Thoughts on the Market

While Japan's equities have continued to rally, a roster of sector leading companies and a weak Yen could signal this bullish story is only just beginning.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jonathan Garner, Chief Asia and Emerging Market Equity Strategist at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be sharing why Japan Equities could be a key part of the bullish story in Asia this year. It's Thursday, May the 25th at 10 a.m. in New York. Japan equities have rallied substantially during the current earnings season and we think further gains are increasingly likely. The theme of return on equity improvement, driven by productive CapEx and better balance sheet management, is clearly finding traction with a wide group of international investors. We first introduced this theme in our 2018 Blue Paper on Japan, where we described a journey from laggard to leader, which we felt was starting to take place due to a confluence of structural reforms such as the Corporate Governance Code and Institutional Investor Stewardship Code, as well as changes in company board composition and outside activist investor pressure. Japan has a formidable roster of world class firms, which we have identified as productivity and innovation leaders in areas such as semiconductor equipment, optical, healthcare, medtech, robotics and traditional heavy industrial automotive, agricultural and commodities trading, specialty chemicals. As well as more recent additions in Internet and E-commerce, many of which sell products far beyond Japan's borders. For the market overall, listed equities ROE has more than doubled in the last ten years, and it's now set to approach our medium term target of 11 to 12% by 2025. Company buybacks are analyzing at a record pace and total shareholder return, that is the sum of dividends and buybacks, is running at 3.6% of market capitalization. Yet Japan equities are still trading on only around 13 times forward price to earnings. And Japanese firms have a low cost of capital, given the country's status as a high income sovereign, with membership of the G7, as highlighted by Premier Kishida hosting its recent summit in his home town of Hiroshima. An additional near-term catalyst for Japan equities is that the yen is tracking significantly weaker year to date at around 135 to the U.S. dollar than company modeling, which was for around 125. Given the export earnings skew of the market, this is a positive.All in all, Japan equities are set, we think, to more than hold their own versus global peers and be a key part of a bullish story in Asian equities this year. Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and recommend Thoughts on the Market to a friend or colleague today.

Discussions at the recent Group of Seven Nations meeting point to the continued development of a multipolar world, as supply chains become less global and more local. Investors should watch for opportunities in this disruption.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the recent G7 meetings and its implications for markets. It's Wednesday, May 24th at 9 a.m. in New York. Over the weekend, President Biden traveled to Japan for a meeting of the Group of Seven Nations, or G7. G7 meetings typically involve countries discussing and seeking consensus on a wide range of economic and geopolitical issues. And the consensus they achieved on several principles underscores one of our big three secular investment themes for 2023, the transition to a multipolar world. Consider some of the following language from the G7 communique. First, there's discussion of efforts to make our supply chains more resilient, sustainable and reliable. Second, they discuss, quote, "Preventing the cutting edge technologies we develop from being used to further military capabilities that threaten international peace and security." Finally, there's also discussion of the, quote, "importance of cooperation on export controls, on critical and emerging technologies to address the misuse of such technologies by malicious actors and inappropriate transfers of such technologies."So that all may sound like the U.S. is drawing up hard barriers to commerce, particularly with places like China. But importantly, the communique also states an important nuance that's been core to our multipolar world thesis. They say, quote, "We are not decoupling or turning inwards. At the same time, we recognize that economic resilience requires de-risking and diversifying.". So to understand the practical implications of that nuance, we've been conducting a ton of research across different industries. My colleagues Ben Uglow and Shawn Kim have highlighted that the global manufacturing and tech sectors are very exposed to disruption from this theme. But their work also shows that capital equipment and automation companies will benefit from the global spend to set up more robust supply chains.So bottom line, the multipolar world theme continues to progress, but the disruption it creates should also create opportunities.  Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show. 

As the confidence level of homebuilders building new homes is increasing, will home sales go along with it? Jim Egan and Jay Bacow, Co-Heads of U.S. Securitized Products Research discuss.----- Transcript -----Jim Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, Co-Head of U.S. Securitized Products Research here at Morgan Stanley. Jay Bacow: And I'm Jay Bacow, the other Co-Head of U.S. Securitized Products Research. Jim Egan: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing the U.S. housing and mortgage markets. It's Tuesday, May 23rd at 2 p.m. in New York. Jay Bacow: It's been a while since we talked about the state of the U.S. housing market. And it seems like if I look at least some portions of the data, things are getting better. In particular, the NAHB confidence just showed for the fifth consecutive month that homebuilders are feeling better about building a house, and we're now finally at the point where they say it is a good time to build a house. When you take a step back and just look at the state of the housing market, do you agree? Jim Egan: I think it's a great question. Housing statistics are going in a whole number of different directions right now. So, yeah, let me take a step back. We've talked a lot about affordability on this podcast and it's still challenging. We've talked a lot about supply and it remains very tight, and all of this has really fueled that bifurcation narrative that we've talked about, protected home prices, weaker activity. But if we think about how the lock in effect and that's the fact that all of these current homeowners who have mortgages well below the prevailing mortgage rate just are not going to be incentivized to list their home for sale, then kind of a logical next step from a housing statistics perspective is that new home sales are probably going to increase as a percentage of total home sales. And that's exactly what we're seeing, new home sales in the first quarter of this year, they were roughly 20% of the total single unit sales volumes. That's the largest share of transactions in any quarter since 2006. And this dynamic was actually quoted by the National Association of Homebuilders when describing the increase in homebuilder confidence that you quoted Jay.    Jay Bacow: Okay, but when I think about that percentage, aren't building volumes in aggregate coming down? Jim Egan: They are, though, as a caveat, I would say that if we look at that seasonally adjusted annualized rate, it did increase sequentially a little bit, month-over-month in April. What I would point to here is that from the peak in single unit housing starts, and we think the peak in the cycle was April of 2022, those starts are down 22%. Now, that's finally started to make a dent in the backlog of homes under construction. Now, as a reminder, again, this is something we've talked about here, there are a number of factors from supply chain issues to labor shortages, that we're really serving to elongate, build timelines in the months and years after the onset of COVID. And all of those things caused a real backlog in the number of homes under construction, so homes were getting started, but they weren't really getting finished. We see the number of single unit homes under construction is now down 130,000 units from that peak. Now, don't get me wrong, that number is still elevated versus where we'd expected to be, given the sheer number of housing starts that we've seen over the past year. But this is a first step towards turning more positive on housing starts. And again, homebuilder confidence Jay, as you said, it's climbed higher every single month this year. Jay Bacow: Okay, but you said this is a first step in turning more positive on housing starts. We get the start, we get the unit under construction, we get a completion and then eventually we get a home sale, so what does this mean for sales volumes? Jim Egan: We would think that it's probably likely for new home sales to continue making up a larger than normal share of monthly volumes, but we don't think that sales are about to really inflect materially higher here. Purchase applications so far in May, they're still down 26% year-over-year versus the same month in 2022. Now, that's the best year-over-year number since August of last year, but it's not exactly something that screams sales are about to inflect higher. Similarly, pending home sales just printed their weakest March in the history of the index, and it's the sixth consecutive month that they've printed their weakest month in index history. So it was their weakest February, their weakest January, and so on and so forth, so we think all of this is kind of emblematic of a housing market, specifically housing sales that are finding a bottom, but not necessarily about to move much higher. Jay Bacow: Okay. Now, Jim, in the past, when you've talked about your outlook for home prices, you mentioned your fou

Though the current market narrative has turned bullish, it may not withstand a downturn in earnings.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, May 22nd at 11a.m in New York. So let's get after it. For the past six months, the S&P 500 has been trading in a narrow range with strong rotations under the surface. When we turned tactically bullish on the index last October at 3500, we did so because the price had reached an attractive level and we believed rates and the dollar were topping. When we exited that trade at 4100 in early December, the price was no longer attractive, given our view that 2023 earnings estimates were materially too high. Fast forward to today and the index is showing some signs that it wants to break higher, even though our concerns remain. The primary difference from the early December highs is that we now have dramatically different leadership. Back then the leaders were energy, materials, financials and industrials, while technology was the big laggard. Small caps were also doing much better and market breadth was strong. The bullish narrative centered around China's reopening, which would put a floor in for global growth. Today, breadth is very weak. Technology, communication services and consumer discretionary are the only sectors up on the year, and even those sectors are exhibiting narrow breadth. Yet investors are more bullish than in early December, or at least far less bearish. The bullish narrative today focuses on technology, specifically on artificial intelligence. While we believe artificial intelligence is for real and will likely lead to some great efficiency to help fight inflation, it's unlikely to prevent the deep earnings recession we forecast for this year. Last week's price action showed frenzied buying by investors who cannot afford to miss the next bull market. We believe this will prove to be a head fake, like last summer for many reasons. First, valuations are not attractive, and it's not just the top ten or 20 stocks that are expensive. The median price earnings multiple is  18 times, which is near the top decile the past 20 years. Second, a very healthy reacceleration is baked in the second half consensus earnings estimates. This flies directly in the face of our forecasts, which continue to point materially lower. We remain highly confident in our model, given how accurate it's been over time and recently. We first started talking about the oncoming earnings recession a year ago and received very strong pushback, just like today. However, our model proved to be quite prescient based on the results and is now projecting 20% lower estimates than consensus, for 2023.  Third, the markets are pricing in 2 to 3 Fed cuts before year end without any material implications for growth. We think such an outcome is very unlikely. Instead, we think the Fed will only cut rates if we definitively enter into a recession or if credit markets deteriorate significantly. 

While the U.S. economy looks to be on track for a soft landing in 2023, even the smallest of setbacks could spell trouble for the end of the year.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ellen Zentner, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss our view around the soft landing for the U.S. economy. It's Friday, May 19th, at 10 a.m. in New York. Last year, we presented our outlook that 2023 would see a soft landing for the U.S. economy. This out of consensus view continues to be our base case expectation. And we looked at several key data points as evidence to support it, including the U.S. housing cycle, income and spending dynamics, the labor market and inflation. To start, economists have long said, "As goes housing, so goes the business cycle." And housing is a very important factor in our outlook for a soft landing. While the decline in housing activity has been record breaking from a national perspective, Morgan Stanley's housing strategists believe the cycle is bottoming. In our forecast, the big drag on economic growth from the housing correction should turn neutral by the third quarter of 2023, providing some cushion against the growth slowdown elsewhere. Second, the incoming data on U.S. income and consumer spending also support our expectation that the economy is slowing but not falling off a cliff. On the one hand, discretionary consumer spending is softening. On the other hand, income is the predominant driver of consumer spending, and even as wage growth continues to slow, our forecasted path for inflation suggests that real wages will finally turn positive in the middle of this year. Third, we look to labor market dynamics, and the April U.S. employment report provides ample evidence that the labor market is slowing but is also not headed for a cliff. The steady decline in job postings with still low unemployment rates since the middle of last year supports our soft landing view. And finally, we closely monitor inflation. The most recent April data suggests that core inflation continues to slowly recede, tracking in line with our forecasts, as well as the Fed's March projections. We think the incoming data continue to support a Fed pause at the June meeting, and after June we can see a wide range of potential outcomes for the policy rate. We expect a gradual slowing in core inflation that keeps the Fed on hold until March 2024, when it begins to normalize policy with quarter percent rate cuts every three months.   To be sure, the possibility of a recession remains a concern this year amid banking pressures with unknown spillovers to the economy from tighter credit. Should credit growth slow more than expected, it would bring larger spillovers to investment, consumption and labor. Against this backdrop, we expect the U.S. economy to experience a sharp slowdown in the middle two quarters of the year, so even small hiccups could push us into a recession. We'll continue to keep you abreast of any new developments. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. 

Although markets remain calm for now, incoming developments across the debt ceiling, inflation and monetary policy could quite quickly turn the tide.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Thursday, May 18th at 2 p.m. in London. A notable aspect of the current market is its serenity. Over the last 30 days, U.S. stocks have seen the least day-to-day volatility since December of 2021. It's a similar story for stocks in Europe or the movement of major currencies. Across key markets, things have been calm and investors have become more relaxed, with expectations of future volatility also in decline. But why is this happening? After all, major uncertainties around the path of inflation and central bank policy still exist. And the United States, the world's largest economy and most important borrower, still hasn't reached an agreement to keep borrowing by raising the debt ceiling, raising the risk, according to the U.S. Treasury secretary, of running out of money in less than a month. Well, we think a few things are going on. With the debt ceiling, we think this is a great example that real world investors genuinely struggle with pricing a binary, uncertain outcome. It's very challenging to put precise odds on what is ultimately a political decision and hard to quantify its impact. And further complicating matters, the conventional wisdom generally appears to be that any debt ceiling deal would only get done at the last possible moment. In short, investors are struggling, making big changes to their portfolio in the face of what is little better than a political guess and are finding it easier to wait, and hoping that more clarity emerges. I’d note we saw something very similar before the near-miss on the debt ceiling in 2011. Despite being extremely aware of the deadline back then, stocks moved sideways until the last possible moment in August of 2011, afraid of leaning too heavily in one direction before the event. Other factors are also in limbo. We're nearing the end of what was a reasonably solid first quarter earnings season and don't see larger disappointments arriving, potentially, until later in the year. And on our forecasts, the Federal Reserve just made its last rate hike of the cycle and is now on hold for the remainder of 2023. And volatility does have the tendency to be self-reinforcing. Low volatility often begets low volatility, and in turn drags down expectations of what future movements will look like. But importantly, this doesn't represent some form of clairvoyance, expectations about future levels of market volatility often deviate from what actually happens, in both directions. For now, markets remain calm. But don't assume that means investors have some special insight around the debt ceiling, inflation or monetary policy. Incoming developments across all of these areas can change the picture rather quickly. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you. 

According to the Federal Reserve’s latest Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey, small businesses may be the most vulnerable to banks tightening their lending standards.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the takeaways from the Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey. It's Wednesday, May 17th at 10 a.m. in New York. We've talked a lot about the effects of the turmoil in the regional banks on credit formation, on this podcast. We thought the ongoing liquidity pressures in the regional banking sector may lead to tighter lending standards, which will eventually translate into lower credit formation. The Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey, conducted quarterly by the Federal Reserve, provides a window on bank lending practices, including the standards and terms for banks to make loans, as well as the demand for bank loans to businesses and households. The survey results published last week, reflect conditions during the first quarter of 2023 and provide a first glimpse on the effect of the regional banking turmoil on banks outlook for lending over the remainder of 2023. The survey showed that banks expect to tighten standards across all loan categories. Banks cited an expected deterioration in the credit quality of their loan portfolios, customer collateral values, a reduction in risk tolerance, concerns about bank funding costs, banks liquidity position and deposit outflows, as reasons for expecting to tighten lending standards over the rest of 2023. While standards for commercial and industrial, the so-called C&I loans, tightened only marginally, the demand for C&I loans fell to levels not seen since the great financial crisis. Even though lending standards only tightened marginally, the tightening came from some loan officers tightening standards considerably. Further, banks reported changes to their modalities of their lending quite substantially. For example, the spread on loans or their cost of funding broke above the pandemic period and entered levels last seen during the great financial crisis. Loan officers also changed credit lines to small businesses drastically, especially regarding the size and cost. They reduced the maximum size and maturity of credit lines, as well as increased collateral requirements and the cost of credit lines. For small businesses in the U.S., such credit tightening comes at a very difficult time. Small business optimism and the outlook for business conditions already deteriorated significantly over the past year, and small businesses acknowledge that the environment isn't conducive for expansion or CapEx. Why does this matter? As small businesses have continued to lower expectations of sales, there were also moderated plans to raise prices in the near term. We see this dynamic raising the risks of downside surprises to upcoming inflation data. Also worth noting that fewer small businesses describe inflation as their number one concern, in fact, more describe interest rates as the number one concern. One of the special questions in this quarter's survey pertained to commercial real estate, so-called CRE. Banks tightened lending standards across all categories of CRE loans. Action cited included, widening loan spreads, reducing loan to value, raising debt service covers ratios and reducing maximum loan sizes. These survey results are consistent with what we had been predicting. Volatility in the regional banking sector has resulted in lower credit formation, due to both lingering liquidity stress and regulatory changes to come. The former is already playing out and the latter is likely to weigh on economic growth over the long term. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. 

As investors attempt to find opportunities in an uncertain stock market, earnings disappointments and an ongoing debt ceiling debate loom overhead.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Tuesday, May 16th, at 1 p.m. in New York. So let's get after it. Having spent the last few weeks on the road engaging with clients from around the world, I figured it would be useful to share some thoughts from our meetings and to touch on the most often asked questions, concerns and pushback to our views. First, conviction levels are low, given broadly elevated valuations and a challenging macro backdrop. While many individual longs and shorts have worked well in the context of a buoyant S&P 500, the most favorite trades have largely played out and clients are having trouble finding the next opportunity. Small cap and low quality stocks have underperformed and we continue to see crowding into mega-cap tech and consumer staples stocks as safe havens in a deteriorating growth environment.Second, there isn't much interest in the S&P 500 as either a long or a short anymore. Most clients we speak with have given up on the idea of a big breakdown of the index level. Conversely, there are few who think the S&P 500 can trade much above 4200, which has proven to be a key resistance since the October lows. What has changed is that the floor has been raised, with the large majority of investors thinking 3800 is now unlikely to be broken to the downside. In short, the consensus believes the bear market ended in October, at least for the high quality S&P 500 and NASDAQ. Third, there is little appetite to dive back into the areas of the market that have significantly underperformed like regional banks, small caps and energy. Other deep cyclicals are also out of favor due to either extended valuation and high earnings expectations In the case of industrials, and recession risk in the case of materials. Instead, most clients we spoke with remained comfortably long, large cap tech stocks, especially given the group's recent outperformance. While consumer staples and other defensives have outperformed strongly since March, there's less confidence this outperformance can continue. Our take remains the same. The market is speaking loudly under the surface, with its classic late cycle leadership and extreme narrowness, it is bracing for further macro and earnings disappointments. However, it is not yet pricing these outcomes at the index level. Such is the typical pattern exhibited by equity markets until clearer evidence of an economic recession arrives, or the risks of one are fully extinguished. With our economist forecasting close to 0% growth this year for real GDP and just modest growth next year, valuations at full levels and several other risks in front of us, we suspect 4200 will hold to the upside as most clients suggest. However, we continue to hold a more bearish tactical view than most clients in terms of the downside risk given our earnings forecast. The majority of our fundamental debate with clients has been over earnings. More specifically, there is broad pushback to our view that margins have not yet bottomed. In addition, many clients do not think revenue growth can fall towards zero or go negative given the still elevated inflation across the economy. Our take is that while many companies have taken decisive cost action, including layoffs, they have not yet cut cost nearly enough for a zero-to-negative revenue growth backdrop. But the odds of such an outcome increasing, in our view, we find it notable that many investors are more sanguine today on the earnings backdrop than they were five months ago. Meanwhile, many clients are worried about the debt ceiling. Most believe it will get resolved, but not without some near-term volatility. However, the discussion has evolved, with many clients framing this event as a lose-lose for markets. Assuming the debt ceiling is not resolved before the Treasury runs out of money, market volatility is likely to pick up meaningfully. Conversely, if the debt ceiling is lifted before the Treasury runs out of money, it will likely come with some concessions on the spending front, which could be a headwind for growth. Secondarily, such an outcome will lead to significant, pent up issuance from the Treasury to pay its bills and rebuild its reserves. This issuance from Treasury, could approach $1 trillion in the six months immediately after the ceiling is lifted, and potentially present a materially tightening to liquidity that could tip the S&P 500 back to the downside. To summarize, clients are less bearish on earnings than we are, although most are still fundamentally cautious on growth in the eco

Original Release on April 20th, 2023: "Smart chemotherapy" could change the way that cancer is treated, potentially opening up a $140 billion market over the next 15 years.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mark Purcell, Head of Morgan Stanley's European Pharmaceuticals Team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll talk about the concept of Smart Chemotherapy. It's Thursday, the 20th of April at 2 p.m. in London. Cancer is still the second leading cause of death globally, accounting for approximately 10 million deaths worldwide in 2020. Despite recent advances in areas like immuno-oncology, we still rely heavily on chemotherapy as the mainstay in the treatment of many cancers. Chemotherapy originated in the early 1900s when German chemist Paul Ehrlich attempted to develop "Magic Bullets", these are chemicals that would kill cancer cells while sparing healthy tissues. The 1960s saw the development of chemotherapy based on Ehrlich's work, and this approach, now known as traditional chemotherapy, has been in wide use since then. Nowadays, it accounts for more than 37% of cancer prescriptions and more than half of patients with colorectal, pancreatic, ovarian and stomach cancers are still treated with traditional chemo. But traditional chemo has many drawbacks and some significant limitations. So here's where "Smart Chemotherapy" comes in. Targeted therapies including antibodies to treat cancer were first developed in the late 1990s. These innovative approaches offer a safer, more effective solution that can be used earlier in treatment and in combination with other cancer medicines. "Smart Chemo" uses antibodies as the guidance system to find the cancer, and once the target is reached, releases chemotherapy inside the cancer cells. Think of it as a marriage of biology and chemistry called an antibody drug conjugate, an ADC. It's essentially a biological missile that hones in on the cancer and avoids collateral damage to the healthy tissues.  The first ADC drug was approved for a form of leukemia in the year 2000, but it's taken about 20 years to perfect this "biological missile" to target solid tumors, which are far more complex and harder to infiltrate into. We're now at a major inflection point with 87 new ADC drugs entering development in the past two years alone. We believe smart chemotherapy could open up a $140 billion market over the next 15 years or so, up from a $5 billion sales base in 2022. This would make ADCs one of the biggest growth areas across Global Biopharma, led by colorectal, lung and breast cancer. Large biopharma companies are increasingly aware of the enormous potential of ADC drugs and are more actively deploying capital towards smart chemotherapy. It's important to note, though, that while a smart chemotherapy revolution is well underway in breast and bladder cancer, the focus is now shifting to earlier lines of treatment and combination approaches. The potential to replace traditional chemotherapy in other solid tumors is completely untapped. A year from now, we expect ADC drugs to deliver major advances in the treatment of lung cancer and bladder cancer, as well as really important proof of concept data for colorectal cancer, which is arguably one of the biggest unmet needs out there. Given vastly improved outcomes for cancer patients, we believe that "Smart Chemotherapy" is well on the way to replacing traditional chemotherapy, and we expect the market to start pricing this in over the coming months. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy this show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. 

With technology evolving rapidly in education, investors are taking a closer look at how it will financially impact the global education market. Stephen Byrd and Josh Baer discuss.----- Transcript -----Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Sustainability Research. Josh Baer: And I'm Josh Baer from the U.S. Software Team. Stephen Byrd: On the special episode of the podcast will discuss the global education market. It's Friday, May 12th at 10 a.m. in New York. Stephen Byrd: Education is one of the most fragmented sectors globally, and right now it's in the midst of significant tech disruption and transformation. Add to this, a number of dynamically shifting regulatory and policy regimes and you have a complex set up. I wanted to sit down with my colleague Josh to delve into the intersection of the EdTech and the sustainability side of this multi-layered story. Stephen Byrd: So, Josh, let's start by giving a snapshot of global education technology, particularly in this post-COVID and rather uncertain macro context we're dealing with. What are some of the biggest challenges and key debates that you're following? Josh Baer: Thanks, Stephen. One way that I think about the different EdTech players in the market is through the markets that they serve. So in the context of education, that means early learning, K-12, higher ed, corporate skilling and lifelong learning. The key debates here come down to what it usually comes down to for equities, growth and margins. So on the growth side, there's several conversations that we're constantly having with investors. Some business models are exposed to academic enrollments as a driver. To what extent would a weaker macro with higher unemployment lead to stronger enrollments given their historical countercyclical trends? And enrollments have been pressured as current or potential students were attracted to the job market. And on the margin side, some of the companies that we follow in the EdTech space, they're the ones that were experiencing very rapid growth during COVID and investment mode to really capture that opportunity. And so investors debate the unit economics of some of these business models and really the trajectory of margins and free cash flow looking ahead. One other more topical debate, the impact of generative A.I. on education, and maybe we'll hit on that topic later. Josh Baer: Stephen, why do these debates matter from the point of view of ESG, environmental, social and governance perspective? Why should investors view global education through a sustainability lens? Stephen Byrd: Yeah Josh I'd say among sustainability focused investors, typically the number one topic that comes up within the education sector is inequality. So higher education is a key pillar of economic development, but social and economic problems can arise from limited access. Unequal access to education can perpetuate all forms of socioeconomic inequality. It can limit social mobility, and it can also exacerbate health and income disparities among demographic groups. It can also restrict the potential talent pool and diversity of backgrounds and ideas in different academic fields, leading to all kinds of negative economic implications for both growth and innovation. While progress has been made in increasing enrollment among underrepresented students, significant disparities remain in admission and graduation rates. For investors and public equities, I think one of the more useful tools in our note is a proprietary framework that measures sustainability impact. Now that tool is really primarily rooted in the United Nations Sustainable Development goal number four, which lays out targets in education. This framework is rooted in the premise that I mentioned earlier. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated multiple challenges in education. So when we think about business models that we really like, we're focused on models that can improve the quality of student learning, enhance institutions' operations and increase access and affordability. And we think our stocks that we selected really do meet those objectives quite well. Stephen Byrd: Josh, what is the current size of the EdTech and education services markets and why invest now? Josh Baer: First, on the size of the market, we see global education spend of 6 trillion today going to 8 trillion in 2030. So that's a CAGR below the growth of GDP, but we do see faster growth in EdTech. So there's really compelling opportunities for consolidation in the fragmented education market broadly and for EdTech growing at a double digit CAGR, so much faster than the overall education market. Why invest in EdTech? Well, as just mentioned, EdTech addresses these very large markets. It's increasing its share of education spend because it's aligned to several secular trends. So I'm thinking about digital transformation of the entire education industry

While personal computer sales were on the decline before the pandemic, signs are pointing to an upcoming boost. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Erik Woodring. Morgan Stanley's U.S. IT Hardware Analyst. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss why we're getting bullish on the personal computer space. It's Thursday, May 11th, at 10 a.m. in New York. PC purchases soared during COVID, but PCs have since gone through a once in a three decades type of down cycle following the pandemic boom. Starting in the second half of 2021, record pandemic driven demand reversed, and this impacted both consumer and commercial PC shipments. Consequently, the PC total addressable market has contracted sharply, marking two consecutive double digit year-over-year declines for the first time since at least 1995. But after a challenging 18 months or so, we believe it's time to be more bullish on PCs. The light at the end of the tunnel seems to be getting brighter as it looks like the PC market bottomed in the first quarter of 2023. Before I get into our outlook, it's important to note that PCs have historically been a low growth or no growth category. In fact, if you go back to 2014, there was only one year before the pandemic when PCs actually grew year-over-year, and that was 2019, at just 3%. Despite PCs' low growth track record and the recent demand reversal, our analysis suggests the PC addressable market can be structurally higher post-COVID. So at face value, we're making a bit of a contrarian bullish call. This more structural call is based on two key points. First, we estimate that the PC installed base, or the number of pieces that are active today, is about 15% larger than pre-COVID, even excluding low end consumer devices that were added during the early days of the pandemic that are less likely to be upgraded going forward. Second, if you assume that users replace their PCs every four years, which is the five year pre-COVID average, that about 65% of the current PC installed base or roughly 760 million units is going to be due for a refresh in 2024 and 2025. This should coincide with the Windows 10 End of Life Catalyst expected in October 25 and the 1 to 3 year anniversary of generative A.I. entering the mainstream, both which have the potential to unlock replacement demand for more powerful machines. Combining these factors, we estimate that PC shipments can grow at a 4% compound annual growth rate over the next three years. Again, in the three years prior to COVID, that growth rate was about 1%. So we think that PCs can grow faster than pre-COVID and that the annual run rate of PC shipments will be larger than pre-COVID. Importantly though, what drives our bullish outlook is not the consumer, as consumers have a fairly irregular upgrade pattern, especially post-pandemic. We think the replacements and upgrades in 2024 and 2025, will come from the commercial market with 70% of our 2024 PC shipment growth coming from commercial entities. Commercial entities are much more regular when it comes to upgrades and they need greater memory capacity and compute power to handle their ever expanding workloads, especially as we think about the potential for A.I. workloads at the edge. To sum up, we're making a somewhat contrarian call on the PC market rebound today, arguing that one key was the bottom and that PC companies should outperform in the next 12 months following this bottom. But then beyond 2023, we are making a largely commercial PC call, not necessarily a consumer PC call, and believe that PCs have brighter days ahead, relative to the three years prior to the pandemic. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

With the debt ceiling debate seemingly making little headway, it may be critical for investors to track market developments in the near future.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the debt ceiling and its impact on markets. It's Wednesday, May 10th at 10 a.m. in New York. Congressional leaders met at the White House on Tuesday to hammer out a deal to raise the debt ceiling and avoid a government bond default. Reports following the meeting suggest little progress was made. That news shouldn't necessarily be surprising or discouraging. Initial rounds of legislative negotiations are often just a venue for each side to state their position. It often takes the urgency of a nearby deadline to catalyze compromise. While this isn't the first debt ceiling challenge for markets, it may be the most critical one, at least since 2011. As we said before, investors need to take seriously the idea that we do something that hasn't been done before, cross the X-date, the date after which Treasury doesn't have enough cash on hand to meet all obligations as they come due. So it's useful to quickly revisit what that would mean. In short, it puts a bunch of options on the table, but most are not good options, suggesting some markets may have to price in greater downside, at least for a time. A benign and plausible outcome would be that if the X-date is crossed, the resulting concern among policymakers, voters and business leaders around missed debt, Social Security, infrastructure and other payments, creates enough pressure on Congress to quickly force a compromise. Other outcomes are less friendly. The White House could choose to avoid default by ignoring the debt ceiling, citing authority under the 14th Amendment, but that could just shift uncertainty from the legislative process to the judicial one, as courts could ultimately decide if the U.S. defaults. The White House could also choose to prioritize payments to bondholders over other government obligations, but this could interrupt payments into the economy that support a substantial amount of consumption and GDP. And, of course, default would be a possibility, but given its far more considerable economic and political downside relative to the other options, this outcome would not be our base case expectation. So how could markets react? Here's what to watch for. The Treasury bills curve could invert further, with shorter maturity yields rising more relative to longer maturity yields. In equity markets, volatility should pick up considerably, and any resolution that crimps economic growth further would underscore the cautious stance of our equity strategy team. So developments over the next couple of weeks will be critical to track. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

As oil data in 2023 shows that second-half tightening is less likely, it may be time to alter the narrative around the expected market for the remainder of the year.Important note regarding economic sanctions. This recording references country/ies which are generally the subject of selective sanctions programs administered or enforced by the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), the European Union and/or by other countries and multi-national bodies. Any references in this recording to entities, debt or equity instruments, projects or persons that may be covered by such sanctions are strictly incidental to general coverage of the issuing entity/sector as germane to its overall financial outlook, and should not be read as recommending or advising as to any investment activities in relation to such entities, instruments or projects. Users of this recording are solely responsible for ensuring that their investment activities in relation to any sanctioned country/ies are carried out in compliance with applicable sanctions.----- Transcription -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley's Global Commodity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss how the 2023 global oil market story is changing. It's Tuesday, May the 9th at 4 p.m. in London. Over the last several months, the dominant narrative in the oil market was one of expected tightening in the second half. Although supply outstripped demand in the first quarter, the assumption was that the market would start to tighten from the second quarter onwards and be in deficit once again by the second half, which would lead to a rise in price. At the start of the year, this was also our thesis for how 2023 would play out. However, as of early May, it seems this narrative needs to change. The expectation of second half tightness was largely based on two key assumptions. One, that China's reopening would boost demand, and two, the Russian oil production would  start to decline. By now, however, it seems that these assumptions have run their course and are in fact behind us. On China, both the country's crude imports and its refinery runs were already back at all time highs in March, leaving little room for further improvement. On Russia, oil production has fallen from recent peaks, but probably only about 400,000 barrels a day. From here, we would argue that it's becoming increasingly unlikely it will fall much further. The EU's crude and product embargoes have been in place for some time now. Russian oil that flows now will probably continue to flow. That raises the question whether the second half tightening thesis can still be sustained. After OPEC announced production cuts at the start of April, we argued that OPEC was mostly responding to a weakening in the supply demand outlook. Perhaps counterintuitive, but we lowered oil price forecasts already significantly at the time those cuts were announced. Still, with those cuts, we thought that the second half balances would be about 600,000 barrels per day undersupplied, and that that would be enough to keep Brent in the mid-to-upper $80 per barrel range. New data from this past month, however, has further chiseled away at this deficit, which we now project at just 300,000 barrels a day. This is in effect getting very close to a balanced market, and that limits upside to oil prices, at least in the near term. Even this modest undersupply now mostly depends on seasonality in demand and OPEC production cuts. However, when the second half arrives, oil prices will start to reflect expected balances for early 2024. In the first half of '24, seasonality may turn the other way and OPEC production cuts are scheduled to come to an end. Our initial estimate of 2024 balances showed the market in a small surplus, especially in the first half. Looking beyond the next 12 months, oil prices still have long term supportive factors. Demand is likely to continue to grow over the rest of the decade, while investment levels have been low for some time now. However, the structural and the cyclical don't always align, and this is one of those moments. The second half tightness thesis does not appear to be playing out, and we don't see much tightness in the period just beyond that either. We expect Brent oil prices to stay in their recent $75 to $85 per barrel range, probably skewed towards the bottom end of that range later this year when the market enters a period of seasonal softness again and OPEC's voluntary cuts come to an end. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

With all the volatility surrounding the banking sector, the Fed raising rates and the continued debt ceiling debate, are consumers finally pulling back on spending? ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, May 8th, at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. In this week's podcast, I will discuss three major topics on investors' minds. First quarter Earnings results, the Fed's decision to raise rates last week, and how the consumer is holding up in the face of a debt ceiling debate with no easy solutions. First, on earnings, the first quarter earnings per share beat consensus expectations by 6 to 7%. Furthermore, second quarter guidance is held up better than we expected coming into the quarter. That said, it's important to provide some context. First quarter estimates came down 16% over the past year, double the 20 year average decline over equivalent periods and a more manageable hurdle for companies to clear. Furthermore, the macro data improved in January and February as seasonal adjustments and easy comparisons, with the early 2022 break out of Omicron flattered the growth rate. Nevertheless, this improvement also helped earnings results on a year-over-year basis and provided a boost to company confidence about where we are in the cycle. Unfortunately, many of the leading macro data we track have fallen and are now pointing to a similar reacceleration in earnings per share growth that the consensus expects. Ironically, this comes as many companies position 2023 growth recoveries as being contingent on a solid macro backdrop. If one is to believe our leading indicators that point pointed downward trends in earnings per share surprise and margins over the coming months, stocks will likely follow that negative path lower. With regards to the Fed, Chair Powell pushed back on the likelihood of interest rate cuts that are now priced in the bond markets. While bonds and stocks faded after these comments, they closed the week on a strong note. We believe the equity market continues to expect the best of both worlds, interest rate cuts and durable growth. We view the likelihood of reacceleration in growth in conjunction with interest rate cuts is very low. Instead, we believe another chapter of our fire and ice narrative is possible. In other words, a tighter Fed even as growth slows towards recession. This would be a difficult environment for stocks. So what are consumers telling us? Today, we published our latest AlphaWise Consumer Survey. Consumers continue to expect a pullback in spending for most categories over the next six months. Consumers still plan to spend more on essentials like groceries and household supplies. However, they are looking to pull back on discretionary goods spending categories with the most negative net spending intentions are consumer electronics, leisure activities, home appliances and food away from home. Grocery is the only category where low and middle income consumers said they’re planning to spend incrementally more over the next six months. They are not planning to spend more on any services categories. For high income consumers, travel is the only services category where spending intentions are positive and grocery is the only goods category where spending intentions are positive. Interestingly, the high income group indicated negative spending intentions for food away from home and leisure services. Bottom line, the consumer looks to finally be pulling back from an incredible two year run of spending. That was always unsustainable in our view. Some of this may be due to inflation and dwindling savings, but also the very public debate around the debt ceiling, which does not appear to have any easy solution. This is just another wildcard risk for stocks as we head into the summer. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps for people to find the show. 

The Federal Reserve pausing on hiking interest rates has historically been good for markets. But given current conditions, history may not repeat itself.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Assets Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, May 5th at 2 p.m. in London. The Federal Reserve raised interest rates 25 basis points this week and have now raised their benchmark policy rate 5% over the last 14 months. That's the fastest increase in over 40 years, and for now we think it's enough. Morgan Stanley's economist forecasts the Fed won't make additional rate hikes or cuts for the rest of this year. In market parlance, the Fed will now pause. The question, of course, is whether the so-called pause is good for markets. In 1985, 1995, 1997, 2006 and 2018, buying stocks once the Fed was done raising rates resulted in good returns over the following 6 to 12 months. And this result does make some intuitive sense. If the Fed is no longer increasing rates and actively tightening policy, isn't that one less challenge for the stock market? Our concern, however, is that current conditions look different to these past instances, where the last rate hike was a good time to be more optimistic. Today, current levels of industrial production and leading economic indicators are weaker, inflation is higher, bank credit is tighter, and the yield curve is more inverted than any of these prior instances since 1985, where a pause boosted markets. In short, current data suggest higher inflation and a sharper slowdown than past instances where the last Fed hike was a good time to buy. And for these reasons, we worry about lumping current conditions in with those prior examples. So far, I've focused on performance following a pause in Fed rate hikes from the perspective of equity markets. Yet the picture for bonds is somewhat different. Whereas future performance for stocks is quite dependent on the growth outlook, U.S. Treasury bonds have historically done well after the last Fed rate hike under a variety of growth scenarios, whether good or poor. For now, we continue to favor high grade bonds over equities, even if we think the Fed may now be done with its rate hikes. We think that's consistent with the current data looking weaker than prior instances. In turn, stronger growth and lower inflation than we forecast would make conditions start to look a little bit more similar to instances where the last rate hike was a buy signal and would make us more optimistic. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.

The banking sector appears stronger in Europe than it does in the U.S., but some other European sectors may be at risk of lower profitability.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Graham Secker, Head of Morgan Stanley's European Equity Strategy Team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about our latest thoughts on European equities. It's Thursday, May the 4th at 3 p.m. in London. Over the last couple of months, we have seen global technology stocks significantly outperform global financial stocks, aided by lower bond yields and concerns around the health of the U.S. regional banking sector. Historically, when we have seen tech outperform financials in the past, it has usually been accompanied by material underperformance from European equities. However, this time the region has proved much more resilient. Part of this reflects the benefits of lower valuation and lower investor positioning. However, we also see two broader macro supports for Europe just here. First, we see less downside risk to the European economy than that of the U.S., where many of the traditional economic leading indicators are down at recessionary levels. In contrast, similar metrics for Europe, such as consumer confidence and purchasing managers indices, have actually been rising recently. In addition, a healthier and more resilient banking sector over here in Europe suggests there is potentially less risk of a credit crunch developing here than we see in the U.S.. Second, we think Europe is also seen as an alternative way to get exposure to an economic recovery in China, given that the region has stronger economic ties and greater stock market exposure than most of its developed market peers. While this is not necessarily manifesting itself in overall aggregate inflows into European equity funds at this time, we can clearly see the theme benefiting certain sectors, such as luxury goods, which has arguably become one of the most popular ways to express a positive view on China globally. Notwithstanding these relative advantages, we do expect some near-term weakness in European stocks over the next quarter, with negative risks from the U.S. potentially outweighing positive risks from China and Asia. While first quarter results season has started strongly, we believe earnings disappointment will gradually build as we move through 2023 and our own forecasts remain close to 10% below consensus. Catalysts for this disappointment include slower economic growth, from the second quarter onwards, continued falls in profit margins and building FX headwinds given a strengthening euro. Our negative view on the outlook for corporate profitability often prompts the question as to which companies are over-earning and hence potentially most at risk from any mean reversion. To help answer this question, we ranked European sectors across five different profitability metrics where we compared their current levels to their ten year history. This analysis suggests that the European sectors who are currently over-earning, and hence most at risk of future disappointment include transport, semiconductors, construction materials, energy and autos. In contrast, sectors where profitability does not look particularly elevated at this time include retailing, diversified financials, media, chemicals, real estate and software.   More broadly, we believe this analysis supports our cautious view on cyclical stocks within Europe just here, particularly for the likes of energy and autos, where profits are already falling year on year and where we see more downgrades ahead. Instead, we maintain a preference for stocks with higher quality and growth characteristics. We think these should be relative outperformers against the backdrop of economic weakness, falling bond yields and better relative earnings trends. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. 

Congress is finally set to begin debt ceiling negotiations. What are some possible outcomes and how might the negotiations affect economic growth?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the debt ceiling and its impact on markets. It's Wednesday, May 3rd at 9 a.m. in New York. Earlier this week, the Treasury Department informed Congress that at the start of June, it could run out of money to pay government obligations as they come due. This X-date appears much earlier than most forecasters expected, catching markets by surprise. Some investors even expressed to us disbelief, pushing the idea that the real X-date would be later, and Treasury is just trying to stir negotiations in Congress to raise the debt ceiling. Here's our take. The X-date is likely a moving target due the complex interplay of the timing of incoming tax receipts, government outlays and maturing debt securities. So, while it's possible the date ends up being sometime later this summer, the government might not be able to forecast that with a high degree of certainty. In that case, negotiations have to start now to avoid a situation where the X-date sneaks up on Congress, leaving little time to deliberate and risking default. And that seems to have prompted negotiations, with a May 9th meeting at the White House set to kick things off. But we emphasize that an early resolution remains uncertain. Both parties remain far apart on how they'd like to deal with the debt ceiling and in some ways haven't formed consensus within their own parties on the issue either. So the negotiating dynamic is likely to be tricky. That in turn means a range of policy solutions are plausible here, including a temporary suspension of the debt ceiling, unilateral measures by the administration to avoid default, a budget austerity package in exchange for raising the debt ceiling, or perhaps a clean debt ceiling raise. Of course, that level of uncertainty is generally not something markets like. Not surprisingly, we're seeing further inversion of the yield curve for Treasury bills, with notes maturing in June rising to around 5.3%. However, it does dovetail with our general preference for bonds over equities in developed markets this year. If the negotiation lingers too long, investors could become more concerned about the impact of the economic growth outlook, either because payment prioritization puts government transfer payments at risk or budget austerity reduces the trajectory of net government spending. In that case, equity markets could come under pressure, but longer maturity bonds could benefit. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show. 

With the trend toward a multipolar world accelerating, companies are finding that investing in productivity may help protect margins. Ravi Shanker and Diego Anzoategui discuss.----- Transcript -----Ravi Shanker: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ravi Shanker, Morgan Stanley's North American Freight Transportation Analyst. Diego Anzoategui: And I'm Diego Anzoategui from the U.S. Economics Team. Ravi Shanker: And on this special episode of the podcast, we discuss what we see as The Great Productivity Race, that's poised to accelerate. It's Tuesday, May 2nd at 10 a.m. in New York. Ravi Shanker: The transition away from globalization to a decentralized multipolar world means companies' ability to source labor globally is contracting. This narrowing of geographical options for companies is making cheap labor, particularly for skilled manufacturing, harder to find. But there is a potential positive, a rebound in productivity which has been anemic for more than a decade. Ravi Shanker: So Diego, what's the connection that you see between the slowing or even reversal of globalization and productivity trends? Diego Anzoategui: If you think about it, the decision to upgrade technologies and increase productivity is like any other type of capital investment. Firms decide to improve their production technologies, either to deal with scarce  factors of production or to meet increasing demand. COVID 19 was a negative shock to the labor supply in the U.S., and there is still a long road ahead to reach pre-pandemic levels. On top of that, we think that slowing globalization trends will likely limit labor supply further, causing real wages to increase, and keeping firms under pressure to improve productivity to protect margins. But we think firms will boost productivity investment in the medium term once business sentiment picks up again. And we are past the slowdown in economic activity that we expect in 2023 and into 2024. Expectations are key because the decision to innovate is forward looking, adopting new technologies takes time and the benefits of innovation come with a lag. Diego Anzoategui: Ravi, as a result of COVID and the geopolitical uncertainties from the war in Ukraine, companies have been dealing with a number of significant challenges recently, from supply chain disruptions to worker shortages and energy security. How are companies addressing these hurdles and what kinds of investments do they need to make in order to boost productivity? Ravi Shanker: Look, it's a good question and certainly a focus area for virtually every company anywhere in the world. The last five years have been very challenging and a lot of those challenges have revolved around labor availability and labor cost in particular. So I think companies are approaching this with two broad buckets or two broad focus areas. One is, I think they are trying to reinvest in their labor force. I think for too long companies' labor force was viewed as sort of a source of free money, if you will, an area to cut costs and gain efficiency. But I think companies have realized that, hey, we need to reinvest in our workforce, we need to raise their wages, improve their benefits, give them better working conditions, and make them a true resource that will obviously contribute to the success of the company over time. And the second bucket they're looking at is just broader long term investments in things like automation and productivity technologies, because many of these labor trends are structural, that are demographic issues, that are geopolitical issues, that are not going to reverse anytime soon. So you do need to look for an alternative, particularly in areas where, you know, jobs that people don't want to take on or where the value added from a labor is not as good as automating it. That's where companies are highly focused on the next generation of tools, whether that's automation or A.I. and machine learning. Diego Anzoategui: It seems that A.I. technology holds great promise when it comes to raising productivity growth. In fact, our analysts here at Morgan Stanley believe that A.I. focused productivity revolution could be more global than the PC revolution. What is your thinking around this? Ravi Shanker: Look, I think it's still too early to tell what impact A.I. will have on labor productivity as a whole and the impact of labor at corporations around the world. Take, for example, my sector of freight transportation. We don't make anything, but we move everybody else's stuff. And so by nature of freight transportation, is a very process driven industry and process driven industries by nature kind of iterate to find more efficiency and better ways of doing things, and that's where a lot of these new productivity tools can be very helpful. At the same time, it is also a very labor intensive industry that has some significant demographic challenges, whether it's a truck driver shortage, the inabil

As the banking sector is in the news again, investors wonder about an increase in borrowing from the Fed and possible restrictions on the horizon.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of  perspectives, I'll be talking about the ongoing tensions in the regional banking sector. It's Monday, May 1st at 2 p.m. in New York. At the outset, I would note that the news we woke up to this morning about JP Morgan's acquisition of First Republic is an important development. As Betsy Graseck, our large cap banks equity analyst noted, as part of this transaction JP Morgan will assume all $92 billion remaining deposits at First Republic, including the $30 billion of large bank deposits which will be repaid in full post consolidation. We believe that this is credit positive for the large cap bank group, as investors have been concerned that large banks would have to take losses against their $30 billion in deposits in the event First Republic was put into FDIC receivership. That said, we will be watching closely a key metric of demand for liquidity in the system, the borrowings from the Fed by the banks. The last two weeks saw consecutive increases in the borrowings from the Fed facilities by the banks, the discount window and the Bank Term Funding Program. That the banking system needed to continue to borrow at such high and increasing levels suggested that liquidity pressures remained and may have actually been increasing over the past two weeks. In light of the developments over the weekend, it will be useful to see how these borrowings from the Fed change when this week's data are released on Thursday. Last Friday, the Federal Reserve Board announced the results from the review of the supervision and regulation of the Silicon Valley Bank, led by Vice Chair for Supervision Michael Barr. The regulatory changes proposed are broadly in line with our expectations. The most important highlights from a macro perspective include the emphasis on banks management of interest rate risk and liquidity risk. Further, the report calls for a review of stress testing requirements. The Fed is now proposing to extend the rules that already apply to large banks now to smaller banks, banks with $100 billion to $700 billion in assets. These changes will be proposed, debated, reviewed and these changes will not be effective for a few years because of the standard notice and common periods in the rulemaking process. What are the market implications? We think that the recent events in the regional banking sector will cause banks to shorten assumptions on deposit durations, while potential regulatory changes would likely impact the amount of duration banks can take on their asset side. This is a steepener for rates, negative for longer duration securities such as agency mortgage backed securities and a dampener for the bank demand for senior tranches of securitized credit. While the implementation of these rules will take time, markets would be proactive. In the near-term, the challenges in the regional banks sector will likely result in lower credit formation and raise the risk of a sharper economic contraction.  Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

With the world moving towards a more complex and decentralized multipolar structure, how will technology and infrastructure markets fare going forward?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ed Stanley, Morgan Stanley's Head of Thematic Research in Europe. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the complex issue of security in the multipolar world. For some time, the world has been trending away from a globalized, unipolar structure characterized by stability and mutual cooperation. And in its place, we've been moving towards a multipolar structure, more complex, more decentralized. And this theme is one that Morgan Stanley's Global Research Department has been exploring deeply over the last three years. And the time is right to revisit that theme now because it's accelerating. And we see two plausible outcomes from here, a de-risking or a decoupling, lie ahead for companies. Our base case is still for a gradual phased de-risking between regions and companies are already in the process of facing up to that new reality, by diversifying their highly concentrated supply chains. But the possibility of a full and disorderly decoupling scenario now warrants more serious consideration. It's no longer the tail risk it was when we first addressed the theme three years ago. What has acted as a more recent accelerant to this trend is the extent of top down policy measures we've witnessed over recent years. The number of such policies designed to restrict trade have increased fivefold in the last five years, as measured by the UN. And these restrictions have covered everything from rare earth battery minerals, to grain exports and solar panel imports, to specialist machinery for microchip production. Add to this the ever greater incentives to reshore supply chains and critical components back to the U.S. and Europe, in the form of the CHIPS Act, the U.S. IRA and Europe's response to it, and it becomes clearer why this multipolar world and de-risking theme continue to gather pace. After all, Europe's market share of critical inputs and technologies stand at about 6% versus China's at over 50%. And that scale of imbalance will take time and substantial resources to even partially reverse. And while this is a complex theme with many moving parts, there is one relatively simple conclusion. Whether the world continues to gradually de-risk or more abruptly decouple, greater spending on security and critical infrastructure will be essential. Consequently, the industrial and tech sectors will likely need to allocate the most capital to achieve this de-risking process. But we also see promise for more than 80 companies exposed to the critical infrastructure buildout, which should see higher demand and should be able to generate strong return on capital in the process. These are the types of companies that should be well-placed, as this theme evolves. Our new security framework suggests that space infrastructure, artificial intelligence and batteries may be areas of greatest focus for the markets going forward. Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.

While government bonds have been less than desirable investments for the past two years, the tide may be turning on bond returns.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about global macro trends and how investors can interpret these trends for rates and currency markets. It's Thursday, April 27th at 2 p.m. in New York. Over the past 2 years, government bonds have been less than desirable investments. This year, the inflation phenomena came out of hibernation and appears unwilling to go away anytime soon. In 2022, one of the worst years on record, U.S. Treasuries delivered a total return of -12.5%. Securities that offer fixed interest payments like government bonds tend to lose value when inflation rises, because the future purchasing power of those cash flows declines. But that doesn't always happen, of course, and certainly not to this degree. For most of the past 20 years, government bonds dealt reasonably well with positive inflation rates, even if those rates were rising. But last year was different, for two reasons primarily. First, inflation rose at a rate we haven't seen since the late 1970s. And second, central banks responded aggressively by tightening monetary policies. How have these factors changed so far this year? Well, inflation has started to moderate both in terms of consumer prices and wages. And in response, central banks have become less aggressive in their recent policy maneuvering. Investors have also benefited from the clarity on the speed with which central banks have moved and how fast they may move in the future. This would seem like good news for government bond returns, and so far it has been. However, at the same time, investor nerves remain frayed, even if less so than last year. But why? First, investors remain worried about inflation, but for different reasons than last year. Throughout 2022 concern focused on the speed with which inflation was rising and just how high it would go. This year, however, concerns remain around how far inflation will fall, a process known as disinflation. The consensus view amongst investors is that inflation will remain above the Fed's 2% goal unless the Fed engineers a deep recession. And to do so, the Fed will either have to tighten monetary policy even further or keep monetary policy tight for an extended period of time. Neither scenario seems particularly supportive of government bond returns. Second, investors are worried about the upcoming debt ceiling negotiations. The concern isn't so much that the government will default on its debt obligations, although that is a possibility. Rather, it's more about whether the government will have to delay paying other obligations, such as federal employee salaries or Social Security. A cessation of those payments, even if temporary, could slow economic activity in the United States. And even if the debt ceiling is raised in time, material risks to regional banking institutions still remain. Putting it all together, the higher yields available in the government bond markets and the increasing risk to economic activity, including those from the lagged effects of monetary policy tightening, leave us hopeful on the future returns of the asset class. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show. 

As multinational companies look towards a future of higher innovation costs and a shrinking labor pool, some corporate sectors may fare better than others in the multipolar world.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the great productivity race and the multipolar world. It's Wednesday, April 26th at 9 a.m. in New York. Client questions this week have focused on the U.S. debt ceiling, as Republicans in the House of Representatives work to pass their version of a debt ceiling raise. But we think this bill is just one step in a longer process, so we'll return to this topic when there's something more concrete to say about the ultimate resolution and its market implications. Stepping away from that topic gives us the opportunity to focus on a longer term trend impacting the markets, something our research team is calling the Great Productivity Race. It's the idea that U.S. multinational companies in particular will have to spend to develop and integrate new technologies, including artificial intelligence , into their production in order to keep up output. Why is that? In part, it has to do with one of our big three themes for 2023, the transition to a multipolar world. In a multipolar world, where the U.S. is looking to safeguard advantages and technologies and key areas of production, the labor pool for U.S. multinationals is contracting. Efforts to re-friend, and near-shore critical industries have strong political support. But this narrows the geographical options for companies making cheap labor, particularly for skilled manufacturing, harder to find. And that exacerbates a U.S. economic challenge already present for several reasons. That means companies are likely to invest in improving their own productivity through technology. And as our economists point out, there's historical precedent for this. For one academic study, the great Mississippi Flood of 1927 led many people to emigrate from some adjacent counties. Those areas modernized agricultural production much faster than others. Another academic study shows that conversely, metro areas that had a significant inflow of low skilled workers in the eighties and nineties were slow to adopt automated production processes. So investors need to know that some corporate sectors will be able to handle this well and others will be challenged. Those best positioned are ones less reliant on labor and with ample resources to invest in productivity. Those more challenged rely heavily on labor and have less resources on their balance sheets.  Our colleagues in equity research are digging into which sectors fit into which category, and in a future podcast we’ll share with you what they're learning. 

With many investors predicting the U.S. dollar to continue to weaken, its potential for diversification and high yields may indicate otherwise.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Assets Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Tuesday, April 25th at 2 p.m. in London. The U.S. dollar has fallen about 11% from its highs last September. We think a majority of investors expect that weakness to continue, driven by factors ranging from expensive valuations to potential slowing of the U.S. economy, to the view that a more fragmented geopolitical backdrop will lead to less trade and transactions in U.S. dollars. In contrast, our foreign exchange strategists think it's more likely that the dollar strengthens. I want to discuss the idea of dollar strength from a larger lens and what it could mean for a cross-asset portfolio. For a multi-asset investor, the greatest appeal of the U.S. dollar comes from its diversification. At present, it is one of the few positive carry diversifiers, which is another way of saying that it's one of the few assets out there that pays you while also acting as a portfolio hedge, thanks to the dollar generally moving in the opposite direction of riskier assets like stocks or high yield bonds. Importantly, that diversification from the U.S. dollar makes a lot of intuitive sense to us. We think the dollar could do well if U.S. growth is very hot, as investors are drawn to even higher U.S. rates under that scenario, or if growth is very weak as investors seek out safety and liquidity. These extremes in growth, we think, represent two of the key risks, for riskier assets. In contrast, the dollar probably does weaken if growth is down the middle and a so-called soft landing for the economy. In this case, modest Fed easing without the fear of recession would likely cause investors to seek out cheaper, more volatile currencies. But this soft landing scenario is probably the best outcome for the riskier other parts of one's portfolio, allowing the dollar to provide diversification as it zigs while other assets zag. But what about the dollar's higher valuation or the threat of geopolitical shifts? Well, on valuation, our work suggests that it tends to be a pretty weak predictor of foreign exchange returns over the next 6 to 12 months, for better or for worse. And on geopolitical shifts, the dollar remains the dominant currency of global trade. And importantly, over the last year, a year that’s contained quite a bit of geopolitical uncertainty, it's continued to show diversification benefits. In summary, many investors expect U.S. dollar weakness to continue. Thanks to its high yield and powerful potential for diversification, we think it's more likely to appreciate. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you. 

The drive to reduce carbon emissions could trigger the biggest transformation of the steel industry in decades. Global Head of Sustainability Research, Stephen Byrd, Head of European Metals and Mining Research, Alain Gabriel, and Head of the Americas Basic Materials Team, Carlos De Alba, discuss. ----- Transcript -----Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Sustainability Research. Alain Gabriel: And I’m Alain Gabriel, Head of Europe Metals and Mining Research. Carlos De Alba: I am Carlos De Alba, Head of the Americas Basic Materials Team. Stephen Byrd: On this special episode of the podcast, we'll discuss the implications of decarbonization in the steel industry. It's Monday, April 24th at 10 a.m. in New York. Alain Gabriel: And 3 p.m. in London. Stephen Byrd: Achieving net zero is a top priority as the world moves into a new phase of climate urgency, and global decarbonization is one of the three big themes for 2023 for Morgan Stanley research. Within this broader theme, we believe that decarbonizing steelmaking has the potential to trigger the biggest transformation of the steel industry in decades. Stephen Byrd: Alain to set the stage and just give our listeners a sense of the impact of steelmaking, just how much does steel contribute to global CO2 emissions? Alain Gabriel: Thank you, Stephen. In fact, the steel industry emits around 3.6 billion tonnes of CO2 per annum. And this enormous carbon footprint puts the industry at the heart of the climate debate, and public policy is rapidly evolving towards stricter emissions reductions targets, but also shorter implementation timelines. So for instance, in Europe, which is leading this transformation by simultaneously introducing a carbon border adjustment mechanism, which is otherwise known as CBAM and gradually reducing free CO2 allowances until their full removal by 2034.  Stephen Byrd: So, Alain, given the size of Steel's contributions to emissions, it should come as no surprise that decarbonizing steel would likely really reconfigure the entire supply chain, including hydrogen, renewable energy, high quality iron ore and equipment providers. So, Alain, given this impending paradigm shift, what is the potential impact on upstream resources? Alain Gabriel: Yes, the steel value chain is collectively exploring various ways to reduce carbon emissions, whether it was miners, steelmakers or even capital equipment providers. However, we think the most promising path from today's perspective appears to be via the hydrogen direct reduced iron electric arc furnaces process, which is also known as H2DRIEAF in short. Admittedly, if we were to have this conversation again in three years, this conclusion might be different. But back to the H2DRIEAF process, it promises to curb emissions by 99% by replacing carbon from coal with hydrogen to release the oxygen molecules from iron ore and convert it to pure iron. The catch is that this process is resource intensive and would face significant supply constraints and bottlenecks, which in a way is positive for upstream pricing.So if we were to hypothetically convert the entire industry in Europe today, we will need more than 55% of Europe's entire production of green hydrogen last year. And we'll also need more than double the global production of DRI grade pellets, which is a niche high grade iron ore product. Stephen Byrd: Alain, you believe that steel economics in Europe is really at an inflection point right now, and given that Europe will likely see the biggest disruption when it comes to the green steel transformation, I wondered if you could give us a snapshot of the current situation in Europe and of your outlook there.  Alain Gabriel: Should steel mills choose to adopt the H2DRIEAF proccess, they would need to build out an entire infrastructure associated with it, and we detail each component of that chain in our note. But in aggregate, we estimate that the average capital intensity would be approximately $1,200 per ton, and this excludes the build up of renewable electricity. So on OpEx, green hydrogen and renewable electricity will constitute more than 50% of production costs and this will lead to wide disparities between regions. So the economics of this transformation will only work, in our view, under effective policy support to level the playing field. And this would include a combination of grants, subsidies and carbon border taxes. Fortunately, the EU policy is moving in that direction but is lagging the United States. Stephen Byrd: So, Carlos, as we heard from Alain, Europe is leading this green steel transformation. But at the same time, the U.S. has the greenest steel footprint and is benefiting from some relative advantages vis a vis Europe and the rest of the world. Could you walk us through these advantages and the competitive gap between the U.S. and other regions?&nb

With equity markets showing strength in the face of slowing growth, investors are left wondering how, or if, they can remain resilient.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross Assets Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the global investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, April 21st at 2 p.m. in London. Meeting with investors over the last several weeks, there's one question above all others that seems to be on people's mind. In the face of slowing growth, tightening policy, banking sector stresses and uninspiring valuations, why are markets, especially equity markets, so resilient? Like many things in the market, there is no one reason, and it's also impossible to know for sure. But we have some suspicions about what is and isn't behind the strength and what that means going forward. One trio of factors rolled out to explain this resiliency, is the idea that growth and earnings are holding up well, the Fed is once again injecting liquidity into the system, given recent banking sector challenges and investors are already so negative that the risks are well known. Yet each of these explanations seems to come up a little short. Global growth in the first quarter was better than expected, but markets should care more about the forward looking outlook, which looks set for deceleration, while estimates for corporate earnings have generally been falling throughout the year. While the Fed did provide extra liquidity given recent banking sector challenges, this looks very different from traditional quantitative easing, especially as the banks continue to tighten their lending activity. And while sentiment feels cautious, perhaps as evidenced by the popularity of this question, measures that try to quantify that fear have generally normalized quite a bit and look a lot closer to average than extreme. So what do we believe is going on? First, the stock market is often seen as a broad proxy for the economy or risk appetite, but in 2023 it's been unusually swayed by a small number of very large stocks in the U.S. and Europe. That still counts, of course, but it makes drawing broad conclusions about what the stock market is doing or saying a lot more difficult. Second, recent banking issues created an odd dynamic where markets could celebrate the possibility of easier central bank policy almost immediately, while the real economic impact of tighter lending standards arrives at some uncertain point in the future. That provides an immediate boost for markets, but the fundamental challenges of that tighter bank lending are still to come. Third, and just as important, the market tends to take a view that the end of central bank interest rate increases will be a positive. That is what the data says if you look across all hiking cycles since, say, 1980. But if you only look at times when the yield curve is inverted and the Fed has stopped hiking, like it is today, the picture looks a lot less rosy. Market resilience has likely had several drivers. But with measures of sentiment starting to look more balanced, growth still set to slow and markets already expecting easier central bank policy than our economists expect, we think the outlook remains challenging as we look beyond April. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on The Market on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you. 

"Smart chemotherapy" could change the way that cancer is treated, potentially opening up a $140 billion market over the next 15 years.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mark Purcell, Head of Morgan Stanley's European Pharmaceuticals Team. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll talk about the concept of Smart Chemotherapy. It's Thursday, the 20th of April at 2 p.m. in London. Cancer is still the second leading cause of death globally, accounting for approximately 10 million deaths worldwide in 2020. Despite recent advances in areas like immuno-oncology, we still rely heavily on chemotherapy as the mainstay in the treatment of many cancers. Chemotherapy originated in the early 1900s when German chemist Paul Ehrlich attempted to develop "Magic Bullets", these are chemicals that would kill cancer cells while sparing healthy tissues. The 1960s saw the development of chemotherapy based on Ehrlich's work, and this approach, now known as traditional chemotherapy, has been in wide use since then. Nowadays, it accounts for more than 37% of cancer prescriptions and more than half of patients with colorectal, pancreatic, ovarian and stomach cancers are still treated with traditional chemo. But traditional chemo has many drawbacks and some significant limitations. So here's where "Smart Chemotherapy" comes in. Targeted therapies including antibodies to treat cancer were first developed in the late 1990s. These innovative approaches offer a safer, more effective solution that can be used earlier in treatment and in combination with other cancer medicines. "Smart Chemo" uses antibodies as the guidance system to find the cancer, and once the target is reached, releases chemotherapy inside the cancer cells. Think of it as a marriage of biology and chemistry called an antibody drug conjugate, an ADC. It's essentially a biological missile that hones in on the cancer and avoids collateral damage to the healthy tissues.  The first ADC drug was approved for a form of leukemia in the year 2000, but it's taken about 20 years to perfect this "biological missile" to target solid tumors, which are far more complex and harder to infiltrate into. We're now at a major inflection point with 87 new ADC drugs entering development in the past two years alone. We believe smart chemotherapy could open up a $140 billion market over the next 15 years or so, up from a $5 billion sales base in 2022. This would make ADCs one of the biggest growth areas across Global Biopharma, led by colorectal, lung and breast cancer. Large biopharma companies are increasingly aware of the enormous potential of ADC drugs and are more actively deploying capital towards smart chemotherapy. It's important to note, though, that while a smart chemotherapy revolution is well underway in breast and bladder cancer, the focus is now shifting to earlier lines of treatment and combination approaches. The potential to replace traditional chemotherapy in other solid tumors is completely untapped. A year from now, we expect ADC drugs to deliver major advances in the treatment of lung cancer and bladder cancer, as well as really important proof of concept data for colorectal cancer, which is arguably one of the biggest unmet needs out there. Given vastly improved outcomes for cancer patients, we believe that "Smart Chemotherapy" is well on the way to replacing traditional chemotherapy, and we expect the market to start pricing this in over the coming months. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy this show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. 

Recent interactions between China and Europe signal a continuing reorganization of global commerce around multiple power bases, bringing new and familiar challenges for companies.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the U.S.-China relationship and the shift to a multipolar world. It's Wednesday, April 19th, at 9 p.m. in New York. As listeners here already know, one of the big secular themes we've been tracking in recent years is the shift to a multipolar world, one where instead of having one major power base, the United States, you now have multiple power bases to organize global commerce around, including China and Europe. And recent interactions between China and Europe underscore this trend. For example, President Macron of France recently noted following a trip to China that Europe need not precisely follow the U.S. in how it approaches its relationship with China. While those comments have received pushback in other European capitals, it's fair to say that Europe, with its relatively more interconnected and trade-based economy, may have a more nuanced approach to China than its traditional ally in the U.S.. In any case, multiple power bases mean multiple challenges for companies doing business on a global scale. This trend is most noticeable to U.S. investors in large cap stocks, where multinationals continue to announce shifts in the geographic mix of their supply chains. While incremental, some of these changes seemed unfathomable just a few years ago. Take a recent Bloomberg News report about a major tech company that continues to shift, again incrementally, new production of some products out of China and into places like India. While the news report doesn't draw an explicit link between those moves and U.S. policy choices, we think such a story speaks to the influence of the non-tariff barriers that the U.S. has raised in recent years as it seeks to protect new and emerging tech industries in its jurisdiction that it deems important for national and economic security. This includes existing export restrictions and the potential for outbound investment restrictions, which could hamper companies seeking to build production facilities in countries like China, where sensitive technologies would either be produced or be part of the production process. To keep it simple, the multipolar world comes with new costs for many types of companies, and it's becoming clearer and clearer who will bear those costs and who will benefit from that spend. We've previously highlighted potential geographical beneficiaries like Mexico and India and will continue to check in with new work on specific sector impacts to keep you informed. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show. 

As the U.S. banking sector faces oncoming regulatory changes, how will the smaller banks react to these new requirements and what will the impact be on markets?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the impact of potential regulatory changes on bank assets. It's Tuesday, April 18th at 11a.m in New York. In the wake of the tumult in the banking sector since early March, and the significant intervention by the authorities, it is likely that a regulatory response will follow, particularly focused on the regulation of regional banks. President Biden has already called on the federal banking agencies in consultation with the Treasury Department, to consider a set of reforms that will reduce the risk of future banking crises. A review led by Michael Barr, the Vice Chair for Supervision at the Federal Reserve Board, is set to be released by May 1st and will likely offer some indication as to where future bank regulation might be headed. In this context, it is worthwhile to examine potential changes to regional bank regulation, reflect on how banks would respond to such changes and consider their impact on markets. Across all banks, there are approximately 4.7 trillion of non-interest bearing deposits with the duration of about seven years. Banks will likely need to either review and re-justify or shorten such deposits. Our bank equity analysts expect two key regulatory changes TLAC, total loss absorbing capacity and LCR, liquidity coverage ratio, to be extended to smaller banks, about $100 billion in assets, though this process will likely not get fully implemented until 2027. From the perspective of rates markets, these changes make the case for steepening of the curve. Our rate strategists see bank demand for treasuries increasing relative to other assets with greater LCR requirements. Both shortening deposit duration and implementing LCR suggest that banks would favor shorter dated Treasuries over longer dated Treasuries. More longer term issuance due to TLAC, drives higher long term yields and fixed income, with support curve steepeners for Treasuries over the medium term. For agency mortgage backed securities, these changes will result in less demand from banks and consequently wider mortgage spreads. For munis, these changes would likely imply a lower footprint from banks with available for sale securities favored or held to maturity securities. For securitized credit markets, we see downside in demand ahead. Longer term outlook for securitized credit depends on the specifics of regulatory reform, but is likely to remain tepid for some time to come. The expansion of TLAC to smaller banks could intensify supply headwinds in the medium term. Our credit strategists believe that supply risks in bank credit are now skewed to the upside. The emphasis on funding diversity and shift away from deposits to wholesale funding, is likely to keep regional bank issuance elevated for longer. An important lesson from recent events in the banking sector, is that the risks to the asset banks hold, extend beyond credit risk into other risks, most notably interest rate risk. While interest rate and convexity risks are reflected in Comprehensive Capital Analysis Review, CCAR and Horizontal Liquidity Review, HLR test, arguably not having an interest rate component to risk weights enable banks, and regional banks in particular, to seek term premia to support their earnings. It is not our base case that this will change. However, it is possible that regulators would at least consider enacting some type of a charge for owning longer-duration securities. At a minimum, we expect the regulators could require all banks to flow marked-to-market hits from available-for-sale securities through their regulatory capital ratios, something that the big banks have been doing already. Ultimately, new regulations for regional banks will take time for formulation and implementation. We'll be watching developments in this space closely. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

While some investors may be cheering due to softer than expected inflation data, revenues may begin to disappoint in the face of a credit crunch brought on by recent banking stress.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, April 17th, at 11:30 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. A month ago, when the banking stress first surfaced, my primary takeaway for U.S. equity markets was that it would lead to a credit crunch. Given our already well below consensus outlook for corporate earnings, it simply gave us more confidence in that view. Fast forward to today and the data suggests a credit crunch has started. More specifically, they show the biggest two week decline in lending by banks on record as they simultaneously sell mortgages and treasuries at a record pace to offset deposit flight. In fact, since the Fed began raising rates a year ago, almost $1 trillion in deposits have left the banking system. Throw in the already tight lending standards and it's no surprise credit growth is shrinking. If that isn't enough, last week, the latest small business survey showed that credit availability had its biggest drop in 20 years, while interest costs are at a 15-year high. There's a passage in Ernest Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises, in which a character is asked how he went bankrupt. "Two ways", he answers. "Gradually, then suddenly". This is a good description of recent bank failures. The losses from long duration Treasury holdings and concentrated deposit risk built up gradually over the past year and then suddenly accelerated, leading to the surprising failures of two large and seemingly safe banks. In hindsight, these failures seem predictable given the speed and magnitude of the Federal Reserve's rate hikes, some regrettable regulatory treatment of bank assets and concentrated deposits from corporates. Nevertheless, most did not see the failures coming, which begs the question of what other surprises may be coming from the Fed's abrupt monetary policy adjustment? In contrast to what we expected, the S&P 500 and Nasdaq have traded well since these bank stresses appeared. However, small caps, banks and other highly leveraged stocks have traded poorly as the market leadership turned more defensive and in line with our sector and style recommendations. Our contention is that the major averages are hanging around current levels due mostly to their defensive and high quality characteristics. However, that should not necessarily be viewed as a signal that all is well. On the contrary, the gradual deterioration in the growth outlook continues, which means even these large cap indices are at risk of a sudden fall like those that we have witnessed in the regional banking and small cap indices. The analogy with Hemingway's poetic description of bankruptcy can extend to the earnings growth deterioration observed over the past year. Until now, the decline in earnings estimates for the S&P 500 has been steady and gradual. Since peaking in June of last year, the forward 12 month bottoms up consensus earnings per share forecast for the S&P 500 has fallen at a rate of approximately 9% per annum, which is not severe enough for equity investors to demand the higher equity risk premium we think they should. Further comforting investors is the consensus earnings forecast that implies first quarter will be the trough rate of change for S&P 500 earnings per share. This is a key buy signal that we would normally embrace, if we believed it. Instead, if we are right on our well below consensus earnings forecast, the rate of decline in these estimates should increase materially over the next few months as revenue growth begins to disappoint. To date, most of the disappointment in earnings has been a result of lower profitability, particularly in the technology, consumer goods and communication services sectors. To those investors cheering the softer than expected inflation data last week, we would say, be careful what you wish for. Falling inflation last week, especially for goods, is a sign of waning demand, and inflation is the one thing holding up revenue growth for many businesses. The gradually eroding margins to date have been mostly a function of bloated cost structures. If and when revenues begin to disappoint, that margin degradation can be much more sudden, and that's when the market can suddenly get in front of the earnings decline we are forecasting, too. Bottom line, continue to favor companies with stable earnings that are defendable in the deteriorating growth environment we project. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. I

Artificial Intelligence is clearly a powerful tool that could help a number of sustainability objectives, but are there risks attached to these potential benefits? Global Head of Sustainability Research Stephen Byrd and Global Sustainability Analyst Brenda Duverce discuss.----- Transcript -----Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Bryd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Sustainability Research. Brenda Duverce: And I'm Brenda Duverce from the Global Sustainability Team. Stephen Byrd: On the special episode of the podcast, we'll discuss some key A.I. related opportunities and risks through the lens of sustainability. It's Friday, April 14th at 10 a.m. in New York. Stephen Byrd: Recent developments in A.I. make it clear it's a very powerful tool that can help achieve a great number of sustainability objectives. So, Brenda, can you maybe start by walking us through some of the potential benefits and opportunities from A.I. that can drive improved financial performance for companies? Brenda Duverce: Sure, we think A.I. can have tremendous benefits to our society and we are excited about the potential A.I. can have in reducing the harm to our environment and enhancing people's lives. To share a couple of examples from our research, we are excited on what A.I. can do in improving biodiversity protection and conservation. Specifically on how A.I. can improve the accuracy and efficiency of monitoring, helping us better understand biodiversity loss and support decision making and policy design. Overall, we think A.I. can help us more efficiently identify areas for urgent conservation and provide us with the tools to make more informed decisions. Another example is what we see A.I. can do in improving education outcomes, particularly in under-resourced areas. We think A.I. can help enhance teaching and learning outcomes, improve assessment practices, increase accessibility and make institutions more operationally efficient. Which then goes into financial implications A.I. can have in improving margins and reducing costs for organizations. Essentially, we view A.I. as a deflationary technology for many organizations. So Stephen, the Morgan Stanley's Sustainability Team has also done some recent work around the future of food. What role will A.I. play in agriculture in particular? Stephen Byrd: Yeah, we're especially excited about what A.I could do in the agriculture sector. So we think about A.I. enabled tools that will help farmers improve efficiencies while also improving the quantity and quality of crop production. For example, there's technology that annotates camera images to differentiate between weeds and crops at the pixel level and then uses that information to administer pesticides only to weed infested areas. The result is the farmer saves money on pesticides, while also improving agricultural production and enhancing biodiversity by reducing damage to the ecosystem. Brenda Duverce: But there are also risks and negative implications that ESG investors need to consider in exploring A.I. driven opportunities. How should investors think about these? Stephen Byrd: You know, we've been getting a lot of questions from ESG investors around some of the risks related to A.I., and there certainly are quite a few to consider. One big category of risk would be bias, and in the note, we lay out a series of different types of bias risks that we see with A.I. One example would be data selection bias, another would be algorithmic bias, and then lastly, human bias. Just as an example on human bias, this bias would occur when the people developing and training the algorithm introduce their own biases into the data or the algorithm itself. So this is a broad category that's gathered a lot of concern, and that's quite understandable. Another area would be data privacy and security. An example in the utility sector from a research entity focused on the power sector, they highlight that the data collected for A.I. technologies while being meant to train models for a good purpose, could be used in ways that violate the privacy of the data owners. For instance, energy usage data can be collected and used to help residential customers be more energy efficient and lower their bills, but at the same time, the same data could also be used to derive personal information such as the occupation and religion of the residents. Stephen Byrd: So Brenda, keeping in mind the potential benefits and risks for me that we just touched on, where do you think A.I's impact is likely to be the greatest and the most immediate? Brenda Duverce: Beyond the improvements A.I. can have on our society, in our ESG space in particular, we are excited to see how A.I. can improve the data landscape, specifically thinking about corporate disclosures. We think A.I. can help companies better predict their scope through emissions, which tend to be the largest component of a company's total greenhou

After a correction that took place in recent months, Asia and emerging markets are once again rallying. But how have these regions sustained their ongoing bull markets?----- Transcript ----- Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jonathan Garner, Chief Asia and Emerging Market Equity Strategist at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the recent correction and ongoing bull market in Asia and emerging market equities. It's Thursday, April 13th, at 10 a.m. in London. Asia and emerging market equities underwent a six week correction in February and March, in what we think is an ongoing bull market. However, they've recently stabilized and begun to rally once more as we head into the new quarter. Importantly, the catalyst for the correction came from outside the asset class in the form of banking sector risks in both the U.S. and Europe. EM assets suffered some limited challenges, for example, at one point major EM currencies gave up most of that year to date gains against the U.S. dollar. However, as investors appraised the situation, they recognized that little had actually changed in the investment thesis for the EM asset class this year. At the core of this thesis is the ongoing recovery in China. After an initial surge in mobility indicators and services spending, there is now a broadening out of the recovery to include manufacturing production and even recent strength in property sales. Like the rest of Asia and EM these days, Chinese growth is self-funded in the main from domestic banking systems which are generally well capitalized and liquid. Indeed, just as question marks are now appearing over bank credit growth prospects in the U.S. in segments like commercial real estate lending, the opposite is taking place in China as the authorities encourage more bank lending. Elsewhere, we're also seeing an encouraging set of developments in the semiconductors and technology hardware cycles, which matter for the Korea and Taiwan markets. Although end use demand in most segments remained very weak in the first quarter, we believe our thesis that we are passing through the worst phase of the cycle was confirmed by positive stock price reactions to news of production cuts by industry leaders. We think stock prices in these sectors troughed last October, as usual about six months ahead of the weakest point of industry fundamentals and the industry now has a lower production base to begin to recover from the second half of the year onwards.   Elsewhere in EM, we recently adopted a more positive stance on the Indian market after being cautious for six months. Valuations adjusted meaningfully lower in that timeframe and we think Indian equities are now poised to join in the rally from here on an improving economic cycle outlook, as well as heightened structural interest in the market by overseas investors. India continues to benefit from ongoing positive household formation, industrialization and urbanization themes which are well represented in domestic equity benchmarks. Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and recommend Thoughts on the Market to a friend or colleague today.

Given the recent developments in developed markets banking sectors, can Asia’s economic growth continue to outperform?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be discussing why Asia remains better placed despite recent global financial developments. It's Wednesday, April 12, at 9 a.m in Hong Kong. With the recent issues in the Developed Markets banking sector, investors are asking if Asia could face similar funding challenges and if Asia will still be able to outperform on growth. On the funding challenge, a key point to keep in mind is that interest rates have not risen as much in Asia compared to the U.S.. Asia's inflation was more cost-push driven, i.e commodity prices driven, and has already started to decelerate, and so central banks did not have to hike rates as much as the Fed. For instance, on July 21, policy rates rose by 4.75% in the U.S., but in Asia, it has risen only by one percentage point on an average. In a similar vein, prior to recent developments, 10 year bond yields rose by 2.8 percentage points in the U.S., but have only risen by just 0.9% in Asia. Another important distinguishing factor has to do with the setup of the banking sector. In Asia, liquidity coverage ratios are well above 100%, loans tend to be more floating rather than fixed, and deposit franchises are more diversified. Turning to the second question on whether Asia can still outperform. We think that recent developments will pose downside risks to both developed markets and Asia's growth but on net, Asia will still be able to outperform. In the case of a meaningful slowdown or a mild technical recession in the U.S., there will be three mitigating factors for Asia's growth outlook. First, the impact from weaker trade would be partially offset by easier financial conditions from lower market pricing of Fed's path, as well as lower commodity prices, leading to an improvement in Asia's terms of trade. The more stable macroeconomic backdrop in Asia means central banks in the region do have more room to ease monetary policy. In our base case, we expect rate cuts starting from the first quarter of 2024, but if downside risks emerge, these rate cuts could come into play sooner than we anticipate. Second, we expect China's GDP to recover to 5.7% in 2023. Reopening is lifting economic activity in China and also helping to generate positive spillovers for the rest of the region. Third, the three of the other large economies in Asia, Japan, India and Indonesia all have economy specific factors driving domestic demand. Japan's accommodative macro policies should keep private sector demand supported. For India, balance sheets for the financial and non-financial private sector have been cleaned up over the years. The private sector is thus pricing with a healthy risk appetite for expansion. In Indonesia, macro stability risks have been well managed, hence, rates have not had to rise as much in other emerging markets, and domestic demand has therefore remained robust. However, we do think that the risks are skewed to the downside. In a hard landing scenario, which we would characterize as U.S. full year GDP contracting by 1% or more, Asia may not be able to escape the downdraft and could recouple on the downside, at least during the worst point of the shock. But once we see a stabilization of global financial conditions with policy response, we believe Asia will be able to recover faster than the U.S. and Europe and resume its growth outperformance. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.

Banks and the Fed are winding down activity in the mortgage market amid recent funding challenges, signaling a potential new regime for the asset class. Co-Heads of Securitized Products Research Jim Egan and Jay Bacow discuss.----- Transcript -----Jim Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, Co-Head of U.S. Securitized Products Research here at Morgan Stanley. Jay Bacow: And I'm Jay Bacow, the other Co-Head of U.S. Securitized Products Research. Jim Egan: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing mortgage markets. It's Tuesday, April 11th, at 11 a.m. in New York. Jim Egan: Now, Jay, there has been lots of news recently about bank funding challenges, and the FDIC put both Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank in receivership. They just announced last week that $114 billion of their securities will be sold, over time, with those securities being primarily agency MBS. Now, that sounds like a pretty big number, can you tell us what the impact of this is? Jay Bacow: Sure. So, I think it's important first to realize that the agency mortgage market is the second most liquid fixed income market in the world after treasuries, and so the market is pretty easily able to quickly reprice to digest this news. And as a reminder, agency mortgages don't have credit risk, given the agency guarantee. Now, that $114 billion is a big number and about $100 billion of them are mortgages, and putting that $100 billion in context, we're only expecting about $150 billion of net issuance this year. So this is two thirds of the net supply of the market is going to come just from these portfolio liquidations. That's a lot, and that's before we even get into the composition of what they own. Jim Egan: Isn't a mortgage a mortgage? What do you mean by the composition of what they own? Jay Bacow: Well, yes, a mortgage is a mortgage, but what banks can do is that they can structure the mortgages to better fit the profile of what they want. And based on publicly disclosed data of when they bought, we assume that most of those mortgages right now have very low fixed coupons—in the context of 2%, well below the current prevailing rate for investors. Furthermore, about a third of the mortgages that the FDIC holds in receivership are these structured mortgages, they're still guaranteed, there's no credit risk, but these would be out of index investments for most money managers. Jim Egan: Well, can't banks buy them, though? Like, aren't these pretty typical bank bonds, two banks owned them in the first place? And if the bonds worked for a bank that time, why don't they work for a different bank now? Jay Bacow: So, part of what made them work for those banks is that they bought them around “par,” and given the low coupons that they have now, they're no longer at par. And for accounting reasons that we probably don’t need to get into right now, banks typically don't like to buy bonds that are far away from par. Furthermore, the recent events have made banks likely to need to revisit a lot of the assumptions that they're making on the asset and liability side. In particular, they probably going to want to revisit the duration of their deposits, which is going to bias them towards owning shorter securities. The regulators are probably also going to want to revisit a lot of assumptions as well. And we think what's likely to happen is that they're going to make a lot of the smaller banks have the mark-to-market losses on their available for sale securities flow through to regulatory capital, which in conjunction with some of the other changes probably means banks are going to further bias their security purchases shorter in duration and lowering capital charges. Jim Egan: Okay. So, if the banks aren't going to be active and the Fed is already winding down their portfolio, who's really left to buy? Jay Bacow: Basically, money managers and overseas. And while spreads have widened out some, we think they're biased a little wider from here. Effectively, this is going to be the first year since 2009 that neither domestic banks or the Fed were net buying mortgages. And when you take away the two largest buyers of mortgages, that is a problem for the asset class. And so we think we're in a new regime for mortgages and a new regime for bank demand. Jim Egan: Jay, thank you for that clear explanation, and it's always great talking to you. Jay Bacow: Great talking to you, too, Jim. Jim Egan: And thank you for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on the Apple Podcasts app and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

China’s growth is expected to be strong this year. However, it is being driven by services more than goods, meaning the news for other economies may not be as good as it initially appears. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Diego Anzoategui from the Global Economics Team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the global impact of China's reopening. It's Monday, April 10th, at 3 p.m. in New York. At the end of 2022, China scrapped all COVID zero policies and laid out a growth focused policy agenda for 2023. By mid-January, around 80% of the population had had COVID, but infections are now much lower, mobility is improving, and China's economy seems to be taking off. We estimate China's growth will reach 5.7% in 2023, primarily driven by a rebound in private consumption. This is the first time in four years that COVID, regulatory and economic policy are all pushing in the same direction. Since the Chinese Party Congress in October 2022, the administration has swung to a pro-business stance, and we expect fiscal and monetary support to continue. Furthermore, China's big tech regulation has entered an institutionalized and stable stage, and we don't expect new, aggressive measures any longer. Although China's growth is expected to be strong in 2023, it is off a low base and it will take time for private sentiment to come back. So we expect fiscal easing to continue at least through the first half of 2023. As for monetary policy, the People's Bank of China may continue to provide targeted support towards economic recovery while private demand gets on a surer footing. As growth becomes more self-sustaining in the second half of 2023, cyclical policy could start to normalize, but not turn to outright tightening. Against this macro backdrop, we believe that services such as tourism, transportation and food services will drive the recovery. During the pandemic, mobility restrictions and social distancing policies caused a much more serious drag on services compared to good producers- and China is no exception to this pattern. But the services versus goods distinction is also key for assessing the global implications of China's reopening. Investors often ask to what extent China's reopening will translate into higher economic growth elsewhere. Historically, the China economic acceleration typically acts as a demand shock to the global economy. China's higher aggregate demand means higher exports to China from the rest of the world and greater economic activity globally. And more global growth coming from a demand push usually contributes to higher commodity prices, a weaker dollar and potential higher risk appetite leading to lower interest rates in emerging markets. This, of course, is good news, especially for EM. But the devil is in the details, and China's recovery being primarily driven by services is a key factor. One perhaps underappreciated by the market. It's important to keep in mind that services are less tradable and therefore less relevant to international trade. If China's acceleration were to be goods driven, Asia and LatAm commodity exporters would be clear beneficiaries, particularly economies like Korea, Taiwan, Argentina, Brazil and Chile. But the situation is different when services lead the way, and the relative advantage of manufacture-intensive Asian economies is less obvious in this case. Ultimately, our work suggests a more services driven rebound in China would be less relevant for the global economy. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

While banking conditions seem to have stabilized for now, tighter credit conditions could still hit U.S. economic growth.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ellen Zentner, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss how recent developments in the banking sector could impact the U.S. economy. It's Thursday, April 6, at 10 a.m. in New York. Events over the past several weeks have led to disruptions in the financial system that we believe will leave a mark on the real economy. Our banking analysts here at Morgan Stanley Research see permanently higher funding costs for banks going forward, and that will likely lead to tighter credit conditions beyond what was already embedded in our previous baseline for the economy. At its March meeting, the Federal Open Market Committee explicitly added a reference to tightening credit conditions and the effects on growth and inflation. But in the press conference, Chair Powell also highlighted wide uncertainty around the magnitude of tightening. The lack of visibility into the extent and persistence of current bank funding pressures, as well as the banking systems response, are contributing to this uncertainty. Our banking analysts believe that higher operating costs should drive tougher standards for new loans and higher loan spreads. These drivers set the stage for an even sharper deceleration in credit growth over the course of this year. Put simply, when it's more difficult or expensive for businesses and consumers to borrow money, it creates challenges for economic growth. While our baseline forecast for the U.S. economy already included a meaningful slowdown in loan growth over the coming months, further tightening in lending standards and greater pullback in bank lending will weigh further on GDP. That said, our modeling shows the effects are likely to take some time to build, with a meaningful slowing starting in the third quarter of this year and the largest impact occurring across the fourth quarter of 2023, and the first quarter of 2024. We think the impact of tighter credit on consumption and business investment is roughly equal, though we expect that the effects on business investment will likely peak in the fourth quarter of this year, one quarter ahead of consumption. On the back of this analysis, we've lowered our forecast for U.S. GDP growth this year and now look for 0.3% growth on a Q4 over Q4 basis. That's 1/10 lower than where we had it prior to the emergence of these new bank funding pressures. For next year we took our GDP forecast down by 2/10 to just 1%. Again, because it takes time for the cumulative impacts to build, we see the largest impacts as we're moving into 2024. So to sum up, the risk to the U.S. economic growth outlook and the labor market are large and two sided. A quicker resolution of financial system troubles could help keep the economy on solid footing, in line with recent monthly payroll data, which has been resilient. On the other hand, more volatile financial conditions from here could see a larger and more rapid deterioration in growth and the labor market. For now, banking conditions seem to have stabilized, which has given investors a bit of relief. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

With the deadline to raise the debt ceiling looming closer, will recent banking challenges reduce Congress's willingness to take risks with the economy?----- Transcript -----Welcome to the Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the debt ceiling and financial markets. It's Wednesday, April 5th at 9 a.m. in New York. Markets have focused in recent weeks on key long term debates, such as sizing up the long term effects of Fed policy and bank liquidity challenges. But investors should be aware that there may be at least a temporary interruption for focus on the debt ceiling in the coming weeks. That's because tax receipts will soon start rolling in, which should give the government and markets a clearer assessment of the timing of the x-date, that's the date after which the Treasury no longer has cash on hand to pay all its bills as they come due. Said differently, it's the date that investors would focus on as a potential deadline for raising the debt ceiling in order to avoid a government bond default, or a messy workaround to such a default that could rattle markets. Some clients have suggested to us that there should be less concern about Congress raising the debt ceiling in a timely manner ahead of that x-date, the reason being that recent banking challenges and resulting economic fears may have reduced Congress's willingness to take risks with the economy. We disagree, and still expect Congress will at least take this negotiation down to the wire, perhaps even going past the x-date, which, to be clear, wouldn't necessarily cause a default, but it would up the risk meaningfully. So what's the basis for our argument? First, remember, Republicans have a very slim majority in the House, meaning only a handful of objectors to any legislation could potentially create gridlock. There was already public reticence by Republicans about raising the debt ceiling unless paired with spending cuts, something Democrats have not been interested in. That position appears unchanged, despite recent bank issues, with some Republicans linking government spending to banking sector challenges, drawing a line from spending to the increase in interest rates that drove mark-to-market losses in bank portfolios. And second, some lawmakers have publicly speculated that the Fed and Treasury's reassurances that the U.S will not default suggest that they would step in in any emergency. This dynamic of a perceived safety net could incentivize Congress to debate the debt ceiling for an uncomfortably long amount of time for markets. Where would such stress first show up? We’d watch the T-bills market, where recent history suggests that the shortest maturity Treasuries would come under above normal selling pressures as investors try to steer clear of maturities closest to the x-date. We'll of course be tracking this, and the broader debt ceiling dynamic carefully and keep you updated. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

As the economic growth spread between Asia and the rest of the world widens, China’s reopening is unlikely to spur growth that spills over globally.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the outlook for global economic growth. It's Tuesday, April 4th at 10 a.m. in New York. How is the outlook evolving after one quarter of 2023? The key trends in our year ahead outlook remain, but they're changing. The spread between Asian growth and the rest of the world is actually a bit wider now. And within developed market economies, downgrades to the U.S. forecast largely on the back of banking sector developments and upgrades to the euro area, largely on the back of stronger incoming data, now have Europe growing faster than the U.S. in 2023. In China, the data continue to reinforce our bullish call for about 5.7% GDP growth this year, and if anything, there are risks to the upside, despite the official growth target from Beijing coming in at about 5%. Had it not been for the banking sector dominating the market narrative, I suspect that China reopening would still be the most important story. But China's recovery has always had a critical caveat to it. We've always said that the rebound would be much more domestically focused than in the past and more weighted towards services than industry in the past. We don't think you can apply historical betas, that is the spillover from Chinese growth to the rest of the world, the way you could in the past. I want to highlight a recent piece that quantifies how China's global spillovers are different this time. Two main points deserve attention. First, the industrial economy never contracted as much as the services economy in China did, and that means that the rebound will be much bigger in services than it could be in the industrial economy. And second, we do try to estimate those betas, as they're called for the spillover from China to the global economy, excluding China. And what we conclude is that the effect is smaller the more important the services economy in China is for growth. Put differently, the three percentage point acceleration from last year to this year will not carry the same punch for the rest of the world that a three percentage point acceleration would have done years ago. The modest upgrade we've made to the euro area growth is not as a result supported by the China reopening, but instead is coming from stronger incoming data that we think reflect lower energy prices and more sustained fiscal impetus. The modestly stronger outlook, though, doesn't change the fact that the distribution of likely outcomes over the next year, it's skewed to the downside. Seven months from now Europe will be starting the beginning of another winter and with it the risk of exhausting gas inventories, and with core inflation in the euro area not yet at its peak, stronger real growth is simply a reason for more hiking from the ECB. In contrast, we have nudged down our already soft forecast for the U.S. for 2023. Funding costs for banks are higher, the willingness to lend is almost surely lower than before, but that restriction in loan supply is coming at a time where we are already expecting material slowing in the U.S. economy and therefore falling demand for credit. So the net effect is negative, but banks willingness to lend matters a lot less if there are fewer borrowers around. So where does this all leave us? The EM versus DM theme we have been highlighting continues and if anything it's a bit stronger. The China reopening story remains solid and the U.S. is softening. Within DM the stronger growth within Europe compared to the U.S. is notable both for its own sake, but also because it will mean that the ECB hiking will look closer to the Fed's hiking than we had thought just three months ago. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy this show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share thoughts on the market with a friend or colleague today. 

Recent increases in the Fed’s balance sheet may not have the same impact on money supply, growth and equities as in previous cycles.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, April 3rd at 11:30 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. Over the past month, market participants have been focused on how the government will deal with the stress in the banking system and whether the economy can withstand this latest shock. After a rough couple of weeks, especially for regional banks, the major indices appear to be shrugging off these risks. Many are interpreting the sharp increase in bank reserves as another form of quantitative easing and are exhibiting the Pavlovian response that such programs are always good for equity prices. As we discussed in prior podcasts, we do not think that's the right interpretation of this latest increase in the Fed's balance sheet. In our view, all bank reserves are not created equal. True money supply as a function of reserves and the velocity of money which is difficult to measure in real time. As a comparison, inflation did not appear after the first wave of quantitative easing used during the great financial crisis because the velocity of money simultaneously collapsed. This was despite the fact that the percentage increase in the Fed's balance sheet dwarfed what we experienced during COVID. The primary difference was that the increase in reserves during the great financial crisis was simply filling holes left on bank balance sheets from the housing crisis. Therefore, the increase in reserves did not lead to a material increase in true money supply in the real economy. In contrast, during COVID, the increase in reserves are pushed directly into the economy via stimulus checks, PPP loans and other programs to keep the economy from shutting down. However, these fiscal programs were overdone and the result was money supply moved sharply higher because the velocity of money remained stable and even increased slightly. During this latest increase in Fed balance sheet reserves, the total liabilities in the US banking system have continued to fall. This suggests to us that the velocity of money is falling quite rapidly, more than offsetting the increase in bank reserves. In fact, these bank liabilities are falling at a rate of 7% year-over-year, the biggest decline in more than 60 years. Even during the Great Financial Crisis, money supply growth never went into negative territory. The kind of contraction we are witnessing today suggests this is not anything like the QE programs experienced during COVID or the 2009 to 2013 period. Secondarily, it also means that both economic and earnings growth are likely to remain under pressure until money supply growth reverses. This leads me to the second part of this podcast. Year to date, major U.S. stock indices have performed well, led by technology heavy NASDAQ. This is partially due to the snap back from such poor performance last year, led by the NASDAQ. But it's also the view that unlevered, high quality growth stocks are immune from the potential oncoming credit crunch. It's important to note that the rally to date in U.S. stocks has been very narrow, with just eight stocks accounting for 80% of the entire returns in the NASDAQ 100. Meanwhile, only ten stocks have accounted for 95% of the entire returns in the S&P 500, with all ten of those stocks being technology-related businesses. Such an erroneous performance is known as bad breadth, and it typically doesn't bode well for future prices. The counterargument is that technology already went through its own recession last year and it's taken its medicine now with respect to cost reductions and layoffs. Therefore, these stocks can continue to recover and carry the overall market, given their size. We would caution on such conclusions, given the increased risk of a credit crunch that suggests the risk of a broader economic recession is far from extinguished. Recessions are bad for technology companies, which are generally pro cyclical businesses. Instead, we continue to prefer more defensive sectors like consumer staples and health care.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcast app. It helps more people to find the show.

Given recent signs of slowing in a previously strong economy, investors may want to look to history before wishing for weaker growth.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Assets Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about trends across the Global Investment landscape and how we put those ideas together. It's Friday, March 31st at 2 p.m. in London. Here at Morgan Stanley Research, we are cautious on global equities relative to high grade bonds. So what would change our mind? We think the bull case for markets is better than expected growth, even if that means higher interest rates. On the other hand, investors should be careful about wishing for weaker growth, even if that would mean easier policy. Central to our thinking is the observation that a sharp slowing of a previously strong economy has repeatedly been poor for stocks relative to high grade bonds. And we think signs of such an environment of a hot economy that's slowing abound. Inverted yield curves, falling earnings expectations, high inflation, tight labor markets, weak commodity prices and tightening bank lending standards are all consistent with a strong economy that's slowing and are all present to an unusual degree. Historically, the-more of these factors one has seen, the worst the forward looking environment for stocks versus bonds. In short, much of our caution is driven by concerns around the growth outlook and its deceleration. So if growth is better than we expect, we think that's a positive surprise. But wouldn't better growth mean higher interest rates, which were bad for markets last year? Shouldn't investors be wishing for weaker growth that would bring back lower rates and policy easing? First, we would view 2022 as something of an outlier, the first time in 150 years that both U.S. stocks and long-term bonds fell by more than 10%. Today, the starting point for valuations in both equities and fixed income is better, leaving more room to absorb the impact of higher rates. Second, the way that stocks and bonds are moving relative to each other is shifting and different from last year. Throughout 2022, stocks generally fell if yields rose, implying higher rates were a concern. But over the last 60 days, stocks have generally fallen with lower yields. That pattern is more consistent with growth being the dominant concern of equity markets. But wouldn't weaker growth help if it meant central banks start to cut interest rates? Here, we think the historical evidence is less supportive than appreciated. In 1989, 2001, 2007, and 2022, the Federal Reserve eased policy as growth weakened. All saw stocks underperform bonds, consistent with our current recommendations. In addition, the amount of easing already expected by markets matters. U.S. markets are already expecting the Fed to cut rates by about 1.7% over the next two years. Such large easing doesn't match times when relatively smaller levels of rate cuts did boost markets like in ‘95, ‘97, ‘99 or 2019. In short, we think the bull case through markets lies through growth that's better than our economists expect. Hoping for weaker growth and lower interest rates that might go along with it has a more volatile track record. Be careful what you wish for. Thanks for listening. Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you. 

As regional banks contend with sector volatility, commercial real estate could face challenges in securing new loans and refinancing debt when it matures.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about some of the challenges facing the commercial real estate markets. It's Thursday, March 30th at 11 a.m. in New York. Commercial real estate market, or CRE in short, is a hot topic, especially in the context of recent developments in the banking sector. As we have discussed on this podcast, even though banks were already tightening lending standards, given recent events their ability and willingness to make loans is diminished. Besides making loans, banks enable credit formation as buyers of senior tranches of securitizations. A regulatory response to recent events will likely decrease the ability of regional banks to be buyers of such tranches, if risk rates and liquidity capital ratio requirements are revised to reflect duration in addition to credit risk. It's against this backdrop that we think about the exposure of regional banks to CRE. Understanding the nature of CRE financing and getting some numbers is useful to put this issue in context. First, commercial real estate mortgage financing is different from, say, residential real estate mortgage financing in that they are generally non-amortizing mortgages with terms usually 5 or 10 years. That means at term there is a balloon payment due which needs to be refinanced into another 5 or 10 year term loan. Second, there is a heightened degree of imminence to the refinancing issue for CRE. $450 billion of CRE debt matures this year and needs to be refinanced. It doesn't really get easier in the next few years, with CRE debt maturing and needing to be refinanced of about $550 billion per year until 2027. In all, between 2023 and 2027, $2.5 trillion of CRE debt is set to mature, about 40% of which was originated by the banking sector. Third, retail banks' exposure to CRE lending is substantial and their share of lending volumes has been growing in recent years. 70% of the core CRE debt in the banking sector was originated by regional banks. These loans are distributed across major CRE sub-sectors and majority of these loans are under $10 million loans. That the share of the digital banks in CRE debt has ramped up meaningfully in the last few years is actually very notable. That means the growth in their CRE lending has come during a period of peaking valuations. Even in sub-sectors such as multifamily, where lending has predominantly come from other sources, such as the GSEs, banks play a critical role in that they are the buyers of senior tranches of agency commercial mortgage backed securities. As I said earlier, if banks' ability to buy such securities decreases because of new regulations, this indirectly impacts the prospects for refinancing maturing debt in the sector as well. So what is the bottom line? Imminent refinancing needs of commercial real estate are a risk and the current banking sector turmoil adds to this challenge. We believe CRE needs to reprice and alternatives to refinance debt are very much needed. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. 

Many investors are questioning if the online dating market has become saturated and, in turn, if there is still a growth runway for the industry.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Lauren Schenk, Equity Analyst covering Small and Mid-Cap Internet stocks. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss the next leg of growth for the online dating industry. It's Wednesday, March 29th at noon in New York. Investors are understandably focused on turmoil in banking, but today we'll be taking a break from banks to cover a hot topic in any macro environment, online dating. Almost every investor call I get includes the question, "Is online dating just becoming saturated, mature or over-monetized?" Several data points have driven this market view. First, revenue growth at the top dating apps slowed in 2022 and provided more modest fiscal year 2023 guides and expected. Second, survey data suggests U.S. online dating adoption slowed over COVID. Third, app data implies U.S. monthly active users have been flat for five plus years, suggesting that monetization has driven all the growth and may slow from here. This data prompted us to dig deeper into the multiple growth drivers of online dating revenue growth to see if investor concerns are well founded. And we found that online dating is not just about users and user growth. Today, roughly 32% of the U.S. addressable single population uses online dating and 26% of that 32% pay for online dating either through a subscription or a la carte purchase. In fact, our analysis suggests there's still plenty of growth runway. There are effectively four key drivers of online dating growth between users and monetization, potential users, or total addressable market, online dating usage, payer penetration and revenue per payer. Most dating apps employ a "Freemium" model, meaning the service and platform are free to use, but the experience and success rate can be improved via a monthly subscription of bundled features or one-off a la carte purchases. To be sure, user growth has provided a solid boost to revenue growth over the last many years as mobile swipe apps expanded usage among young users. However, we see slowing U.S. single population growth and a slowing of user penetration from here. We estimate that user growth will likely contribute only 3% of industry revenue growth from 2022 to 2030, while the bulk of online dating revenue growth will increasingly come from monetization. With that said, compared to user growth, monetization growth is far more dependent on execution, which could make the industry growth inherently more volatile going forward, supporting our thesis that the leading apps' steep recent slowdown is not a function of oversaturation so much as mis-execution. Given all this, we believe the U.S. online dating industry will see durable, above consensus revenue growth medium to long term. We think the 2022 slowdown was due to mis-execution and monetization, with almost no payer growth and macro challenges, rather than saturation, as three of the four primary industry growth drivers, online dating usage, payer penetration and revenue per payer, are still on a growth path. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. 

If you're a listener to Thoughts on the Market you may be interested in our new podcast: What Should I Do With My Money? ----------------Managing our money can be ... a lot. It's one of the most important aspects of our lives, and yet, many of us just muddle through, without any help, hoping that we haven’t made a mistake. It doesn’t have to be that way. At Morgan Stanley, we help people manage their money at all stages of their lives, whether a young person just starting out or an executive planning their retirement. And while each person's situation is unique, many of their concerns are common. On this podcast, we match real people, asking real questions about their money, with experienced Financial Advisors. You’ll hear answers to important questions like: Is now the right time to buy a house? What to do if your business fails? How should I be saving to cover the cost of college? How much do I really need to retire and am I on track? Having an experienced Financial Advisor on your side can go a long way. Someone who you can trust, who gets you, who has tackled these same issues before and who has the expertise to develop a plan that fits your goals. Join us as our guests share their stories around life's major moments. And hear the difference a conversation can make. Hosted by Morgan Stanley Wealth Management’s Jamie Roô. For more information visit morganstanley.com/mymoney.  

Amid uncertainty in the global banking sector, are European equities a safe haven for investors to weather the storm?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Graham Secker, Head of Morgan Stanley's European Equity Strategy Team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the implications on European equities from the increased uncertainty surrounding the global banking sector. It's Tuesday, March 28th at 3 p.m. in London. After the turbulence of mid-March, a degree of calm has descended over markets recently, which has lifted European equities back to within 3% of their prior high and pushed equity volatility down to more normal levels. In effect, we think investors are now in 'wait and see' mode as they try to assess the forthcoming consequences and investment implications of recent events within the global banking sector. Our recent discussions with investors suggests a potential lack of willingness to get too bearish at this time, with some still hopeful the markets can navigate a path of modestly weaker growth, with lower inflation and less hawkish central banks. For us, we view this outcome as a possibility rather than a probability and reflective of the fact that investors have been positively surprised by the general resilience of economies and equity markets to date. However, this viewpoint ignores the fact that something has changed in the overall macro environment. First, yield curves are starting to steepen from very inverted levels, a backdrop that has traditionally been negative for risk markets as it reflects lower interest rate expectations due to rising recession risk. And second, we now have clear evidence, we think, that tighter monetary policy is beginning to bite. Over the coming weeks, we may see anecdotal stories emerge of problems around credit availability, followed thereafter by weaker economic data and ultimately lower earnings estimates. We also suspect that more financial problems or accidents will emerge over the coming months as a result of the combination of higher interest rates and lower credit availability. These issues may not necessarily manifest themselves in the mainstream European banking sector this time, however asset markets will still be vulnerable if risks emerge from other areas such as U.S. banks, commercial real estate or other financial entities. As a result of this increased uncertainty, we have taken a more cautious view on European equities in the near-term and forecast the region's prior outperformance of U.S. stocks to pause for a while. Within the European market, we see a trickier outlook for banks, given crowded positioning and less upside risk to earnings estimates than previously thought. However, the area of greatest caution for us is cyclicals, with the group most exposed to rising recession risk and weaker equity markets, and we are particularly cautious on those sectors most sensitive to credit dynamics such as autos. On the more positive side, we continue to like longer duration sectors such as luxury goods and technology, and believe they will continue to act as safe havens while market uncertainty remains high. In addition, we think the telecom sector offers an attractive mix of low valuation, healthy earnings resilience and the potential for more corporate activity and increased policy support from regulators going forward.  Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

After the events of the past few weeks, earnings estimates look increasingly unrealistic and the bear market may finally be ready to appropriately factor-in elevated earning risks.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, March 27th at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. Back in October, when we turned tactically bullish, we wrote that markets often need the engraved invitation from a higher power to tell them what's really going on. For bond markets, that higher power is the Fed, and for stocks it's company earnings guidance. Our assumption at the time was that we were unlikely to get the negative messaging on earnings from companies necessary for the final bear market low. Instead, our view is that it would likely take another quarter for business conditions to deteriorate enough for companies to finally change their minds on the recovery that is still baked into consensus forecasts. Fast forward to today and we are seeing yet another quarter where estimates are being lowered to the same degree we have witnessed over the past two. In other words, it doesn't appear that the earnings picture is bottoming as many investors were starting to think last month. In fact, these downward revisions are progressing right in line with our earnings model, that suggests bottoms up estimates remain 15 to 20% too high. More specifically, consensus estimates still assume a strong recovery in profitability. This flies directly in the face of our negative operating leverage thesis that is playing out. Our contention that inflation increases operating leverage and operating leverage cuts both ways, is a concept that is still under appreciated. We think that helps to explain why we are so far below the consensus now on earnings. More importantly, it doesn't necessarily require an economic recession to play out, although that risk is more elevated too. This leads us to the main point of this week's podcast. With the events of the past few weeks, we think it's becoming more obvious that earnings estimates are unrealistic. As we have said, most bear markets end with some kind of an event that is just too significant to ignore any longer. We think recent banking stress and the effects they are likely to have on credit availability is a risk that the market must consider and price more appropriately. Three weeks ago, the bond market did a striking reversal that caught many market participants flat footed. In short, the bond market appeared to have decided that the recent bank failures were the beginning of the end for this cycle. More specifically, the yield curve bull steepened by 60 basis points in a matter of days. Importantly, it was the first time we can remember the bond market trading this far away from the Fed's dot-plot. It was dismissing the higher powers guidance. We think this is important because now in our view it's likely to be the stock market's turn to think for itself, too. To date, the bear market has been driven almost entirely by higher interest rates and the impact that it has had on valuations. More specifically, when the bear market started, the price earnings multiple was 21.5x versus today's 17.5x. Importantly, this multiple troughed at 15.5x in mid-October, the lows of this bear market to date. Well, that's a relatively attractive multiple and one of the reasons we turned tactically bullish at the time, we think it never reflected the growth concerns that should now dominate the market and investor sentiment. Our evidence for that claim is based on the fact that the equity risk premium is actually lower by 110 basis points than it was at the start of this bear market. In other words, the portion of the price earnings multiple related to growth expectations is far from flashing concern. Based on our analysis, the equity risk premium is approximately 150 to 200 basis points too low, which translates into stock prices that are 15 to 20% lower at the index level. The good news is that the average stock is getting cheaper as small cap stocks have underperformed, along with banks and other areas most affected by recent events. Areas that appear most vulnerable to the further correction we expect include technology, consumer goods and services and industrials. Remain patient until the market has appropriately discounted the earnings risk that we think has moved center stage. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show. 

As markets contend with the recent volatility in the banking sector, global central banks face the challenge of continuing to combat inflation against this updated backdrop. Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets and Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter discuss.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Global Chief Economist. Andrew Sheets: And today on the podcast we'll be talking about Global Central Bank policy and what's next amidst significant market volatility. It's Friday, March 24th at 4 p.m. in London. Seth Carpenter: And it's noon here in New York. Andrew Sheets: So Seth I know that both of us have been running around over the last week speaking with clients, but it's really great to catch up with you because we're coming to the end of the first quarter and yet I feel like a year's worth of things have happened in global central banks and the economic narrative. Maybe just take a step back and help us understand how you're thinking about the global economy right now. Seth Carpenter: You're absolutely right, Andrew. There is so much going on this year, so it's worth taking a step back. Coming into this year, we were looking for the economy to slow down. And I think it's just critical to remember why, central banks everywhere that are fighting inflation are raising interest rates intentionally to tighten financial conditions in order to slow their economies down and thereby bring down inflationary pressures. The trick, of course, is not slowing things down so much that they actively cause a recession. So the Fed having hiked interest rates already, we came into the year expecting a few more hikes, but then the data got stronger and Chair Powell opened the door to maybe going back to 50 basis point hikes. And now we've got this development in the banking sector. But it's not as if so far the central banks have seen evidence that things have gone so far that they're going to cause a recession. So all of this sounds a little bit simple maybe, but the key thing here is how can they calibrate whether or not they've done enough in terms of tightening financial conditions or if they've gone too far. Andrew Sheets: That's a really important point, because if you look at what the market is now pricing from the Federal Reserve, it's expecting significant rate cuts through the end of the year. And it's pricing in a scenario where the Fed has effectively gone far enough or maybe they've even gone too far and has to reverse their policy pretty quickly. How do you think about the path forward from here and how likely is it that central banks will ease as much as markets are currently pricing? Seth Carpenter: I mean, I do think there is a path for central banks to ease, but that is not and let me just start off with that is not our baseline scenario for this year. You led off with inflation and I think that's an appropriate place to start because what we heard clearly from central bankers in all of the developed markets was they are still hyper focused on inflation being too high and the need to bring it down. So one way of thinking about what's going on is that there's just a continuation of the normal tightening of monetary policy, so bank funding costs have gone up. If you read the the publications that our colleague Betsy Graseck, who runs Bank Equity Research in North America, she's pointed out that there's been a clear increase in bank funding costs that compresses net interest margins and that should, as a result, have an effect on what's going on with credit extension. In that version of the world, the Fed is in this fine tuning version of the world where they have to feel their way to the right degree of tightness and maybe they overdo it a little bit and then eventually pull back. I think the other version of the world that's very hard to get your mind around it is absolutely not our best case scenario right now, is that there's just a wholesale pulling back in terms of the availability and willingness of banks to make credit, either because of what's going on with their own funding or because of risk in the economy. And if there's an immediate cessation of lending, well, then I think you're talking about small and medium sized businesses that rely on bank loans not being able to say cover payrolls, or not being able to cover working capital. I think that version of the world is very, very different and that would lead to a much sharper slowdown in the economy and I think, again, would elicit some reaction from the Fed. Andrew Sheets: So Seth, I'm really glad you brought the banking sector and its uncertain impact on the economy, because it goes to this broader question of lags and how that impacts some of the big debates that investors are having in the market. You have central banks that are looking at inflation and labor

Original Release on February 6th, 2023: As new gene therapies are researched, developed and begin clinical trials, what hurdles must genetic medicine overcome before these therapies are commonly available? Head of U.S. Pharmaceuticals Terence Flynn and Head of U.S. Biotech Matthew Harrison discuss. ----- Transcript -----Terence Flynn: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Terence Flynn, Head of U.S. Pharma for Morgan Stanley Research. Matthew Harrison: And I'm Matthew Harrison, Head of U.S. Biotech. Terence Flynn: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll be discussing the bold promise of genetic medicine. It's Monday, February 6th, at 10 a.m. in New York. Terence Flynn: 2023 marks 20 years since the completion of the Human Genome Project. The unprecedented global scientific collaboration that generated the first sequence of the human genome. The pace of research in molecular biology and human genetics has not relented since 2003, and today we're at the start of a real revolution in the practice of medicine. Matthew what exactly is genetic medicine and what's the difference between gene therapy and gene editing? Matthew Harrison: As I think about this, I think it's important to talk about context. And so as we've thought about medical developments and drug development over the last many decades, you started with pills. And then we moved into drugs from living cells. These are more complicated drugs. And now we're moving on to editing actual pieces of our genome to deliver potentially long lasting cures. And so this opens up a huge range of new treatments and new opportunities. And so in general, as we think about it, they're basically two approaches to genetic medicine. The first is called gene therapy, and the second is called gene editing. The major difference here is that in gene therapy you just deliver a snippet of a gene or pre-programmed message to the body that then allows the body to make the protein that's missing, With gene editing, instead what you do is you go in and you directly edit the genes in the person's body, potentially giving a long lasting cure to that person. So obviously two different approaches, but both could be very effective. And so, Terence, as you think about what's happening in research and development right now, you know, how long do you think it's going to be before some of these new therapies make it to market? Terence Flynn: As we think about some of the other technologies you mentioned, Matthew, those took, you know, decades in some cases to really refine them and broaden their applicability to a number of diseases. So we think the same is likely to play out here with genetic medicine, where you're likely to see an iterative approach over time as companies work to optimize different features of these technologies. So as we think about where it's focused right now, it's being primarily on the rare genetic disease side. So diseases such as hemophilia, spinal muscular atrophy and Duchenne muscular dystrophy, which affect a very small percentage of the population, but the risk benefit is very favorable for these new medicines. Now, there are currently five gene therapies approved in the U.S. and several more on the horizon in later stage development. No gene editing therapies have been approved yet, but there is one for sickle cell disease that could actually be approved next year, which would be a pretty big milestone. And the majority of the other gene editing therapies are actually in earlier stages of development. So it's likely going to be several years before those reach the market. As, again as we've seen happen time and time again in biopharma as these new therapies and new platforms are rolled out they have very broad potential. And obviously there's a lot of excitement here around these genetic medicines and thinking about where these could be applied. But I think before we go there, Matthew, obviously there are still some hurdles that needs to be addressed before we see a broader rollout here. So maybe you could touch on that for us. Matthew Harrison: You're right, there are some issues that we're still working through as we think about applying these technologies. The first one is really delivery. You obviously can't just inject some genes into the body and they'll know what to do. So you have to package them somehow. And there are a variety of techniques that are in development, whether using particles of fat to shield them or using inert viruses to send them into the body. But right now, we can't deliver to every tissue in every organ, and so that limits where you can send these medicines and how they can be effective. So there's still a lot of work to be done on delivery. And the second is when you go in and you edit a gene, even if you're very precise about where you want to edit, you might cause some what we call off target effects on the edges

As investors focus on the risks of debt, can Emerging Markets combat pressure from wide fiscal deficits? Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research Michael Zezas, Global Head of EM Sovereign Credit Strategy Simon Waever and Global Economics Analyst Diego Anzoategui discuss.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Simon Waever: I'm Simon Waever, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of EM Sovereign Credit Strategy. Diego Anzoategui: And I'm Diego Anzoategui from the Global Economics Team. Michael Zezas: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll discuss how emerging markets are facing the pressures from rising debt levels and tougher external financing conditions. It's Wednesday, March 22nd at 10 a.m. in New York. Michael Zezas: The bank backdrop that's been unfolding over the last couple of weeks has led investors in the U.S. and globally to focus on the risks of debt right now. Emerging markets, which have seen sovereign debt levels rise in part due to the COVID pandemic, is one place where debt concerns are intensifying. But our economists and strategists here at Morgan Stanley Research believe this concern is overdone and that there might be opportunities in EM. Diego, can you maybe start by giving us a sense of where debt levels are in emerging markets, post-COVID, especially amidst rising interest rates globally? Diego Anzoategui: The overall EM debt to GDP ratio increased 11% from 2019, reaching levels above the 60% mark in 2022. Just a level, leveled by some economists, that's a warning sign because of its potential effects on the growth outlook. But without entering the debate on where this threshold is relevant or not, there is no doubt that the increase is meaningful and widespread because nearly every team has higher debt levels now. And broadly speaking, there are two factors explaining the rise in EM debt. The first one is a COVID, which was a hit on fiscal expenditure and revenues, overall. Many economies implemented expansionary fiscal policies and lockdowns caused depressed economic activity and lower fiscal revenues. The second one is the war in Ukraine, that caused a rise in oil and food commodity prices, hitting fiscals in economies with government subsidies to energy or food. Michael Zezas: And, Simon, while most emerging markets continue to have fiscal deficits wider than their pre-COVID trends, you argue that there's still a viable path to normalization against the backdrop of global economic conditions. What are some risks to this outlook and what catalysts and signposts are you watching closely? Simon Waever: Sure. I'm looking at three key points. First, the degree of fiscal adjustment. I think markets will reward those countries with a clear plan to return to pre-pandemic fiscal balances. That's, of course, easier said than done, but at least for energy exporters, it is easier. Second market focus will also be on the broader policy response. Again, I think markets will reward reforms that help boost growth, and inbound investment. It's also important as central banks respond to the inflation concerns, which for the most part they have done. And then I think having a strong sustainability plan also increasingly plays a role in achieving both more and cheaper financing. Third and lastly, we can't avoid talking about the global financial conditions. While, of course that's not something individual countries can control, it does impact the availability and cost of financing. In 2022, that was very difficult, but we do expect 2023 to be more supportive for EM sovereigns. Michael Zezas: And with all that said, you believe there may be some opportunities in emerging markets. Can you walk us through your thinking there? Simon Waever: Right. So building on all the work Diego and his team did, we think solvency is actually okay for the majority of the asset class, even if it has worsened compared to pre-COVID. Liquidity is instead the weak spot. So, for instance, some countries have lost access to the market and that's been a key driver of why sovereign defaults have picked up already. But looking ahead, three points are worth keeping in mind. One, 73% of the asset class is investment grade or double B rated, and they do have adequate liquidity. Two, for the lower rated countries valuations have already adjusted. For instance, if I look at the probability of default price for single B's, it's around double historical levels already. And then three, positioning to EM is very light. It actually has been for the last three years. So these are all reasons why we're more upbeat on EM longer term, even if near-term, it'll be driven more by a broader risk appetite. Michael Zezas: And Simon, what happens to emerging markets if, say, developed market interest rates move far beyond current expectations and what we in Morg

Against the backdrop of volatility in the banking sector, tightening in consumer and commercial credit may have far-reaching impacts for economic growth.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Vishy Tirupattur, Chief Fixed Income Strategist here at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the impact of the current volatility in the banking sector on credit. It's Tuesday, March 21st at 11 a.m. in New York. On the back of the developments over the last two weeks, our banking analysts see a meaningful increase in funding costs ahead, which should lead to tighter lending standards, lower loan growth and wider loan spreads. Our economists were already expecting a meaningful slowdown in growth and job gains over the coming months, and the prospect of incremental tightening of credit conditions raises the risk that a soft landing turns into a harder one. According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, small businesses are those that employ fewer than 500 workers, and between 1995 and 2021, they accounted for nearly 63% of the net new job creation. Today, nearly 47% of all private sector employees work at small businesses. In the banking sector, small banks account for 38% of total loans in the U.S. and 30% of commercial and industrial loans. Businesses rely on C&I loans for short term funding of activities such as hiring, paying workers, purchasing supplies, equipment and building inventories. We now expect this C&I lending to slow down the most based on our prior experience. We also expect that lending to commercial real estate sector to decline given the stresses that are building over there. On the other hand, we are looking for lending to consumer to grow, but more slowly than what we thought before. Beyond their normal lending activity, banks enable credit formation in the economy by being buyers of senior tranches of securitized credit, providing senior leverage to securitization vehicles, which is a major source of credit formation. Well, we don't exactly know how bank regulations will change in response to the developments of last two weeks, there is the potential for bank sponsorship of securitized credit to diminish and thus indirectly affect credit formation. From a corporate bond investor perspective, the view has been that the banking sector fundamentals have been in a good place, and last year's underperformance versus non financials was largely a technical story. The developments of the last two weeks have undermined this thesis. Looking beyond the near-term uncertainty, we believe that the supply risks in bank credit are now skewed to the upside. The emphasis on funding diversity shifting away from deposits to wholesale funding is likely to keep regional bank issuance elevated for much longer. While the Bank Term Funding Program (BTFP) may alleviate the urgency to issue these bonds, it by no means provides a permanent solution. So looking beyond the near-term uncertainty, new assurance from banks, regional banks in particular, is likely to persist. Given that the sector was a consensus overweight and is also likely to see more supply when markets normalize, we see continued volatility and increased tiering within bank credit. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

As markets look to recent bank failures, how are valuations for both stocks and bonds likely to change with this risk to growth?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Chief Investment Officer and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the latest trends in the financial marketplace. It's Monday, March 20th at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. Over the past few weeks, the markets have fixated on the rapid failure of two major banks that, up until very recently, have been viewed as safe depository institutions. The reason for their demise is crystal clear in hindsight, and not that surprising when you see the interest rate risk these banks were taking with their deposits, and the fact that the Fed has raised rates by five percentage points in the past year. The uninsured deposit backstop put in place by the Fed and FDIC will help to alleviate further major bank runs, but it won't stop the already tight lending standards across the banking industry from getting even tighter. It also won't prevent the cost of deposits from rising, thereby pressuring net interest margins. In short, the risk of a credit crunch has increased materially. Bond markets have exhibited volatility around these developments as market participants realize the ramifications of tighter credit. The yield curve has steepened by 60 basis points in a matter of days, something seen only a few times in history and usually the bond market's way of saying recession risk is now more elevated. An inversion of the curve typically signals a recession within 12 months, but the real risk starts when it re-steepens from the trough. Meanwhile, the European Central Bank decided to raise rates by 50 basis points last week, despite Europe's own banking issues and sluggish economy. The German bund curve seemed to disagree with that decision and steepened by 50 basis points, signaling greater recession risk like in the U.S. If growth is likely to slow further from the incremental tightening in the U.S. banking system and the bond market seems to be supporting that conclusion, why on earth did U.S. stocks rally last week? We think it had to do with the growing view that the Fed and FDIC bail out of depositors is a form of quantitative easing and provides a catalyst for stocks to go higher. While the $300 billion increase in Fed balance sheet reserves last week does re liquefy the banking system, it does little in terms of creating new money that can flow into the economy or markets, at least beyond a brief period of, say, a day or a few weeks. Secondarily, the fact that the Fed is lending, not buying, also matters. If a bank borrows from the Fed, it's expanding its own balance sheet, making leverage ratios more binding. When the Fed buys a security outright, the seller of that security has more balance sheet space for renewed expansion. That is not the case in this situation, in our view. As of Wednesday last week, the Fed was lending depository institutions $300 billion more than it was the prior week. Half was primary credit through the discount window, which is often viewed as temporary borrowing and unlikely to translate into new credit creation for the economy. The other half was a loan to the bridge the FDIC created for the failed banks. It's unlikely that any of these reserves will transmit to the economy as bank deposits normally do. Instead, we believe the overall velocity of money in the banking system is likely to fall sharply and more than offset any increase in reserves, especially given the temporary emergency nature of these funds. Over the past month, the correlation between stocks and bonds has reversed and is now negative. In other words, stocks go down when rates fall now and vice versa. This is in sharp contrast to most of the past year when stocks are more worried about inflation, the Fed's reaction to it and rates going higher. Instead, the path of stocks is now about growth and our belief that earnings forecasts are 15 to 20% too high has increased. From an equity market perspective, the events of the past week mean that credit availability is decreasing for a wide swath of the economy, which may be the catalyst that finally convinces market participants that valuations are way too high. We've been waiting patiently for this acknowledgment because with it comes the real buying opportunity, which remains several months away. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people to find the show.

As Europe commits to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, one hurdle will be the energy emissions caused by buildings’ operations. What investment opportunities might come from energy renovation? European Building and Construction Equity Analyst Ceder Ekblom and European Property Analyst Sebastian Isola discuss. ----- Transcript -----Cedar Ekblom: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Cedar Ekblom, Equity Analyst covering European Building and Construction for Morgan Stanley research. Sebastian Isola: And I'm Sebastian Isola from the European Property Team. Cedar Ekblom: On this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll discuss Europe's commitment to building energy efficiency. Cedar Ekblom: Sebastian when I talk to investors and talk about energy emissions, most people immediately think of cars and transportation. But according to the International Energy Agency, in 2021 the operation of buildings accounted for 30% of global final energy consumption and 27% of total energy sector emissions. That's a huge number. A lot of people don't realize that. So it's clear that decarbonizing building stock is essential to achieving a net zero by 2050 scenario. Sebastian, we recently wrote about this and with this big goal in mind, can you give us an overview of where Europe is right now and what the biggest opportunities are that you see? Sebastian Isola: I think to start, Europe's building stock is old and inefficient. More than 40% was built before 1970 when the first energy efficiency standards were introduced, and we're currently renovating just 1% of building stock a year. The European Commission thinks that this needs to at least double to meet its 2030 target for a 55% cut in emissions. If we successfully lift innovation spend, there is a big opportunity for makers of solar, heating and ventilation equipment, building automation, energy efficient lighting, and any product linked to the building envelope from insulation to roofing and windows. Cedar Ekblom: So it sounds like there's great opportunity here, but investors often push back with the argument that energy renovation is a 'hope' rather than a reality. What are your views on the economics of investment? Sebastian Isola: I think firstly, I'd say that our alphawise survey gives us a proprietary insight into what's really happening on the ground. It confirms renovation spend is on the rise, there was a 10% increase in the number of people that renovated their homes to save energy in 2022 versus 2021. Secondly, for commercial property landlords, the economics of investment is clear. Green buildings are attracting higher rents, and in some markets, office buildings with sustainability ratings are being awarded materially higher valuations, sometimes more than a 20% premium. And Cedar, what are the key renovation categories and what is the driving motivation behind them? Cedar Ekblom: Well, if you talk to anyone in the industry, they'll tell you that fabric first is where we need to start. So what does that actually mean? We have to look at improving the insulation of the walls, the roofs, and looking at new windows and doors. And the reason why we need to prioritize this is ultimately space heating accounts for about two thirds of total energy consumption. The good thing is that our survey told us that in the nonresidential market, these types of investments are the ones being prioritized. Installation is expected to be one of the key renovation categories for 2023. Building managers told us that they plan to boost spend on installation by 8%. After upgrading the building envelope, you need to think about tackling HVAC equipment and rolling out building automation. And finally solar continues to rank as the most attractive for residential energy renovation upgrades. In terms of the motivations, 59% of consumers and building managers say that lowering energy costs was the biggest driver for investment. I think that ultimately makes sense when we think about the landscape of the energy market in Europe over the last 12 months with the big increases in gas and electricity prices. Sebastian Isola: And with that in mind Cedar, what's your near-term and longer term outlook for renovation spend? Cedar Ekblom: Well, look, the runway for investment is huge. The European Commission estimates that an additional €275 billion of investment in building energy efficiency is required annually to 2030. And that's only an interim goal. If we really want to reach a 2050 net zero ambition, the optionality for investment means that we could be looking at more than €5.9 trillion of spend. If we deliver that total construction spend in real terms would run at 3% annually. That's a big increase from the less than 1% average growth over the last 10 years. Now, Sebastian, we've obviously spoken about the potential for fantastic investment, but there's obviously some big barriers around actually driving this uplift. How is the reg