Podcasts about thematic

Mindframes Show Notes Obsession (2026) Directed by: Curry Barker Written by: Curry Barker Starring: Michael Johnston, Inde Navarrette, Cooper Tomlinson, Megan Lawless, Andy Richter IMDB: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt37287335/ Episode Summary In this episode of Mindframes, Michael and Dave dig into Obsession (2026), Curry Barker's micro-budget feature debut that turned into one of the biggest horror phenomenons in years — a $750K film bought for $15 million out of TIFF that went on to gross well over $148 million worldwide, growing at the box office in consecutive weekends rather than declining. The discussion explores the film's monkey's-paw premise, its working-class Gen Z setting, the moral architecture of Bear's wish, and the central question of whether Bear is the film's actual villain — while comparing the film to Weapons, Pearl, Get Out, The Witch, and Isaac Asimov's Foundation and Empire. Thematic Discussion Obsession explores consent and agency — what happens when desire is granted without consent. The film suggests that Bear doesn't earn or deserve Nikki's love; he eliminates her will and replaces it with his own. As Curry Barker has put it, "love is earned, not demanded," and "any time you wish for something, it's probably going to be selfish." The true engine of the horror isn't the curse twisting the wish — it's that the wish works exactly as asked. On-air verdict — Is Bear the villain? Both hosts landed on no. He's flawed, selfish, and prolongs the harm once he knows better, but he's the story's antagonist rather than its villain — if anyone is the "real" villain, it's the cursed object itself. Michael's framing: not every flawed person is a villain, and the film is more interesting because its characters are layered rather than purely good or evil. On-air verdict — the ending. Dave correctly intuited that Nikki originally killed herself in an earlier draft — that actually was Barker's original Romeo-and-Juliet mutual-suicide ending, before his playwright father pushed him toward the survival cut used in the final film. Michael argued the survival ending is more thematically persuasive: if the theme is one person's coercion of another's agency, the resolution should be Nikki's, not a mutual destruction that treats the harm as shared. Bear's selfishness has to die for Nikki to live. A live reference worth flagging for listeners: Michael cited Naomi Serpell's New Yorker piece "The New Literalism" (March 2025) as a framework for questioning how intentionally — and how literally — modern horror handles its themes of trauma and control. ⏱️ Timestamps Time Segment 00:01 Intro & setup 00:03 Director background — Curry Barker, box office story 00:09 Cinematography & cast discussion 00:30 Reviews & ratings 00:41 ⚠️ Spoiler section begins — "What would you wish for?" 00:44 Thematic discussion: consent and agency 00:45 Is Bear the villain? 01:01 The ending — survival vs. the original Romeo & Juliet cut 01:13 The New Literalism / intentionality debate 01:22 Closing thoughts & next episode

We are now recording an audio version of written posts that we will upload to Apple, Spotify, and YouTube, which you can listen to by clicking the button the play button above.As the Strait of Hormuz (SoH) Crisis completes its third month and on-again/off-again peace talks drag on, we are starting to see the outlines of various structural themes emerging, and, as importantly, some that are not. Thematically we see the following:* Power Surge! Our Power Surge! super-cycle theme has not only not been knocked off track by the SoH Crisis, but has likely been enhanced based on “the four Ds” of pragmatic energy policy orientation we discuss below. Recently completed 1Q 2026 earnings season shows the AI (artificial intelligence) and broader digital transformation theme is as strong as ever.* Geopolitical Super Vol. Geopolitical Super Vol remains our commodity macro framework, in particular for crude oil prices. Since Russia-Ukraine and through SoH-to-date, we have resisted crude oil super-cycle framings while also, importantly, rejecting perma bear doom-and-gloom. The unforgiving math of global oil demand being forced down to circa 95 million b/d of supply from around 105 million b/d pre-crisis suggests recession is the most likely clearing mechanism rather than a structural increase in long-dated oil prices in the event a significant disruption to flows persists. To be clear, we do see scope for a modest increase in long-end oil on the order of $10/bbl to account for both cost inflation and an increased geopolitical risk premium.* Molecules to markets. In our view, getting molecules to markets is the more pressing strategic imperative for countries than simply trying to find the molecules in the first place. In traditional energy, this puts a premium on well-positioned midstream and downstream assets. In the upstream business, there is always an opportunity to find acreage that is well positioned on the future cost curve. Having a midstream or downstream solution (e.g., LNG) may be an increasing success factor for larger E&P (exploration and production) companies.* New business models > pure-play (for larger companies). The era of extreme pure-play specialization we think will fade, or at least will no longer be the dominant ask of investors. Business model evolution is likely to continue to separate leaders from laggards. Examples we find intriguing include pressure pumpers and midstream companies diversifying into behind-the-meter (BTM) power, US shale gas producers expanding into midstream and potentially LNG, refiners that have grown midstream capabilities, midstream companies that have grown export opportunities, and the expanded commercial trading opportunities that larger companies have pursued. The list is growing.* Brownfield > greenfield (usually). The advantage of doing more from existing assets is something both countries and companies have in common. Brownfield almost always beats greenfield on profitability and speed-to-market, though a best-in-class greenfield project like Guyana oil is the type of exception that exists to the general rule.From an energy policy perspective, the Strait of Hormuz Crisis reveals what we are now calling the four Ds of country-level energy policy aspiration:* Do as much Domestic production as possible;* Diversify energy sources and technologies;* Do more from existing assets; and* embrace Digital transformation and AI.Subscribe to Super-Spiked to receive all content via email. Also available on https://veriten.com.The Four Ds of Pragmatic Energy PolicyThe four Ds are the pragmatic policy implication of country leaders recognizing energy's natural hierarchy of needs (Exhibit 1). On the right side of Exhibit 1, we rank (higher on list is better) resource rich countries and resource challenged areas in terms of federal policy orientation that recognizes energy's natural hierarchy of needs and implementation of the four Ds relative to a given country's strengths and weaknesses.Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates among resource rich regions and China among resource challenged areas we see as having favorable federal energy policy orientations. Laggards are not surprising: Western Europe, California, Canada, and Australia. What KSA, UAE, and China have in common are national leadership that emphasizes the ideas of “all of the above,” maximum (or optimal) output of what you can control, and unapologetic “their own country first” mentalities.Super-Spiked subscribers know we have a very favorable view of Canada's oil and gas potential and the leading companies in the province of Alberta. We had an unfavorable view of the federal energy policies pursued by the prior Trudeau regime, with the jury out on the current Carney administration. On the latter, we appreciate that the rhetoric has improved off a low starting point. The proof will be in the policy implementation pudding.No country should aspire to follow the path of California or Western Europe and their “climate first” ideology (dishonorable mention goes to many states in the US northeast). Sadly, poor energy policy choices made in those areas are going to mean that less fortunate consumers and businesses in developing Asia suffer from being outbid for needed energy like LNG, jet fuel, and diesel during times of stress, as we last saw in the early days of Russia-Ukraine. It has been some time since we have done a deep dive on Australia; our sense would be that it is in the Canada category of having substantial oil and gas resources that the world would massively benefit from, but is being held back by ill-advised climate-first ideology by its national leaders.Exhibit 1: A Hierarchy of Energy Needs & Country Policy Objectives and OrientationSource: Veriten.Doing More From Existing AssetsIn previous issues of Super-Spiked, we have discussed three of the Ds: do as much domestic production as possible, diversify energy sources and technology, and embrace digital transformation and AI. Therefore, in this post we will expand on the “do more from existing assets” theme.* A major advantage the developed world has over China, India, and other developing areas is a large installed base of assets and infrastructure. Prematurely retiring old power plants in the name of “energy transition” and “The Climate Crisis” is the type of 2020-2023 mistake that has hurt competitiveness and affordability in the United States and Western Europe. In power generation, we are intrigued with trying to answer the question of how much new generation from legacy sources (e.g., natural gas, BTM, and traditional nuclear) is needed versus how much new generation technology is needed (e.g., fuel cells, enhanced geothermal, advanced nuclear) versus how much can existing grid utilization be improved via flexible loads and various grid enhancing technologies. How much more can we get from existing is important to how much we need from the other two options.* In crude oil markets, we do not believe there is the urgency to figure out “what's next” from a resource perspective as there was in the 2004-2014 super-cycle. To be clear, this comment is intended at the macro level; individual companies are almost always in need of figuring out what's next. Exploration and capital spending is likely to grow but we do not believe the kind of re-rating that happened during China/BRICs is warranted now. Rather we are most intrigued with what companies are doing to extend asset life (i.e., resource to production ratio) via a combination of technology application, business development, and midstream/downstream investment that can ensure molecules get moved to markets and turned into usable end products. Ironically, the Middle East looks like a compelling upstream opportunity for western oil and gas firms, given improved fiscal terms in certain areas. We have long held a favorable view of Canada (our concerns about its federal energy policies notwithstanding) and Alaska. Recent developments in many Latin American countries warrant a fresh look at the region for western players.* The largest areas that seem ripe to “do more from existing” include US shale oil, US shale gas, Middle East oil, Canada's oil sands, Venezuela oil, and developed market power grids.Growth and opportunityThe five areas of energy where we are most confident in growth include:* US and global power generation* Midstream and downstream infrastructure for crude oil and various metals and minerals* Grid enhancing technologies* US and global natural gas* Renewables and storageThe long-term opportunity to grow nuclear power is going to prove to be compelling for many countries, justifying the required patience in terms of time to development. Nuclear is the ultimate baseload, domestic, clean energy source.We remain open-minded about emerging and new energy technologies. We are seeing current growth in fuel cells and optimism about enhanced geothermal on the power generation side of the business. The SoH Crisis will accelerate adoption of electric vehicles and LNG trucks in particular in oil importing countries for diversification and affordability reasons.The success of new business models should diminish investor and activist demand for pure-playsThere is a misperception that investors prefer pure-plays or that investors only want more dividends and stock buybacks. Investors prefer companies that generate superior profitability with differentiated growth. Both are needed to sustainably outperform: profitability AND growth.The challenge in mature, cyclical sectors is that corporate over-enthusiasm for growth usually erodes profitability to the point where investors demand a disavowal of growth in favor of profitability and returning capital to shareholders. To be sure, if structural demand growth for a given commodity is something like 1%-2% per year, the expected growth rates for the largest companies within that sector is unlikely to be any more than +/- 1%-2% of the broader demand trajectory.As businesses mature and growth slows, the demand by investors to focus on sub-parts of the business often increases in order to enhance the combination of per share growth and profitability for a particular business segment. The post-2014 oil super-cycle bust and growth in U.S. shale turbocharged the demand for pure-plays, especially within the traditional oil & gas value chains. Certain pure-play shale oil producers, midstream companies, and refiners in fact performed exceptionally well.Power is clearly in a super-cycle and traditional oil and gas is operating with a Geopolitical Super Vol macro backdrop (a dramatic improvement from the post super-cycle bust phase of 2015-2020) and business opportunities abounding in the different product lines and geographies.SoH Crisis FAQQuestion 1: Has an oil super-cycle begun?Answer: No. Our core view remains Geopolitical Super Vol, not super-cycle.Q2: Have the odds of “peak oil demand” increased?A: No, we don't think so. However, we are concerned that if the Strait remains significantly disrupted that the painful adjustment down in global oil demand could mean that we spend a good part of the remainder of this decade recovering back to pre-crisis demand levels as incremental supply is brought online. In our view, the timing of a more permanent peak in oil demand is unknowable so long as the other seven billion people on Earth continue to use only a fraction of the energy The Lucky 1 Billion of Us take for granted.Q3: Isn't AI and the resulting power demand growth forecasts a bubble waiting to pop?A: No or, perhaps more accurately, not at this time. The fact that numerous stock markets like the U.S. (S&P 500), Japan (NIKKEI), and South Korea (KOSPI) are at or near all-time highs may indeed reflect complacency with the risk of global recession due to the ongoing SoH Crisis. We would differentiate stock market complacency with an AI bubble. We see it in the areas where we spend a lot of time: digital transformation and the application of AI is a game changer for numerous businesses. The stock market may well experience a major correction if the world tips into recession. Whatever short-term setback that might mean for near-term power generation we think would be akin to the Great Financial Crisis hit to oil demand in the middle of the China/BRICs super-cycle of 2004-2014, i.e., it was temporary.Q4: Don't investors prefer “pure-plays” over diversified companies? A: That view is missing our point. Investors prefer companies with competitive profitability and differentiated growth opportunities. The demand for “pure-plays” typically is the result of a mature sector experiencing a structural downcycle and investors being disappointed on both profitability and growth. And for sure, some companies should remain as pure-plays. The larger a company's market capitalization and overall size, the less we think a pure-play business model makes sense, be it basin or geography or asset type or business line. For small-caps and new technologies, the pure-play business model is often logical.Q5: So E&Ps will merge with refiners?A: No, we aren't expecting that type of integration or diversification. A future “integrated E&P” likely means some combination of midstream and commercial exposure as opposed to a historical upstream-refining mix, as an example.⚡️On A Personal Note: Work Hard. Golf Hard.It's been a great three-week stretch of Spring golf ramp-up. 8 rounds in 5 days in and around Troon, Scotland the first week of May and then our NJ club's flagship member-member Governor's Trophy tournament over Memorial Day weekend featuring 45 holes of match play over 2 days. Day 2 of Governor's featured a good Scottish cold snap of low 50s weather and a light drizzle. Glad my rain pants got more work in and happy to be in sunny Houston as I finish writing this.At Governor's you can always see the short-game comfort from the returning Florida crowd versus those that stayed north over what is typically a 4-5 month winter hiatus. I failed to take advantage of part-time Houston residency this past winter and my partner and I didn't win our flight for the first time since 2021. Five 3 puts—FIVE!!!—from yours truly in Round 2 and two more missed make-able putts in Round 3 were seven half-point giveaways we did not overcome. Based on my accounting, my partner cost us only 2 points versus my 3.5, so the disappointing performance is on me. I'll need a stricter winter routine next year.I will say the Scotland golf intensity helped stamina at Governor's. The intensity and deliberate pace of hole-by-hole match play is usually mentally and physically draining. I didn't feel that this year. For future reference: I need to play 36 more often! It forces an easier swing. It improves mental resilience. Seems better than a cold plunge.Does a high level of golf intensity make you a better energy equity analyst, advisor, or board member? For sure it does. There is no question about this. Are we advising our companies to settle for mediocrity? That an 8% return on capital is good enough? That sector average TSR is fine? Of course not.Work Hard. Golf Hard.A Lot of Great Golf In Scotland: Western Gailes Near The Top Of My ListSource: Super-Spiked selfie.The Calm Before The Governor's Trophy StormSource: Super-Spiked.⚖️ DisclaimerI certify that these are my personal, strongly held views at the time of this post. My views are my own and not attributable to any affiliation, past or present. This is not an investment newsletter and there is no financial advice explicitly or implicitly provided here. My views can and will change in the future as warranted by updated analyses and developments. Some of my comments are made in jest for entertainment purposes; I sincerely mean no offense to anyone that takes issue.Subscribe to Super-Spiked to receive all content via email. Also available on https://veriten.com. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit arjunmurti.substack.com

 Mindframes Show Notes I Love Boosters (2026) — Episode 118 Directed by: Boots Riley Written by: Boots Riley Starring: Keke Palmer, Naomi Ackie, Taylour Paige, Poppy Liu, Eiza González, LaKeith Stanfield, Will Poulter, Don Cheadle, Demi Moore Cinematography: Natasha Braier Costume Design: Shirley Kurata Score: Tune-Yards Distributor: Neon IMDB: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt30827810/ Episode Summary In this episode of Mindframes, Michael and Dave discuss I Love Boosters (2026) — the sophomore feature from writer-director Boots Riley (Sorry to Bother You). And they didn't just watch it: Boots Riley was at their screening, making this a particularly special episode. The film follows the Velvet Gang, a crew of professional shoplifters — or "boosters" — led by Corvette (Keke Palmer), who steal high-end fashion and redistribute it to their community at affordable prices, calling it "fashion-forward philanthropy." Their target: Christie Smith (Demi Moore), a cutthroat fashion maven who has stolen Corvette's own designs and passed them off as her own. Michael and Dave dig into Riley's political vision and whether the film preaches or persuades, Keke Palmer's career-best performance, the stunning visual craft from cinematographer Natasha Braier and costume designer Shirley Kurata, and the film's surrealist escalation into sci-fi territory. The spoiler section tackles the film's central question head-on: can style — and collective action — actually be a revolutionary act? Michael gives the film 4 stars. Dave gives it 4.5 stars.

What do you do when God's plan looks nothing like the one you had for yourself? Professor Lori Newbold explores the timeless stories of Ruth, Naomi, and Hannah, uncovering what loyalty, grief, and a relational faith in Christ can teach us about trusting God through life's most unexpected detours.YOUTUBE: https://youtu.be/7fOsRSVrkn4FREE PDF DOWNLOADS OF followHIM QUOTE BOOKSNew Testament: https://tinyurl.com/PodcastNTBookOld Testament: https://tinyurl.com/PodcastOTBookBook of Mormon: https://tinyurl.com/PodcastBMBook WEEKLY NEWSLETTERhttps://tinyurl.com/followHIMnewsletter SOCIAL MEDIAInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/followHIMpodcastFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/followhimpodcastTIMECODE0:00 - Part 1 - Professor Lori Newbold2:09 Thematic set up6:43 Come, Follow Me Manual7:24 Gratitude for unanswered prayers and Naomi9:30 The healthiness of grief11:45 Sitting with sadness14:10 Emotional pain has no painkiller16:16 Naomi's love for her daughters-in-law and hesed19:25 Ruth's declaration and Mosiah 1820:46 What kind of mother-in-law was Naomi24:51 Ruth replaced her gods with Jehovah27:52 Part-member families and “I will go”28:25 Writing dreams in pencil30:19 Ruth gleaning in the fields and Boaz33:55 Kanap–wings and the skirt35:25 The Goel–Redeemer and kinsman41:47 Leaving Jerusalem–faith and relational not outcome based43:48 “But if not” faith46:06 Ruth's request at the threshing floor51:12 Boaz keeping the Law and seeking answers to others' prayers53:56 President Christofferson on God's PLan1:01:28 Bitter and sweet–Boaz as type of Jesus Christ1:02:26 Meekness as a defining attribute1:05:36 Developing meekness1:08:12 What would Hannah want us to know?1:12: 22 End of Part 1 - Professor Lori NewboldThanks to the followHIM team:Steve & Shannon Sorensen: Cofounder, Executive Producer, SponsorDavid & Verla Sorensen: SponsorsDr. Hank Smith: Co-hostJohn Bytheway: Co-hostDavid Perry: ProducerKyle Nelson: Marketing, SponsorLisa Spice: Client Relations, Editor, Show NotesWill Stoughton: Video EditorKrystal Roberts: Translation Team, English & French Transcripts, WebsiteAriel Cuadra: Spanish TranscriptsAmelia Kabwika: Portuguese TranscriptsHeather Barlow: Communications DirectorSydney Smith: Social Media, Graphic Design "Let Zion in Her Beauty Rise" by Marshall McDonaldhttps://www.marshallmcdonaldmusic.com

Explore the untapped potential of Africa's manufacturing and agriculture sectors. This episode highlights how investor attention has skewed toward technology and digital innovation. Learn about the impact on key sectors such as agro-processing and why the commercial potential make these areas are ripe for exploration.Learn more about Oxano Capital: https://oxano.capital/Read the Oxano Capital Case Study: coming soon

Female artists have long employed collage to reflect the ways in which identity is often constructed from conflicting, contrasting and contradictory parts. Cut Out: A Feminist History of Photo Collage, Montage and Assemblage (Thames & Hudson and V&A Publishing, 2026) by Fiona Rogers explores the relationship between photography and feminist collage, foregrounding the use of femmage—a radical reclaiming of craft traditionally associated with women—as a resilient method within feminist and political art. Cut Out presents an expanded definition of collage and cutting techniques to encompass photomontage, assemblage and the photogram. Tracing a lineage from nineteenth-century makers to contemporary practitioners, we encounter Victorian album makers; Modernist, Surrealist and Dadaist innovators; and radical, second-wave feminist artists. Thematic sections include profiles written by expert contributors on key individuals, including Hannah Höch, Dora Maar and Lorna Simpson. Looking to the future as much as the past, Cut Out also reveals how the pioneering work of contemporary and digital artists continues to subvert dominant narratives and foster ever-expanding forms of photographic collage.  At a moment when photography and its history are being actively contested and reappraised, Cut Out is a reminder of its political power.  This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Female artists have long employed collage to reflect the ways in which identity is often constructed from conflicting, contrasting and contradictory parts. Cut Out: A Feminist History of Photo Collage, Montage and Assemblage (Thames & Hudson and V&A Publishing, 2026) by Fiona Rogers explores the relationship between photography and feminist collage, foregrounding the use of femmage—a radical reclaiming of craft traditionally associated with women—as a resilient method within feminist and political art. Cut Out presents an expanded definition of collage and cutting techniques to encompass photomontage, assemblage and the photogram. Tracing a lineage from nineteenth-century makers to contemporary practitioners, we encounter Victorian album makers; Modernist, Surrealist and Dadaist innovators; and radical, second-wave feminist artists. Thematic sections include profiles written by expert contributors on key individuals, including Hannah Höch, Dora Maar and Lorna Simpson. Looking to the future as much as the past, Cut Out also reveals how the pioneering work of contemporary and digital artists continues to subvert dominant narratives and foster ever-expanding forms of photographic collage.  At a moment when photography and its history are being actively contested and reappraised, Cut Out is a reminder of its political power.  This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/gender-studies

Female artists have long employed collage to reflect the ways in which identity is often constructed from conflicting, contrasting and contradictory parts. Cut Out: A Feminist History of Photo Collage, Montage and Assemblage (Thames & Hudson and V&A Publishing, 2026) by Fiona Rogers explores the relationship between photography and feminist collage, foregrounding the use of femmage—a radical reclaiming of craft traditionally associated with women—as a resilient method within feminist and political art. Cut Out presents an expanded definition of collage and cutting techniques to encompass photomontage, assemblage and the photogram. Tracing a lineage from nineteenth-century makers to contemporary practitioners, we encounter Victorian album makers; Modernist, Surrealist and Dadaist innovators; and radical, second-wave feminist artists. Thematic sections include profiles written by expert contributors on key individuals, including Hannah Höch, Dora Maar and Lorna Simpson. Looking to the future as much as the past, Cut Out also reveals how the pioneering work of contemporary and digital artists continues to subvert dominant narratives and foster ever-expanding forms of photographic collage.  At a moment when photography and its history are being actively contested and reappraised, Cut Out is a reminder of its political power.  This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/art

Female artists have long employed collage to reflect the ways in which identity is often constructed from conflicting, contrasting and contradictory parts. Cut Out: A Feminist History of Photo Collage, Montage and Assemblage (Thames & Hudson and V&A Publishing, 2026) by Fiona Rogers explores the relationship between photography and feminist collage, foregrounding the use of femmage—a radical reclaiming of craft traditionally associated with women—as a resilient method within feminist and political art. Cut Out presents an expanded definition of collage and cutting techniques to encompass photomontage, assemblage and the photogram. Tracing a lineage from nineteenth-century makers to contemporary practitioners, we encounter Victorian album makers; Modernist, Surrealist and Dadaist innovators; and radical, second-wave feminist artists. Thematic sections include profiles written by expert contributors on key individuals, including Hannah Höch, Dora Maar and Lorna Simpson. Looking to the future as much as the past, Cut Out also reveals how the pioneering work of contemporary and digital artists continues to subvert dominant narratives and foster ever-expanding forms of photographic collage.  At a moment when photography and its history are being actively contested and reappraised, Cut Out is a reminder of its political power.  This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Female artists have long employed collage to reflect the ways in which identity is often constructed from conflicting, contrasting and contradictory parts. Cut Out: A Feminist History of Photo Collage, Montage and Assemblage (Thames & Hudson and V&A Publishing, 2026) by Fiona Rogers explores the relationship between photography and feminist collage, foregrounding the use of femmage—a radical reclaiming of craft traditionally associated with women—as a resilient method within feminist and political art. Cut Out presents an expanded definition of collage and cutting techniques to encompass photomontage, assemblage and the photogram. Tracing a lineage from nineteenth-century makers to contemporary practitioners, we encounter Victorian album makers; Modernist, Surrealist and Dadaist innovators; and radical, second-wave feminist artists. Thematic sections include profiles written by expert contributors on key individuals, including Hannah Höch, Dora Maar and Lorna Simpson. Looking to the future as much as the past, Cut Out also reveals how the pioneering work of contemporary and digital artists continues to subvert dominant narratives and foster ever-expanding forms of photographic collage.  At a moment when photography and its history are being actively contested and reappraised, Cut Out is a reminder of its political power.  This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/photography

Risks are rising in this market, but earnings are still solid. There are things to watch and buying the dip is still a real possibility. Here's how to create a watch list from ETF's. FORMULA - ⁠⁠⁠⁠Alpha Picks + Seeking Alpha Premium ⁠⁠⁠⁠+ ⁠⁠⁠⁠Trendspider and Sidekick⁠⁠⁠⁠ - PERFECT TOGETHER! THESE SALES END SOON: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠TRENDSPIDER - get my 4 hour algorithm on any annual plan.⁠⁠⁠⁠Seeking Alpha's Tool kit (throw this in for the complete package)⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠*BEST DEAL - SEEKING ALPHA BUNDLE - Save over $150 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 FOR ONLY $89 ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠EPISODE SUMMARY

Original Release Date: April 28, 2026Tom Wigg and Stephen Byrd discuss the accelerating pace of AI breakthroughs, the forces driving them and why the next phase of development may look very different from anything we've seen so far.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Tom Wigg: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Tom Wigg, Head of Specialty Sales in the Americas at Morgan Stanley, and a sector specialist in Technology, Media and Telecom.We wake up every day to new AI product releases, so it's easy to lose sight of the unprecedented non-linear improvement in AI capabilities. But things are about to get weird.It's Tuesday, April 28th at 8am in New York.The market has been thinking about AI in linear terms. But we need to reframe that assumption of only incremental improvement and think about exponential improvement.That was my takeaway from a conversation with Stephen Byrd, Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research at Morgan Stanley. In our conversation, we zeroed in on Stephen's bull case for broader AI model improvements.Tom Wigg: First, I want to talk about one obsession that you've been writing about for the last several months – is this idea that we're going to see nonlinear improvements in the frontier models coming out this spring.Stephen Byrd: Yes.Tom Wigg: There's been, you know, some big headlines around new models, benchmarks coming out publicly. Is this, you know, your bull case playing out on these models? And what are the implications?Stephen Byrd: Yes! Absolutely, Tom. So we have, to your point, we are obsessed. And I know I'm not shy about that – with the nonlinear rate of AI improvement. It is the most important impact to so many stocks that I can think of in the sense that it can impact all industries, all business models. So, what we've been saying for some time is, if you look back over the last couple of years at the relationship between the amount of compute used to train these LLMs and the capabilities, we have a very clear scaling law.And approximately the law is, if you increase the training compute by 10x, the capabilities of the models go up by 2x. Now, as you and I've talked about this a lot; just meditate on that for a moment. I think things are about to get weird in the sense that on the positive side, we're going to see all kinds of underappreciated capabilities across many industries. So this disruption discussion, I think, is going to spread, but it's also going to require investors to, kind of, be more thoughtful about what they do with that concept. Meaning you can't sell everything. In the sense that AI will disrupt some businesses.I actually think this is healthy in some ways because now it forces investors to really look at each business model and assess which is going to get disrupted, which can get supported and enabled by AI, which are immune. Because there are some business models that actually are immune.But essentially from here, Tom, I'd say we are expecting through the spring and summer to see multiple models that are able to perform a much greater percentage of the economy at better levels of accuracy at incredibly low cost. Which I know you and I have talked a lot about the cost of actually doing this work from the LLMs.This is massive. This is going to impact so many industries. I think this is all to the good for the AI infrastructure plays because it shows the importance of getting more intelligence out into the world.Tom Wigg: So, you mentioned the constraints we're seeing across compute, memory and power. It seems like most of the CEOs of the labs and hyperscalers are talking about this. Investors are bullish in terms of the ownership in, you know, memory, optical, semi-cap, et cetera. But the question I'm getting more recently is around what's the ROI on all this spending. And does the market action in these hyperscalers, which have been pretty bearish year-to-date, force a cut on CapEx? So, maybe if you can marry that with what you're picking up on the ground in terms of compute spend and whether the frenzy still continues, you know, versus the ROI? And, like, what could happen?Stephen Byrd: Yeah. The short answer – I'm going to go through detail – is I think the bullishness is going to get more bullish over the coming months. And let me walk you through a couple of the mathematics and then just what I'm seeing on the ground to your point, Tom.So the mathematics. We have a token economics model that looks from the perspective of a hyperscaler or an LLM developer in terms of – if they sell their token at a certain price and you fully load the cost of a data center and all associated costs, financing, you name it – in what are the returns? And the bottom line is the returns are excellent.The other element we spend a lot of work on, and you and I talk a lot about, is the demand for compute. In this world where the LLMs are increasing in capability and the token usage goes way up with agentic AI, video world models, all that stuff, we think that there is a massive shortage of compute. So, if you're lucky enough to be a hyperscaler with the compute, with the power, we think that they will have a lot of pricing power on the tokens.Let me explain why we see price power on the tokens. Now I'm going to flip to the perspective of an adopter. Let me give you just rough mathematics. There was a study last year from one of the big labs showing that on average, an enterprise user using an LLM might be able to replace work that would take about one and a half hours from a human. That would save about $55 of cost. A million tokens, depends on whether you're looking at input or output – but let's just call it $5 for a million tokens.The average usage case today for a fairly complex agentic task in an enterprise setting is in the tens of thousands of tokens. Okay? So let's just do that math again. $55 of savings. A million tokens cost $5, and a typical agentic usage is far less than the million tokens today, though that will accelerate. The economics are a home run for adopters.So, we're in a situation where compute is very scarce. I see pricing power all over the place for those who have the compute and have the power.Tom Wigg: So, when you put it like that, Stephen, it seems so inevitable and obvious. But I wonder why the hyperscalers are trading the way they are? And when do they see the revenue inflection you're talking about? Is this like a stay tuned kinda 2026 event? Is this something we have to wait for for 2027-2028?Like, how do you think this flows through to the extent that the market will get more comfortable that all this free cash flow pressure is worth it on the other side?Stephen Byrd: Yeah. This is, in short, I think this is a 2026 event. But let me dive into that because what you just asked is so important for so many stocks.So, let's talk through this. The capabilities of the models are advancing so fast that the average corporate user is not yet keeping up. There is this gap. But that will happen quickly, and we're seeing signs from these labs of revenue at the lab level that is accelerating. So that's a good sign.What we're seeing, though, among fast adopters is those adopters who really understand the capabilities are quickly realizing just how economically beneficial there is. An example, one of my best friends founded a software company many years ago. Last month was – that was the last month in which his programmers wrote code. They're done with writing code.The efficiency benefits for his business are absolutely massive. But he feels like he's just scratching the surface, and he's about as technically capable as anyone I know. He has two PhDs in the subject matter. He's very, very good.So long way to say that we're living in almost two worlds where the fast adopters will show what's possible. The average utilization for enterprises will still take some time. But I do think that the market will react to what they see from the fast adopters in the sense of – the tangible economic benefits are so big.Now, on the ground, what I'm seeing on the infrastructure side, my friends in power tell me that a couple months ago is when they saw the sense of urgency from the AI community go up a couple of notches for them to get the infrastructure they need. So they saw this explosion in compute coming. In the last two months, the weekly usage of tokens according to OpenRadar is up a couple hundred percent in a couple months.So, I do think we're seeing this. So, this is; it's happening quickly. What I would say is the market will have these signposts in every industry of early adopters showing this benefit. I think that's enough for us to start to get bullish. We also… I just think when you look at the demand for compute, the compute numbers need to go up. And with that, you know, everything in the AI value chain, infrastructure value chain, the volumes need to go up.Tom Wigg: One bear case that I wanted to interrogate was – there's one view that, yes, there's a token explosion right now. But it's because the first use case is coding. Which is inherently, you know, very developer-friendly and token-intensive relative to other knowledge work.Can you talk about, you know, whether you subscribe to that? Or whether the token intensity will be as high or lower as this expands to other areas of knowledge work in the next several years?Stephen Byrd: Yeah, it's a great question. The short version is that, yes, it's true that software usage is more token intensive. However, what we're going to be seeing – we're starting to see it – is in almost every knowledge-based job, we're going to move to agentic AI. And when we do that, you tend to see an explosion in compute.Let me walk you through the numbers. There are a couple studies that show essentially when you go from a query-based usage of LLMs to an agentic use for any occupation, you see about a 10x increase in token usage per use of those models. And you can see why.I've anecdotes of some of my friends who are newer to this – who set their agents loose overnight to do non-coding work. And in the morning they get some pretty amazing results. But they also used a lot more tokens than they'd expected … (laughs)Tom Wigg: And a five grand credit card bill?Stephen Byrd: Exactly. It's like maybe next time you put a few parameters around that. But long way to say, it's agentic across every workflow that I can think of that will still result in an explosion in token demand.Tom Wigg: It's definitely a good idea to put some parameters around your agentic workflow.My thanks to Stephen for that conversation. And thank you for listening. Let us know what you think of the show by leaving us a review where you listen. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or a colleague about us today.

Tom Wigg and Stephen Byrd discuss the accelerating pace of AI breakthroughs, the forces driving them and why the next phase of development may look very different from anything we've seen so far. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript ----- Tom Wigg: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Tom Wigg, Head of Specialty Sales in the Americas at Morgan Stanley, and a sector specialist in Technology, Media and Telecom.We wake up every day to new AI product releases, so it's easy to lose sight of the unprecedented non-linear improvement in AI capabilities. But things are about to get weird. It's Tuesday, April 28th at 8am in New York. The market has been thinking about AI in linear terms. But we need to reframe that assumption of only incremental improvement and think about exponential improvement.That was my takeaway from a conversation with Stephen Byrd, Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research at Morgan Stanley. In our conversation, we zeroed in on Stephen's bull case for broader AI model improvements. Tom Wigg: First, I want to talk about one obsession that you've been writing about for the last several months – is this idea that we're going to see nonlinear improvements in the frontier models coming out this spring.Stephen Byrd: Yes.Tom Wigg: There's been, you know, some big headlines around new models, benchmarks coming out publicly. Is this, you know, your bull case playing out on these models? And what are the implications?Stephen Byrd: Yes! Absolutely, Tom. So we have, to your point, we are obsessed. And I know I'm not shy about that – with the nonlinear rate of AI improvement. It is the most important impact to so many stocks that I can think of in the sense that it can impact all industries, all business models. So, what we've been saying for some time is, if you look back over the last couple of years at the relationship between the amount of compute used to train these LLMs and the capabilities, we have a very clear scaling law.And approximately the law is, if you increase the training compute by 10x, the capabilities of the models go up by 2x. Now, as you and I've talked about this a lot; just meditate on that for a moment. I think things are about to get weird in the sense that on the positive side, we're going to see all kinds of underappreciated capabilities across many industries. So this disruption discussion, I think, is going to spread, but it's also going to require investors to, kind of, be more thoughtful about what they do with that concept. Meaning you can't sell everything. In the sense that AI will disrupt some businesses.I actually think this is healthy in some ways because now it forces investors to really look at each business model and assess which is going to get disrupted, which can get supported and enabled by AI, which are immune. Because there are some business models that actually are immune.But essentially from here, Tom, I'd say we are expecting through the spring and summer to see multiple models that are able to perform a much greater percentage of the economy at better levels of accuracy at incredibly low cost. Which I know you and I have talked a lot about the cost of actually doing this work from the LLMs.This is massive. This is going to impact so many industries. I think this is all to the good for the AI infrastructure plays because it shows the importance of getting more intelligence out into the world.Tom Wigg: So, you mentioned the constraints we're seeing across compute, memory and power. It seems like most of the CEOs of the labs and hyperscalers are talking about this. Investors are bullish in terms of the ownership in, you know, memory, optical, semi-cap, et cetera. But the question I'm getting more recently is around what's the ROI on all this spending. And does the market action in these hyperscalers, which have been pretty bearish year-to-date, force a cut on CapEx? So, maybe if you can marry that with what you're picking up on the ground in terms of compute spend and whether the frenzy still continues, you know, versus the ROI? And, like, what could happen?Stephen Byrd: Yeah. The short answer – I'm going to go through detail – is I think the bullishness is going to get more bullish over the coming months. And let me walk you through a couple of the mathematics and then just what I'm seeing on the ground to your point, Tom.So the mathematics. We have a token economics model that looks from the perspective of a hyperscaler or an LLM developer in terms of – if they sell their token at a certain price and you fully load the cost of a data center and all associated costs, financing, you name it – in what are the returns? And the bottom line is the returns are excellent.The other element we spend a lot of work on, and you and I talk a lot about, is the demand for compute. In this world where the LLMs are increasing in capability and the token usage goes way up with agentic AI, video world models, all that stuff, we think that there is a massive shortage of compute. So, if you're lucky enough to be a hyperscaler with the compute, with the power, we think that they will have a lot of pricing power on the tokens.Let me explain why we see price power on the tokens. Now I'm going to flip to the perspective of an adopter. Let me give you just rough mathematics. There was a study last year from one of the big labs showing that on average, an enterprise user using an LLM might be able to replace work that would take about one and a half hours from a human. That would save about $55 of cost. A million tokens, depends on whether you're looking at input or output – but let's just call it $5 for a million tokens.The average usage case today for a fairly complex agentic task in an enterprise setting is in the tens of thousands of tokens. Okay? So let's just do that math again. $55 of savings. A million tokens cost $5, and a typical agentic usage is far less than the million tokens today, though that will accelerate. The economics are a home run for adopters.So, we're in a situation where compute is very scarce. I see pricing power all over the place for those who have the compute and have the power.Tom Wigg: So, when you put it like that, Stephen, it seems so inevitable and obvious. But I wonder why the hyperscalers are trading the way they are? And when do they see the revenue inflection you're talking about? Is this like a stay tuned kinda 2026 event? Is this something we have to wait for for 2027-2028?Like, how do you think this flows through to the extent that the market will get more comfortable that all this free cash flow pressure is worth it on the other side?Stephen Byrd: Yeah. This is, in short, I think this is a 2026 event. But let me dive into that because what you just asked is so important for so many stocks.So, let's talk through this. The capabilities of the models are advancing so fast that the average corporate user is not yet keeping up. There is this gap. But that will happen quickly, and we're seeing signs from these labs of revenue at the lab level that is accelerating. So that's a good sign.What we're seeing, though, among fast adopters is those adopters who really understand the capabilities are quickly realizing just how economically beneficial there is. An example, one of my best friends founded a software company many years ago. Last month was – that was the last month in which his programmers wrote code. They're done with writing code.The efficiency benefits for his business are absolutely massive. But he feels like he's just scratching the surface, and he's about as technically capable as anyone I know. He has two PhDs in the subject matter. He's very, very good.So long way to say that we're living in almost two worlds where the fast adopters will show what's possible. The average utilization for enterprises will still take some time. But I do think that the market will react to what they see from the fast adopters in the sense of – the tangible economic benefits are so big.Now, on the ground, what I'm seeing on the infrastructure side, my friends in power tell me that a couple months ago is when they saw the sense of urgency from the AI community go up a couple of notches for them to get the infrastructure they need. So they saw this explosion in compute coming. In the last two months, the weekly usage of tokens according to OpenRadar is up a couple hundred percent in a couple months.So, I do think we're seeing this. So, this is; it's happening quickly. What I would say is the market will have these signposts in every industry of early adopters showing this benefit. I think that's enough for us to start to get bullish. We also… I just think when you look at the demand for compute, the compute numbers need to go up. And with that, you know, everything in the AI value chain, infrastructure value chain, the volumes need to go up.Tom Wigg: One bear case that I wanted to interrogate was – there's one view that, yes, there's a token explosion right now. But it's because the first use case is coding. Which is inherently, you know, very developer-friendly and token-intensive relative to other knowledge work.Can you talk about, you know, whether you subscribe to that? Or whether the token intensity will be as high or lower as this expands to other areas of knowledge work in the next several years?Stephen Byrd: Yeah, it's a great question. The short version is that, yes, it's true that software usage is more token intensive. However, what we're going to be seeing – we're starting to see it – is in almost every knowledge-based job, we're going to move to agentic AI. And when we do that, you tend to see an explosion in compute.Let me walk you through the numbers. There are a couple studies that show essentially when you go from a query-based usage of LLMs to an agentic use for any occupation, you see about a 10x increase in token usage per use of those models. And you can see why.I've anecdotes of some of my friends who are newer to this – who set their agents loose overnight to do non-coding work. And in the morning they get some pretty amazing results. But they also used a lot more tokens than they'd expected … (laughs)Tom Wigg: And a five grand credit card bill?Stephen Byrd: Exactly. It's like maybe next time you put a few parameters around that. But long way to say, it's agentic across every workflow that I can think of that will still result in an explosion in token demand.Tom Wigg: It's definitely a good idea to put some parameters around your agentic workflow.My thanks to Stephen for that conversation. And thank you for listening. Let us know what you think of the show by leaving us a review where you listen. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or a colleague about us today.

Our Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research Stephen Byrd unpacks how major investment themes for 2026 are increasingly interconnected, generating gains for investors.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research. Today – how our 10 big thematic predictions are playing out and driving global markets. It's Monday, April 20th at 11:30am in New York. Back in January, we laid out four key themes – AI & Tech Diffusion, the Future of Energy, a Multipolar World, and Societal Shifts. And we laid out 10 specific thematic predictions about forces shaping 2026. It is really striking to me how quickly the landscape has shifted and how significant these trends have become in just a short period of time. Even more striking is how these mega secular themes are converging. AI is driving unprecedented demand for compute and energy. Energy is becoming a strategic priority for nations. And geopolitics is shaping access to both. So, let's start with the most important development: the acceleration of AI. Now we expected strong progress in terms of large language model development, but what we're seeing is really a step-change upward in capability. And this is driving an extraordinary surge in demand for compute. Global AI usage has jumped sharply with weekly usage; and we measure weekly usage in terms of how many tokens are used. Tokens are really a measure of small units of text. It's a fairly standard measure of demand for compute. That token usage has risen by about 250 percent just since early January, from 6.4 trillion tokens a week to 22.7 trillion; pushing us into a world where compute demand exceeds supply. This is one of the defining investment stories of 2026, and I see a lot of alpha generation, around this opportunity. Now, at the same time, AI is reshaping the labor market. We estimate that automation or augmentation will impact 90 percent of occupations; so almost every job will be affected. But the effect is not binary. So we recently assessed the impacts to employment in five sectors where we believe the impact of AI adoption could be the biggest. And on net we see a 4 percent job loss, driven by 11 percent of outright elimination of jobs. 12 percent of jobs that were not backfilled, partially offset by 18 percent of new hires. So the real story is transformation. AI is changing how work gets done, reshaping roles rather than simply replacing them. But AI does not operate in a vacuum. It runs on energy. And that's the second major shift since January. We now estimate global data center power demand could increase by nearly 130 gigawatts by 2028, with the U.S. potentially facing a 10–20 percent shortfall in power availability needed to support that growth. That's why the Future of Energy is such a central theme. AI growth is directly tied to energy availability, cost, and infrastructure, and increasingly, to national policy. And that brings us to the third major development: geopolitics. We certainly did not anticipate the Iran conflict, but it has had a significant impact on energy markets, including supply disruptions that have rippled across global energy systems. And more broadly, we're seeing a global push towards national self-sufficiency; this is a big driver for many years to come – in energy, critical minerals, and technology. And this clearly aligns with our Multipolar World theme, where countries are prioritizing control over key economic inputs. This shift is likely to be a major driver of markets not just this year, but well beyond. These big structural forces are already showing up in performance. The thematic categories that we developed that are aligned with our key themes were up 38 percent on average in 2025, outperforming the S&P 500 by 27 percentage points. And year-to-date in 2026, they're still ahead by 12 points. The strongest areas reflect exactly these dynamics: AI infrastructure, energy security, defense, healthcare, and emerging areas like humanoid robotics. So what's the takeaway from revisiting our predictions? The biggest changes in 2026 are not happening in isolation, but at the intersections of our key themes. AI, energy, and geopolitics are no longer separate stories. They are now deeply interconnected forces shaping the global economy. And understanding those intersections may be the key to understanding markets and generating alpha for years to come.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.

Mindframes Show Notes Normal (2026) Directed by: Ben Wheatley Written by: Derek Kolstad Starring: Bob Odenkirk, Lena Headey, Henry Winkler IMDB: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt31195136/ Episode Summary In this episode of Mindframes, Michael and Dave break down Normal (2026), a genre-blending action thriller from Ben Wheatley starring Bob Odenkirk as a temporary small-town sheriff uncovering a hidden criminal system beneath a seemingly quiet Minnesota town. The discussion explores the film's strengths—particularly its sharp, inventive action sequences—while wrestling with its weaker character development and underdeveloped thematic ambitions. Along the way, the hosts compare Normal to films like No Country for Old Men, Fargo, and Hot Fuzz, asking whether the film earns its ideas about morality, violence, and the illusion of "normality." Thematic Discussion Normal presents the idea that "normality" is not peace or order, but a fragile illusion maintained by hidden systems of violence and compromise. The film suggests that communities—and individuals—often accept morally compromised structures in exchange for stability, even when those systems are corrupt. However, while the idea is compelling, the film struggles to fully develop or emotionally ground this thesis, leaving it more implied than earned. ⏱️ Timestamps Time Segment 00:00 Intro & setup 00:25 Film overview + premise 02:14 Ben Wheatley career discussion 05:39 Derek Kolstad influence & action style 08:05 Cast discussion (Odenkirk, Headey, Winkler) 11:20 Odenkirk as "underestimated man" archetype 13:30 Character depth debate (Michael vs Dave) 16:30 "Should this have been a miniseries?" 18:45 Action vs drama effectiveness 20:00 Michael's review (★★★☆☆) 24:30 Dave's review (★★★☆☆) 29:30 Comparisons: No Country, Fargo, Hot Fuzz 36:30 ⚠️ Spoiler section begins 36:40 Reveal: the town's Yakuza deal 38:30 Debate: Is the central mystery… boring? 40:25 Moral ambiguity discussion 46:30 Thematic breakdown: what is "normal"? 50:45 Civil War comparison (hidden violence) 54:00 Final interpretation debate 58:00 Closing thoughts  

Our U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist Michelle Weaver breaks down the results of a new survey on U.S. consumer spending and confidence.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist. Today, we're bringing you an update on the U.S. consumer as we try and understand the outlook for the economy.It's Thursday, April 9, at 10 AM in New York.You've probably noticed shopping these days feels like a mixed bag. You spend money on your everyday staples like groceries, personal care or clothes. But you might be second-guessing those big ticket items like a new piece of furniture or a new TV. And you're not alone. Our newest AlphaWise survey of U.S. consumers reveals a pretty mixed signal. On the surface, things look solid. Consumers are still spending. We've seen that borne out in some of the recent economic data. And our survey work reveals around 34 percent expect to spend more next month, compared to just 15 percent who expect to spend less. That leaves us with a net spending outlook of +18 percent, which is actually above the long-term average. But when we start to dig in and look beneath the surface, the story shifts. Confidence is deteriorating. Nearly half of consumers expect the economy to get worse over the next six months, while only 32 percent expect an improvement. This results in a net outlook of -17 percent, a meaningful drop from what we saw last month. So how do we reconcile that? That spending with that deterioration in confidence. It's really a balance of timelines. Consumers are spending today, but they're increasingly worried about tomorrow. And these worries are grounded in very real concerns. Inflation remains the dominant issue, with 57 percent of consumers citing rising prices as a key concern – reversing what had been a fairly short-lived improvement on consumers' view on prices. At the same time, of course, with the tensions in the Middle East, geopolitical concerns are increasing quickly. They've jumped to 33 percent from 22 percent just last month. And concerns around the U.S. political environment remain elevated at 43 percent. When you combine all these pressures, it's not surprising that consumers are becoming more cautious in how they plan to spend. We're also seeing that caution show up in the mix of expenditures. In the near term, consumers are still increasing spending across most categories – especially the essentials like groceries, gasoline, and household items. But when we look over a longer horizon, the outlook becomes more selective. Discretionary categories are weakening. Apparel spending expectations have dropped to -16 percent, domestic travel to -11 percent, and international travel to -14 percent. That shift – from discretionary to essentials – is something we tend to see when consumers are bracing for a more uncertain environment. Now, one factor that's supporting the near-term – a brighter spot here – is tax season. This year, 46 percent of consumers expect to receive a larger tax refund compared to last year. And what's interesting about that is where people are going to put the money. About half of consumers plan to save at least a portion of the refund. About a third plan to pay down debt. And only around 30 percent intend to spend it on everyday purchases. So even when people receive a cash boost, the instinct isn't to spend freely. It's to shore up finances. Putting it all together, the picture of the U.S. consumer today is one of resilience but also rising caution. Spending is holding up in the near term, supported by income and tax refunds. But confidence is weakening, savings behavior is increasing, and discretionary demand is softening. These divergent trends are important. We'll continue to watch them closely and bring you updates.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

In this week's episode we discuss how to structure a series before you start writing. Our guide on this journey is Kristina Stanley, bestselling author and CEO of the Fictionary School for Writers and Editors.  If you want to write a series but aren't sure how to begin, this episode is for you. We'll reveal how to structure: • Plot arcs • Character development  • Thematic consistency  • A plan to carry your story, and your readers, across multiple books .//Draft2Digital is where you start your Indie Author Career//   Looking for your path to self-publishing success? Draft2Digital is the leading ebook publisher and distributor worldwide. We'll convert your manuscript, distribute it online, and support you the whole way. • Get started now: https://draft2digital.com/ • Learn the ins, the outs, and the all-arounds of indie publishing from the industry experts on the D2D Blog: https://Draft2Digital.com/blog   • Promote your books with our Universal Book Links from Books2Read: https://books2read.com   Make sure you bookmark https://D2DLive.com for links to live events, and to catch back episodes of the Self Publishing Insiders Podcast.

In this episode, global equity portfolio manager Paul Moroz examines how investors can navigate a market increasingly shaped by conflict, shifting narratives, and wider ranges of possible outcomes. He begins with the recent escalation in the Middle East and the market's relatively measured response, then considers the second-order effects that can matter just as much as the initial shock. The conversation also explores how recent AI-driven swings in software have revealed a market increasingly influenced by thematic flows and short-term sentiment, rather than the more measured process of weighing business fundamentals. Throughout, Paul returns to a central idea: good portfolio management is rarely about one big call, but about making many small, disciplined decisions within a diversified portfolio.   Highlights: Why the market's reaction to the recent escalation in the Middle East has remained relatively measured so far John Deere as a second-order effects case study: how rising oil and fertilizer costs can affect customer economics, margins, and capital allocation Thematic trading and the gap between price and intrinsic value: the Centrini AI thought piece in February triggered a broad software sell-off, showing how quickly disruption narratives—not fundamentals—can dominate market pricing Capital intensity isn't the enemy—poor returns are. Microsoft and Amazon are pouring billions into AI infrastructure, but a key question is whether bundling compute with distribution advantages will deliver attractive returns on that capital. Why Paul believes the market's "voting machine" is increasingly overwhelming the "weighing machine." Markets vote on sentiment every day but building real businesses (and real wealth) takes years of focusing on fundamentals while tuning out the noise. Host: Rob Campbell, CFA Institutional Portfolio Manager   Guest: Paul Moroz, CFA Portfolio Manager   This episode is available for download anywhere you get your podcasts. Founded in 1974, Mawer Investment Management Ltd. (pronounced "more") is a privately owned independent investment firm managing assets for institutional and individual investors. Mawer employs over 250 people in Canada, U.S., and Singapore. Visit Mawer at https://www.mawer.com. Follow us on social: LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/company/mawer-investment-management/ Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/mawerinvestmentmanagement/

Unity Partners head of business development Callie Blankenau discusses lower middle market investing and sourcing strategies.

Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer at Morgan Stanley Wealth Management, examines why markets remain resilient despite war and oil shocks. She speaks with Bloomberg's Tom Keene and Damian Sassower. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today I sit down with Christopher Zook to explore how he built and scaled CAZ Investments into an $11B alternative investment platform.   Christopher shares the early vision behind launching his firm at age 31 and the philosophy of investing his own capital first before inviting others to participate alongside him. We discuss how a chance confrontation in a country club locker room ultimately forced him to rethink capital formation and marketing, transforming the trajectory of the business. Christopher also breaks down the strategy behind GP stakes, the evolution of private markets, and why alignment with partners sits at the center of everything he does. We discuss: • How Christopher built an investment firm around the principle of investing his own capital first alongside partners • The locker room moment that forced a shift toward proactive capital formation and communication with investors • Designing an irresistible offer by eliminating management fees and aligning incentives entirely with investor outcomes • How GP stakes investing works and why it has become one of the most powerful business models in private markets • Why themes like media rights, private markets expansion, and access to alternatives are shaping the future of investing Support our Sponsors Ramp: https://ramp.com/powers Collateral Partners: https://collateral.com/fort Topics: (00:00:00) - Intro(00:03:53) - The origins of CAZ Investments(00:12:42) - Creating the irresistible offer(00:17:38) - Partnering with Tony Robbins(00:36:54) - GP stakes explained(00:41:48) - Secondary market edge(00:44:58) - How GP stakes are underwritten(00:49:48) - Tech and venture carry risk(00:53:12) - Consolidation trends(00:56:31) - Big checks and liquidity rights(01:02:18) - Thematic funds and investor access(01:07:04) - Alignment rules and guardrails(01:11:03) - Sports team investing thesis(01:15:54) - Media rights and league economics(01:26:11) - Democratizing alternatives Links: CAZ Investments - https://cazinvestments.com/ Christopher on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/christopher-zook Chris on Social Media: Chris on X: https://x.com/fortworthchris Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thepowerspodcast LinkedIn: https://bit.ly/45gIkFd Watch POWERS on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3oynxNX Visit our website: https://www.powerspod.com/ Leave a review on Apple: https://bit.ly/45crFD0 Leave a review on Spotify: https://bit.ly/3Krl9jO  POWERS is produced by https://www.johnnypodcasts.com/

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

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

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

Filling in for TJ McCormack, Walter M. Sterling gives a sprawling, long-form monologue that blends utilitarian local updates, such as an impending blizzard in the Northeast, with pop-culture nostalgia and critiques of modern infrastructure like permanent toll roads. Sterling navigates a wide variety of "everyman" grievances, ranging from the decline of traditional education—specifically the loss of cursive, analog clocks, and hard deadlines—to the predatory nature of corporate giants like Walmart. Structurally, his broadcast functions as an interactive town square, punctuated by listener call-ins that touch on everything from the merits of facial hair in politics to personal experiences with autism and law enforcement. Thematic threads of institutional mistrust and "common sense" morality bind these disparate segments together, as seen in his intense scrutiny of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal and the disappearance of Savannah Guthrie's mother. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this episode of Destination on the Left, I talk with industry leaders from across the country at the American Bus Association's Marketplace 2026 in Reno, Nevada, to uncover what's next for destinations, attractions, and travelers. You'll hear from Josef Kruger of US Ghost Adventures, Aisha Jones of Mystic Seaport Museum, Jana Carter from Visit Annapolis, Kay Calzolari of Visit Winston Salem, Meredith Dollevoet from Cartersville Museum City, Jim Vozzella with 360Chicago, and Debra Tassone from Discover Long Island. Together, they share fresh insights on how storytelling, immersive activities, and hands-on programming are reshaping group experiences. What You Will Learn in This Episode: How group travel experiences are evolving to focus on immersive storytelling and hands-on engagement Strategies for collaboration between destinations, attractions, and local partners Trends shaping group travel for 2026, including wellness-focused itineraries and multi-generational groups How destinations and attractions are using customizable programming to add value and create memorable moments for visitors Why DMOs and attractions are bundling experiences and aligning their offerings to appeal to new travel trends Innovative approaches organizations are using to keep travelers engaged before, during, and after their visits How getting involved with associations like the ABA contributes to building enduring relationships and fostering continuous growth in the travel industry Innovation Through Collaboration Collaboration is no longer a "nice to have". It's mission-critical critical. Guests stress the importance of teaming up with regional partners, DMOs, and local organizations. By curating joint itineraries, sharing resources, and feeding each other's strengths, destinations can offer more complete and compelling travel experiences. Kay Calzolari of Visit Winston Salem shares how investing in personal relationships with nearby towns and attractions has enabled her to offer valuable regional itineraries, extending stays, and enhancing visitor value. This collaborative spirit isn't just about logistics, it's about approaching every partner as part of a larger community, working together to create seamless, memorable journeys for guests. Trends Driving Group Travel With the approach of major milestones like America's 250th anniversary in 2026, destinations are getting creative. Thematic travel is gaining traction, from wellness retreats and service-oriented projects to festivals and Be Revolutionary experiences, as Jana Carter describes for Annapolis. Operators are increasingly tapping into local culture, outdoor recreation, and even culinary partnerships. Museums are stepping up with exhibits that go beyond static displays. As Aisha Jones discusses, Mystic Seaport Museum is bringing in unique traveling exhibits, like shipwrecks recreated in LEGO, and launching virtual educational programs to grow engagement beyond the museum's walls. The Power of Networks At the heart of this evolution is the network effect. ABA Marketplace events and similar gatherings have become essential for building lasting industry relationships. Whether it's a first-timer bonding over shared experiences or seasoned pros joining councils and volunteer teams, the connections made drive both business and inspiration. As several guests reflect, returning to these conferences is like coming home—reconnecting with peers, learning from each other, and growing together. Resources: Josef Kruger: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jlkdreams/ Aisha Jones: https://www.linkedin.com/in/aishamjones/ Jana Carter: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jana-carter-b01b8160/ Kay Calzolari: https://www.visitwinstonsalem.com/sites/default/files/2024-11/Kay%27s%20Profile%20Sheet Meredith Dollevoet: https://www.linkedin.com/in/meredith-dollevoet-62413615/ Jim Vozzella: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jim-vozzella-b53a7416/ Debra Tassone: https://www.linkedin.com/in/debra-tassone-upward/ We value your thoughts and feedback and would love to hear from you. Leave us a review on your favorite streaming platform to let us know what you want to hear more o​f. Here is a quick tutorial on how to leave us a rating and review on iTunes!

Thematic investing is increasingly shaping how investors interpret markets heading into 2026, as artificial intelligence, geopolitical fragmentation, and infrastructure constraints intersect across the global economy.Jay Jacobs, Head of U.S. Equity ETFs at BlackRock, joins Oscar to discuss why mega forces are becoming harder to ignore—and harder to diversify away from—than in past market cycles. Their conversation explores how AI investing is evolving from a growth narrative into one focused on usage intensity, how national security considerations are reshaping the definition of defense, and why physical infrastructure is emerging as a critical market constraint.Key insights include:· Why thematic investing is gaining relevance alongside sector and style frameworks· How AI usage intensity reframes the AI investment conversation· Where infrastructure and energy constraints may influence adoption timelines· How geopolitical fragmentation is expanding the definition of defense· Why overlapping mega forces may shape market outcomes into 2026Key moments in this episode:00:00 Introduction to Thematic Investing in 2026: AI and Market Forces00:40 The Rise of Thematic Investing01:43 Deep Dive into AI's Market Impact05:22 Understanding Token Consumption07:55 Evaluating AI Investments11:12 Geopolitical Fragmentation and Defense13:51 Infrastructure's Evolving Role16:42 Future of AI and Broader Implications18:38 Conclusion and Final Thoughts Thematic investing, AI investing, Capital markets, Infrastructure, Megaforces, Stock market trends, Geopolitical fragmentation, Defense spendingSources: iShares Thematic Outlook, 2026This content is for informational purposes only and is not an offer or a solicitation. Reliance upon information in this material is at the sole discretion of the listener. Reference to any company or investment strategy mentioned is for illustrative purposes only and not investment advice. In the UK and non-European Economic Area countries, this is authorized and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. In the European Economic Area, this is authorized and regulated by the Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets. For full disclosures, visit blackrock.com/corporate/compliance/bid-disclosures.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

A Special Shiur Given to The Community in DetroitParshas Mishpatim 5786This shiur is in: EnglishTo sponsor a weekly shiur⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ click here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠To make a donation to the Minchas Asher Foundation ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠click here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠To subscribe to the Minchas Asher mailing list ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠click here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠For the entire online collection of shiurim from HaGaon Rav Asher Weiss shlit"a please visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.minchasasher.com⁠⁠

Our Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research Stephen Byrd and U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist Michelle Weaver lay out Morgan Stanley's four key Research themes for 2026, and how those themes could unfold across markets for the rest of the year. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research. Michelle Weaver: And I'm Michelle Weaver, U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist. Stephen Byrd: I was recently on the show to discuss Morgan Stanley's four key themes for 2026. Today, a look at how those themes could actually play out in the real world over the course of this year. It's Tuesday, February 10th at 10am in New York. So one of the biggest challenges for investors right now is separating signal from noise. Markets are reacting to headlines by the minute, but the real drivers of long-term returns tend to move much more slowly and much more powerfully. That's why thematic analysis has been such an important part of how we think about markets, particularly during periods of high volatility. For 2026, our framework is built around four key themes: AI and tech diffusion, the future of energy, the multipolar world, and societal shifts. In other words, three familiar themes and one meaningful evolution from last year. So Michelle, let's start at the top. When investors hear four key themes, what's different about the 2026 framework versus what we laid out in 2025? Michelle Weaver: Well, like you mentioned before, three of our four key themes are the same as last year, so we're gonna continue to see important market impacts from AI and tech diffusion, the future of energy and the multipolar world.But our fourth key theme, societal shifts, is really an expansion of our prior key theme longevity from last year. And while three of the four themes are the same broad categories, the way they impact the market is going to evolve. And these themes don't exist in isolation. They collide and they intersect with one another, having other important market implications. And we'll talk about many of those intersections today as they relate to multiple themes. Let's start with AI. How does the AI and tech diffusion theme specifically evolve since last year? Stephen Byrd: Yeah. You know, you mentioned earlier the evolution of all of our themes, and that was certainly the case with AI and tech diffusion. What I think we'll see in 2026 is a few major evolutions. So, one is a concept that we think of as two worlds of LLM progress and AI adoption; and let me walk through what I mean by that. On LLM progress, we do think that the handful of American LLM developers that have 10 times the compute they had last year are going to be training and producing models of unprecedented capability. We do not think the Chinese models will be able to keep up because they simply do not have the compute required for the training. And so we will see two worlds, very different approaches. That said, the Chinese models are quite excellent in terms of providing low cost solutions to a wide range of very practical business cases. So that's one case of two worlds when we think about the world of AI and tech diffusion. Another is that essentially we could see a really big gap between what you can do with an LLM and what the average user is actually doing with LLMs. Now there're going to be outliers where really leaders will be able to fully utilize LLMs and achieve fairly substantial and breathtaking results. But on average, that won't be the case. And so you'll see a bit of a lag there. That said, I do think when investors see what those frontier capabilities are, I think that does eventually lead to bullishness. So that's one dynamic. Another really big dynamic in 2026 is the mismatch between compute demand and compute supply. We dove very deeply into this in our note, and essentially where we come out is we believe, and our analysis supports this, that the demand for compute is going to be systematically much higher than the supply. That has all kinds of implications. Compute becomes a very precious resource, both at the company level, at the national level. So those are a couple of areas of evolution.So Michelle, let's shift over to the future of energy, which does feel very different today than it did a year ago. Can you kind of walk through what's changed? Michelle Weaver: Well, we absolutely still think that power is one of the key bottlenecks for data center growth. And our power modeling work shows around a 47 gigawatt shortfall before considering innovative time to power solutions. We get down to around a 10 to 20 percent shortfall in power needed in the U.S. though, even after considering those solutions. So power is still very much a bottleneck. But the power picture is becoming even more challenged for data centers, and that's largely because of a major political overhang that's emerging. Consumers across the U.S. have seen their electricity bills rise and are increasingly pointing to data centers as the culprit behind this. I really want to emphasize though this is a nuanced issue and data center power demand is driving consumer bills higher in some areas like the Mid-Atlantic. But this isn't the case nationwide and really depends on a number of factors like data center density in the region and whether it's a regulated or unregulated utility market.But public perception has really turned against data centers and local pushback is causing planned data centers to be canceled or delayed. And you're seeing similar opinions both across political affiliations and across different regional areas. So yes, in some areas data centers have impacted consumer power bills, but in other areas that hasn't been the case. But this is good news though, for companies that offer off-grid power generation, who are able to completely insulate consumers because they're not connecting to the grid.Stephen, the multipolar theme was already strong last year. Why has it become even more central for 2026? Stephen Byrd: Yeah, you're right. It was strong in 2025. In fact, of our 21 categories of stocks, the top three performing were really driven by multipolar world dynamics. Let me walk through three areas of focus that we have for multipolar world in 2026. Number one is an aggressive U.S. policy agenda, and that's going to show up in a number of ways. But examples here would be major efforts to reshore manufacturing, a real evolution in military spending towards a wide range of newer military technologies, reducing power prices and inflation more broadly. And also really focusing on trying to eliminate dependency on China for rare earths. So that's the first big area of focus. The second is around AI technology transfer. And this is quite closely linked to rare earths. So here's the dynamic as we think about U.S. and China. China has a commanding position in rare earths. The United States has a leading position in access to computational resources. Those two are going to interplay quite a bit in 2026. So, for example, we have a view that in 2026, when those American models, these LLMs achieve these step changes up in capabilities that China cannot match, we think that it's very likely that China may exert pressure in terms of rare earths access in order to force the transfer of technology, the best AI technology to China. So that's an example of this linkage between AI and rare earths. And the last dynamic, I'd say broadly, would be the politics of energy, which you described quite well. I think that's going to be a big multipolar world dynamic everywhere around the world. A focus on how much of an impact our data centers are having – whether it's water access, price of power, et cetera. What are the impacts to jobs? And that's going to show up in a variety of policy actions in 2026. Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm. Stephen Byrd: So Michelle, the last of our four key themes is societal shifts, and you walked through that briefly before. This expands on our prior longevity work. What does this broader framing capture? Michelle Weaver: Societal shifts will include important topics from longevity still. So, things like preparing for an aging population and AI in healthcare. But the expansion really lets us look at the full age range of the demographic spectrum, and we can also now start thinking about what younger consumers want. It also allows us to look at other income based demographics, like what's been going on with the K-economy, which has been an important theme around the world. And a really critical element, though, of this new theme is AI's impact on the labor market. Last year we did a big piece called The Future of Work. And in it we estimated that around 90 percent of jobs would be impacted by AI. I want to be clear: That's not to say that 90 percent of jobs would be lost by AI or automated by AI. But rather some task or some component of that job could be automated or augmented using AI. And so you might have, you know, the jobs of today looking very different five years from now. Workers are adaptable and, and we do expect many to reskill as part of this evolving job landscape. We've talked about the evolution of our key themes, but now let's focus a little on the results. So how have these themes actually performed from an investment standpoint? Stephen Byrd: Yeah. I was very happy with the results in 2025. When we looked across our categories of thematic stocks; we have 21 categories of thematic stocks within our four big themes. On average in 2025, our thematic stock categories outperformed MSCI World by 16 percent and the S&P 500 by 27 percent respectively. So, I was very happy with that result. When you look at the breakdown, it is interesting in terms of the categories, you did really well. As I mentioned, the top three were driven by multipolar world. That is Critical Minerals, AI Semis, and Defense. But after that you can see a lot of AI in Energy show up. Power in AI was a big winner. Nuclear Power did extremely well. So, we did see other categories, but I did find it really interesting that multipolar world really did top the charts in 2025. Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm. Stephen Byrd: Michelle, thanks for taking the time to talk. Michelle Weaver: Great speaking with you, Steven. Stephen Byrd: 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.

What happens when Tolkien's world, Enya's music, and cutting-edge virtual performance collide?In this episode, we explore a breathtaking Second Life film that reimagines “May It Be” as a haunting, hopeful journey through shadow and light. From gothic landscapes and cinematic lighting to an unexpectedly intimate motion-capture reveal, this episode showcases how virtual worlds can deliver not just spectacle, but genuine emotional resonance.If you love:·       Lord of the Rings and its timeless theme of hope against darkness·       Machinima and virtual cinematography at its most poetic·       Innovative uses of facial mocap and performance in online worlds·       Discovering undiscovered creative voices with serious talent…then you won't want to miss this. We dive into a strikingly beautiful piece of Second Life machinima: Anna Kurka's cinematic cover of Enya's “May It Be” from The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. Tracy brings the pick, introducing Anna as a Belgium-based virtual performer who blends singing, storytelling, and atmospheric world-building into emotionally rich visual journeys.Set in the hauntingly gothic Second Life region “Infinite Darkness,” the film pairs slow, ethereal fly-throughs of ancient forests, ruins, mist, and light with a tender, intimate vocal performance. The hosts explore how the imagery echoes Tolkien's core themes of darkness and hope, fear and resilience, the liminal space between night and dawn, and how Anna's more human, grounded interpretation contrasts with Enya's otherworldly original.The discussion also turns technical, with a spoiler-friendly deep dive into the surprise ending: a remarkably convincing facial motion-capture performance inside Second Life, raising fascinating questions about virtual production, real-time mocap, and how far user-generated platforms have evolved.Along the way, the panel reflects on Tolkien's enduring emotional power, the courage it takes to reinterpret iconic music, and the often-hidden talent within virtual worlds that deserves a much wider audience.Timestamps –01:26 Overview of Anna Kirker's “May It Be” (Enya / Lord of the Rings cover), her background as a Second Life creator and singer, and the cinematic quality of her work. 06:31 Thematic and musical analysis10:41 Anna's background and artistic potential12:41 Connection to Tolkien's storytelling14:31 Personal Tolkien memories17:11 Spoiler alert and setup for the ending Credits –Hosts: Ricky Grove, Phil Rice, Damien Valentine, Tracy HarwoodProducer/Editor: Phil RiceMusic: Phil Rice and Suno AI

In this episode of The Biblical Languages Podcast, Kevin talks with Christophe Rico about his new Ancient Greek Thematic Dictionary.Christophe Rico is a linguist with a doctorate in ancient Greek and holds the French official accreditation to direct PhD research. Member of the Faculty of the University of Strasbourg, he is Professor of Greek Philology at the Ecole Biblique of Jerusalem. Since 2011, he is the Dean of the Polis Institute at Jerusalem where ancient languages (Greek, Latin, biblical Hebrew, Syriac, Coptic, classical Arabic) are taught through full immersion as living languages according to the “Polis method."Get volume 1 of the Ancient Greek Thematic Dictionary here: https://www.polisjerusalem.org/resource/ancient-greek-thematic-dictionary-volume-i/As always, this episode is brought to you by Biblingo, the premier solution for learning, maintaining, and enjoying the biblical languages. Visit ⁠biblingo.com to learn more and start your 10-day free trial. If you enjoy this episode, be sure to subscribe on your favorite podcast app and leave us a review. You can also follow Biblingo on social media @biblingoapp to discuss the episode with us and other listeners.

Our Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research Stephen Byrd discusses Morgan Stanley's key investment themes for this year and how they're influencing markets and economies.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research. Today – the four key themes that will define markets and economies in 2026. It's Monday, January 26th, at 10am in New York. If you're feeling overwhelmed by all the market noise and constant swings, you're not alone. One of the biggest hurdles for investors today is really figuring out how to tune out the short-term ups and downs and focus on the bigger trends that are truly changing the world. At Morgan Stanley Research, thematic analysis has long been central to how we think about markets, especially in periods of extreme volatility. A thematic lens helps us step back from the noise and really focus on the structural forces reshaping economies, industries, and societies. And that perspective has delivered results. In 2025, on average, our thematic stock categories outperformed the MSCI World Index by 16 percent and the S&P 500 by 27 percent. And this really reinforces our view that long-term themes can be powerful drivers of alpha. For 2026, our framework is built around four key themes: AI and Tech Diffusion, The Future of Energy, The Multipolar World, and Societal Shifts. Now three of these themes carry forward from last year, but each has evolved meaningfully – and one of our themes represents a major expansion on our prior work. First, the AI and Tech Diffusion theme remains central, but has clearly matured and evolved. In 2025, the focus was on rapid capability gains. In 2026, the emphasis shifts to non-linear improvement and the growing gap between AI capabilities and real-world adoption. A critical evolution is our view that compute demand is likely to exceed supply meaningfully, even as software and hardware become more efficient. As AI use cases multiply and grow more complex, the infrastructure – especially computing power – emerges as a defining constraint. Next is The Future of Energy, which has taken on new urgency. Energy demand in developed markets, long assumed to be flat, is now inflecting upwards. And this is driven largely by AI infrastructure and data centers. Compared with 2025, this theme has expanded from a supply conversation into one focused on policy. Rising energy costs are becoming increasingly visible to consumers, elevating a concept we call the ‘politics of energy.' Policymakers are under pressure to prioritize low-cost, reliable energy, even when trade-offs exist, and new strategies are emerging to secure power without destabilizing grids or increasing household bills. Our third theme, The Multipolar World, also builds on last year but with sharper edges. Globalization continues to fragment as countries prioritize security, resilience, and national self-sufficiency. Since 2025, competition has become more clearly defined by access to critical inputs – such as energy, materials, defense capabilities, and advanced technology. Notably, the top-performing thematic categories in 2025 were driven by Multipolar World dynamics, underscoring how geopolitical and industrial shifts are translating directly into market outcomes. Now the biggest evolution comes with our fourth key theme – which we call Societal Shifts – and this expands on our prior work on Longevity. This new framework captures a wider range of forces shaping societies globally: AI-driven labor disruption and evolution, aging populations, changing consumer preferences, the K-economy, the push for healthy longevity, and challenging demographics across many regions. These shifts increasingly influence government policy, corporate strategy, and economic growth – and their impact spans far more industries than investors often expect. Now crucially these themes don't operate in isolation. AI accelerates energy demand. Energy costs shape politics. Politics influence supply chains and national priorities. And all of this feeds directly into societal outcomes: from employment to consumption patterns. The power of thematic investing lies in understanding these intersections, where multiple forces reinforce one another in underappreciated ways. So to sum it up, the most important investment questions for 2026 aren't just about growth rates. They're about structure. Understanding how technology, energy, geopolitics, and society evolve together may be the clearest way to see where opportunity, and risk, are truly heading. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our U.S. Thematic Strategist Michelle Weaver and U.S. Multi-Industry Analyst Chris Snyder discuss a North America Big Debate for 2026: Whether investments in efficiency and productivity will spark a transformation of U.S. manufacturing. 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. Chris Snyder: I'm Chris Snyder, U.S. Multi-Industry Analyst. Michelle Weaver: Today: Will 2026 be the year of U.S. Manufacturing's transformation? It's Tuesday, January 13th at 10am in New York. U.S. reshoring has been an important component of our multipolar world theme, and manufacturing is one of those topics we have always had our eyes on. We've been making some big predictions about a transformation in this sector, so it makes sense that it features prominently in the big debates we've identified for North America in 2026. In the last few years, there's been a steady stream of investments in automation controls and upgrades across U.S. manufacturing. And this is happening against a backdrop of shifting global supply chains and lingering policy uncertainty. Now, the big market debate is whether these investments will generate a whole wave of greenfield projects – that is brand new, multi-year construction initiatives to build facilities, factories, and infrastructure from the ground up. Chris, what exactly is driving this current wave of efficiency and productivity investment in U.S. manufacturing? And how long term of a trend is it? Chris Snyder: I think what's driving the inflection is tariffs. The view that has underpinned my U.S. reshoring call is that I believe companies have to serve the U.S. market. The U.S. accounts for 30 percent of global consumption – equal to EU and China combined. It is also the best margin region in the world. So, companies have to serve the market, and now what they're doing is they're going back and they're looking at their production assets that they have in the U.S. and they're saying, how can I get more out of what's already here? So, the quickest, cheapest, fastest way to bring production online in the U.S. is drive better productivity and efficiency out of the assets you already have. And we're seeing it come through very quickly after Liberation Day. Michelle Weaver: And you think these investments are an on ramp to larger greenfield projects. What evidence do we have that this efficiency spend is setting the stage for a ramp up in new factory builds? Chris Snyder: I think this is absolutely the leading indicator for greenfields because this is telling us that the supply chain cost calculation has changed. What all of these companies are doing are saying, ‘Okay, how can I get products into the U.S. at the cheapest cost possible?' What we're seeing is the cost of imports have gone higher with tariffs, and now it's more economically advisable for these companies to make the product in the United States. And if that's the case, that means that when they need a new factory, it's going to come to the United States. They might not need a factory now, but when they do, the U.S. is at least incrementally better positioned to get that factory. Other data that we're seeing; I think the most interesting data that's come out of all of this is the bifurcation in global PPI or producer price data. If you look at it on a regional basis, North America markets saw PPI go higher in 2025. They were all the tariff exempt regions – U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Every other region in the world saw PPI down year-to-date. That means that these companies and factories are having to lower prices to stay competitive in the global market and sell their products into the United States. That tells us also where the next factory is going. If you have a factory in the U.S. and a factory in Malaysia, and your U.S. factory is pricing up, that means the return profile is getting better. If your factory in Malaysia is pricing down, it means the returns are getting worse and you're pricing down because it's over-capacitized. That's not a region where you're going to add a factory. You know, what I like to say is – price drives returns, and supply is going to follow returns. And right now, that price data tells us the returns are in the United States. Michelle Weaver: And, for people that might not be familiar with PPI, can you explain it to everyone? It's sort of like CPIs cousin, but how should people think about it? Chris Snyder: Yeah, yeah, so PPI, Producer Price Inflation, it's effectively the prices that my companies, the producers of goods are charging. So maybe this is the price that they would then charge a distributor, who then the distributor ultimately is selling it to a store. And then that's, you know, kind of factoring its way into CPI. But it starts with PPI. Michelle Weaver: And what are some of the key catalysts investors should be looking for in 2026 that could confirm that this greenfield ramp is underway? Chris Snyder: The number one, you know, metric I think the market looks at is manufacturing project starts. Every month there's data that comes out and says how many manufacturing projects were announced in the U.S. that month. And what we've seen coming out of Liberation Day is that number on a project value has gone higher. You know, it hasn't totally inflected, but it has pushed higher. The thing that has inflected is the number of announcements. So, this is not like two or three years ago where we had these mega projects. What we're seeing right now is very broad. And to me that's more important because that shows that there's durability behind it. And it shows that this is because the economics are saying it makes sense. It's not necessarily just because, okay, I got an incentive and I'm trying to follow alongside that. Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm. The market seems skeptical though, pointing out that the ISM manufacturing purchasing managers index has been shrinking. This could be a sign that demand isn't strong enough to justify building new factories right now. How would you address that concern? Chris Snyder: Yeah, no, I mean, you're definitely right. Like the biggest pushback on the reshoring theme is the demand for goods is not very strong. Consumers are not in a good place. So why would companies add capacity in this backdrop? That's never happened before. Companies only add capacity when they're producing a lot and the utilization goes up. This is not a normal cycle. Throughout history, the motivation to add capacity was when your production rates go higher, your utilization hits a certain level, and then you add capacity. So, it always started with demand to your point. The motivation right now is tariff mitigation. And you do not need higher demand to support that. The U.S. is a $1.2 trillion trade deficit. So, that more than anything gets me confident in the theme and the duration behind it. And I think it's a very different outlook when you look across the international markets. They're the ones that need to find incremental demand to justify investment. Michelle Weaver: And given the scale of U.S. purchasing power and the shift in global capital flows, how do you see these manufacturing trends impacting broader performance in 2026? Chris Snyder: We published our outlook and we're calling for the U.S. Industrial Economy to hit decade high growth levels in the back half of [20]26 and into [20]27. And this is a big reason why. We think about this a lot from a CapEx perspective. And we're seeing the investment, we think that ramps into larger greenfields. But we're also seeing it in the production economy. If you look at the delta between U.S. consumer spend and U.S. manufacturing production, that has really narrowed in recent months. And that tells us that we're increasingly serving U.S. demand through domestic production. So that's another factor that's going to drive activity higher and it doesn't need a cycle. And I think that's what's really important. And I think that is what creates this as a more secular and also durable opportunity. So obviously reassuring is something that's, you know, very close to me and important for the industrial economy. But as you think about the multipolar world theme more broadly, how do you think that evolves in 2026? Michelle Weaver: Yeah, absolutely. Last year the multipolar world was an incredibly powerful theme. And when investors were thinking about the multipolar world last year, it was largely about how are companies going to mitigate the risk of tariffs in the near term. We had the policies come out and surprise everyone in terms of the breadth and the magnitude of the tariffs we saw. We had a lot of policy uncertainty around what is that final level of tariffs going to look like. And a lot of the reaction was really short term. It's how can we use our inventory buffers to try and preserve our margins? How much of these additional tariff costs can we pass off to the end customer? How can we insulate ourselves in the near term? I think this year it's going to turn to more longer-term strategic thinking. Reshoring and a lot of the greenfield projects you were talking about, I think will absolutely be an important component of the multipolar world this year. I think we're also likely to see a greater emphasis on U.S. defense. With the action we just saw in Venezuela. I think we're going to see more of that defense component of the multipolar world starting to be expressed in the U.S. It was a big part of the expression of the theme in Europe last year, but I think it will gain relevance in the U.S. this year. Chris Snyder: Yeah. And I think the next chapter in U.S. industrial growth is just getting going. It's taken 25 years for the U.S. to seed roughly 12 percentage points of global share in manufacturing. We don't think they take that much back. But we think this is a very long runway opportunity. Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm. And as we watch for the next wave of greenfields, it's clear that efficiency and productivity investments are more than just a stop gap. They're a longer-term theme and they're a foundation for a new era in U.S. manufacturing. Chris, thank you for taking the time to talk. Chris Snyder: Great speaking with you, Michelle. Michelle Weaver: And to our listeners, thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen to the show and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Joey Evans takes a look at the Top 10 Most Thematic Games of 2025!

"Crunchy rules or simple vibes? Political intrigue or straight-up dungeon brawls? Survival in a dying world or low-power fantasy feels?" This remastered RPGBOT.Podcast dives into everything you love (and fear) about tabletop RPGs that aren't D&D or Pathfinder. From decision trees to help you find your perfect game match, to the storytelling magic of Powered by the Apocalypse, and the chaotic survival of Mork Borg, there's something for everyone if you're willing to look past what you already know. Tune in if you've ever wondered, "Is my game too crunchy, or am I just lazy?" Summary In this episode, the hosts take a deep dive into the diverse landscape of tabletop RPGs, offering a wealth of insights into various systems, mechanics, and themes. They introduce the concept of decision trees, a practical tool to help players identify RPGs that align with their preferences. The discussion covers the spectrum of complexity, from the intricate 'crunch' of detailed systems to the simplicity of more streamlined games. Key highlights include: The Cypher System and Genesis: An exploration of these versatile systems, focusing on their mechanics and adaptability to different genres. Powered by the Apocalypse Framework: A look at its elegant simplicity and flexibility, making it an excellent choice for narrative-driven campaigns. Legend of the Five Rings vs. Adventures in Rokugan: A comparison of political intrigue-focused gameplay with combat-centric mechanics, illustrating the range of experiences within fantasy RPGs. Mörk Borg: An examination of its dark, nihilistic themes, where traditional heroism gives way to survival in a grim and decaying world. The conversation also ventures into niche areas, such as the unique storytelling potential of solo RPGs, and highlights specific systems like Numenera, with its futuristic exploration themes, and One Ring 2E, celebrated for its low-power fantasy and rich Tolkien-inspired lore. The hosts emphasize the importance of understanding a game's mechanics and setting realistic expectations to maximize the enjoyment of any RPG experience. Links Almost everything below is an affiliate link and Tyler doesn't want to copy+paste this a zillion times Achtung Cthulhu Adventures in Rokugan Alien RPG ALIEN RPG - A review ALIEN RPG: Cinematic Scenario Cycle Review ALIEN RPG - RPGBOT.News S2E34 All Flesh Must Be Eaten Apocalypse World Battletech Bladerunner Call of Cthulhu Candela Obscura Colostle CY_BORG Cyberpunk Red Cypher Core Rulebook Death in Space Death in Space – A review Delta Green Doctor Who RPG Doctors and Daleks FFG Star Wars Fallout RPG Forbidden Lands Genesys Core Rulebook Imperium Maledictum Warhammer 40000 Roleplay: Imperium Maledictum - A Review Legend of the Five Rings Lord of the Rings Roleplay 5e Marvel Multiverse RPG Masks Mork Borg Mörk Borg - A Review Mörk Borg Cult: Heretic - A Zine Review Mörk Borg Cult: Heretic - RPGBOT.News S2E32 Numenera Old Gods of Appalachia Pirate Borg Pulp Cthulhu Ruins of Symbaroum Ruins of Symbaroum - A Review Ruins of Symbaroum - RPGBOT.News S2E46 Shadowdark RPGBOT.Podcast - ShadowDark RPG Adventure Designer Kelsey Dionne Shadowrun Symbaroum The One Ring 2e The One Ring 2nd Edition - A Review The Walking Dead RPG Vaesen Vaesen & the Mythic Britain and Ireland Expansion - A Review RPGBOT.Podcast - Zoe Franznick Reviews Free League's Vaesen Vampire: The Masquerade How to Play Vampire: The Masquerade Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay Werewolf: The Apocalypse SPOOKTOBER - HOW TO PLAY WEREWOLF Takeaways Tyler's Interests Tyler loves wizards and wants to be one. Game Mechanics and Decision-Making The decision tree helps players find suitable RPGs. "Crunch" refers to the interaction with game mechanics. The Captain Crunch scale measures game complexity. Understanding game mechanics enhances the RPG experience. RPG Systems The Cypher System is easy to learn and play. Genesis is a generic system based on Fantasy Flight's Star Wars. Powered by the Apocalypse is a versatile framework. Powered by the Apocalypse games are easy to learn. Fate is complex and math-heavy. The Year Zero Engine is simple yet effective. Solo RPGs can be rewarding experiences. Character Creation and Progression Character creation in RPGs can vary significantly. Character progression in One Ring 2E requires patience and strategy. Adjusting difficulty can enhance the gameplay experience. Thematic and Genre Elements Monster Hearts is popular in the LGBT community. Legend of the Five Rings emphasizes political intrigue (combat is discouraged). Merc Borg presents a nihilistic view of RPGs. Adventures in Rokugan is more combat-focused than its predecessor. Colossal is a unique solo RPG experience. Mercord uniquely advocates for real-world arson in its gameplay. Numenera presents a science fantasy setting a billion years in the future. Players in One Ring 2E are grounded, facing impossible odds. Exploring the themes of low-power fantasy can lead to rich storytelling. Gameplay Depth The intrusion system adds depth to gameplay. The Eye of Sauron and Gandalf rune add depth to gameplay. Solo play in One Ring 2E is well-implemented and enjoyable. If you enjoy the show, please rate and review us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your favorite podcast app. It's a quick, free way to support the podcast, and helps us reach new listeners. If you love the show, consider joining us on Patreon, where backers at the $5 and above tiers get ad free access to RPGBOT.net and the RPGBOT.Podcast, can chat directly to members of the RPGBOT team and community on the RPGBOT.Discord, and can join us for live-streamed recordings. Support us on Amazon.com when you purchase products recommended in the show at the following link: https://amzn.to/3NwElxQ How to Find Us: In-depth articles, guides, handbooks, reviews, news on Tabletop Role Playing at RPGBOT.net Tyler Kamstra Twitter: @RPGBOTDOTNET Facebook: rpgbotbotdotnet Bluesky:rpgbot.bsky.social Ash Ely Professional Game Master on StartPlaying.Games Twitter: @GravenAshes YouTube@ashravenmedia Randall James @JackAmateur Amateurjack.com Producer Dan @Lzr_illuminati

It's the Girlies! You know the drill. If you don't, just listen and you'll get it. It's like an awards show but better.Thanks for listening this year!You can find a whole list of winners (with a couple of visual aids) here.Timestamps:(00:15) The Girlies!(51:30) Spoilers for Carimara and Old Skies(54:25) Spoilers end(1:22:00) Spoilers for Carimara and Silent Hill f(1:24:20) Spoilers end(1:37:25) GOTY discussion(1:43:30) Thematic spoilers for our pick(1:48:30) Major story spoilers for our pickMentioned this week:Neil Newbon being correct about generative AIJennifer English being incredible at the Golden JoysticksAdditional music this episode:Take me out to the ball game from Trombone ChampBaby Steps background musicEra Calling from Angeline EraNina Pasadena from Skin Deep I'm A Bitch, My Name's Robert from DispatchI Am Gonna Claw (Out Your Eyes then Drown You to Death) from Hades 2 Support us on Ko-fi!Check out the network at TheWorstGarbage.online!Join The Worst Garbage Discord!Follow us and send us questions!Follow Robin!Follow Willa!Music Street Food by FASSoundsThings are bad right now, but you can help make them better. Please take some time to consider how you can help trans people, immigrants, and others targeted by our fascist government with this Big List Of Links. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Episode overview Season 10 opens with a live conversation setting the intellectual frame for a new series built around Contemplating Catastrophe, an edited collection of short essays engaging thinkers outside conventional disaster studies. The episode reflects on why reading beyond the field matters, how theory reshapes practice, and why eclectic, critical scholarship is essential for the future of disaster research. Hosts Jason von Meding Ksenia Chmutina Guests A.J. Faas — anthropologist and disaster scholar J.C. Gaillard — geographer and disaster researcher Key themes Why disaster studies must continually read beyond itself Theory as a way to unsettle settled ideas, not as abstraction for its own sake Eclecticism, curiosity, and “thinking with” rather than “thinking about” communities The limits of normative frameworks (e.g., vulnerability, “no natural disasters”) How critical theory informs practice, not just scholarship The importance of non-Anglophone, non-Western, and untranslated bodies of thought Creating intellectual space for early-career researchers to take theoretical risks Core discussion highlights Introduction to Contemplating Catastrophe, a collection of short essays on thinkers who shape disaster thinking indirectly—philosophers, artists, theorists, and writers outside the field. A.J. Faas discusses reading across philosophy, literature, anthropology, and history to keep thought “lively,” and reflects on how Gramsci and Santiago Castro-Gómez help disaster scholars rethink power, hegemony, and relationality. J.C. Gaillard reflects on frustration with disaster practice as a driver for engaging critical theory, particularly Foucault, and argues that theory liberates practice rather than distracting from it. Shared concern that dominant concepts can silence alternative ontologies and lived realities if left unexamined. A collective call to broaden disaster scholarship beyond Euro-American traditions and to value thinkers writing in other languages and contexts. Season 10 structure Live episodes recorded through 2025, archived on our Youtube channel! Thematic episodes planned on feminism, urbanism, anarchism, Black power, Latin American and Caribbean thought, East and Southeast Asian intellectual traditions, and Eastern philosophies.  

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.

ORIGINALLY AIRED 6/10/2022In celebration of Jurassic World: Dominion, we're reading another Jurassic Park 3: Jurassic Park 3! Join us as we discuss feather placement on raptors and basically write slash fanfic for Alan Grant and Billy. Also, Marco and Overbye read Jurassic Park: Survivor, a book detailing how Eric Kirby survived his eight weeks on Isla Sorna. Thematic resonance between these two volumes abounds.Follow us on Twitter: twitter.com/authorizedpodInstagram: instagram.com/authorizedpod

BEWILDERMENT, THE OHIO COMPANY, AND COLONIAL EXPANSION Colleague Robert G. Parkinson. Parkinson explains that "bewilderment" is the central theme of his book, drawing a thematic parallel to Joseph Conrad'sHeart of Darkness to describe the confusion and violence of the early American frontier. The conversation shifts to the Ohio Company, a massive land speculation venture involving George Washington and the Lee family, with the Cresapfamily serving as their essential partners and scouts. Washington frequently visited the Cresaps in Oldtown, Maryland, utilizing them as the "spear point" for English colonial expansion into the Ohio Valley, a move that agitated the Frenchand Indigenous tribes. NUMBER 2

In today's episode, I'm sharing one of my favorite ways to bring more purpose, connection, and deeper learning into your literacy block: thematic planning. This approach—sometimes called cross-curricular instruction—was a huge shift for me when I first transitioned to an IB school. Instead of treating reading, writing, science, and social studies as separate silos, I learned how to plan around big ideas and guiding questions that tied all of our learning together. While it took time to adjust, it completely transformed the way my students engaged with content and how meaningful our classroom learning felt.Throughout the episode, I walk you through what thematic planning is, why it's so powerful, and how you can start using it even if your school doesn't require it. I share my personal experience with moving away from isolated, checklist-style instruction and embracing a more integrated, inquiry-driven approach. I also break down the five simple steps to designing your own thematic unit—everything from choosing a strong guiding question, to selecting connected texts, to building background knowledge, to weaving reading and writing standards into meaningful science or social studies learning. My goal is to show you that thematic planning doesn't have to be overwhelming or reserved for specialized programs. It's absolutely doable in any upper elementary classroom.You'll also hear practical examples of what this looks like day to day, ideas for connecting literacy skills to real-world reading and writing, and a reminder that thematic planning is one of the best ways to build students' content knowledge—something we simply don't get enough time for in traditional schedules. Whether you create a week-long mini unit or a full multi-week study, thematic planning opens the door to richer discussions, more engaged readers and writers, and learning that sticks. If you decide to give thematic planning a try, I'd love to hear what topic you choose and how it impacts your students' learning.***This episode is a replay of Episode 119, and it's one worth revisiting as you think about planning for the months ahead.Check out my Nonfiction Science Reading Passages: Focus on Ecosystems, Focus on Biomes, Focus on Heredity.Check out my Sentence Writing Routine resource here!Join us in the Stellar Literacy Collective Membership: stellarteacher.com/join!Sign up for my FREE private podcast, the Confident Writer Systems Series, here!Sign up for my FREE Revision Made Easy email series here!Follow me on Instagram @thestellarteachercompany. To check out all of the resources from this episode, head to the show notes: https://www.stellarteacher.com/episode284.Mentioned in this...

Can cube storytelling and technical design meet in the middle? During this episode Team Uber has an impromptu discussion with veteran cube designers Kerby & Shoup as they provide their incite to this question. Tune in as we break down their processes of mechanical design versus the top-down thematic approach. Thanks for listening, subscribing, 5-stars, and as always happy cubing!Shoup's DesignsKerby's DesignsJoin the Uber Cube DiscordSupport Uber Cube via PatreonAnthony's CubesMay's CubesUber Cube is now on YouTube!MTG Cube Drafting PageFind us on Twitter @UberCubeMTGPodFind us on Bluesky @ubercubemtgpodcast.bsky.socialEmail Uber Cube : ubercubemtgpodcast@gmail.comThanks for Listening and Happy cubing!Inked Gaming AffiliateUber Cube is now a Inked Gaming affliate. Support the show and find awesome supplies, playmats, etc.Disclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.Support the show

We discuss the thematic outlook for 2026 and the key themes investors should keep on their radar. (1:00) - What Impact Will Artificial General Intelligence Have On Tech Going Forward? (6:20) - Why Have Data Centers And Power Restricted AI Expansion? (10:10) - Who Stands To Benefit The Most As The AI Ecosystem Evolves? (13:30) - Are We In An AI Bubble? (16:45) - Top Investment Themes To Keep On Your Radar In 2026 (19:30) - Global X Defense Tech ETF: SHLD (21:25) - How Should Investors Gain Exposure To The AI Infrastructure And Data Centers? (26:30) - Episode Roundup: AIQ, PAVE, ZAP, CHPX, SMH, SOXX Podcast@Zacks.com

Linktree: ⁠https://linktr.ee/Analytic⁠Join The Normandy For Additional Bonus Audio And Visual Content For All Things Nme+! Join Here: ⁠https://ow.ly/msoH50WCu0K⁠Analytic Dreamz breaks down 21 Savage's highly calculated WHTTS rollout – his third solo studio album and first pure 21 project since 2024's american dream. With no confirmed release date but strong early-2026 signals via Epic Records, the campaign centers on a menacing, art-driven aesthetic blending street installations and cryptic digital teasers.The anchor: a 25-foot grey “Slawn Balloon” clown head with red nose, cross tattoo, and dagger stabbed through the skull – a direct nod to 21's signature face ink. Created with British-Nigerian artist Olaolu Slawn (known for Virgil Abloh, Skepta, and Off-White collaborations), the inflatable dominated Art Basel Miami (Dec 5–8, Wynwood) parked on a black “WHTTS” truck outside Slawn's OHTO warehouse.Scanning the balloon QR or visiting wtths.info drops fans into a minimalist black site with distorted audio snippets, glitchy clown-to-silhouette visuals, fragmented lyrics (“What's the word? / Dagger in the dirt”), and DSP pre-save – driving over 50,000 pre-saves in 24 hours and a 300% spike post-launch.Momentum started in October with '90s R&B cover homages teasing a smoother, melodic direction, while recent posts and fan accounts) amplified “COMING SOON” messaging. No official singles yet, but rumored Metro Boomin-produced lead “Dagger Talk” leaks and speculated features (Travis Scott, Doja Cat, Young Thug) keep anticipation high.Thematic core: paranoia, fame pressure, UK drill influence, and 21's signature dark atmosphere with added R&B tint. Expected 14–16 tracks, production from Metro Boomin and London on da Track, visual direction by Slawn.Already over 100 million X/Twitter impressions during Art Basel weekend and hailed as one of 2025's boldest rap rollouts, Analytic Dreamz analyzes how 21 Savage is redefining physical marketing in the streaming era. Full segment now on Notorious Mass Effect. Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/analytic-dreamz-notorious-mass-effect/donationsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

The Dice Tower shares 12 great game recommendations in 10 different categories. This time, it's 12 thematic games!

Original Release Date: October 10, 2025Our U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist Michelle Weaver discusses how the largest intergenerational wealth transfer in history could reshape saving, spending and investment behavior across America.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.Today, a powerful force reshaping the financial lives of millions of Americans: inheritance.It's Friday, October 10th at 10am in New York.Americans are living longer and they're passing on their wealth later. Longevity is one of Morgan Stanley Research's four key themes, and this is an interesting element of longevity. As baby boomers age, they're expected to transfer their wealth to Gen X, millennials and Gen Z to the tune of tens or even hundreds of trillions of U.S. dollars.Estimates vary widely, but the amounts are unprecedented. And so, inheritance isn't just a family milestone; it's becoming an important cornerstone of financial planning and longevity. And understanding who's receiving, expecting, and using their inheritances is key to forecasting how Americans save, spend, and invest.According to our latest AlphaWise survey, 17 percent of U.S. consumers have received an inheritance, and another 14 percent expect to receive one in the future. Younger Americans are especially optimistic. Their expectations split evenly between those anticipating an inheritance within the next 10 years and those expecting it further out.But here's the kicker; income plays a huge role. Only 17 percent of lower income consumers report receiving or expecting an inheritance, but that number jumps to 43 percent among higher income households highlighting a clear wealth divide.What about the size of the inheritance? In our survey, those who received or expect to receive an inheritance fall broadly into three categories. About half reported amounts under $100,000 dollars. For about a third, that amount rose to under $500,000. And then meanwhile, 10 per cent reported an inheritance of half a million dollars or more.Younger consumers tend to report smaller amounts, while inheritance size rises with income. One important thing to remember about our survey though, is it looks more at the average person. We are missing some of those very high net worth demographics in there where I would expect inheritance to rise much higher than half a million.And so, when we think about this, how will recipients use this wealth? That's a really important question. The majority, about 60 percent, say they have or will put their inheritance towards savings, retirement, or investments. About a third say they'll use it for housing or paying down debt. Day-to-day consumption, travel, education and even starting a business or giving to charity also featured in the survey responses – but to a lesser extent.The financial impact of inheritance is significant: 46 percent of recipients say it makes them feel more financially secure; 40 percent cite improvements in savings; and 22 percent associate it with increased spending. Some even report retiring earlier or lightening their workloads.Inheritance trends are shaping consumer behavior and have the power to influence spending patterns across industries. To sum it up, inheritance isn't just a family matter, it's a market mover.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.

Click Here to Get All Podcast Show Notes!What happens when you give your child $50 not to spend but to invest? In this episode, Sharran shares the inspiring story of how he turned his 11-year-old son into an investor and grew a $1,000 portfolio into over $7,000 in just three years.Sharran breaks down the exact four investments they made, why one of them exploded 2,200%, and the powerful lessons he learned about risk, patience, and teaching kids the value of money early. He also explains why the best financial education isn't about complexity but about clarity, confidence, and conversation.This episode is more than a financial story–it's a blueprint for building generational wealth and raising financially intelligent kids.Tune in to discover how to help your child think like an investor before they even hit high school.“The sooner you can introduce your kids to money, the less they'll be afraid of it.”- Sharran SrivatsaaTimestamps:01:08 - Why he replaced allowance with investing04:12 - Thematic investing made simple for kids06:04 - How Sharran built a $1,000 portfolio09:18 - Introducing risk with MicroStrategy and Bitcoin13:05 - The power (and fear) of volatility13:34 - Why diversification protects your portfolio14:33 - Patience as the secret to long-term growth15:54 - Why simplicity beats complexity in investing16:17 - Lessons parents can use to teach financial literacy18:13 - The key to helping kids build confidence with moneyResources:- The Next Billion by Sharran Srivatsaa - https://sharransrivatsaa.substack.com/- Acquisition.com - https://www.acquisition.com/- Board Member: ARC Multifamily Real Estate Investing - https://arcmf.com/- Board Member: The Real Brokerage - https://www.joinreal.com/Connect with Sharran:- Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/likesharran- Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/sharransrivatsaa/- X - https://x.com/sharran- LinkedIn - http://www.linkedin.com/in/sharran- YouTube -

Our U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist Michelle Weaver discusses how the largest intergenerational wealth transfer in history could reshape saving, spending and investment behavior across America.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.Today, a powerful force reshaping the financial lives of millions of Americans: inheritance.It's Friday, October 10th at 10am in New York.Americans are living longer and they're passing on their wealth later. Longevity is one of Morgan Stanley Research's four key themes, and this is an interesting element of longevity. As baby boomers age, they're expected to transfer their wealth to Gen X, millennials and Gen Z to the tune of tens or even hundreds of trillions of U.S. dollars.Estimates vary widely, but the amounts are unprecedented. And so, inheritance isn't just a family milestone; it's becoming an important cornerstone of financial planning and longevity. And understanding who's receiving, expecting, and using their inheritances is key to forecasting how Americans save, spend, and invest.According to our latest AlphaWise survey, 17 percent of U.S. consumers have received an inheritance, and another 14 percent expect to receive one in the future. Younger Americans are especially optimistic. Their expectations split evenly between those anticipating an inheritance within the next 10 years and those expecting it further out.But here's the kicker; income plays a huge role. Only 17 percent of lower income consumers report receiving or expecting an inheritance, but that number jumps to 43 percent among higher income households highlighting a clear wealth divide.What about the size of the inheritance? In our survey, those who received or expect to receive an inheritance fall broadly into three categories. About half reported amounts under $100,000 dollars. For about a third, that amount rose to under $500,000. And then meanwhile, 10 per cent reported an inheritance of half a million dollars or more.Younger consumers tend to report smaller amounts, while inheritance size rises with income. One important thing to remember about our survey though, is it looks more at the average person. We are missing some of those very high net worth demographics in there where I would expect inheritance to rise much higher than half a million.And so, when we think about this, how will recipients use this wealth? That's a really important question. The majority, about 60 percent, say they have or will put their inheritance towards savings, retirement, or investments. About a third say they'll use it for housing or paying down debt. Day-to-day consumption, travel, education and even starting a business or giving to charity also featured in the survey responses – but to a lesser extent.The financial impact of inheritance is significant: 46 percent of recipients say it makes them feel more financially secure; 40 percent cite improvements in savings; and 22 percent associate it with increased spending. Some even report retiring earlier or lightening their workloads.Inheritance trends are shaping consumer behavior and have the power to influence spending patterns across industries. To sum it up, inheritance isn't just a family matter, it's a market mover.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Head of Thematic and Fixed Income Research Michael Zezas and our U.S. Public Policy Strategist Ariana Salvatore unpack the market and economic implications of a looming government shutdown.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript ----- Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's 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, our focus is once again on Washington – as the U.S. government fiscal year draws to a close and a potential government shutdown hangs in the balance.It's Friday, September 26th at noon in New York. Ariana we're just four days away from the end of the month. By October 1st, Congress needs to have a funding agreement in place, or we risk a potential shutdown. To that point, Democrats and Republicans seem far apart on the deal to avoid a shutdown. What's the state of play? Ariana Salvatore: Right now, Republicans are pushing for what's called a clean continuing resolution. That's a bill that would keep funding levels flat while putting more time on the clock for negotiators to hammer out full fiscal year appropriations. And the CR they're proposing lasts until November 21st. Democrats, conversely, are seeking to tie government funding to legislative compromise in other areas, including the enhanced Obamacare or ACA subsidies, and potential spending cuts to Medicaid from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which Republicans signed earlier this year. Remember, even though Republicans hold a majority in both chambers, this has to be a bipartisan agreement because of exactly how thin those margins of control are. But Mike, it seems as we get closer, investors are asking more infrequently whether or not a shutdown is happening – and are more interested in how long it could potentially last. What are we thinking there? Michael Zezas: So, it's hard to know. Shutdowns typically last a few days, but sometimes there are short as a few hours, sometimes as long as a few weeks. Historically, shutdowns tend to end when the economic risk, and therefore the attached political risk gets real. So, consider the 35-day shutdown under President Trump in this first term. The compromise that ended it came quickly after there was an air traffic stoppage at New York's LaGuardia Airport – when 10 air traffic controllers who weren't being paid failed to show up for work. So, we think the more relevant question for investors is what it all means for economic activity. Our economists have historically argued that a government shutdown takes something like 0.1 percent off of GDP every single week it's happening. However, once employees go back to work, a lot of times that effect fades pretty quickly. Now it's important to understand that this time around there could be a wrinkle. The Trump administration is talking about laying employees off on a durable basis during the shutdown. And that's something that maybe would have more of a lasting economic impact. It's hard to know how credible that potential is. There would almost certainly be court challenges, but it's something we have to keep our eye on that could create a more meaningful economic consequence. Ariana Salvatore: That's right. And there are also some really important indirect macroeconomic effects here. Like delayed data releases. Much of the federal workforce, to your point, will not be working through a shutdown – which could impede the collection and the release of some key data points that matter for markets like labor and inflation data, which come from BLS, the Bureau of Labor Statistics. So, assuming we're in this scenario with a longer-term shutdown. Obviously, we're going to see an increase in uncertainty, especially as investors are looking toward each data print for guidance on what the Fed's next move might be. What do we expect the market reaction to all of this to be? Michael Zezas: Well, the obvious risk here is that markets might have to price in some weaker growth potential. So, you could see treasury yields fall. You could see equity markets wobble; be a bit more volatile. It could be that those effects are temporary, though. And that volatility could easily be amplified by having to price risk in the market without the data you were talking about, Ariana. So, investors could overreact to anecdotal signals about the economy or underweight some real risks that they're not seeing. So, that's why even a short shutdown can have outsized market effects. Well, Ariana, thanks for taking the time to talk.Ariana Salvatore: Great speaking with you, Mike. Michael Zezas: And to our audience, thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you get this podcast and tell your friends about it. We want everyone to listen.

Our Co-Head of Securitized Products Research James Egan joins our Chief Economic Strategist Ellen Zentner to discuss the recent challenges facing the U.S. housing market, and the path forward for home buyers and investors. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript ----- James Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm James Egan, U.S. Housing Strategist and Co-Head of Securitized Products Research for Morgan Stanley. Ellen Zentner: And I'm Ellen Zentner, Chief Economic Strategist and Global Head of Thematic and Macro Investing at Morgan Stanley Wealth Management. James Egan: And today we dive into a topic that touches nearly every American household, quite literally. The future of the U.S. housing market. It's Thursday, September 25th at 10am in New York. So, Ellen, this conversation couldn't be timelier. Last week, the Fed cut interest rates by 25 basis points, and our chief U.S. Economist, Mike Gapen expects three more consecutive 25 basis point cuts through January of next year. And that's going to be followed by two more 25 basis point cuts in April and July. But mortgage rates, they're not tied to fed funds. So even if we do get 6.25 bps cuts by the end of 2026, that in and of itself we don't think is going to be sufficient to bring down mortgage rates, though other factors could get us there.Taking all that into account, the U.S. housing market appears to be a little stuck. The big question on investors' minds is – what's next for housing and what does that mean for the broader economy? Ellen Zentner: Well, I don't like the word stuck. There's no churn in the housing market. We want to see things moving and shaking. We want to see sellers out there. We want to see buyers out there. And we've got a lot of buyers – or would be buyers, right? But not a lot of sellers. And, you know, the economy does well when things are moving and shaking because there's a lot of home related spending that goes on when we're selling and buying homes. And so that helps boost consumer spending. Housing is also a really interest rate sensitive sector, so you know, I like to say as goes housing, so goes the business cycle. And so, you don't want to think that housing is sort of on the downhill slide or heading toward a downturn [be]cause it would mean that the entire economy is headed toward a downturn. So, we want to see housing improve here. We want to see it thaw out. I don't like, again, the word stuck, you know. I want to see some more churn. James Egan: As do we, and one of the reasons that I wanted to talk to you today is that you are observing all of these pressures on the U.S. housing market from your perspective in wealth management. And that means your job is to advise retail clients who sometimes can have a longer investment time horizon. So, Ellen, when you look at the next decade, how do you estimate the need for new housing units in the United States and what happens if we fall short of these estimated targets? Ellen Zentner: Yeah, so we always like to say demographics makes the world go round and especially it makes the housing market go round. And we know that if you just look at demographic drivers in the U.S. Of those young millennials and Gen Z that are aging into their first time home buying years – whether they're able to immediately or at some point purchase a home – they will want to buy homes. And if they can't afford the homes, then they will want to maybe rent those single-family homes. But either way, if you're just looking at the sheer need for housing in any way, shape, or form that it comes, we're going to need about 18 million units to meet all of that demand through 2030. And so, when I'm talking with our clients on the wealth management side, it's – Okay, short term here or over the next couple of years, there is a housing cycle. And affordability is creating pressures there. But if we look out beyond that, there are opportunities because of the demographic drivers – single family rentals, multi-family. We think modular housing can be something big here, as well. All of those solutions that can help everyone get into a home that wants to be. James Egan: Now, you hit on something there that I think is really important, kind of the implications of affordability challenges. One of the things that we've been seeing is it's been driving a shift toward rentership over ownership. How does that specific trend affect economic multipliers and long-term wealth creation? Ellen Zentner: In terms of whether you're going to buy a single-family home or you're going to rent a single-family home, it tends to be more square footage and there's more spending that goes on with it. But, of course, then relatively speaking, if you're buying that single family home versus renting, you're also going to probably spend a lot more time and care on that home while you're there, which means more money into the economy. In terms of wealth creation, we'd love to get the single-family home ownership rate as high as possible. It's the key way that households build intergenerational wealth. And the average American, or the average household has four times the wealth in their home than they do in the stock market. And so that's why it's very important that we've always created wealth that way through housing; and we want people to own, and they want to own. And that's good news. James Egan: These affordability challenges. Another thing that you've been highlighting is that they've led to an internal migration trend. People moving from high cost to lower cost metro areas. How is this playing out and what are the economic consequences of this migration? Ellen Zentner: Well, I think, first of all, I think to the wonderful work that Mark Schmidt does on the Munis team at MS and Co. It matters a great deal, ownership rates in various regions because it can tell you something about the health of the metropolitan area where they are. Buying those homes and paying those property taxes. It can create imbalances across the U.S. where you've got excess supply maybe in some areas, but very tight housing supply in others. And eventually to balance that out, you might even have some people that, say, post-COVID or during COVID moved to some parts of the country that have now become very expensive. And so, they leave those places and then go back to either try another locale or back to the locale they had moved from. So, understanding those flows within the U.S. can help communities understand the needs of their community, the costs associated with filling those needs, and also associated revenues that might be coming in. So, Jim, I mentioned a couple of times here about single family renting, and so from your perch, given that growing number of single-family rentals, how is that going to influence housing strategy and pricing? James Egan: It is certainly another piece of the puzzle when we look at like single family home ownership, multi-unit rentership, multi-unit home ownership, and then single family rentership. Over the past 15 years, this has been the fastest growing way in which kind of U.S. households exist. And when we take a step back looking at the housing market more holistically – something you hit on earlier – supply has been low, and that's played a key role in keeping prices high and affordability under pressure. On top of that, credit availability has been constrained. It's one of the pillars that we use when evaluating home prices and housing activity that we do think gets overlooked. And so even if you can find a home to buy in these tight inventory environments, it's pretty difficult to qualify for a mortgage. Those lending standards have been tight, that's pushed the home ownership rate down to 65 percent. Now, it was a little bit lower than this, after the Great Financial Crisis, but prior to that point, this is the lowest that home ownership rates have been since 1995. And so, we do think that single family rentership, it becomes another outlet and will continue to be an important pillar for the U.S. housing market on a go forward basis. So, the economic implications of that, that you highlighted earlier, we think that's going to continue to be something that we're living with – pun only half intended – in the U.S. housing market. Ellen Zentner: Only half intended. But let me take you back to something that you said at the beginning of the podcast. And you talked about Gapen's expectation for rate cuts and that that's going to bring fed funds rate down. Those are interest rates, though that don't impact mortgage rates. So how do mortgage rates price? And then, how do you see those persistently higher mortgage rates continuing to weigh on affordability. Or, I guess, really, what we all want to know is – when are mortgage rates going to get to a point where housing does become affordable again? James Egan: In our prior podcast, my Co-Head of Securitized Products Research, Jay Bacow and myself talked about how cutting fed funds wasn't necessarily sufficient to bring down mortgage rates. But the other piece of this is going to be how much lower do mortgage rates need to go? And one of the things we highlighted there, a data point that we do think is important. Mortgage rates have come down recently, right? Like we're at our lowest point of the year, but the effective rate on the outstanding market is still below 4.25 percent. Mortgage rates are still above 6.25 percent, so the market's 200 basis points out of the money. One of the things that we've been trying to do, looking at changes to affordability historically. What we think you really need to see a sustainable growth in housing activity is about a 10 percent improvement in affordability. How do we get there? It's about a 5.5 percent mortgage rate as opposed to the 6 1/8th to 6.25 where we were when we walked into this recording studio today. We think there will be a little bit response to the move in mortgage rates we've already seen. Again, it's the lowest that rates have been this year, and there have been some… Ellen Zentner: Are those fence sitters; what we call fence sitters? People that say, ‘Oh gosh, it's coming down. Let me go ahead and jump in here.' James Egan: Absolutely. We'll see some of that. And then from just other parts of the housing infrastructure, we'll see refinance rates pick up, right? Like there are borrowers who've seen originations over the course of the past couple years whose rates are higher than this. Morgan Stanley actually publishes a truly refinanceable index that measures what percentage of the housing market has at least a 25 basis point incentive to refinance. Housing market holistically after this move? 17 percent? Mortgages originated in the last two years, 61 percent of them have that incentive. So, I think you'll see a little bit more purchase activity. Again, we need to get to 5.5 percent for us to believe that will be sustainable. But you'll also see some refinance activity as well, right? Ellen Zentner: Right, it doesn't mean you get absolutely nothing and then all of a sudden the spigot opens when you get to 5.5 percent. Anecdotal evidence, I have a 2.7 percent 30-year mortgage and I've told my husband, I'm going to die in this apartment. I'm not moving anywhere. So, I'm part of the problem, Jim. James Egan: Well, congratulations to you on the mortgage… Ellen Zentner: Thank you. I wasn't trying to brag, But yes, it feels like, you know, your point on perspective folks that are younger buyers, you know, are looking at the prevailing mortgage rate right now and saying, ‘My gosh, that's really high.' But some of us that have been around for a lot longer are saying, ‘Really, this is fine.' But it's all relative speaking. James Egan: When you have over 60 percent of the mortgage market that has a rate below 4.5 percent, below 4 percent, yes, on a long-term basis, mortgage rates don't look particularly high. They're very high relative to the past 15 years, and to your point on a 2.7 percent mortgage rate, there's no incentive for you... Or there's limited incentive for you to sell that home, pay off that 2.7 percent mortgage rate, buy a new home at higher prices, at a much higher mortgage rate. That has – I know you don't like the word stuck – but it has been what's gotten this housing market kind of mired in its current situation. Price is very protective. Activity pretty low. Ellen Zentner: Jim, we've been talking about all the affordability issues and so let's set mortgage rates aside and talk about policy proposals. Are there specific policies that could also help on the affordability front? James Egan: So, there's a number of things that we get questions about on a pretty regular basis. Things like GSE reform, first time home buyer tax credits, things that could potentially spur supply. And look, the devil is in the details here. My colleague, Jay Bacow, has done a lot of work on GSE reform and what we're really focusing on there is the nature of the guarantee as well as the future of regulation and capital charges. For instance, U.S. banks own approximately one-third of the agency mortgage-backed securities market. Any changes to regulatory capital as a result of GSE reform, that could have implications for their demand, and that's going to have implications on mortgage rates, right? First time home buyer tax credits. We have seen those before – the spring of 2008 to 2010, and if we use that as a case study, we did see a temporary rise in home sales and a pause in the pace with which home prices were falling. But the effects there were temporary. Sales and prices wouldn't hit their post housing crisis lows until after those programs expired. Ellen Zentner: Right. So, you were incentivized to buy the house. You get the credit; you buy the house. But then unbeknownst to any economist out there, housing valuations continued to fall. James Egan: You could argue that it maybe pulled some demand forward. And so, you saw a lot of it concentrated and then the absence of that demand afterwards. And then on the supply side, there are a number of different programs we have touched on, some of them in these podcasts in the past. And then some of those questions become what needs to go through Congress, what is more kind of local municipality versus federal government. But look, the devil's in the details. It's an incredibly interesting housing market. Probably one that's going to be the source of many podcasts to come. So, Ellen, given all these challenges facing the U.S. housing market. Where do you see the biggest opportunities for retail investors? Ellen Zentner: So, in our recent note Housing in the Next Decade, we took a look at single family renting; you and I have talked about how that's likely to still be in favor for some time. REITs with exposure to select U.S. rental markets; what about senior housing? That is something that you've done deep research on, as well. Senior and affordable housing providers, home construction and materials companies. What about building more sustainable homes with a good deal of the climate change that we're seeing. And financial technology firms that offer flexible financing solutions. So, these are some of the things that we think could be in play as we think about housing over the long term. James Egan: Ellen, thank you for all your insights. It's been a pleasure to have you on the podcast. And I guess there's a key takeaway for investors here. Housing isn't just about where we live, it's about where the economy is headed. Ellen Zentner: Exactly. Always a pleasure to be on the show. Thanks, Jim. James Egan: 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.