role is just killing me," more often than not in my career, the more vulnerable I was, the more it turned out to be such a blessing. Check Your Spam Email Frequently: In 2011, I was featured in the New York Times, but the email came to my spam email. At that time, the narrative that points were dead, blackout dates, etc. I was the only blogger putting a positive spin on points. And I tried to do it in an informative and fun way. I'm 6'7", so putting my personal angle on my travel reviews had a huge impact on being the face of this industry.  As a founder, I was a tough boss because it was so personal. If I look back at my time as CEO, I still took it very personally. I do take the integrity of this site. As we expand, we can't forego quality. In hindsight, I didn't highlight enough of the wins. I would focus too much on mistakes. That's advice I would give if I could do it all back over again, to just be much more positive reinforcement over negative. Founders need someone who can check them. You need to have someone around you, a leadership team, someone that can check you. I didn't have that for a very long time, and that's my fault. Making sure you have good people on your team that can be honest with you, and you create an environment of inviting that feedback and not freaking out when they give it to you, is important. I know I would be a much different CEO today if I did it again. Stop BSing in the interview process. Too many people take jobs not knowing what is going on whatsoever at the company. Far too many senior executives walk into positions and they're like, oh wait a minute. I like to be brutally honest in the interview process. Truth-telling is the beginning of having a great relationship because I want you to understand exactly what's in front of you. If you don't want to take it, that's so much better than hiring a senior exec and six months later, you just lost a year. Stop telling me the wins. In the interview process, stop telling me the wins because anyone can make their job look successful. "Oh, 200% ROI, this, that the other." In an interview, you're not gonna be able to fact-check any of this. We all know people can cherry-pick the data. It's really just diving deep into vulnerable moments about their leadership, the challenges as leaders they had with their teams. I'll tell them my challenges when I was CEO. I want people to be real and allow me to understand how they think, the type of leader they are. Charismatic people can trick you. The problem is that very charismatic people can trick you easily. I've been blinded by a great interview, especially when you're exhausted as a CEO and then someone's bantering with you. You're like, oh, that was fun. But I've hired plenty of people who are all talk.  I don't want personality hires. I'm the personality. My engineering team, I really need people to ship updates. I still wake up in the middle of the night asking if my bills are paid. I still have imposter syndrome about "is this crazy what I've built?" It's for sure not about the car, but I will say investing in a home that's beautiful and makes you feel really good is important. For a long time, I was traveling a lot. I never put roots down, and I always felt like I was in transit. Now I have this beautiful farm with animals and horses in New Hope, Pennsylvania. It takes my blood pressure down immediately. Angel investing has basically become an addiction. In 2020, I opened up a space where I decided I wanted to have kids even though I was single, and also started investing and advising in relevant companies. The first one was Encore Jane, who was building Built, a credit card loyalty platform for renters. I'd always thought, how cool would it be to earn points on rent? I said, You're crazy, but if it does work, it'll be massive. Built is now at $11 billion valuation. I'll make more money now, probably on Built than I will at The Points Guy, which is wild to me. I have probably about 15 other companies I put my personal money in. I love it because I can help advise founders on everything I've done, and help open doors. Using that to build wealth has become an addiction. Relentlessness is what I see in leaders who sustain excellence. I am amazed at Encore's ability to push. If he's got 10 major things impacting his business, most CEOs will start with one or two, put the others on the back burner. He will relentlessly push for excellence. I don't wanna work for Encore, but to be in the room and strategize, every time I leave a meeting with him it keeps me fresh and active.  Find mentors, not just companies. For recent college grads, find people, even at a company where you might not see your future. Find someone at that company that you connect with. If you're looking for a job, interview until you find that hiring manager that you feel is on an upward rise and that you can learn from. We often focus too much on the line of work or the company. Stop focusing on that and look at that manager or the CMO whose organization you would join. If they've done amazing things, get in right away and start networking. Put time on the CMO or CEO's calendar. Be bold. Every senior executive loves to see people come in with eagerness to learn. Show up and do extracurriculars at work. Go to the lunch and learn with the senior executive and actually get face time with them. Make sure they know your name. Those are the things that matter because when it comes time for compensation and reviews, the senior person may not work with you day-to-day, but they're like, oh yeah, that's the person I really like. They are a future leader. That's how you get ahead. Even if that boss leaves to another company, they might take you. Reflection Questions Brian says manifesting alone won't make you wealthy, but visioning what it looks like helps you take the smaller steps to achieve it. What specific vision do you have for your future that you could make more tangible (like his Mercedes pictures on the bedroom wall)? How might making it more concrete change your daily actions? He emphasizes that in interviews, he wants people to stop telling him the wins and instead dive deep into vulnerable moments about their leadership and challenges with their teams. If you were in an interview tomorrow, what's one vulnerable leadership moment you could share that would demonstrate how you think rather than just what you've accomplished? Brian realized he needed to tell his parent company, "I just can't do it anymore" as CEO, and they responded with relief, offering him a better role. What conversation are you avoiding right now because you assume the answer will be no, when the other person might actually be waiting for you to speak up? More Learning #525 - Frank Slootman: Hypergrowth Leadership #540 - Alex Hormozi: Let Go of the Need of Approval #510 - Ramit Sethi: Live Your Rich Life

Original Release Date: November 13, 2025Live from Morgan Stanley's European Tech, Media and Telecom Conference in Barcelona, our roundtable of analysts discusses tech disruptions and datacenter growth, and how Europe factors in.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Paul Walsh: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's European Head of Research Product. Today we return to my conversation with Adam Wood. Head of European Technology and Payments, Emmet Kelly, Head of European Telco and Data Centers, and Lee Simpson, Head of European Technology. We were live on stage at Morgan Stanley's 25th TMT Europe conference. We had so much to discuss around the themes of AI enablers, semiconductors, and telcos. So, we are back with a concluding episode on tech disruption and data center investments. It's Thursday the 13th of November at 8am in Barcelona. After speaking with the panel about the U.S. being overweight AI enablers, and the pockets of opportunity in Europe, I wanted to ask them about AI disruption, which has been a key theme here in Europe. I started by asking Adam how he was thinking about this theme. Adam Wood: It's fascinating to see this year how we've gone in most of those sectors to how positive can GenAI be for these companies? How well are they going to monetize the opportunities? How much are they going to take advantage internally to take their own margins up? To flipping in the second half of the year, mainly to, how disruptive are they going to be? And how on earth are they going to fend off these challenges? Paul Walsh: And I think that speaks to the extent to which, as a theme, this has really, you know, built momentum. Adam Wood: Absolutely. And I mean, look, I think the first point, you know, that you made is absolutely correct – that it's very difficult to disprove this. It's going to take time for that to happen. It's impossible to do in the short term. I think the other issue is that what we've seen is – if we look at the revenues of some of the companies, you know, and huge investments going in there. And investors can clearly see the benefit of GenAI. And so investors are right to ask the question, well, where's the revenue for these businesses? You know, where are we seeing it in info services or in IT services, or in enterprise software. And the reality is today, you know, we're not seeing it. And it's hard for analysts to point to evidence that – well, no, here's the revenue base, here's the benefit that's coming through. And so, investors naturally flip to, well, if there's no benefit, then surely, we should focus on the risk. So, I think we totally understand, you know, why people are focused on the negative side of things today. I think there are differences between the sub-sectors. I mean, I think if we look, you know, at IT services, first of all, from an investor point of view, I think that's been pretty well placed in the losers' buckets and people are most concerned about that sub-sector… Paul Walsh: Something you and the global team have written a lot about. Adam Wood: Yeah, we've written about, you know, the risk of disruption in that space, the need for those companies to invest, and then the challenges they face. But I mean, if we just keep it very, very simplistic. If Gen AI is a technology that, you know, displaces labor to any extent – companies that have played labor arbitrage and provide labor for the last 20 - 25 years, you know, they're going to have to make changes to their business model. So, I think that's understandable. And they're going to have to demonstrate how they can change and invest and produce a business model that addresses those concerns. I'd probably put info services in the middle. But the challenge in that space is you have real identifiable companies that have emerged, that have a revenue base and that are challenging a subset of the products of those businesses. So again, it's perfectly understandable that investors would worry. In that context, it's not a potential threat on the horizon. It's a real threat that exists today against certainly their businesses. I think software is probably the most interesting. I'd put it in the kind of final bucket where I actually believe… Well, I think first of all, we certainly wouldn't take the view that there's no risk of disruption and things aren't going to change. Clearly that is going to be the case. I think what we'd want to do though is we'd want to continue to use frameworks that we've used historically to think about how software companies differentiate themselves, what the barriers to entry are. We don't think we need to throw all of those things away just because we have GenAI, this new set of capabilities. And I think investors will come back most easily to that space. Paul Walsh: Emmet, you talked a little bit there before about the fact that you haven't seen a huge amount of progress or additional insight from the telco space around AI; how AI is diffusing across the space. Do you get any discussions around disruption as it relates to telco space? Emmet Kelly: Very, very little. I think the biggest threat that telcos do see is – it is from the hyperscalers. So, if I look at and separate the B2C market out from the B2B, the telcos are still extremely dominant in the B2C space, clearly. But on the B2B space, the hyperscalers have come in on the cloud side, and if you look at their market share, they're very, very dominant in cloud – certainly from a wholesale perspective. So, if you look at the cloud market shares of the big three hyperscalers in Europe, this number is courtesy of my colleague George Webb. He said it's roughly 85 percent; that's how much they have of the cloud space today. The telcos, what they're doing is they're actually reselling the hyperscale service under the telco brand name. But we don't see much really in terms of the pure kind of AI disruption, but there are concerns definitely within the telco space that the hyperscalers might try and move from the B2B space into the B2C space at some stage. And whether it's through virtual networks, cloudified networks, to try and get into the B2C space that way. Paul Walsh: Understood. And Lee maybe less about disruption, but certainly adoption, some insights from your side around adoption across the tech hardware space? Lee Simpson: Sure. I think, you know, it's always seen that are enabling the AI move, but, but there is adoption inside semis companies as well, and I think I'd point to design flow. So, if you look at the design guys, they're embracing the agentic system thing really quickly and they're putting forward this capability of an agent engineer, so like a digital engineer. And it – I guess we've got to get this right. It is going to enable a faster time to market for the design flow on a chip. So, if you have that design flow time, that time to market. So, you're creating double the value there for the client. Do you share that 50-50 with them? So, the challenge is going to be exactly as Adam was saying, how do you monetize this stuff? So, this is kind of the struggle that we're seeing in adoption. Paul Walsh: And Emmet, let's move to you on data centers. I mean, there are just some incredible numbers that we've seen emerging, as it relates to the hyperscaler investment that we're seeing in building out the infrastructure. I know data centers is something that you have focused tremendously on in your research, bringing our global perspectives together. Obviously, Europe sits within that. And there is a market here in Europe that might be more challenged. But I'm interested to understand how you're thinking about framing the whole data center story? Implications for Europe. Do European companies feed off some of that U.S. hyperscaler CapEx? How should we be thinking about that through the European lens? Emmet Kelly: Yeah, absolutely. So, big question, Paul. What… Paul Walsh: We've got a few minutes! Emmet Kelly: We've got a few minutes. What I would say is there was a great paper that came out from Harvard just two weeks ago, and they were looking at the scale of data center investments in the United States. And clearly the U.S. economy is ticking along very, very nicely at the moment. But this Harvard paper concluded that if you take out data center investments, U.S. economic growth today is actually zero. Paul Walsh: Wow. Emmet Kelly: That is how big the data center investments are. And what we've said in our research very clearly is if you want to build a megawatt of data center capacity that's going to cost you roughly $35 million today. Let's put that number out there. 35 million. Roughly, I'd say 25… Well, 20 to 25 million of that goes into the chips. But what's really interesting is the other remaining $10 million per megawatt, and I like to call that the picks and shovels of data centers; and I'm very convinced there is no bubble in that area whatsoever.So, what's in that area? Firstly, the first building block of a data center is finding a powered land bank. And this is a big thing that private equity is doing at the moment. So, find some real estate that's close to a mass population that's got a good fiber connection. Probably needs a little bit of water, but most importantly needs some power. And the demand for that is still infinite at the moment. Then beyond that, you've got the construction angle and there's a very big shortage of labor today to build the shells of these data centers. Then the third layer is the likes of capital goods, and there are serious supply bottlenecks there as well.And I could go on and on, but roughly that first $10 million, there's no bubble there. I'm very, very sure of that. Paul Walsh: And we conducted some extensive survey work recently as part of your analysis into the global data center market. You've sort of touched on a few of the gating factors that the industry has to contend with. That survey work was done on the operators and the supply chain, as it relates to data center build out. What were the key conclusions from that? Emmet Kelly: Well, the key conclusion was there is a shortage of power for these data centers, and… Paul Walsh: Which I think… Which is a sort of known-known, to some extent. Emmet Kelly: it is a known-known, but it's not just about the availability of power, it's the availability of green power. And it's also the price of power is a very big factor as well because energy is roughly 40 to 45 percent of the operating cost of running a data center. So, it's very, very important. And of course, that's another area where Europe doesn't screen very well.I was looking at statistics just last week on the countries that have got the highest power prices in the world. And unsurprisingly, it came out as UK, Ireland, Germany, and that's three of our big five data center markets. But when I looked at our data center stats at the beginning of the year, to put a bit of context into where we are…Paul Walsh: In Europe… Emmet Kelly: In Europe versus the rest. So, at the end of [20]24, the U.S. data center market had 35 gigawatts of data center capacity. But that grew last year at a clip of 30 percent. China had a data center bank of roughly 22 gigawatts, but that had grown at a rate of just 10 percent. And that was because of the chip issue. And then Europe has capacity, or had capacity at the end of last year, roughly 7 to 8 gigawatts, and that had grown at a rate of 10 percent. Now, the reason for that is because the three big data center markets in Europe are called FLAP-D. So, it's Frankfurt, London, Amsterdam, Paris, and Dublin. We had to put an acronym on it. So, Flap-D. Good news. I'm sitting with the tech guys. They've got even more acronyms than I do, in their sector, so well done them. Lee Simpson: Nothing beats FLAP-D. Paul Walsh: Yes. Emmet Kelly: It's quite an achievement. But what is interesting is three of the big five markets in Europe are constrained. So, Frankfurt, post the Ukraine conflict. Ireland, because in Ireland, an incredible statistic is data centers are using 25 percent of the Irish power grid. Compared to a global average of 3 percent.Now I'm from Dublin, and data centers are running into conflict with industry, with housing estates. Data centers are using 45 percent of the Dublin grid, 45. So, there's a moratorium in building data centers there. And then Amsterdam has the classic semi moratorium space because it's a small country with a very high population. So, three of our five markets are constrained in Europe. What is interesting is it started with the former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. The UK has made great strides at attracting data center money and AI capital into the UK and the current Prime Minister continues to do that. So, the UK has definitely gone; moved from the middle lane into the fast lane. And then Macron in France. He hosted an AI summit back in February and he attracted over a 100 billion euros of AI and data center commitments. Paul Walsh: And I think if we added up, as per the research that we published a few months ago, Europe's announced over 350 billion euros, in proposed investments around AI. Emmet Kelly: Yeah, absolutely. It's a good stat. Now where people can get a little bit cynical is they can say a couple of things. Firstly, it's now over a year since the Mario Draghi report came out. And what's changed since? Absolutely nothing, unfortunately. And secondly, when I look at powering AI, I like to compare Europe to what's happening in the United States. I mean, the U.S. is giving access to nuclear power to AI. It started with the three Mile Island… Paul Walsh: Yeah. The nuclear renaissance is… Emmet Kelly: Nuclear Renaissance is absolutely huge. Now, what's underappreciated is actually Europe has got a massive nuclear power bank. It's right up there. But unfortunately, we're decommissioning some of our nuclear power around Europe, so we're going the wrong way from that perspective. Whereas President Trump is opening up the nuclear power to AI tech companies and data centers. Then over in the States we also have gas and turbines. That's a very, very big growth area and we're not quite on top of that here in Europe. So, looking at this year, I have a feeling that the Americans will probably increase their data center capacity somewhere between – it's incredible – somewhere between 35 and 50 percent. And I think in Europe we're probably looking at something like 10 percent again. Paul Walsh: Okay. Understood. Emmet Kelly: So, we're growing in Europe, but we're way, way behind as a starting point. And it feels like the others are pulling away. The other big change I'd highlight is the Chinese are really going to accelerate their data center growth this year as well. They've got their act together and you'll see them heading probably towards 30 gigs of capacity by the end of next year. Paul Walsh: Alright, we're out of time. The TMT Edge is alive and kicking in Europe. I want to thank Emmett, Lee and Adam for their time and I just want to wish everybody a great day today. Thank you.(Applause) That was my conversation with Adam, Emmett and Lee. Many thanks again to them. Many thanks again to them for telling us about the latest in their areas of research and to the live audience for hearing us out. And a thanks to you as well for listening. Let us know what you think about this and other episodes by living us a review wherever you get your podcasts. And if you enjoy listening to Thoughts on the Market, please tell a friend or colleague about the podcast today.

En el Radar Empresarial de hoy ponemos el foco en la interrupción del servicio de robotaxis de Waymo en San Francisco y en las consecuencias que este episodio puede tener para el futuro de los taxis autónomos. El 20 de diciembre la ciudad californiana sufrió un apagón de gran magnitud que afectó a miles de usuarios. Entre sus efectos más visibles estuvo la detención de la flota autónoma de Alphabet, lo que generó atascos y problemas en varios barrios. La caída del suministro eléctrico dejó fuera de servicio los semáforos y provocó que muchos vehículos quedaran inmovilizados en cruces clave. Esta situación despertó inquietud entre autoridades y reguladores, que han reclamado mayores controles y garantías de seguridad. Desde Waymo señalan que los coches están supervisados por equipos humanos, aunque admiten que el apagón disparó la demanda de viajes y terminó saturando el sistema tecnológico, reavivando el debate público sobre la fiabilidad de la conducción autónoma en entornos urbanos. El incidente también ha devuelto al centro del debate la desconfianza hacia un servicio que ya arrastraba antecedentes. Hasta el mes de mayo, la Dirección Nacional de Tráfico de Estados Unidos había contabilizado 22 incidentes vinculados a Waymo, incluidos episodios en los que sus taxis se vieron implicados por error en actuaciones policiales. El reto ahora para Alphabet es demostrar que su tecnología puede operar de forma segura y predecible frente a escenarios complejos del tráfico urbano moderno actual. En este contexto competitivo, Waymo tampoco puede perder de vista a sus rivales. Uber prepara su propia flota de robotaxis para finales de 2026 y planea probarla primero en San Francisco, además de impulsar un piloto en Londres junto a Baidu. Mientras tanto, Tesla avanza con fuerza apoyada en la inteligencia artificial. Según Morgan Stanley, podría tener mil robotaxis operativos en 2026 y alcanzar el millón en 2035, reforzando el optimismo del mercado sobre su estrategia futura global.

Original Release Date: November 19, 2025Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains why he continues to hold on to an out-of-consensus view of a growth positive 2026, despite near-term risks.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 I'll discuss our outlook for 2026 that we published earlier this week. It's Wednesday, Nov 19th at 6:30 am in New York. So, let's get after it. 2026 is a continuation of the story we have been telling for the past year. Looking back to a year ago, our U.S. equity outlook was for a challenging first half, followed by a strong second half. At the time of publication, this was an out of consensus stance. Many expected a strong first half, as President Trump took office for his second term. And then a more challenging second half due to the return of inflation. We based our differentiated view on the notion that policy sequencing in the new Trump administration would intentionally be growth negative to start. We likened the strategy to a new CEO choosing to ‘kitchen sink' the results in an effort to clear the decks for a new growth positive strategy. We thought that transition would come around mid-year. The U.S. economy had much less slack when President Trump took office the second time, compared to the first time he came into office. And this was the main reason we thought it was likely to be sequenced differently. Earnings revisions breadth and other cyclical indicators were also in a phase of deceleration at the end of 2024. In contrast, at the beginning of 2017—when we were out of consensus bullish—earnings revisions breadth and many cyclical gauges were starting to reaccelerate after the manufacturing and commodity downturn of 2015/2016. Looking back on this year, this cadence of policy sequencing did broadly play out—it just happened faster and more dramatically than we expected. Our views on the policy front still appear to be out of consensus. Many industry watchers are questioning whether policies enacted this year will ultimately lead to better growth going forward, especially for the average stock. From our perspective, the policy choices being made are growth positive for 2026 and are largely in line with our ‘run it hot' thesis. There's another factor embedded in our more constructive take. April marked the end of a rolling recession that began three years prior. The final stages were a recession in government thanks to DOGE, a rate of change trough in expectations around AI CapEx growth and trade policy, and a recession in consumer services that is still ongoing. In short, we believe a new bull market and rolling recovery began in April which means it's still early days, and not obvious—especially for many lagging parts of the economy and market. That is the opportunity. The missing ingredient for the typical broadening in stock performance that happens in a new business cycle is rate cuts. Normally, the Fed would have cut rates more in this type of weakening labor market. But due to the imbalances and distortions of the COVID cycle, we think the Fed is later than normal in easing policy, and that has held back the full rotation toward early cycle winners. Ironically, the government shutdown has weakened the economy further, but has also delayed Fed action due to the lack of labor data releases. This is a near-term risk to our bullish 12-month forecasts should delays in the data continue, or lagging labor releases do not corroborate the recent weakness in non-govt-related jobs data. In our view, this type of labor market weakness coupled with the administration's desire to ‘run it hot' means that, ultimately, the Fed is likely to deliver more dovish policy than the market currently expects. It's really just a question of timing. But that is a near-term risk for equity markets and why many stocks have been weaker recently. In short, we believe a new bull market began in April with the end of a rolling recession and bear market. Remember the S&P [500] was down 20 percent and the average S&P stock was down more than 30 percent into April. This narrative remains underappreciated, and we think there is significant upside in earnings over the next year as the recovery broadens and operating leverage returns with better volumes and pricing in many parts of the economy. Our forecasts reflect this upside to earnings which is another reason why many stocks are not as expensive as they appear despite our acknowledgement that some areas of the market may appear somewhat frothy. For the S&P 500, our 12-month target is now 7800 which assumes 17 percent earnings growth next year and a very modest contraction in valuation from today's levels. Our favorite sectors include Financials, Industrials, and Healthcare. We are also upgrading Consumer Discretionary to overweight and prefer Goods over Services for the first time since 2021. Another relative trade we like is Software over Semiconductors given the extreme relative underperformance of that pair and positioning at this point. Finally, we like small caps over large for the first time since March 2021, as the early cycle broadening in earnings combined with a more accommodative Fed provides the backdrop we have been patiently waiting for. We hope you enjoy our detailed report published earlier this week and find it helpful as you navigate a changing marketplace on many levels. Thanks for tuning in. 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!

Cuando se menciona el sector de los semiconductores, casi automáticamente el pensamiento se dirige a Nvidia. Sin embargo, existe otra empresa que en el último año ha mostrado un desempeño todavía más llamativo: Micron. En esta entrega de Radar Empresarial ponemos el foco en cómo se perfila 2025 para el productor estadounidense de chips. Sus acciones acumulan una revalorización cercana al 229%, una cifra muy superior al avance registrado por Nvidia, que ronda el 34% en el mismo periodo. Incluso otras compañías del sector han logrado situarse por delante del gigante liderado por Jensen Huang. Para comprender el potencial de Micron basta con revisar las previsiones presentadas junto a sus resultados del primer trimestre fiscal de 2026. La compañía anticipa ingresos superiores a los 18.000 millones de dólares durante su segundo trimestre fiscal. Asimismo, estima un beneficio por acción de 8,42 dólares, casi el doble de lo que esperaba el mercado. Se trata de proyecciones históricas que, según analistas de Morgan Stanley, representan el mayor incremento de ingresos y beneficio neto en dólares jamás visto en la industria estadounidense de semiconductores, dejando al margen a Nvidia. En términos de facturación, la empresa ha pasado de ingresar 8.710 millones de dólares en el mismo periodo del año anterior a superar los 13.000 millones, por encima del consenso del mercado, que se situaba en 12.830 millones. Una de las palancas clave de este crecimiento ha sido el negocio de memorias DRAM, principal componente de la memoria RAM utilizada en ordenadores y servidores. Esta división alcanzó ingresos de 10.800 millones de dólares, lo que supone un aumento del 69% interanual. A pesar de estos resultados, Micron ha decidido cerrar su negocio Crucial para concentrarse en memorias destinadas a servidores de inteligencia artificial. La dirección sostiene que esta estrategia mejorará el suministro a grandes clientes y advierte que la escasez de memoria continuará impulsada por la demanda de IA.

Becoming an entrepreneur is the most expensive personal development program you will ever pay for, and I'm not even talking about the money. I'm talking about the version of yourself that you have to let die: the people pleaser who waits for permission, the woman who apologizes before she speaks, that part of you who thinks staying ahead of everything will finally make you safe. I've watched the “girl boss” era rise and fall. I've witnessed hustle culture get worshipped and then finally questioned. I've been in rooms I thought I needed to be in only to realize those weren't my rooms at all. Here's what I know: entrepreneurship is not just about building a business. It's about becoming someone who can. For women especially, this journey will ask you to unlearn almost everything you've been taught: to stop making yourself small, to stop waiting for permission, to stop apologizing for wanting more. Goal Digger Facebook Community: https://www.facebook.com/groups/goaldiggerpodcast/ Goal Digger Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/goaldiggerpodcast/ Goal Digger Show Notes: https://jennakutcherblog.com/entrepreneurship-costs-and-rewards  Thanks to our Goal Digger Sponsors: Sign up for your $1/month Shopify trial period at http://shopify.com/goaldigger. Find a co-host today at http://airbnb.com/host. Check out What Should I Do With My Money? from Morgan Stanley. Listen now at https://mgstnly.lnk.to/bqe8HiAC!GD.  Visit http://www.spectrum.com/freeforlife to learn how you can get Business Internet Free Forever. Experience the power of a Dell PC with Intel Inside®, backed by Dell's price match guarantee. Shop now at https://www.dell.com/deals. Your dream wardrobe's one click away. Visit https://www.revolve.com/goaldigger for 15% off your first order with code GOALDIGGER.

Original Release Date: November 17, 2025In the first of a two-part episode presenting our 2026 outlooks, Chief Global Cross-Asset Strategist Serena Tang has Chief Global Economist Seth Carpenter explain his thoughts on how economies around the world are expected to perform and how central banks may respond.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Serena Tang: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's Chief Global Cross-Asset Strategist. Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. Serena Tang: Today, we'll focus on [the] all-important macroeconomic backdrop. Serena Tang: It's Monday, November 17th at 10am in New York. So, Seth, 2025 has been a year of transition. Global growth slowed under the weight of tariffs and policy uncertainty. Yet resilience in consumer spending and AI driven investments kept recession fears at bay. Your team has published its economic outlook for 2026. So, what's your view on global growth for the year ahead? Seth Carpenter: We really think next year is going to be the global economy slowing down a little bit more just like it did this year, settling into a slower growth rate. But at the same time, we think inflation is going to keep drifting down in most of the world. Now that anodyne view, though, masks some heterogeneity around the world; and importantly, some real uncertainty about different ways things could possibly go. Here in the U.S., we think there is more slowing to come in the near term, especially the fourth quarter of this year and the beginning of next year. But once the economy works its way through the tariffs, maybe some of the lagged effects of monetary policy, we'll start to see things pick up a bit in the second half of the year. China's a different story. We see the really tepid growth there pushed down by the deflationary spiral they've been in. We think that continues for next year, and so they're probably not quite going to get to their 5 percent growth target. And in Europe, there's this push and pull of fiscal policy across the continent. There's a central bank that thinks they've achieved their job in terms of inflation, but overall, we think growth there is, kind of, unremarkable, a little bit over 1 percent. Not bad, but nothing to write home about at all. So that's where we think things are going in general. But I have to say next year, may well be a year for surprises. Serena Tang: Right. So where do you see the biggest drivers of global growth in 2026, and what are some of the key downside risks? Seth Carpenter: That's a great question. I really do think that the U.S. is going to be a real key driver of the story here. And in fact – and maybe we'll talk about this later – if we're wrong, there's some upside scenarios, there's some downside scenarios. But most of them around the world are going to come from the U.S. Two things are going on right now in the U.S. We've had strong spending data. We've also had very, very weak employment data. That usually doesn't last for very long. And so that's why we think in the near term there's some slowdown in the U.S. and then over time things recover. We could be wrong in either direction. And so, if we're wrong and the labor market sending the real signal, then the downside risk to the U.S. economy – and by extension the global economy – really is a recession in the U.S. Now, given the starting point, given how low unemployment is, given the spending businesses are doing for AI, if we did get that recession, it would be mild. On the other hand, like I said, spending is strong. Business spending, especially CapEx for AI; household spending, especially at the top end of the income distribution where wealth is rising from stocks, where the liability side of the balance sheet is insulated with fixed rate mortgages. That spending could just stay strong, and we might see this upside surprise where the spending really dominates the scene. And again, that would spill over for the rest of the world. What I don't see is a lot of reason to suspect that you're going to get a big breakout next year to the upside or the downside from either Europe or China, relative to our baseline scenarios. It could happen, but I really think most of the story is going to be driven in the U.S. Serena Tang: So, Seth, markets have been focused on the Fed, as it should. What is the likely path in 2026 and how are you thinking about central bank policy in general in other regions? Seth Carpenter: Absolutely. The Fed is always of central importance to most people in markets. Our view – and the market's view, I have to say, has been evolving here. Our view is that the Fed's actually got a few more rate cuts to get through, and that by the time we get to the middle of next year, the middle of 2026, they're going to have their policy rate down just a little bit above 3 percent. So roughly where the committee thinks neutral is. Why do we think that? I think the slowing in the labor market that we talked about before, we think there's something kind of durable there. And now that the government shutdown has ended and we're going to start to get regular data prints again, we think the data are going to show that job creation has been below 50,000 per month on average, and maybe even a few of them are going to get to be negative over the next several months. In that situation, we think the Fed's going to get more inclination to guard against further deterioration in the labor market by keeping cutting rates and making sure that the central bank is not putting any restraint on the economy. That's similar, I would say, to a lot of other developed markets' central banks. But the tension for the ECB, for example, is that President Lagarde has said she thinks; she thinks the disinflationary process is over. She thinks sitting at 2 percent for the policy rate, which the ECB thinks of as neutral, then that's the right place for them to be. Our take though is that the data are going to push them in a different direction. We think there is clearly growth in Europe, but we think it's tepid. And as a result, the disinflationary process has really still got some more room to run and that inflation will undershoot their 2 percent target, and as a result, the ECB is probably going to cut again. And in our view, down to about 1.5 percent. Big difference is in Japan. Japan is the developed market central bank that's hiking. Now, when does that happen? Our best guess is next month in December at the policy meeting. We've seen this shift towards reflation. It hasn't been smooth, hasn't been perfectly linear. But the BoJ looks like they're set to raise rates again in December. But the path for inflation is going to be a bit rocky, and so, they're probably on hold for most of 2026. But we do think eventually, maybe not till 2027, they get back to hiking again – so that Governor Ueda can get the policy rate back close to neutral before he steps down. Serena Tang: So, one of the main investor debates is on AI. Whether it's CapEx, productivity, the future of work. How is that factoring into your team's view on growth and inflation for the next year? Seth Carpenter: Yeah, I mean that is absolutely a key question that we get all the time from investors around the world. When I think about AI and how it's affecting the economy, I think about the demand side of the economy, and that's where you think about this CapEx spending – building data centers, buying semiconductors, that sort of thing. That's demand in the economy. It's using up current resources in the economy, and it's got to be somewhat inflationary. It's part of what has kept the U.S. economy buoyant and resilient this year – is that CapEx spending. Now you also mentioned productivity, and for me, that's on the supply side of the economy. That's after the technology is in place. After firms have started to adopt the technology, they're able to produce either the same amount with fewer workers, or they're able to produce more with the same amount of workers. Either way, that's what productivity means, and it's on the supply side. It can mean faster growth and less inflation. I think where we are for 2026, and it's important that we focus it on the near term, is the demand side is much more important than the supply side. So, we think growth continues. It's supported by this business investment spending. But we still think inflation ends 2026, notably above the Fed's inflation target. And it's going to make five, five and a half years that we've been above target. Productivity should kick in. And we've written down something close to a quarter percentage point of extra productivity growth for 2026, but not enough to really be super disinflationary. We think that builds over time, probably takes a couple of years. And for example, if we think about some of the announcements about these data centers that are being built, where they're really going to unleash the potential of AI, those aren't going to be completed for a couple of years anyway. So, I think for now, AI is dominating the demand side of the economy. Over the next few years, it's going to be a real boost to the supply side of the economy. Serena Tang: So that makes a lot of sense to me, Seth. But can you put those into numbers? Seth Carpenter: Sure, Serena totally. In numbers, that's about 3 percent growth. A little bit more than that for global GDP growth on like a Q4-over-Q4 basis. But for the U.S. in particular, we've got about 1.75 percent. So that's not appreciably different from what we're looking for this year in 2025. But the number really, kind of, masks the evolution over time. We think the front part of the year is going to be much weaker. And only once we get into the second half of next year will things start to pick up. That said, compared to where we were when we did the midyear outlook, it's actually a notable upgrade. We've taken real signal from the fact that business spending, household spending have both been stronger than we think. And we've tried to add in just a little bit more in terms of productivity growth from AI. Layer on top of that, the Fed who's been clearly willing to start to ease interest rates sooner than we thought at the time of the mid-year outlook – all comes together for a little bit better outlook for growth for 2026 in the U.S. Serena Tang: Seth thanks so much for taking the time to talk. Seth Carpenter: Serena, it is always my pleasure to get to talk to you. Serena Tang: And thanks for listening. Please be sure to tune into the second half of our conversation tomorrow to hear how we're thinking about investment strategy in the year ahead. 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.

Our Thematic and Equity Strategist Michelle Weaver and Power, Utilities, and Clean Tech Analyst David Arcaro discuss how investments in AI data centers are affecting electricity bills for U.S. consumers.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.David Arcaro: And I'm Dave Arcaro, U.S. Power, Utilities, and Clean Tech Analyst.Michelle Weaver: Today, a hot topic. Are data centers' raising your electricity bills?It's Tuesday, December 23rd at 10am in New York.Most of us have probably noticed our electricity bills have been creeping up. And it's putting pressure on U.S. consumers, especially with higher prices and paychecks not keeping pace. More and more people are pointing to data centers as the reason behind these rising costs, but the story isn't that simple.Regional differences, shifting policies and local utility responses are all at play here. Dave, there's no doubt that data centers are becoming a much bigger part of the story when it comes to U.S. electricity demand. For listeners who might not follow these numbers every day, could you break down how data centers' share of overall electricity use is expected to grow over the next 10 years? And what does that mean for the grid and for the average consumer?David Arcaro: Definitely they're becoming much bigger, much more important and more impactful across the industry in a big way. Data centers were 6 percent of total electricity consumption in the U.S. last year. We're actually forecasting that to triple to 18 percent by 2030, and then hit 20 percent in the early 2030s. So very strong growth, and increasing proportion of the overall utility, electricity use.In aggregate, this is reflecting about 150 gigawatts of new data centers by 2030. Just a very large amount. And this is going to cause a major strain on the electric grid and is going to require substantial build out and upgrading of the transmission system along with construction of new power generation – like gas plants and large-scale renewables, wind, solar, and battery storage across the entire U.S.And generally, when we see utilities investing in additional infrastructure, they need to get that cost recovered. We would typically expect that to lead to higher electric rates for consumers. That's the overall pressure that we're facing right now on the system, from all these data centers coming in.We've got these substantial infrastructure needs. That means utilities will need to charge higher prices to consumers to cover the cost of those investments.Michelle Weaver: What are the main challenges utilities companies face in meeting this rising demand from data centers?David Arcaro: There are a number of challenges. If I were to pick a few of the biggest ones that I see, I think managing affordability is one of the biggest challenges the industry faces right now, because this overall data center growth is absolutely a shock to their business, and it needs to be managed carefully given the political and regulatory challenges that can arise when customer bills are getting are escalating faster than expected. The utility industry faces scrutiny and constant attention from a political and regulatory standpoint, so it's a balance that has to be very carefully managed. There are also reliability challenges that are important.Utilities have to keep the lights on, you know, that's priority number one. The demand for electricity is growing much faster than the supply of new generation that we're seeing; new power plants just aren't being built fast enough. New transmission assets are not being built, as quickly as the data centers are coming on. So, in many areas we're seeing that leads to essentially less of a buffer, and more risk of outages during periods of extreme weather.Michelle Weaver: And you mentioned, companies are thinking about how can they insulate consumers. Can you take us through some of the specifics of what these utility companies are doing? And what regulators are doing to respond, to protect existing customers from rate increases driven by data centers?David Arcaro: Definitely. The industry is getting creative and trying to be proactive in addressing this issue. Many utilities, we're seeing them isolate data centers and charge them higher electric rates, specifically for those data center customers to try to cover all of the grid costs that are attributable to the data center's needs.A couple examples. In Indiana, we're seeing that there's a utility there who's building new power plants, specifically for a very large data center that's coming into the state and they're ring fencing it. They're only charging the data center itself for those costs of the power plants. In Georgia, a utility there is charging a higher rate for the data centers that are coming in to the Atlanta area – such that it actually more than covers the costs and compensates other consumers in the form of bill credits or even bill reductions as those data centers come on.Similarly, then, in Pennsylvania, there's a utility that has excess transmission infrastructure than the state's [infrastructure]. They're better able to absorb data center activity. They're able to lower customer bills as the data centers come on, as they spread their costs over a larger customer base in that case. So, this isn't universal though. There are some areas around the country where there are costs related to data center growth that get socialized across all consumers.One approach I also wanted to mention that we're seeing data centers pursue more and more actively is to power themselves. Essentially bring their own power, and they're using gas turbines, engines, and fuel cells that they're deploying right on site. This is actually in many cases faster than connecting to the grid, but it also avoids any consumer impact. Companies like Solaris Energy and Bloom Energy are two providers of that type of solution. And we're also seeing at a broader industry level. Another approach is the idea of data centers being flexible or turning off and not consuming power from the grid at certain times when the grid is facing stress, in an extreme weather scenario in the winter or summer. And that idea is gaining traction as well. So, we think the industry is looking for approaches that could ease the pressure on the system and on reliability, manage the affordability issues while continuing to enable and build data centers.Michelle Weaver: You mentioned what a few different states are doing on this front. But data centers are not evenly distributed through states or evenly distributed across regions. Are there regional differences in how data center growth is impacting electricity prices?David Arcaro: There are a couple of key differences that we're seeing around the country. Some areas just aren't getting that many data centers, you know, so I'd point out the northeast – in New England, in New York, we're just not seeing that much data center growth. So, it's less of an issue, the impact of data center power demand impacting customer bills in those areas. And then in some regions around the country, the utility structure is important to be aware of. There are some regions where the price of electricity fluctuates based on the supply and demand of power, rather than being directly set and controlled by a regulator. In those markets, data centers can actually more directly impact the price of electricity and there just isn't an easy way in that case to ring fence them and protect consumers from the impact of price increases.So that's where we think unique challenges can arise. And over time, we would expect to see the most meaningful rate impacts to consumers in those areas specifically. And examples would be New Jersey, Maryland, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio. Those are a couple of the states where we're seeing those more volatile and directly impacted prices.So, as we look at utilities, we think the state exposure is going to be more and more important. And so, a few companies like NextEra, Sempra and AEP are a few utilities that are in states that have less affordability concerns and less direct exposure to rate impacts from data centers. And then several power companies like Vistra and Talen have more of their power plants that are in states that have excess infrastructure; and as a result, potentially less affordability concerns.So, clearly the energy sector is facing real challenges and changes. So, Michelle, how are rising electricity bills actually affecting U.S. households?Michelle Weaver: It's putting even more pressure on a consumer that's already being stretched thin by multiple years of inflation and elevated price levels, and electricity is a really different type of good. It's very different from gasoline or other consumer goods or staples – in that it's an essential good. You need to have it. And it's a network service that households are structurally locked into. Unlike gas where you could adjust your trip frequency or take a different type of transport, there really aren't good substitutes for electricity.And so this dynamic weighs on consumers. They have to continue paying these bills, and it weighs particularly heavily on lower income consumers where utility bills make up a much larger portion of their household budget.So, it crowds out some of that other potential spending.David Arcaro: That makes a lot of sense. It's an important expense to consider in terms of the impact on consumers. And, you know, as a result, are consumers blaming data center electricity demand for this rise that we're seeing in bills or are they pushing back?Michelle Weaver: Yeah. Data center development is quickly becoming a NIMBY or “not in my backyard” issue with communities pushing back and even getting projects canceled. Companies really need to find ways to address local concerns about environmental and water related externalities. And message that they're able to insulate consumers, or do something to mitigate these potentially higher electricity bills.A recent poll of around 2200 voters found that just over half of respondents attribute overall electricity price increases to AI data centers, at least somewhat. While around another third, consider them very responsible. And these responses are consistent across all regions and across political affiliations. And I think this consistency across regions is really interesting. As we're talking about before, data centers are not impacting bills in every region. But consumers are still blaming them and still attributing bill increases there.It's clear that both the energy sector and U.S. consumers are navigating a complex landscape with data center growth at the center of the conversation. As policy responses evolve and the U.S. midterm elections approach, this issue is only going to gain more attention. And we'll be sure to bring you the latest. Dave, thanks for taking the time to talk.David Arcaro: Great speaking with you, Michelle.Michelle Weaver: 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.

Anna Malaika Tubbs is a two-time New York Times bestselling author and a leading voice in gender, race, and equity. Her newest book Erased: What American Patriarchy Has Hidden From Us is a wake-up call, one that challenges us to rethink everything from who gets remembered to who gets rewarded. I met Anna recently at a retreat hosted by Onsite in Tennessee and she was magnetic. The best part about meeting her is I had no idea what she did for a career and didn't learn about her books until the very last day. Once I heard what she was writing about, I knew she would make the perfect guest for this show. Anna pulls back the curtain on the narratives that have quietly shaped how we see ourselves, our businesses, and our worth. What sets her apart is her ability to take complex systems and translate them into powerful stories that reveal what's been buried and show us how to reclaim what's ours. And trust me, you'll never see patriarchy, power, or your own story the same way again.  So if you've ever felt like the rules of success weren't written for you, if you've struggled with visibility or making space for your full self in your business, if you've been playing small because it felt safer than being too much, this conversation is for you. Goal Digger Facebook Community: https://www.facebook.com/groups/goaldiggerpodcast/ Goal Digger Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/goaldiggerpodcast/ Goal Digger Show Notes: https://jennakutcherblog.com/how-to-break-free-from-patriarchal-systems  Thanks to our Goal Digger Sponsors: Sign up for your $1/month Shopify trial period at http://shopify.com/goaldigger. Find a co-host today at http://airbnb.com/host. Check out What Should I Do With My Money? from Morgan Stanley. Listen now at https://mgstnly.lnk.to/bqe8HiAC!GD.  Visit http://www.spectrum.com/freeforlife to learn how you can get Business Internet Free Forever. Experience the power of a Dell PC with Intel Inside®, backed by Dell's price match guarantee. Shop now at https://www.dell.com/deals. Your dream wardrobe's one click away. Visit https://www.revolve.com/goaldigger for 15% off your first order with code GOALDIGGER.

Our Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Serena Tang discusses how current market conditions are challenging traditional investment strategies and what that means for asset allocation.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's Chief Cross-Asset Strategist.Today – does the 60/40 portfolio still make sense, and what can investors expect from long-term market returns?It's Monday, December 22nd at 10am in New York.Global equities have rallied by more than 35 percent from lows made in April. And U.S. high grade fixed income has seen the last 12 months' returns reach 5 percent, above the averages over the last 10 years. This raises important questions about future returns and how investors might want to adapt their portfolios.Now, our work shows that long-run expected returns for equities are lower than in previous decades, while fixed income – think government bonds and corporate bonds – still offers relatively elevated returns, thanks to higher yields.Let's put some numbers to it. Over the next decade, we project global equities to deliver an annualized return of nearly 7 percent, with the S&P 500 just behind at 6.8 percent. European and Japanese equities stand out, potentially returning about 8 percent. Emerging markets, however, lag at just about 4 percent. On the bond side, we think U.S. Treasuries with a 10-year maturity will return nearly 5 percent per year, German Bunds nearly 4 [percent], and Japanese government bonds nearly 2 [percent]. They may sound low, but it's all above their long-run averages.But here's where it gets interesting. The extra return you get for taking on risk – what we call the risk premium – has compressed across the board. In the U.S., the equity risk premium is just 2 percent. And for emerging markets, it's actually negative at around -1 percent. In very plain terms, investors aren't being paid as much for taking on risk as they used to be.Now, why is this the case? It's because valuations are rich, especially in the U.S. But we also need to put these valuations in context. Yes, the S&P 500's cyclically adjusted price-to-earnings ratio is near the highest level since the dotcom bubble. But the quality of the S&P 500 has improved dramatically over the past few decades. Companies are more profitable, and free cash flow -- money left after expenses -- is almost three times higher than it was in 2000. So, while valuations are rich, there's some justification for it.The lower risk premiums for stocks and credits, regardless of whether we think they are justified or not, has very interesting read across for investors' multi-asset portfolios. The efficient frontier – meaning the best possible return for any given level of portfolio risk – has shifted. It's now flatter and lower than in previous years. So, it means taking on more risk in a portfolio right now won't necessarily boost returns as much as before.Now, let's turn our attention to the classic 60/40 portfolio – the mix of 60 percent stocks and 40 percent bonds that's been a staple strategy for generations. After a tough 2022, this strategy has bounced back, delivering above-average returns for three years in a row. Looking ahead, though, we expect only around 6 percent annual returns for a 60/40 portfolio over the next decade versus around 9 percent average return historically. Importantly though, advances in AI could keep stocks and bonds moving more in sync than they used to be. If that happens, investors might benefit from increasing their equity allocation beyond the traditional 60/40 split.Either way, it's important to realize that the optimal mix of stocks and bonds is not static and should be revisited as market dynamics evolve.In a world where risk assets feel expensive and the old rules don't quite fit, it's essential to understand how risk, return, and correlation work together. This will help you navigate the next decade. The 60/40 portfolio isn't dead – and optimal multi-asset allocation weights are evolving. And so should you.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.

To conclude their two-part discussion, our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets and Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management Lisa Shalett discuss the outlook for inflation and monetary policy, with implications for investment-grade credit.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Lisa Shalett: And I am Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer of Morgan Stanley Wealth Management.Andrew Sheets: Yesterday we focused on the topic of a higher for longer inflation regime, and I was asking the questions. Today, Lisa will grill me on my views for the next year. It's Friday, December 19th at 4pm in London. Lisa Shalett: And it's 11am in New York. All right, Andrew, I'm happy to turn tables on you now. I'm very interested in your thoughts about the past year – 2025 – and looking towards 2026. In 2026, Morgan Stanley Research seems to expect a resilient global growth backdrop, with inflation moderating and central banks easing policy gradually. What do you think are the main drivers behind this more constructive inflation outlook, especially taking into account the market's prevailing concerns about persistent price pressures. Andrew Sheets: There are a couple of factors that we think are going to be near term helps for inflation, although I don't think they totally rule out what you're talking about over that longer term period.So first, we, at Morgan Stanley, are very cautious, very negative on oil prices. We think that there's going to be more supply of oil over the next year than demand for it. And so lower oil prices should help bring inflation down. There's also some measures of just how the inflation indices measure shelter and housing. And so, while we think, kind of, looking further ahead, there are some real shortages emerging in things like the rental markets – where you just haven't had a whole lot of new rental construction coming online, as you look out a year or two ahead. But in the near term, rental markets have been softer. Home prices are coming down with a lag in the data. And so, shelter inflation is relatively soft. So, we think that helps. While at the same time fiscal policy is very supportive and corporates, as we discussed in our last conversation, they're really embracing animal spirits – with more spending, more spending on AI, more capital investment generally, more M&A. And so, those factors together, we think, can over the next 12 months, still mean pretty reasonable growth and Inflation that's still above target – but at least trending a little bit lower. Lisa Shalett: You believe that central banks, including the Fed, will cut rates more slowly given better growth. And this slower pace of easing could actually be positive for the credit markets. So, could you elaborate on your expertise on credit and why a gradual Fed approach may be preferable? What risks and opportunities might this create? Andrew Sheets: Yeah, so I think this is kind of one of these big debates going into this year is – which would we rather have? Would we rather have a Fed that was more active, cutting more aggressively? Or cutting more slowly? And, indeed, we're having this conversation on the heels of a Fed meeting. There's a lot of uncertainty about that path. But the way that we're thinking about it is that the biggest risk to credit would be that this outlook for growth that we have is just too optimistic. That actually growth is weaker than expected. That this rise in the unemployment rate is signaling something far more challenging for the economy ahead and in that scenario the Fed would be justified in cutting a lot more. But I think historically in those periods where growth has deteriorated more significantly while the Fed has been cutting more, those have been periods where credit – and indeed the equity market – have actually done poorly despite more quote unquote Fed assistance. So, periods where the Fed is cutting more gradually tend to be more consistent with policy in the right place. The economy being in an okay place. And so, we think, that that's the better outcome. So again, we have to kind of monitor the situation. But a scenario where the Fed ends up doing a little bit less than the market, or even we expect with rate cuts – because the economy's holding up. That can still be, we think, an okay scenario for markets. Lisa Shalett: So, things are okay and animal spirits are returning. What does that mean for credit markets? Andrew Sheets: Yeah, so I think this is the bigger challenge: is that if our growth scenario holds up, corporates I think have a lot of incentives to start taking more risk – in a way that could be good for stock markets, but a lot more challenging to the lenders, to these companies for credit. Corporates have been impressively restrained over the last several years. They've really, kind of, held back despite lots of fiscal easing, despite very low rates. Those reasons for waiting are falling away. And so, in this backdrop that you, Lisa, were describing the other day around – easier monetary policy, easier fiscal policy, easy regulatory policy, and you know, just for good measure, maybe the biggest capital spending cycle since the railroads through AI. These are some pretty powerful forces of animal spirits. And that's a reason why we think ultimately, we see a lot more issuance. We see roughly a trillion dollars of net supply. So, total supply, less redemptions in U.S. investment grade. That's a huge uptick from this year, and we think that drives spreads wider, even if my colleague Mike Wilson is correct that equity markets rise. Lisa Shalett: So, wow. So, we have very strong U.S. equities. But perhaps an investment grade credit market that underperforms those equities. How else would you think about your asset allocation more broadly, and how might those dynamics around credit issuance and equity success play out regionally? Andrew Sheets: Yeah, so, I think this scenario where equities are up, credit is underperforming. The cycle is getting more aggressive. It's a little unusual, but I think we do have some templates for it and specifically I think investors could look to 2005 or 1997 and 1998. Those were all years where equities were up double digits, where credit spreads were wider. Where yields were somewhat range bound, where corporate aggression was increasing. That is all very consistent with Morgan Stanley's 2026 story. And yet, you did have this divergence between equities and credit market. So, I think it is a market where we see better risk-reward in stocks than in credit. I think it's a market where we want to be in somewhat smaller credits or somewhat smaller equities. We like small and mid cap stocks in the U.S. over large caps. We like high yield over investment grade. And we do think that European credit might outperform as it's somewhat lagging this animal spirits theme that we think will be led by the U.S. Lisa Shalett: So, if that's the outlook, what are the risks? Andrew Sheets: Yeah, so I think there are two risks, and you know, we alluded to one of them early on in this conversation – would be just that growth is weaker than we expect. Usually when the unemployment rate is rising, that's a pretty bad time to be in credit. The unemployment rate is rising. Now, Morgan Stanley economists think that that rise will be temporary, that it will reverse as we go through 2026. And so, it'll be less of a thing to worry about. But you know, a sign that maybe companies have been holding off on firing, waiting for more tariff clarity, if that doesn't come, then that would be a risk to growth. The other risk to growth is just around this AI-related spending. It is very large and the companies that are doing it are some of the wealthiest companies in the world, and they see this spending potentially as really core to their long-term strategic thinking. And so, if you were to ever have an issuer or a set of issuers who were just less price sensitive, who would keep issuing into the market, even if it was starting to reprice that market and push spreads wider, this might be the group. And so, a scenario where that spending is even larger than we expect, and those issuers are less price sensitive than we expect – that could also drive spreads wider, even if the underlying economic backdrop is somewhat okay. Lisa Shalett: Super. That's probably a great place for us to wrap up. So, I'll hand it back to you, Andrew. Andrew Sheets: Well, great, Lisa, always a pleasure to have this conversation. And, as a reminder for all you listening, if you enjoy Thoughts of the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen, it helps more people find the show. *****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.

We have Mike Monaghan on the show today and covering the “Birth of an ETF.” He’s going to talk about the Founders ETF and its new launch. We’re also going to talk a little bit about what it takes to get an ETF up and running. From a compliance perspective, remember, there’s no guarantee of future performance. https://youtu.be/o-m3PYHKXqk?si=qBaHkJpUt7xgdpjG Transcript of “The Birth of an ETF” 00:00 The Founders ETF Frazer Rice (00:00.986)Welcome back, Mike. Michael Monaghan (00:02.616)Frazer, it’s great to be back. Frazer Rice (00:04.4)You are at an interesting point in time right now. You’re about to start up Founders ETF and I think you’re about to get trading authorization to get going. Maybe tell us a little bit about the process to set up an ETF. Then we’ll dive into the strategy a little bit. Michael (00:21.25)Yeah, absolutely right. We should start trading on the SIBO Thursday, so two days from now. And we’ve launched our first fund, the Founders 100, that owns the 100 best founder-led companies. I’d be happy to go through some of the process that it takes to set up an ETF. Frazer Rice (00:40.014)Love it. ETFs are the main way to go now in terms of getting an inveestment cvhicle up and running. What has your experience been around? The Popularity of the ETF Structure Michael (00:52.014)Yeah, so ETFs have become the primary investment vehicle for a few reasons. Let’s outline those reasons. Then we can go through some of the steps that it takes to set up an ETF. So on the advantage side of an ETF, they’re typically a bit lower cost than traditional mutual fund products. Importantly, they’re tax advantaged. So there’s no gains or losses that occur during the normal ETF growth phase. Everything that happens within the ETF is done with what’s called an authorized participant. So you do exchanges. And so there’s no capital gains that are assigned to the investors. As long as they hold the ETF, a tax trigger only occurs when they actually sell the ETF. Finally, it’s a great way to get exposure to the market. So whether you want to own a broad market index, one of the legacy indexes, or a vehicle like ours. That gives you in one single trade, rather than having to guess who’s going to win. Is Nvidia going to win or Palantir who’s going to win? You can own a hundred of the best winners in the market in one single stock ticker. In our case, FFF. Frazer Rice (02:07.364)So let’s dive into that theme a little bit. As you said, it’s the top hundred founder led companies. First and foremost, public I assume, private, you’re not diving in those waters. Public vs Private Michael (02:20.59)Correct. So these are the hundred best publicly traded founder led stocks. And we generally fish from the 200 largest founder led publicly traded stocks. So a lot of these are names and founders that are very well recognized. Whether it’s Elon at Tesla or a Mark at Metta, Larry at Oracle, Rich Fairbanks at Capital One. These are all very well known founders. They’re great entrepreneurs who are leading highly scalable, very high performing publicly traded stocks. 02:53 Understanding Founder-Led Companies Frazer Rice (02:53.914)So let’s define founder a little bit. Obviously we have sort of the cult of personality around high-end CEOs. It sounds like you’re identifying companies that have been founded. The people who are running them not only founded them, but they scaled them. They have now gotten them to a level of maturity. That’s different from the typical public company that we find in the S &P 500. Definition of Founder Michael (03:19.104)Yeah. So first let’s define a founder. Then let’s talk about why we think the founder led companies outperform a traditional S&P company. We define the founder as being a chief executive leader. It could be chief executive officer, could be chief technology officer. Sometimes that say a scientific or medical company, would be the chief scientific or chief medical officer. And that person conceived and founded the company, took it from zero to one. It’s their imprint that has guided it over its 10 or 20 or 30 year period. That’s taken it from a small private company to a venture backed company to a large publicly traded company. And so the idea being the person that founded it continues to run it to this day. We talk about the fact that we own an Nvidia that Jensen still runs. But we don’t own Intel. We own Meta because Mark still runs it, but we don’t own Google. We own Dell computer because Michael Dell still runs it. But we don’t own Apple. We own Capital One because Rich Fairbank still runs it, but we don’t own American Express. Investment Process Frazer Rice (04:25.86)Got it. So lots of things to get into here. How does it a company get on your radar screen? And then ultimately, how does it get off of it? Michael (04:35.806)Great question. the getting on the screen is fairly mechanical. We look at the 200 largest by market capitalization founder led stocks. So we look at all U.S. listed. So it could be listed on the New York Stock Exchange or NASDAQ, but it has to be U.S. listed. We then look at the 200 largest. And from there, we select the 100 best using a quantitative factor model. So I’m have a Sanford Bernstein background and so do some of the folks here. And so for folks who are familiar with Bernstein’s research, we use a Bernstein factor model to pick the best, the hundred best names out of the 200 largest. That’s how they get on our radar. And to get off is quite simple if they retire. So if a CEO announces he’s retiring, per the prospectus, we have 90 days to sell the stock. once we, so for example, Mr. Buffett recently stepped down from Berkshire Hathaway. And so we sell Berkshire Hathaway on his announcement and no longer own the stock. Frazer Rice (05:38.0)things like corporate mergers or divestitures or maybe even a reclassification of stock where the founder stays on in some capacity but their decision making has been reduced. How do you analyze that? 05:54 The Investment Strategy Behind the ETF Michael (05:54.326)Yeah, so there is some human overlay judgment calls here and the founder has to be an executive officer leading the company. So they can’t just run a division. They can’t just be chairman of the board. They have to be the executive in charge of running the company. Frazer Rice (06:14.0)And if for, I guess one of the exits possibly would be if, and I don’t know if this is even possible, but if NVIDIA were to take over Meta and there isn’t room for Jensen and Mark in the same suite, how do you analyze something like that? Michael (06:34.253)So in the business combinations where you have two founder-led companies or a non-founder-led company swallowed up by a founder-led company, as long as an original founder remains, it remains in the portfolio. So we’ve had some stocks that had, say, three to four co-founders. And as long as one of those co-founder remains, it remains in the portfolio. Voting Shares Frazer Rice (06:58.352)So one of the things that’s a bee in my bonnet is the concept of having shares where, in a sense, they’re super majority or voting components and then shareholders that have less decision making authority to act as a check and balance around the company. Is that something you’re not really that worried about or is it something that may be a factor that’s important later on? Michael (07:24.525)So we actually think that’s one of the opportunities that this exists. Like one of the things that we haven’t talked about yet is why is all this alpha there? Why is this uncaptured alpha there for us to go get? And we think historically in the past, active money managers have sometimes shied away from these founder led companies because to your point, Frazier, oftentimes the founder has managed to have super voting control, 10 to one shares, 101 shares. So they completely control the company. And some of these larger active money management complexes have said, well, we as the shareholder, we need to be able to have a vote and we’re going to underown these stocks. We have the opposite view. We think these founders are special. So we think that by the time a Mark or a Elon has driven their company into the public markets, they’ve showed that they know how to set the vision, ruthlessly execute and generate value for the shareholders. Concerns? And so we’re not concerned by super voting structures. Oftentimes those are the stocks that we want to own because it’s the founder that’s in control and setting the direction of the business and generating high returns for the shareholders. We view it as you either believe in them and you own the stock or you don’t believe in them and sell the stock. We’re not interested in other people’s getting on the board and monkeying with the decisions of the founders. Frazer Rice (08:30.255)Is this it? What is it about the founders, especially for those that go from zero to one, then to scale, and then to shepherding a mature business? What makes them better and what drives the alpha that you’re trying to seek? In terms of putting together a portfolio of these types of companies? 09:01 The Importance of Founders in Business Michael (09:02.891)Yeah, so the great ones tend to be a bit irreverent. They tend to be highly visionary. They tend to be charismatic communicators and relentless in their execution ability. They’ve got a great ability to pivot if a change needs to be made. And rthe moral authority to set a tone to generate very high rates of return. We see it sort of over and over and over in these founder led companies. And if you look at some of the studies that we’ve done. There’s a study that Bain Capital, Bain had done years ago in combination with Harvard Business Review, founder led companies tend to outperform non-founder led companies in say the S &P 500 by 3X. So it’s this personality type of high vision and high execution tends to drive outsize returns. And it’s a bit of a self-selecting process. What makes Founders Unique? If you think about it by the time any of these founders that we own or talk about have got to the public market. They first had to identify an opportunity to go after. They had to develop a great product by listening to their customers. And they’ve shown that they can scale all the way from a series A round, B, C, D, all the way investing and generating high rates of return in the private markets. Transitions of Founders to Executives They get to the public markets, continue to do that. And now you get a little bit of an effect of a echo of that, of now all of sudden you’re in the public markets. If you get enough scale, you have this highly effective business. Now you’re getting relatively cheap capital that you’re feeding into your business through the public markets. And now you continue to grow. Frazer Rice (10:42.096)Just to summarize at least what I’m hearing is that they’ve gotten to the point of becoming public. They’ve been able to say no to losing control in exchange for either putting some liquidity back in their pocket or otherwise moving on. And so they’ve almost ratified their vision and message and they keep going. And by the fact that they’re public, there’s enough liquidity for everyone else out there in terms of their investments. So it ends up being a win-win. Michael (11:11.157)I think so. That’s what we see. Frazer Rice (11:13.316)So one thing that I’ve been sort of reading about and thinking about is the concept that the number of public companies is becoming less, well, it’s decreasing, and that many people are able to stay private for longer. Do you worry that your universe is going to get too small to provide sort of a canvas for your ideas here? 12:02 Market Trends and Future Outlook Michael (11:37.549)Let’s talk about three phases of that. We don’t, we actually see the data showing that there’s more and more opportunities within founder led. So let’s look at history and then let’s move to the future. So historically, probably about the time you and I joined the securities business, they would actually take the, to your point, they would take the founder, they would kick out this charismatic founder. They would put in some mid-level proctor or GE middle level manager to be the you know, the suit in the room to take the company public. And that was sort of in the late nineties and people figured out that wasn’t such a good idea. So if you actually look at the chart, there’s more and more founders staying and leading their public, their, their publicly traded companies. That’s number one. Number two. Yes. We have seen some companies stay private, obviously Stripe, SpaceX, but we are now seeing, for example, SpaceX coming to the public markets. Eli is talking about coming next year. so we, we haven’t seen it so far impact the pool with which we can fish in. And as I mentioned, that’s what we saw historically. Public Markets and the Future In the future, think, Frazer, I think we’re going to start to see a conversion of public and private markets, meaning these private mega cap companies have liquidity. And I think that you’ll see more and more ability to trade those stocks almost in public liquidity. So I think these two markets are converging. So I think that Not only do we have plenty of founders in the traditional public markets, I think that the liquidity and the big privates is going to converge to a public market style shortly anyway. Frazer Rice (13:13.232)You’re in a curious time as far as launching an ETF around this concept. I know a lot of people are wary of Mag-7 and ultra valuations and issues related to that. How do you respond to that concept that a lot of the growth has taken place in seven, maybe seven out of the hundred that you’ve chosen? Debunking the Mag-7 (to the Mag-3) Michael (13:33.356)Yeah, so that’s a misconception. We see Mike Saylor get on TV and wave his arms around it, but it’s not really true. First of all, what’s interesting, if you tear apart the Mag-7, it’s actually the Mag-3. The outperformance in the Mag-7 has come from Meta, Tesla, and NVIDIA. So it’s not just the Mag-7, it’s a founder led. And now you say, well, that’s a small sample set. Let’s look at a bigger sample set. So if you look at the NASDAQ 100, for example, It’s actually the 20 founder led companies have driven most of the outperformance over the last 25 years. And what I’m about to tell you about the S &P 500 probably won’t surprise you. It’s the 37 founder led companies that have driven most of the outperforming the S &P 500. So the outperformance is coming from founders, not from any specific part of the market. And one of the things that we think is great about this ETF is to avoid concentration. 14:50 Risk Management I know you’re really familiar with the concept of active share and that’s how different you are than the S &P 500. We have an 85 % active share to the S &P 500. So if you own the founders 100 ETF, you have much different exposure to the market than say the S &P 500. And so we think it helps reduce some of that concentration. We’ve done some things to make sure that we are diversified. First of all, we do own 100 stocks. Diversification So really good diversification across that. And then number two, while we run a market weight portfolio, we cap. No stock can be bigger than 7 % of the portfolio, so we don’t get out of balance at any point. So we think that we mitigate some of those concentration risks and we allow people to invest in innovation without being over concentrated to any one name, say the MAG-7, for example. So we think that we’re giving our investors really good exposure to innovation through the founders, but not exposing them to pre-existing market concentrations. And then finally remind everyone It’s not the MAG-7, it’s not the NASDAQ-100, it’s not the S &P-500, it’s the founders within each of these are what are driving the outsized performance in those analytical groups. Frazer Rice (15:36.218)So from a diversification standpoint, obviously not everything in one name, the 7 % cap you described, do you have sector concentration guidelines as well? Michael (15:45.749)We don’t have sector concentration guidelines, but if you look at the nature of the portfolio, we were fairly well diversified. We’re slightly overweight tech and financials versus say the S &P, but we own healthcare stocks, own consumer stocks, we own energy stocks. So we’re giving you a broad exposure to the market. Leverage Frazer Rice (16:05.924)Let’s talk about leverage for a second. I know a lot of people are trying to juice returns by piggybacking off of other people’s money on that front. Does that have a place in your ETF? Michael (16:17.004)So there’s no leverage in the ETF. We sort of believe in get rich the slow way. I like to tell people that it’s very hard to make money in the stock market over the short term, but it’s not particularly difficult over the very long term. think Mr. Munger and Mr. Buffett used to talk about this. the idea being, leverage can impact you in times that are not favorable. So we believe in just owning the stocks unlevered, let them compound over very long periods of time. And we think that by doing that, we and our shareholder, we think our shareholders can generate wealth over very long periods of time. Taxes Frazer Rice (16:54.98)So tax efficiency, the concept of holding period, does that play into your process at all? Michael (17:04.316)So remember within the ETF, as long as you’re managing your trading properly within the ETF, there’s no tax implications inside of it for your shareholders. Your shareholders only would be impacted at selling. So assuming they hold the stocks for over a year, any gains would be long-term capital gains treatment. Frazer Rice (17:27.024)And when you’re describing the investor profile that you’re looking to attract here, who is this for? Michael (17:35.916)Yeah, so the person that, you we really think it’s appropriate for you if you have a five year or more holding period and you want to have long-term capital appreciation. You know, if your goal is to be exposed to the best minds and public securities, that’s the founder led companies, and you want to compound your wealth over a very long period of time and have a high probability of outperforming the traditional broad market indexes, this ETF is designed for you. 17:59 Investor Profile and ETF Positioning Frazer Rice (18:04.705)And as you’re sort of outlining that profile and for those people who are trying to figure out where this fits in from an equity allocation perspective, you’re in charge in many ways of the spoke of a hub and spoke component of people are really sort of looking at indexes as the base of their equity portfolio. What are you looking for? What kind of benchmarks do you sort of measure yourself against? Michael (18:35.007)Yeah, so we think this is absolutely a core holding. So if you’re looking to build out you or your client’s portfolio, we think this should sit at the core. It is on the growth side, so it’s core growth. We think that it is a one-for-one replacement for, the NASDAQ 100. Or, for example, somebody holding the triple Qs. We think this is a better holding than the triple Qs. So we benchmark ourselves against them and against the S &P 500. Ee look at beating those two broad market indexes, generating better risk return for our investors. Frazer Rice (19:13.019)For those listeners that are out there and want to find out more, what’s the best way that they can either get a hold of you or maybe even better, do you have a ticker symbol ready that people can discover? FFF and Contact Information Michael (19:25.215)Yeah, absolutely. So the ticker is FFF. So that’s the FFF ETF that we’ll trade on. And investors can find that at their favorite brokerage firm, whether they’re Schwab customers, Interactive Brokers customers, Fidelity customers, trades under one ticker, just like a stock. Frazer Rice (19:44.365)And let’s take, we have a few minutes to go here, which is great. Your experience in terms of establishing the ETF, maybe a couple of some of the touch points when you went from vision to execution here, what was the process? Michael (20:00.106)Yeah, so ETF has a few basic processes that are regulated under the 1940 Securities Act. And so a lot of those rules are set up to protect the end investors. So for example, the securities live within a trust. So we set up our own trust. Some people use a mingled trust. We thought it was better for our end investors to have our own trust that we set up that has an independent trust board that oversees to make sure that we’re executing our strategies as we’ve outlined in the prospectus to make sure that we’re Doing the best we can for our investors. You’ve got to set that up There’s a few firms that do the plumbing for the for the ETFs would say US Bank is probably the largest player. So US Bank provides our our fund custody and fund administration and then there’s just a few other vendors in the space that sort of help with all the plumbing to make sure that the ETF runs smoothly. So it’s probably a six month process if you stay really focused to get all of that set up. 20:58 Navigating the ETF Launch Process Frazer Rice (21:03.313)You get that set up, how do you approach the Schwabs and the Fidelitys and the other platforms to make sure that people can access, buy, sell, whatever they want to do with your ETF? Michael (21:14.347)Yeah, that’s a great question. So the online brokerages typically put you on the platform as soon as you’re listed on a major US exchange. So you’ve got to get listed on NASDAQ, NYSE or CIBO. We chose CIBO. So again, on the traditional online brokers, you’re there day one. And then the big wire houses, JP Morgan, Goldman, Morgan Stanley, BAML, they typically have a few hurdles that you’ve got to get through, whether it’s daily trading liquidity assets under management. And over time, as you run the wickets through their process, you’re added to those platforms. Macro Issues? Frazer Rice (21:48.721)We live in a political age and a time when there’s just chaos everywhere, different types of rules in order to allocate capital. If you’re an investor trying to guess what’s happening politically, et cetera, that are difficult, you must be positive as far as the environment for founders to find success in this country and beyond. Is there anything that you’re looking for to make sure that those conditions hold? Michael (22:18.225)Yeah, we don’t really look at the macro or political backgrounds. think over very long periods of time, U.S. innovation outperforms. so we sort of we think that, again, one of the great things with investing in founders is they keep adapting as the background changes behind them. So we think over very long periods of time, the U.S. has great economic growth. And for those people that have worried about little blips along the way, we think the founders are the absolute best at mitigating those blips. Frazer Rice (22:48.334)I like to say you bet against America at your own peril and it sounds like from a founder perspective it’s still a great place for them to locate their businesses and grow them here. Michael (23:01.042)Absolutely. 23:50 Final Thoughts and Contact Information Frazer Rice (23:02.971)Just to reiterate, FFF is the ticker symbol for people to find it. any other contact points for people to find you if they’re interested in what you’re putting together. Michael (23:15.613)Yeah, so we have a great website at FounderETFs.com. can go check out there or anyone’s happy to email me, just michael at FounderETFs.com. Happy to chat with anyone who has interest about the portfolio, the strategy, or what we’re building. Frazer Rice (23:32.197)Well, great to have you back on, Mike. Thank you for putting up with my attempt at looking like Steve Jobs. It’s 25 degrees in New York here, and I am the stupid one who’s not in California or somewhere warm. appreciate you taking the time to be on and talking about your new product. Michael (23:48.011)Yeah, it was great to be on here. Really a huge fan of your podcast and just the level of guests that you’re able to interview and help educate your viewers. Frazer Rice (23:56.849)Mike, thanks for being on. Michael (23:59.061)Thanks a lot, Frazer. https://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Actually-Intelligent-Decision-Making-1-ebook/dp/B07FPQJJQT/ Previously with Mike Monaghan ETF EDUCATION ARTICLES ON ETF.COM

Quadruple Witching Day - sounds scary - and it can be. Here's a good look at some opportunities through the Peter Lynch Screener and Seeking Alhpa. THESE SALES END SOON: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠TRENDSPIDER HOLIDAY SALE - Get 52 trainings for the next year at 68% off. Become a Trendspider master! ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠SEEKING ALPHA BUNDLE - Save over $100 and get Premium and Alpha Picks together ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ALPHA PICKS - Want to Beat the S&P? Save $50 ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Seeking Alpha Premium - FREE 7 DAY TRIAL ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠SEEKING ALPHA PRO - TRY IT FOR A MONTH ⁠⁠⁠⁠EPISODE SUMMARY⚡ Quad Witching Volatility – Why today's options expiry could kick off a Santa rally and violent intraday swings.​₿ Crypto On Shaky CPI Ground – Bitcoin's spike on soft inflation, Ethereum losing trend support, and what a faulty CPI print could mean next.​

Our Head of Corporate Research Andrew Sheets and Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management Lisa Shalett unpack what's fueling persistent U.S. inflation and how investors could adjust their portfolios to this new landscape.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, is inflation really transitory or are we entering a new era where higher prices are the norm? Andrew Sheets: It's Thursday, December 18th at 4pm in London. Lisa Shalett: And it's 11am in New York. Andrew Sheets: Lisa, it's great to talk to you again. And, you know, we're having this conversation in the aftermath of, kind of, an unusual dynamic in markets when it comes to inflation. Because inflation is still hovering around 3 percent. That's well above the Federal Reserve's 2 percent target. And yet the Federal Reserve recently lowered interest rates again. Fiscal policy remains very stimulative, and I think there's this real question around whether inflation will moderate? Or whether we're going to see inflation be higher for longer. And you know, you are out with a new report touching on some of the issues behind this and why this might be a structural shift higher in inflation. So, we'd love to get your thoughts on that, and we'll drill down into the various drivers as this conversation goes on. Lisa Shalett: Thanks Andrew. And look, I think as we take a step back, and the reason we're calling this a regime change is because we see factors for inflation coming from both the demand side and the supply side. For example, on the demand side, the role of the infrastructure boom, the GenAI infrastructure boom, has become global. It has caused material appreciation of many commodities in 2025. We're seeing it obviously in some of the dynamics around precious metals. But we're also seeing it in industrial metals. Things like copper, things like nickel. We're also seeing demand factors that may stem from the K-shaped economy. And the K-shaped economy, as we know, is really about this idea that the wealthiest folks are increasingly dominating consumption. And they are getting wealthy through financial asset inflation. On the supply side, there are dynamics like immigration, dynamics around the housing market that we can talk about. But perhaps the wrapper around all of it is how policy is shifting – because increasingly policymakers are being constrained by very high levels of debt and deficits. And determining how to fund those debts and deficits actually removes some of the degrees of freedom that central bankers may have when it comes to actually using interest rates to constrain demand. Andrew Sheets: Well, Lisa, this is such a great point because we're financial analysts. We're not political analysts. But it seems safe to say that voters really don't like inflation. But they also don't like some of the policies that would traditionally be assigned to fight inflation – be they higher interest rates or tighter fiscal policy. And even some of the more recent political shifts that we've seen – I'm talking about the U.S. around, say, immigration policy could arguably be further tightening of that supply side of the economy – measures designed to raise wages, almost explicitly in their policy goals. So how do you see that dynamic? And, again, kind of where does that leave, you think, policy going forward? Lisa Shalett: Yeah. I think the very short answer – our best guess is that policy becomes constrained. So, on the monetary side, we're already seeing the Fed beginning to signal that perhaps they're going to rely on other tools in the toolkit. And what are those tools in the toolkit? Well, they're managing the size of their balance sheet, managing the duration or the mix of things that they hold in the balance sheet. And it's actual, you know, returns to how they think about reserve management in the banking system. All of those things, all of those constraints may enable the U.S. government to fund debts, right? By buying the Treasury bill issuance, which is, you know, swollen to almost [$]2 trillion a year in terms of U.S. deficits. But on the fiscal side, right, the interest payments on debt, begins to crowd out other government spending. So, policy itself in this era of fiscal dominance becomes constrained – both in, you know, Washington, D.C. and from Congress – what they can do, their degrees of freedom – and what the central bank can do to actually control inflation. Andrew Sheets: Another area that you touch on in your report is energy and technology, which are obviously related with this large boom that we're seeing – and continue to expect in AI data center construction. This is a lot of spending on the technology. This is a lot of power needed to power that technology and U.S. data center electricity demand is growing at a rapid rate. And transmission constraints are causing prices to go up. A price that is a pretty visible price for a lot of people when they get their utility bill. So, how do these factors you think shape the story? And where do you think they're going to go as we look into the future? Lisa Shalett: Yeah, 100 percent. I mean, I think, you know, when we talk about, you know, who's going to dominate in Generative AI globally, one of the factors that we have to take into consideration is what is the cost of power? What is the cost of electricity? What is the age of the infrastructure to both generate that electricity and transport it? And transmit it? This is one of the areas where the U.S., at the minute, is facing genuine constraints. When you think about some of the forecasts that have been put out there in terms of $10 trillion of spending related to Generative AI, the number of data centers that are going to be built, and the power shortfall that has been forecast. We're talking about someone having to pay the price, if you will, to ration power until you can upgrade the grid. And in the U.S., that grid upgrade, to be blunt, has lagged some of the rest of the world. Not only because the rest of the world was slower to modernize and leapfrogged in many ways. But we know in China, for example, they have one of the lowest electricity generation costs on the planet. That is an advantage for them. So, we have to consider that power generation writ large is potentially a force for upward inflation, at least in the short term. Andrew Sheets: So we have the fiscal policy backdrop. We have an AI spending backdrop both contributing to the demand side of inflation. We have these supply constraints, whether it's housing or labor also, you know, potentially being more structural drivers of higher inflation. The question I'm sure that investors are asking you is, what should they do about it? So, can you walk us through the key strategies that investors might want to consider as they navigate a new inflationary regime? Lisa Shalett: Sure. So, the first thing that we think it's really important for folks to appreciate is that typically when we've been in these higher inflation regimes in the past, stocks and bonds become positively correlated. And what that means is that the power of a very simple 60-40 or stock-bond-cash portfolio to provide complete or optimal diversification fades. And it requires investors to potentially consider investing, especially beyond fixed income. Stocks very often are pro-inflationary assets; meaning many, many companies have the power to pass through price increases. If you are consuming income from a fixed income or a bond instrument, inflation is your enemy, right? Because it's eating into your real returns. And so, one of the things that we're talking with our clients a lot about in terms of portfolio construction are things like adding real assets, adding infrastructure assets, adding energy, transportation assets, adding commodities. Adding gold even, to a certain extent. You know, there may be cryptocurrencies that have lower correlations to their portfolios. Andrew Sheets: Just to play devil's advocate, you can imagine that some investors might say, ‘Well, I can look in the market at long-term inflation expectations.' And those long-term inflation expectations have been kind of stable and a bit above the Fed's target. But not dramatically. So, what do you say to that? And what do you think those markets either might be missing? Or how could investors leverage that more benign view that's out there in the market? Lisa Shalett: Yeah, so look, I think here's where the debate, right? Our perception has been that inflation expectations have remained extraordinarily anchored – because investors have actually reasonably short memories on the one hand, and we have, by and large, been in disinflationary times. Second, there's extraordinary faith in policy makers – that policy makers will fight inflation. And I think the third thing is that there's extraordinary faith in the deflationary forces of technology. Now, all three of those things may absolutely, positively be true. The problem that we have is that the alternate case, right? The case that we're making – that maybe we're in a new inflationary regime is not priced, and the risk is non-zero. And so, what we see, and what we're watching is – how steep does the yield curve get, right? As we look at yields in the 10-30-year tenure – what is driving those rates higher? Is it a generic term premium? Or are we starting to see an unanchoring, if you will, of inflation expectations. And it takes a while for people to appreciate regime change. And so, look, as is always the case, there's no absolutes in the market. There's no one theory that is priced and the other theory is not. But sometimes you want to hedge, and we think that we're going through a period where diversified portfolios and hedging for these alternative outcomes -- because there are such powerful structural crosscurrents – is the preferred path. Andrew Sheets: Lisa, thanks for sharing your insights Lisa Shalett: Of course, Andrew. That's my pleasure. Andrew Sheets: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us, wherever you listen. It helps more people find the show.

347: Protecting Your Nonprofit from Fraud (Amy Seintourens) SUMMARYThis episode is brought to you by TowneBank, whose ongoing support can be a powerful partner for your organization, offering financial expertise, expanded community relationships, and practical advice no matter your budget size. Learn more at TowneBank.com/NonprofitBanking. Fraud is one of the most underestimated risks in the nonprofit sector - and one of the most disruptive when it strikes. In Episode #347 of Your Path to Nonprofit Leadership, fraud prevention expert Amy Seintourens, SVP and Director of Fraud Management at TowneBank, breaks down the real vulnerabilities nonprofits face today, from internal threats and weak controls to sophisticated email scams, phone spoofing, counterfeit checks, and mail theft. Using clear examples and practical guidance, Amy explains why small organizations can be even more vulnerable and how simple steps - dual controls, treasury services, verification habits, and ongoing team training - significantly reduce risk. Whether you're a founder handling your own bookkeeping, a board treasurer overseeing internal controls, or a senior leader strengthening organizational resilience, Amy offers straightforward strategies to help you prevent fraud before it happens - not after it's too late.ABOUT AMYAmy Seintourens is the Senior Vice President and Director of Fraud Management at TowneBank, bringing 31 years of experience in fraud prevention and Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) compliance. She began her career in 1994 at Dean Witter, later known as Morgan Stanley, before joining EverBank in 2011, where she gained extensive experience supporting a primarily online bank environment. Amy maintains both her ACAMS (Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist) and CFE (Certified Fraud Examiner) credentials. She joined TowneBank in 2018 to support BSA operations and was promoted in 2022 to lead Fraud Management for the organization. Amy is deeply passionate about educating employees and members, staying ahead of emerging fraud trends, and helping nonprofits and businesses strengthen their internal controls.RESOURCESLearn more about fraud prevention at TowneBank.comTowneBank's The Shield bi-monthly fraud-prevention newsletterLet Them by Mel Robbins (Amy's book recommendation)Armstrong McGuireYour Path to Nonprofit Leadership (Audible edition available)

When you read the title of this episode, you may have thought that I'm here to tell you about the next app you need to download or the algorithm hack you're already late to. But no… Goal Digger, I'm here to tell you what I'm seeing beneath the surface. The shifts that are happening whether we talk about them or not. The moves the sanest, smartest women I know are already making quietly. This isn't about keeping up. It's about seeing what's coming and deciding—on your terms—what you want to build toward. The future doesn't belong to the loudest or the busiest. It belongs to the women who built something they can actually sustain. Who chose presence over performance. Who said no to the parts of this that were slowly killing them. So let's talk about where we're headed. Not so you can add ten more things to your to-do list. But so you can exhale. So you can see what you've been feeling is not just you… It's the beginning of something new. Goal Digger Facebook Community: https://www.facebook.com/groups/goaldiggerpodcast/ Goal Digger Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/goaldiggerpodcast/ Goal Digger Show Notes: https://jennakutcherblog.com/2026-marketing-predictions-for-small-business  Thanks to our Goal Digger Sponsors: Sign up for your $1/month Shopify trial period at http://shopify.com/goaldigger. Find a co-host today at http://airbnb.com/host. Check out What Should I Do With My Money? from Morgan Stanley. Listen now at https://mgstnly.lnk.to/bqe8HiAC!GD.  Visit http://www.spectrum.com/freeforlife to learn how you can get Business Internet Free Forever. Experience the power of a Dell PC with Intel Inside®, backed by Dell's price match guarantee. Shop now at https://www.dell.com/deals. Your dream wardrobe's one click away. Visit https://www.revolve.com/goaldigger for 15% off your first order with code GOALDIGGER.

Our Public Policy Strategists Michael Zezas and Ariana Salvatore break down key moves from the White House, U.S. Congress and Supreme Court that could influence markets 2026.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'll be talking about the outlook for U.S. public policy and its interaction with markets into 2026.It's Wednesday, December 17th at 10:30am in New York.So, Ariana, we published our year ahead outlook last month. And since then, you've been out there talking to clients about U.S. public policy, its interaction with markets, and how that plays into 2026. What sorts of topics are on investors' minds around this theme?Ariana Salvatore: So, the first thing I'd say is clients are definitely interested in our more bullish outlook, in particular for the U.S. equity market. And normally we would start these conversations by talking through the policy variables, right? Immigration, deregulation, fiscal, and trade policy. But I think now we're actually post peak uncertainty for those variables, and we're talking through how the policy choices that have been made interact with the outlook.So, in particular for the equity market, we do think that some of the upside actually is pretty isolated from the fact that we're post peak uncertainty on tariffs, for example. Consumer discretionary – the double upgrade that our strategists made in the outlook has very little to do with the policy backdrop, and more to do with fundamentals, and things like AI and the dollar tailwind and all of all those factors.So, I think that that's a key difference. I would say it's more about the implementation of these policy decisions rather than which direction is the policy going to go in.Michael Zezas: Picking up on that point about policy uncertainty, when we were having this conversation a year ago, right after the election, looking into 2025, the key policy variables that we were going to care about – trade, fiscal policy regulation – there was a really wide range of plausible outcomes there.With tariffs, for example, you could make a credible argument that they weren't going to increase at all. But you could also make a credible argument that the average effective tariff rate was going to go up to 50 or 60 percent. While the tariff story certainly isn't over going into 2026, it certainly feels like we've landed in a place that's more range bound. It's an average effective tariff rate that's four to five times higher than where we started the year, but not nearly as high as some of the projections would have. There's still some negotiation that's going on between the U.S. and China and ways in which that could temporarily escalate; and with some other geographies as well. But we think the equilibrium rate is roughly around where we're at right now.Fiscal policy is another area where the projections were that we were going to have anything from a very substantial deficit expansion. Tax cuts that wouldn't be offset in any meaningful way by spending cuts; to a fiscal contraction, which was going to be more focused on heavier spending cuts that would've more than offset any tax cuts. We landed somewhere in between. It seems like there's some modest stimulus in the pipe for next year. But again, that is baked. We don't expect Congress to do much more there.And in terms of regulation, listen, this is a little bit more difficult, but regulatory policy tends to move slowly. It's a bureaucratic process. We thought that some of it would start last year, but it would be in process and potentially hit next year and the year after. And that's kind of where we are.So, we more or less know how these variables have become something closer to constants, and to your point, Ariana now it's about observing how economic actors, companies, consumers react to those policy choices. And what that means for the economy next year.All that said, there's always the possibility that we could be wrong. So, going back to tariffs for a minute, what are you looking at that could change or influence trade policy in a way that investors either might not expect or just have to account for in a new way?Ariana Salvatore: So, I would say the clearest catalyst is the impending decision from the Supreme Court on the legality of the IEEPA tariffs. I think on that front, there are really two things to watch. The first is what President Trump does in response. Right now, there's an expectation that he will just replace the tariffs with other existing authorities, which I think probably should still be our base case. There's obviously a growing possibility, we think, that he actually takes a lighter touch on tariffs, given the concerns around affordability. And then the second thing I would say is on the refunds piece. So, if the Supreme Court does, in fact, say that the Treasury has to pay back the tariff revenue that it's collected, we've investigated some different scenarios what that could look like. In short, we think it's going to be dragged out over a long time period, probably six months at a minimum. And a lot of this will come down to the implementation and what specifically Treasury and CBP, its Customs and Border Protection, sets up to get that money back out to companies.The second catalyst on the trade front is really the USMCA review. So, this is an important topic because it matters a lot for the nearshoring narrative, for the trade relationship that the U.S. has with Mexico and Canada. And there are a number of sectors that come into scope. Obviously, Autos is the clearest impact.So, that's something that's going to happen by the middle of next year. But early in January, the USTR has to give his evaluation of the effectiveness of the USMCA to Congress. I think at that point we're going to start to see headlines. We're going to go start to see lawmakers engage more publicly with this topic. And again, a lot at stake in terms of North American supply chains. So that's going to be a really interesting development to keep an eye on next year too.Michael Zezas: So, what about things that Congress might do? Recently the President and Democrats have been talking about the concept of affordability in the wake of some of the off-cycle elections, where that appeared to influence voter behavior and give Democrats an advantage. So are there policies, any legislative policies in particular, that might come to the forefront that might impact how consumers behave?Ariana Salvatore: So a really important starting point here is just on the process itself, right? So, as we've said, one of the more reliable historical priors is that it's difficult to legislate during election years. That's a function of the fact that lawmakers just aren't in D.C. as often. You also have limited availabilities in terms of procedure itself because Republicans would have to probably do another Reconciliation Bill unless you get some bipartisan support.But hitting on this topic of affordability, there really are a few different things on the table right now. Obviously, the President has spoken about these tariff dividend checks, the $2,000. They've spoken about making changes on housing policy, so housing deregulation, and then the third is on these expanded ACA subsidies.Those were obviously the crux of the government shutdown debate. And for a variety of reasons, I think each of these are really challenging to see moving over the finish line in the coming months. We think that you would need to see some sort of exogenous economic downturn, which is not currently in our economists' baseline forecast, to really get that kind of more reactive fiscal policy.And because of those procedural constraints, I would just go back to the point we were saying earlier around tariff policy and maybe the Supreme Court decision, giving Trump this opportunity to pull back a little bit. It's really the easiest and most available policy lever he has to address affordability. And to that point, the administration has already taken steps in this direction. They provided a number of exemptions on agricultural products and said they weren't going to move forward with the Section 232 tariffs on semiconductors in the very near term. So, we're already seeing directionally, I would say, movement in this area.Michael Zezas: Yeah. And I think we should also keep our eye on potential legislation around energy exploration. This is something that in the past has had bipartisan support loosening up regulations around that, and it's something that also ties into the theme of developing AI as a national imperative. That being said, it's not in our base case because Democrats and Republicans might agree on the high points of loosening up regulations for energy exploration. But there's a lot of disagreements on the details below the surface.But there's also the midterm elections next year. So, how do you think investors should be thinking about that – as a major catalyst for policy change? Or is it more of the same: It's an interesting story that we should track, but ultimately not that consequential.Ariana Salvatore: So obviously we're still a year out. A lot can change. But obviously we're keeping an eye on polling and that sort of data that's coming in daily at this point. The historical precedent will tell you that the President's party almost always loses seats in a midterm election. And in the House with a three-seat majority for Republicans, the bar's actually pretty low for Democrats to shift control back. In the Senate, the map is a little bit different. But let's say you were to get something like a split Congress, we think the policy ramifications there are actually quite limited. If you get a divided government, you basically get fiscal gridlock. So, limits to fiscal expansion, absent like a recession or something like that – that we don't expect at the moment. But you really will probably see legislation only in areas that have bipartisan support.In the meantime, I think you could also expect to see more kind of political fights around things like appropriations, funding the government, the debt ceiling that's typical of divided governments, unless you have some area of bipartisan support, like I said. Maybe we see something on healthcare, crypto policy, AI policy, industrial policy is becoming more of the mainstream in both parties, so potentially some action there.But I think that's probably the limit of the most consequential policy items we should be looking out for.Michael Zezas: Right, so the way I've been thinking about it is: No clear new policies that someone has to account for coming out of the midterms. However, we definitely have to pay attention. There could be some soft signals there about political preferences and resulting policy preferences that might become live a couple years down the line after we get into the 2028 general elections – and the new power configuration that could result from that.So – interesting, impactful, not clear that there'll be fundamental catalysts. And probably along the way we should pay attention because markets will discount all sorts of potential outcomes. And it could get the wrong way on interpreting midterm outcomes, which could present opportunities. So, we'll certainly be tracking that throughout 2026.Ariana Salvatore: Yeah. And if you think about the policy items that President Trump has leaned on most heavily this year and that have mattered for markets, there are things in the executive branch, right? So, tariff policy obviously does not depend on Congress. Deregulation helps if you have fundamental backing from Congress but can occur through the executive agencies. So, to your point, less to watch out for in terms of how it will shift Trump's behavior.Michael Zezas: Well, Ariana, thanks for taking the time to talk.Ariana Salvatore: Always great speaking with you, Michael.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.

Jay Pelosky is the founder of TPW Advisory. He has over 35 years of buy-side and sell-side financial market experience. Before going independent, Jay was at Morgan Stanley, where he was ranked #1 by Institutional Investor in Global Equity Strategy and Global Asset Allocation Strategy. In this podcast, we discuss:  Tripolar World (TPW) - regional integration in Asia, Europe, and Americas. Global growth long cycle driven by spending on AI, defense, and climate across regions. China-US AI competition The shift from chip quality to power costs as the key AI competitive advantage. Brazil and Spain's clean energy plays Why 2025 is not like the 2000 dotcom bubble Private credit opportunities Attractive China tech valuations China's five-year plan Europe's potential Countries pressuring institutions to invest domestically rather than in US markets. 

Our Chief Fixed Income Strategist Vishy Tirupattur responds to some of the feedback from clients on Morgan Stanley's 2026 global outlooks.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. Today, I consider the pushback we've received on our 2026 outlooks – distilling the themes that drew the most debate and our responses to the debates. It's Tuesday, Dec 16th at 3:30pm in New York. It's been a few weeks [since] we published our 2026 outlooks for the global economy and markets. We've had lots of wide-ranging conversations, much dialogue and debate with our clients across the globe on the key themes that we laid out in our outlook. Feedback has ranged from strong alignment to pointed disagreement, with many nuanced views in between. We welcome this dialogue, especially the pushback, as it forces us to re-examine our assumptions and refine our thinking. Our constructive stance on AI and data center-related CapEx, along with the pivotal role we see for the credit market channels, drew notable scrutiny. Our 2026 CapEx projections was anchored by a strong conviction – that demand for compute will far outstrip the supply over the next several years. We remain confident that credit markets across unsecured, structured, and securitized instruments in both public and private domains will be central to the financing of the next wave of AI-driven investments. The crucial point here is that we think this spending will be relatively insensitive to the macro conditions, i.e., the level of interest rates and economic growth. Regarding the level of AI investment, we received a bit of pushback on our economics forecast: Why don't we forecast even more growth from AI CapEx? From our perspective, that is going to be a multi-year process, so the growth implications also extend over time. Our U.S. credit strategists' forecast for IG bond supply – $2.25 trillion in gross issuance; that's up 25 percent year-over-year, or $1 trillion in net issuance; that's 60 percent year-over-year – garnered significant attention. There was some pushback to the volume of the issuance we project. As CapEx growth outpaces revenue and pressures free cash flow, credit becomes a key financing bridge. Importantly, AI is not the sole driver of the surge that we forecast. A pick-up in M&A activity and the resulting increase in acquisition-driven IG supply also will play a key role, in our view. We also received pushback on our expectation for modest widening in credit spreads, roughly 15 basis points in investment grade, which we still think will remain near the low end of the historical ranges despite this massive surge in supply. Some clients argued for more widening, but we note that the bulk of the AI-related issuance will come from high-quality – you know AAA-AA rated issuers – which are currently underrepresented in credit markets relative to their equity market weight. Additionally, continued policy easing – two more rate cuts – modest economic re-acceleration, and persistent demand from yield-focused buyers should help to anchor the spreads. Our macro strategists' framing of 2026 as a transition year for global rates – from synchronized tightening to asynchronous normalization as central banks approach equilibrium – was broadly well received, as was their call for government bond yields to remain broadly range-bound. However, their view that markets will price in a dovish tilt to Fed policy sparked considerable debate. While there was broad agreement on the outlook for yield curve steepening, the nature of that steepening – bull steepening or bear steepening – remained a point of contention. Outside the U.S., the biggest pushback was to the call on the ECB cutting rates two more times in 2026. Our economists disagreed with President Lagarde – that the disinflationary process has ended. Even with moderate continued euro area growth on German fiscal expansion, but consolidation elsewhere, we still see an output gap that will eventually lead inflation to undershoot the ECB's 2 percent target. We also engaged in lively dialogue and debate on China. The key debate here comes down to a micro versus macro story. Put differently, the market is not the economy and the economy is not the market. Sentiment on investments in China has turned around this year, and our strategists are on board with that view. However, from an economics point of view, we see deflation continuing and fiscal policy from Beijing as a bit too modest to spark near-term reflation. 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.

Every time my mom comes on the show, you ask me to bring her back. You want her wisdom and her perspective, the way she sees straight through to what actually matters… and today, we're giving the people what they want! My mom, Sue Shelerud, is intelligent, fierce, persuasive, empathetic, and deeply respected. Over the years, she built her impact face to face in classrooms and living rooms and hospital hallways. She shaped people and held space and asked the hard questions that made them think differently.  I realized that as I've gotten older, we need collectively to learn from women like her, the ones who led in different ways than we do, the ones whose platform looked different, but whose influence was undeniable. The ones who remind us that impact isn't about how loud you are, it's about how deeply you show up.  So today we're talking about motherhood and identity, about the differences between her generation and mine, about what it means to be a safe space for people, about what gets passed down when you lead with presence and not performance. This powerful conversation is for me, it's for my daughters, it's for anyone trying to learn from the women who came before us, the ones who did things differently, and the ones whose power showed up in ways we're only now learning to name. Goal Digger Facebook Community: https://www.facebook.com/groups/goaldiggerpodcast/ Goal Digger Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/goaldiggerpodcast/ Goal Digger Show Notes: https://jennakutcherblog.com/motherhood-generational-wisdom-conversation-with-my-mom  Thanks to our Goal Digger Sponsors: Sign up for your $1/month Shopify trial period at http://shopify.com/goaldigger. Find a co-host today at http://airbnb.com/host. Check out What Should I Do With My Money? from Morgan Stanley. Listen now at https://mgstnly.lnk.to/bqe8HiAC!GD.  Visit http://www.spectrum.com/freeforlife to learn how you can get Business Internet Free Forever. Experience the power of a Dell PC with Intel Inside®, backed by Dell's price match guarantee. Shop now at https://www.dell.com/deals. Your dream wardrobe's one click away. Visit https://www.revolve.com/goaldigger for 15% off your first order with code GOALDIGGER.

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains the significance of the Fed's decision to resume buying $40 billion of Treasury bills monthly. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley's CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist.Today on the podcast I'll be discussing the Fed's decision last week and what it means for stocks.It's Monday, December 15th at 11:30am in New York. So, let's get after it.Last week's Fed meeting provided incremental support for our positive 2026 outlook on equities. The Fed delivered on its expected hawkish rate cut but also indicated it would do more if the labor market continues to soften. More important than the rate cut was the Fed's decision to restart asset purchases. More specifically, the Fed intends to immediately begin buying $40 billion of T-Bills per month to ensure the smooth operation of financial markets. Based on our conversations with investors prior to the announcement, this amount and timing of bill buying exceeded both consensus, and my own expectations. It also confirms a key insight I have been discussing for months and highlighted in our Year Ahead Outlook. First, the Fed is not independent of markets, and market stability often plays a dominant role in Fed policy beyond the stated dual mandate of full employment and price stability.Second, given the size of the debt and deficit, the Fed has an additional responsibility to assist Treasury in funding the government, and will likely continue to work more closely with Treasury in this regard.Finally, the decision to intervene in funding markets sooner and more aggressively than expected may not be ‘Quantitative Easing' as defined by the Fed. However, it is a form of debt monetization that directly helps to reduce the crowding out from the still growing Treasury issuance, especially as Treasury issues more Bills over Bonds.At the Fed's October meeting, it indicated some concern about tightening liquidity which I have discussed on this podcast as the single biggest risk to the bull market in stocks. Evidence of this tightness can be seen in the performance of asset prices most sensitive to liquidity, including crypto currencies and profitless growth stocks.While the Fed probably isn't too concerned about the performance of these asset classes, it does care about financial stability in the bond, credit and funding markets. This is what likely prompted it to restart asset purchases sooner and in a more significant way than most expected.We view this as a form of debt monetization as I mentioned, given the Treasury's objective to issue more bills going forward. More importantly, these purchases provide additional liquidity for markets, and in combination with rate cuts, suggest the Fed is likely less worried about missing its inflation target. This is very much in line with our run it hot thesis dating back to early 2021. As a reminder, accelerating inflation is positive for asset prices as long as it doesn't force the Fed's hand to take the punch bowl away like in 2022. Ironically, the risk in the near-term is that this larger than expected asset purchase program may be insufficient if the Fed has materially underestimated the level of reserves necessary for markets to operate smoothly. This is what happened in 2019 and why the Fed created the Standing Repo Facility in the first place. However, this is more of a tool that is used on an as-needed basis. What the markets may want or need is a larger buffer if the Fed has underestimated the level of reserves required for smoothly functioning financial markets.To be clear, I don't know what that level is, but I do believe markets will tell us if the Fed has done enough with this latest provision. Liquidity-sensitive asset classes and areas of the equity market will be important to watch in this regard, particularly given how weak they traded last Friday and this morning.Bottom line, the Fed has reacted to the markets' tremors over the past few months. Should markets wobble again, we are highly confident the Fed will once again react until things calm down. Last week's FOMC meeting only increases our conviction in that case and keeps us bullish over the next 6-12 months, and our 7800 price target on the S&P 500. We would welcome a correction in the short term as a buying opportunity. 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!

Our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets explains why 2026 might bring a credit cycle that burns hotter before it burns out.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts in the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Today I'm going to talk about our outlook for global credit markets in 2026 and why we think the credit cycle burns hotter before it burns out.It's Friday, December 12th at 2pm in London.Surely it can't go on like this. That phrase is probably coming up a lot as global credit investors sit down and plan for 2026. Credit spreads are sitting at 25 year plus tights in the U.S. and Asia. Issuance in corporate activity are increasingly aggressive. Corporate CapEx is surging. Signs of pressure are clear in the lowest rated parts of the market. And credit investors are trained to worry. Aren't all of these and more signs that a credit cycle is starting to crack under its own weight?Not quite yet, according to our views here at Morgan Stanley. Instead, we think that 2026 brings a credit cycle that burns hotter before it burns out. The reason is partly due to an unusually stimulative backdrop. Central banks are cutting interest rates. Governments are spending more money, and regulatory policy is easing. All of that, alongside maybe the largest investment cycle in a generation around artificial intelligence, should spur more risk taking from a corporate sector that has the capacity to do so.In turn, we think the playbook for credit is going to look a lot like 2005 or 1997-1998. Both periods saw levels of capital expenditure, merger activity, interest rates, and an unemployment rate that are pretty similar to what Morgan Stanley expects next year. And so, looking ahead to 2026, these two periods offer two competing ways to view the year ahead.2025 might be more similar to a period where the low-end consumer really is starting to struggle, but that another force – back then it was China, now it might be AI spending – keeps the broader market humming. 1997 or 1998, on the other hand, would be more similar to a narrative that investors are growing more confident that a new technology is really transformative. Back then, it was the internet and now it's AI.Corporate bond issuance we think will be central to how this resolves itself. This is a strong regional theme and a key driver of our views across U.S., European and Asia Credit. We forecast net issuance to rise significantly in U.S. investment grade up over 60 percent versus 2025 to a total of around $1 trillion.That rise is powered by a continued increase in technology spending to fund AI as well as a broader increase in capital expenditure and merger activity. All of those bonds being sold to the market should mean that U.S. spreads need to move wider to adjust. And that's true, even if underlying demand for credit remains pretty healthy, thanks to high yields, and the economy ultimately holds up.We think this story is a bit better in other areas and regions that have less relative issuance, including European and Asian investment grade and global high yield. They all outperform U.S. investment grade on our forecast. In total returns, we think that all of these markets produce a return of around 4 to 6 percent, and if that's true, it would underperform, say U.S. equities, but outperform cash.More granularly similar to 2025 or 2005, we think that single name and sector dispersion remain major themes. And where you position in maturity should also matter. Credit curves are steep and our U.S. interest rate strategist are expecting the U.S. Treasury curve to steepen significantly Further. That should mean that so-called carry and roll down and where you position on the maturity curve are a pretty big driver of your ultimate result. In our view, corporate bonds between five- and 10-year maturity in both the U.S. and Europe will offer the best risk reward.The most significant risk for global credit remains recession, which we think would argue for wider spreads on both economic rounds, but also through weaker demand as yields would fall. It would mean that our spread forecasts are too optimistic and that our expectation that high yield outperforms investment grade would be wrong. And then there's a milder version of this bear case – that aggression and corporate supply are even stronger than we think, and that creates conditions closer to late 1998 or 1999.Back then, U.S. investment grade spreads were roughly 30 basis points wider than current levels, even though the economy was strong and even though the equity market kept going up.Thank you as always for your time. If you find Thoughts of the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also, please tell a friend or colleague about us today.

Our Global Head of Macro Strategy Matthew Hornbach and Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen discuss the Fed's path as inflation remains above its target and the labor market continues cooling.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: Yesterday, the FOMC meeting delivered another quarter percentage point rate cut. Today we're here to discuss what happens next.It's Thursday, December 11th at 8:30 AM in New York. So, Mike, once again, the Fed cut rates by 25 basis points. That outcome was not a surprise, and the markets reacted positively. But there were some surprises. A bit of a divided FOMC, if you will. How did things play out during the meeting and what are some important takeaways to keep in mind? Michael Gapen: Yeah, well certainly Matt, it is a divided committee. I think that's clear. I think one key takeaway for me is the idea that the Fed is done with risk management rate cuts, and now we're back to data dependent. So, what does that mean? I mean, a risk management rate cut isn't necessarily about the data you have in hand and the data you see; it's your view about the distribution of risks around that. So, in some ways, you're not data dependent when you're making those cuts. Now, I think the challenge at this press conference for Powell was to say, ‘Well, now things are different.' And it was a nuance in the sense that cuts from here, if and when they come, will be data dependent. But I think at the same time he did not want to communicate that the bar for those rate cuts were exceptionally high. But I think he threaded the needle quite well in transitioning from risk management cuts, which aren't data dependent to an outlook, which is now more data dependent. And I thought he did that artfully well. So, for me, that's the big key. Secondarily I'd add a takeaway for me was he seems fairly confident that inflation will be coming down, and I think he still believes the labor market is cooling. The blend of that came across as a bit dovish to me. And then the third thing I would add is he fairly explicitly ruled out the risk of rate hikes. So, I think the combination of those three things: data dependence, still concerns about cooling in the labor market, and chopping off the upper half of the rate path distribution – those were kind of the key takeaways from my point. Matthew Hornbach: So, Mike, with respect to the labor market, Chair Powell did address it in a couple of different ways. But one of the ways that stood out to my ears was how he described some technical factors that people are well aware of – that could mean the economy is actually shedding jobs to the tune of about 20,000 per month. I was wondering if you could just briefly address what those factors – that are supposedly so well known – might be. Michael Gapen: Sure. So, obviously the data that gets released, there are the initial releases and then there are revisions. And in the labor market, there are what are called annual benchmark revisions. So, the BLS released a preliminary estimate of that benchmark revision several months ago, and if you apply that initial estimate, it would suggest that job growth in 2025 could be about 60,000 jobs per month, less than has already been reported. But at the same time, we know immigration controls are slowing growth in the labor force. So, this is what Powell is calling the really curious balance. How can you have employment growth basically zero, maybe even negative, after these revisions come in – and the unemployment rate relatively stable. Yes, it's gone up a few tenths, but not like you would normally expect that rise would be if we were shedding jobs. So that to me is why he… You know; the technical factors about revisions and things that lead them to be, I think, very unsure about where the labor market is; and lean in the direction of thinking lower rates are better to manage those risks than where they were six months ago. Matthew Hornbach: One of the points that you raised in your opening explanation of the meeting was about inflation. And Chair Powell mentioned an expectation that the inflation related to tariffs would be peaking in the first quarter of the year. That sounded very familiar to me because I believe that's your expectation as well. I'm curious. How are you looking at tariffs and the inflation related to tariffs today? And do you agree with Chair Powell still? Michael Gapen: We do. Our modeling of the tariff pass through and our conversations with clients and firms and what we hear on corporate earnings calls suggests that this is a long process. Meaning tariffs go in place, prices don't go up the next month. Firms make pricing decisions that take time to implement. So, we agree that the tariff pass through story will extend into 2026 and likely through the end of the first quarter. And if that's true, then goods prices should continue to move higher. The year-on-year rate of inflation should move higher, peaking at 3 percent or a little above in the first quarter of the year. And then tat effect should we think be over, which would open the door for overall inflation to start coming back down. So, I will use the dreaded T-word. We think ultimately inflation from tariffs will be transitory. And I agree with the Chair's timeline; inflation should peak in the first quarter of the year and then start to trend down. That said, we think inflation will be above the Fed's 2 percent target into 2027, and this is the cost of providing insurance to the labor market. Matthew Hornbach: So finally, all things considered, what is your outlook for Fed policy in 2026? Michael Gapen: Yeah, and the key here, Matt, is that exactly what you just implied about tariffs and inflation still going on into 2026, right? Because what we know is while firms are gauging exactly where they should be pricing, they've been offsetting tariffs through lower demand for labor. So, we think the Fed will be cutting again in January. We have three months of employment data that come across two employment reports between now and the January meeting. We think they will show continued cooling in the labor market. And then we have a second cut next year in in April. So, while tariffs are getting passed through, we think the labor market will continue to cool. And this Fed will be biased to cutting rates to provide support to the labor market in the process. That would mean the federal funds rate gets to 3 – 3.25 percent in the second quarter of 2026, where we think it'll stay.So Matt, I'd like to ask you a question. What I noticed was the rate market backed up going into the meeting, despite the fact that market participants were projecting a cut. And then the rate market rallied, in my view, significantly during the meeting and right after. What do you think was happening there? Matthew Hornbach: So, there's a phenomenon that happens in all markets where investors often speculate on a potential outcome. And if the outcome is then delivered, the follow-on price action is underwhelming. That is colloquially known as buying the rumor and selling the fact. So, I think going into this meeting kind of in line with your expectations, investors were forming very similar expectations about how the FOMC statement itself would change and the implications that that might have for the future of Fed policy. When that hawkish cut was delivered almost exactly as you had expected, Mike, I think, investors started thinking about the future in a slightly different way. Now that their expectations were met with the meeting outcome, they started to consider, the data that is forthcoming. And whenever, officials at the Fed talk about data in the way that Chair Powell spoke about the data – and by which I mean labeled the labor market as potentially losing jobs at the moment, and labeling inflation as transitory, that we'd be past the peak of tariff related inflation after the first quarter of the year. Investors can kind of look at those factors and extrapolate going forward, what that may mean for Fed policy in the first half of 2026. So, I think similar to your expectations for policy after this meeting, investors probably became a bit more confident in your outlook for Fed policy that we would see additional rate cuts in the first half of next year. And then, of course, after the April meeting, the baton will be passed to the next Fed chair, and I think investors are considering what policy might look like under that new regime at the Fed. And on the margin, the view is that the next Fed chair would be more likely than not to continue the process of lowering policy rates. So, I think all of those factors played into the post press conference, and even during the press conference reaction. Michael Gapen: Okay Matt, one last question, if I may. How did the events of the FOMC this week and the market reaction, how does that dovetail with how you're thinking about longer term rates, in particular where you see 10-year yields going? And the dollar? Matthew Hornbach: So, 10-year yields are relatively close to 4 percent at this juncture, and we expect them to drift modestly lower in the first half of 2026, as the Fed continues this process of lowering the policy rate. One point that's very important to make here is that the longer-term Treasury yields today are now sitting well above the Fed's policy rate, and that hasn't been the case for many, many years now. A lot of investors with whom we speak think that longer term yields can head a lot higher from here. But we're skeptical – because the higher that those yields go relative to the Fed's policy rate, the more attractive those bonds become for other investors to buy. So, we don't expect a big increase in longer term interest rates. Unlike some investors, we are expecting interest rates in the long end to remain relatively stable with a downward bias.On the dollar, similarly, we have the dollar continuing its depreciation trend, which it began in January of 2025, earlier this year. We expect that depreciation trend to continue in the first half of 2026 before – similar to the interest rate path – we see a little bit of dollar strength in the second half of the year. And so, you know this being the last FOMC meeting of the year, Mike, I guess we're going to have to take a wait and see approach until the FOMC reconvenes in the new year. Thanks a lot for taking the time to talk about the Fed with me this year. Michael Gapen: Great speaking with you Matt. See you in 2026. 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.

When I started this show, I was working from home, building a business in isolation, and I felt like an imposter in every room I tried to enter. I thought maybe a podcast could help me feel less alone. Maybe it could help me prove I had something worth saying. And here's the part I never saw coming: I didn't think I could do solo episodes! I truly believed I needed a guest, a co-host, someone else to carry the conversation. But hundreds of episodes later, I can talk to a wall forever. I can hold space for an idea, unpack a framework, and connect with you, even though you're not responding in real time. That shift didn't happen overnight. It happened because I kept showing up. And along the way, this mic taught me more than any business course, any mentor, or any strategy ever could. Today, I want to share what I wish someone had told me about what's really possible when you start speaking your truth. Not the surface-level lessons about audio quality or interview techniques, but the deep, transformative shifts that happen when you give yourself permission to grow in public. Maybe you've felt that tug to use your voice, or you've been wondering if podcasting could be the thing that finally changes everything: I want you to understand what you're really signing up for… And why it might be the most important thing you ever do. Goal Digger Facebook Community: https://www.facebook.com/groups/goaldiggerpodcast/ Goal Digger Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/goaldiggerpodcast/ Goal Digger Show Notes: https://jennakutcherblog.com/lessons-from-podcasting  Thanks to our Goal Digger Sponsors: Sign up for your $1/month Shopify trial period at http://shopify.com/goaldigger. Find a co-host today at http://airbnb.com/host. Check out What Should I Do With My Money? from Morgan Stanley. Listen now at https://mgstnly.lnk.to/bqe8HiAC!GD.  Visit http://www.spectrum.com/freeforlife to learn how you can get Business Internet Free Forever. Experience the power of a Dell PC with Intel Inside®, backed by Dell's price match guarantee. Shop now at https://www.dell.com/deals. Your dream wardrobe's one click away. Visit https://www.revolve.com/goaldigger for 15% off your first order with code GOALDIGGER.

Our Chief Asia Economist Chetan Ahya and Chief China Equity Strategist Laura Wang unpack Asia's broadening economic recovery and focus on China's path to market stability in 2026.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Laura Wang: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Laura Wang, Morgan Stanley's Chief China Equity Strategist.Chetan Ahya: And I'm Chetan Ahya, Chief Asia Economist.Laura Wang: Today – our 2026 macro outlook for Asia with a particular focus on China's equity market.It's Wednesday, December 10th at 10am in Hong Kong.Chetan, as 2025 draws to a close; and if we try to remember what we were thinking about this time last year, I think, probably a lot of the market participants were expecting headwinds going into 2025 on the exports and trade front. But turns out that Asia's export growth is tracking at 8 percent this year so far. What's your explanation for this surprise?Chetan Ahya: Well, yes, Laura, you know, we were all concerned that there will potentially be tariffs, especially on China. And therefore, we were concerned that [the] regions' exports may be affected negatively. However, what has happened is that tech exports have driven the strength in the overall exports for the region. And that is all because of the story on AI and tech development that we have all been watching.But the good news is that non-tech exports will recover in 2026. In fact, that's the key call we are making – that from early next year, you will see that improvement in the U.S. domestic demand that helps Asia's exports. And at the same time, we are expecting that bulk of this tariff-related uncertainty would be behind us. And so those are the two factors we think will support this recovery in non-tech exports in 2026.Laura Wang: That's great. How significant is the shift in exports from tech to non-tech?Chetan Ahya: Well, we think that's very important for [the] regions' economic outlook. Because when you think about the tech exports recovery, it was helpful to keep [the] regions' overall exports growth strong, but it did not have the broader multiplier effect on the economy. So, for example, when you think about the tech exports, it tends to be more capital intensive, and we don't see much benefit on job growth.I think the best example I can give you is when you look at the Taiwan economic numbers. We've seen very strong GDP growth year-to-date. But at the same time, consumption numbers have been very weak. And so, non-tech exports recovery is very important for the broader economic recovery, and that is precisely what we expect in 2026. You will see that broadening out of growth with follow up in CapEx, job growth, and consumption recovery.Laura Wang: Your work suggests that Asia inflation will pick up modestly in 2026. What factors are behind this trend?Chetan Ahya: Well, as the non-tech exports recovery materializes, you should see improvement in capacity utilization across the board in the region. That should reduce the disinflationary pressures that we've been seeing year-to-date. And at the same time, we are expecting that the disinflationary pressures that the region was facing from China is also going to ease in 2026.Laura Wang: How will Asia central banks respond to keep inflation within their comfort zones? And what does this mean for monetary policy across the region in 2026?Chetan Ahya: Well actually, there's not much concern about keeping the inflation within the central bank's comfort zone because what we've seen year-to-date in Asia is that Inflation has been much lower than the central bank's target for a number of economies in the region. And they have been responding to this with more interest rate cuts.But going forward, as disinflationary pressure is reduced, we are expecting that the central banks in the region would end their rate cutting cycle. We should see just about one to two more rate cuts for some of the central banks. And then policy rates should remain largely stable through to the end of 2026.So, Laura, let me come to you now. So, 2025 was a very strong year for China markets. And you see 2026 as a ‘keep it steady' year rather than a breakout year. What does stability look like for investors and companies?Laura Wang: That's right, 2025 was a very good year for China equity market. We saw both MSCI China and Han Sang Index delivering more than 30 percent return in absolute terms. Going into 2026, we see it as a year for investors and for the market to preserve and protect what has been achieved in 2025 so far, but not with significantly much higher upside at this point. This is because the valuation re-reading we've seen so far in 2025 is already more than 30 percent, close to 40 percent.In [20]26, we think the valuation will largely stay at its current level, and further upside for the market will be more driven by solid earnings growth. For 2026, we see MSCI China's earnings growth year-on-year at around 6 percent.Chetan Ahya: So, with that backdrop, Laura, do you expect more inflows into the market next year?Laura Wang: Absolutely. Actually, we have already talked to so many investors on a global basis, and we are seeing much higher level of interest in investing in Chinese equities, particularly in some R&D and innovation heavy sectors.That being said, what we are seeing also is relatively light positioning by global investors in Chinese equities – actually across the board, still a quite sizable underweight, which means there will be much higher room for them to increase their allocation gradually in 2026 back to China.Chetan Ahya: And with the U.S.-China tensions easing a bit, and China doubling down on AI and smart manufacturing, where do you see the real-world opportunities from that?Laura Wang: There will be a lot of opportunities inside Chinese equity market, but we do want to stay with the names that will be delivering very solid earnings growth in the next few years. And we also want to highlight the next five years growth strategy laid out by Chinese policy makers.We want to make sure that we focus on the sectors that are very well aligned with the national growth strategy with a strong focus in R&D and innovation – and that would include AI as well as smart manufacturing, automation, robotics, and biotech. We also have collected very high level of interest from global investors in these sectors.At the same time, as we start to see less deflation pressure in 2026, but still with it potentially persisting into 2027, we want investors to still hold on to some exposure to high quality dividend plays. The steady cash returns from these stocks will help you navigate through some volatilities in the market in next year.Chetan Ahya: So, you expect global investors returning, mainland investors shifting money from savings into stocks, and strong cross-border trading within Hong Kong. What does that mean for market behavior and thematic opportunities?Laura Wang: One very positive development we have observed in 2025 is the strong capital market activities in Hong Kong. Hong Kong at single stock exchange basis actually is the most active IPO market in the world in 2025, and with policy support for Hong Kong to continue as a global financial hub, we expect this trend to continue. So, we are seeing more and more capital market activities happening in Hong Kong and mainland China in the next year. And in terms of thematic opportunities, I already mentioned that opportunities align with the national growth strategy with very heavy innovation and R&D focus. Along these opportunities, we're also heavy recommending investors to focus on thematic opportunities such as anti-evolution, as well as corporate governance reform.That summarizes our New Year outlook for Asia economy as well as China equity market. Chetan, thanks so much for taking the time to talk to me.Chetan Ahya: Great speaking with you, Laura.Laura Wang: 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.

Our Head of Research Product in Europe Paul Walsh and Chief European Equity Strategist Marina Zavolock break down the key drivers, risks, and sector shifts shaping European equities in 2026. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Paul Walsh: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's Head of Research Product in Europe.Marina Zavolock: And I'm Marina Zavolock, Chief European Equity Strategist.Paul Walsh: And today – our views on what 2026 holds for the European stock market.It's Tuesday, December 9th at 10am in London.As we look ahead to 2026, there's a lot going on in Europe stock markets. From shifting economic wins to new policies coming out of Brussels and Washington, the investment landscape is evolving quite rapidly. Interest rates, profit forecasts, and global market connections are all in play.And Marina, the first question I wanted to ask you really relates to the year 2025. Why don't you synthesize your, kind of, review of the year that we've just had?Marina Zavolock: Yeah, I'll keep it brief so we can focus ahead. But the year 2025, I would say is a year of two halves. So, we began the year with a lot of, kind of, under performance at the end of 2024 after U.S. elections, for Europe and a decline in the euro. The start of 2025 saw really strong performance for Europe, which surprised a lot of investors. And we had kind of catalyst after catalyst, for that upside, which was Germany's ‘whatever it takes' fiscal moment happened early this year, in the first quarter.We had a lot of headlines and kind of anticipation on Russia-Ukraine and discussions, negotiations around peace, which led to various themes emerging within the European equities market as well, which drove upside. And then alongside that, heading into Liberation Day, in the months, kind of, preceding that as investors were worried about tariffs, there was a lot of interest in diversifying out of U.S. equities. And Europe was one of the key beneficiaries of that diversification theme.That was a first half kind of dynamic. And then in the second half, Europe has kept broadly performing, but not as strongly as the U.S. We made the call, in March that European optimism had peaked. And the second half was more, kind of, focused on the execution on Germany's fiscal. And post the big headlines, the pace of execution, which has been a little bit slower than investors were anticipating. And also, Europe just generally has had weak earnings growth. So, we started the year at 8 percent consensus earnings growth for 2025. At this point, we're at -1, for this year.Paul Walsh: So, as you've said there, Marina, it's been a year of two halves. And so that's 2025 in review. But we're here to really talk about the outlook for 2026, and there are kind of three buckets that we're going to dive into. And the first of those is really around this notion of slipstream, and the extent to which Europe can get caught up in the slipstream that the U.S., is going to create – given Mike Wilson's view on the outlook for U.S. equity markets. What's the thesis there?Marina Zavolock: Yeah, and thank you for the title suggestion, by the way, Paul of ‘Slipstream.' so basically our view is that, well, our U.S. equity strategist is very bullish, as I think most know. At this stage he has 15 percent upside to his S&P target to the end of next year; and very, very strong earnings growth in the U.S. And the thesis is that you're getting a broadening in the strength of the U.S. economic recovery.For Europe, what that means is that it's very, very hard for European equities to go down – if the U.S. market is up 15 percent. But our upside is more driven by multiple expansion than it is by earnings growth. Because what we continue to see in Europe and what we anticipate for next year is that consensus is too high for next year. Consensus is anticipating almost 13 percent earnings growth. We're anticipating just below 4 percent earnings growth. So, we do expect downgrades.But at the same time, if the U.S. recovery is broadening, the hopes will be that that will mean that broadening comes to Europe and Europe trades at such a big discount, about 26 percent relative to the U.S. at the moment – sector neutral – that investors will play that anticipation of broadening eventually to Europe through the multiple.Paul Walsh: So, the first point you are making is that the direction of travel in the U.S. really matters for European stock markets. The second bucket I wanted to talk about, and we're in a thematically driven market. So, what are the themes that are going to be really resonating for Europe as we move into 2026?Marina Zavolock: Yeah, so let me pick up on the earnings point that I just made. So, we have 3.6 percent earnings growth for next year. That's our forecast. And consensus – bottom-up consensus – is 12.7 percent. It's a very high bar. Europe typically comes in and sees high numbers at the beginning of the year and then downgrades through the course of the year. And thematically, why do we see these downgrades? And I think it's something that investors probably don't focus on enough. It's structurally rising China competition and also Europe's old economy exposure, especially in regards to the China exposure where demand isn't really picking up.Every year, for the last few years, we've seen this kind of China exposure and China competition piece drive between 60 and 90 percent of European earnings downgrades. And looking at especially the areas of consensus that are too high, which tend to be highly China exposed, that have had negative growth this year, in prior years. And we don't see kind of the trigger for that to mean revert. That is where we expect thematically the most disappointment. So, sectors like chemicals, like autos, those are some of the sectors towards the bottom of our model. Luxury as well. It's a bit more debated these days, but that's still an underweight for us in our model.Then German fiscal, this is a multi-year story. German fiscal, I mentioned that there's a lot of excitement on it in the first half of the year. The focus for next year will be the pace of execution, and we think there's two parts of this story. There's an infrastructure fund, a 500-billion-euro infrastructure fund in Germany where we're seeing, according to our economists, a very likely reallocation to more kind of social-related spend, which is not as great for our companies in the German index or earnings. And execution there hasn't been very fast.And then there's the Defense side of the story where we're a lot more optimistic, where we're seeing execution start to pick up now, where the need is immense. And we're seeing also upgrades from corporates on the back of that kind of execution pickup and the need. And we're very bullish on Defense. We're overweight the issue for taking that defense optimism and projecting out for all of Europe is that defense makes up less than 2 percent of the European index. And we do think that broadens to other sectors, but that will take years to start to impact other sectors.And then, couple other things. We have pockets of AI exposure in the enabler category. So, we're seeing a lot of strength in those pockets. A lot of catch up in some of those pockets right now. Utilities is a great example, which I can talk about. So, we think that will continue.But one thing I'm really watching, and I think a lot of strategists, across regions are watching is AI adoption. And this is the real bull case for me in Europe. If AI adoption, ROI starts to become material enough that it's hard to ignore, which could start, in my opinion, from the second half of next year. Then Europe could be seen as much more of a play on AI adoption because the majority of our index is exposed to adoption. We have a lot of low hanging fruit, in terms of productivity challenges, demographics, you know, the level of returns. And if you track our early adopters, which is something we do, they are showing ROI. So, we think that will broaden up to more of the European index.Paul Walsh: Now, Marina, you mentioned, a number of sectors there, as it relates to the thematic focus. So, it brings us onto our third and final bucket in terms of what your model is suggesting in terms of your sector preferences…Marina Zavolock: Yeah. So, we have, data driven model, just to take a step back for a moment. And our model incorporates; it's quantum-mental. It incorporates themes. It incorporates our view on the cycle, which is in our view, we're late cycle now, which can be very bullish for returns. And it includes quant factors; things like price target, revisions breadth, earnings revisions breadth, management sentiment.We use a Large Language Model to measure for the first time since inception. We have reviewed the performance of our model over the last just under two years. And our top versus bottom stocks in our model have delivered 47 percent in returns, the top versus bottom performance. So now on the basis of the latest refresh of our model, banks are screening by far at the top.And if you look – whether it's at our sector model or you look at our top 50 preferred stocks in Europe, the list is full of Banks. And I didn't mention this in the thematic portion, but one of the themes in Europe outside of Germany is fiscal constraints. And actually, Banks are positively exposed to that because they're exposed to the steepness – positively to the steepness – of the yield curve.And I think investors – specialists are definitely optimistic on the sector, but I think you're getting more and more generalists noticing that Banks is the sector that consistently delivers the highest positive earnings upgrades of any sector in Europe. And is still not expensive at all. It's one of the cheapest sectors in Europe, trading at about nine times PE – also giving high single digit buyback and dividend yield. So that sector we think continues to have momentum.We also like Defense. We recently upgraded Utilities. We think utilities in Europe is at this interesting moment where in the last six months or so, it broke out of a five-year downtrend relative to the European index. It's also, if you look at European Utilities relative to U.S. Utilities – I mentioned those wide valuation discounts. Utilities have broken out of their downtrend in terms of valuation versus their U.S. peers. But still trade at very wide discounts. And this is a sector where it has the highest CapEx of any sector in Europe – highest CapEx growth on the energy transition. The market has been hesitant to kind of benefit the sector for that because of questions around returns, around renewables earlier on. And now that there's just this endless demand for power on the back of powering AI, investors are more willing to benefit the sector for those returns.So, the sector's been a great performer already year to date, but we think there's multiple years to go.Paul Walsh: Marina, a very comprehensive overview on the outlook for European equities for 2026. Thank you very much for taking the time to talk.Marina Zavolock: Thank you, Paul.Paul Walsh: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

We will examine the volatile 2026 forecast for the U.S. dollar, which Morgan Stanley predicts will decline to a 2021 low by mid-year before staging a significant rebound.Today's Stocks & Topics: Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. (WBD), Market Wrap, Defiance AI & Power Infrastructure ETF (AIPO), “US Dollar Volatility: The Choppy Path to Stabilization in 2026”, Stryker Corporation (SYK), Intuitive Surgical Inc. (ISRG), Impinj, Inc. (PI), U.S. Consumer Sentiment, Fidelity ZERO Large Cap Index (FNILX), U.S. Global Jets ETF (JETS), A-I and Shopping.Our Sponsors:* Check out Incogni: https://incogni.com/investtalk* Check out Invest529: https://www.invest529.com* Check out NordProtect: https://nordprotect.com/investalk* Check out Progressive: https://www.progressive.com* Check out Quince: https://quince.com/INVEST* Check out TruDiagnostic and use my code INVEST for a great deal: https://www.trudiagnostic.comAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brands

What if the fatigue, brain fog, or stubborn symptoms you've been brushing off are actually your body's way of waving a red flag—one that could completely change your health if you knew how to read it? That's exactly what happened to me a few years ago. I was stuck in a cycle of stress, exhaustion, and mystery symptoms I couldn't quite name—until today's guest stepped in. Check out The Being Collective here: http://jennakutcher.com/being  Brigid Titgemeier is a Functional Medicine Registered Dietitian and founder of BeingBrigid Functional Nutrition. She and her team have helped more than 25,000 people—everyone from Fortune 500 CEOs to busy moms—lower inflammation, balance hormones, improve gut health, and actually reclaim energy through evidence-based nutrition and lifestyle strategies.  In this conversation, we're going to talk about the five biggest lessons from my own health journey with Brigid, what's changed in the science of hormone health and nutrition since she was last here, and the exact steps you can take to support your body through stress, perimenopause, detoxification, and more. If you've been feeling tired, foggy, bloated, or depleted and you're tired of trying “healthy” things that don't actually make you feel better, this is for you. Brigid's membership, The Being Collective, gives you the structure, strategy, and support to stop chasing symptoms and finally feel like yourself again. You can learn more and join the next cohort at http://jennakutcher.com/being! Goal Digger Facebook Community: https://www.facebook.com/groups/goaldiggerpodcast/ Goal Digger Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/goaldiggerpodcast/ Goal Digger Show Notes: https://jennakutcherblog.com/tired-foggy-bloated-what-your-body-is-telling-you  Thanks to our Goal Digger Sponsors: Sign up for your $1/month Shopify trial period at http://shopify.com/goaldigger. Find a co-host today at http://airbnb.com/host. Check out What Should I Do With My Money? from Morgan Stanley. Listen now at https://mgstnly.lnk.to/bqe8HiAC!GD.  Visit http://www.spectrum.com/freeforlife to learn how you can get Business Internet Free Forever. Experience the power of a Dell PC with Intel Inside®, backed by Dell's price match guarantee. Shop now at https://www.dell.com/deals. Your dream wardrobe's one click away. Visit https://www.revolve.com/goaldigger for 15% off your first order with code GOALDIGGER.

For nearly a decade, I've sat behind this microphone teaching strategies, sharing systems, and talking about how to grow a business that lasts. But beneath all of that has always been something deeper, and it has taken me years to find the words for what this work has really been about. When I look back, I can see a through line running through every story, every season, and every shift—a consistent truth that connects everything, the invisible thread that makes sense of all the seemingly separate pieces. It's the reason I started this show from a small town in Wisconsin, the same reason I launched a photography business with a $300 Craigslist camera and a heart full of hope. It's the same reason I kept showing up here as I've grown and evolved and pivoted a bunch of times.  I thought I was building a business. What I was really building was a life that felt like mine. This episode is about the truth underneath every strategy, the heartbeat behind every framework, and the through line that has quietly guided it all. Goal Digger Facebook Community: https://www.facebook.com/groups/goaldiggerpodcast/ Goal Digger Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/goaldiggerpodcast/ Goal Digger Show Notes: https://jennakutcherblog.com/building-a-business-vs-building-a-life  Thanks to our Goal Digger Sponsors: Sign up for your $1/month Shopify trial period at http://shopify.com/goaldigger. Find a co-host today at http://airbnb.com/host. Check out What Should I Do With My Money? from Morgan Stanley. Listen now at https://mgstnly.lnk.to/bqe8HiAC!GD.  Visit http://www.spectrum.com/freeforlife to learn how you can get Business Internet Free Forever. Experience the power of a Dell PC with Intel Inside®, backed by Dell's price match guarantee. Shop now at https://www.dell.com/deals. Your dream wardrobe's one click away. Visit https://www.revolve.com/goaldigger for 15% off your first order with code GOALDIGGER.