Thoughts on the Market

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

Investors’ renewed concerns around the banking system should have a variety of impacts on fixed-income investment.----- 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 intersection between public policy and financial markets. It's Thursday, March 16th at 11 a.m. in New York. It's a volatile moment in markets, with investors grappling with complicated questions around the failure of Silicon Valley Bank. That event has naturally led to concerns about broader challenges to the banking system and potential impacts to the path for monetary policy. Here's what we think fixed income investors need to know in the near-term. Our banking analysts and economists have concluded that the U.S. banking system is more constrained. The causes of the Silicon Valley Bank situation will likely cause banks and their regulators to think differently about capital, causing lending growth to decline more than expected this year. That, in turn, should put pressure on the labor market and therefore the general U.S. economic outlook. We expect this dynamic will influence the U.S. bond market in the following ways in the near-term. For treasuries, we believe yields will be biased lower, because while the data still shows inflation pressures have persisted, that may take a backseat to financial stability concerns in the minds of investors. For corporate credit, there may be some near-term underperformance, given the market features a heavy weighting towards bonds issued by U.S. banks. In MUNI's, our team doesn't expect them to outperform in the near-term as the kind of interest rate volatility caused by recent events historically has been a headwind to the asset class. But a bright spot might be agency mortgage bonds, where our colleagues see room for compression in yields relative to treasuries. Those levels, which are near COVID crisis levels, perhaps overcompensate for fears that banks may have to sell their portfolios of similar bonds. So that's what's going on in the near-term, but my colleagues and I will be back here frequently to give you some longer term perspective. 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 cryptocurrency has seen some of its major players topple, policy makers have set their sights on regulation. So what are some of the possible scenarios for crypto policy? U.S. Public Policy Researcher Ariana Salvatore and Head of Cryptocurrency Research Sheena Shah discuss.Digital assets, sometimes known as cryptocurrency, are a digital representation of a value that function as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, or a store of value, but generally do not have legal tender status. Digital assets have no intrinsic value and there is no investment underlying digital assets. The value of digital assets is derived by market forces of supply and demand, and is therefore more volatile than traditional currencies’ value. Investing in digital assets is risky, and transacting in digital assets carries various risks, including but not limited to fraud, theft, market volatility, market manipulation, and cybersecurity failures—such as the risk of hacking, theft, programming bugs, and accidental loss. Additionally, there is no guarantee that any entity that currently accepts digital assets as payment will do so in the future. The volatility and unpredictability of the price of digital assets may lead to significant and immediate losses. It may not be possible to liquidate a digital assets position in a timely manner at a reasonable price.Regulation of digital assets continues to develop globally and, as such, federal, state, or foreign governments may restrict the use and exchange of any or all digital assets, further contributing to their volatility. Digital assets stored online are not insured and do not have the same protections or safeguards of bank deposits in the US or other jurisdictions. Digital assets can be exchanged for US dollars or other currencies, but are not generally backed nor supported by any government or central bank.Before purchasing, investors should note that risks applicable to one digital asset may not be the same risks applicable to other forms of digital assets. Markets and exchanges for digital assets are not currently regulated in the same manner and do not provide the customer protections available in equities, fixed income, options, futures, commodities or foreign exchange markets. Morgan Stanley and its affiliates do business that may relate to some of the digital assets or other related products discussed in Morgan Stanley Research. These could include market making, providing liquidity, fund management, commercial banking, extension of credit, investment services and investment banking.----- Transcript -----Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore from Morgan Stanley's U.S. Public Policy Research Team. Sheena Shah: And I'm Sheena Shah, Head of the Cryptocurrency Research Team. Ariana Salvatore: And on this special episode of the podcast, we'll focus on the issue of cryptocurrency regulation. It's Wednesday, March 15 at 10 a.m. in New York. Sheena Shah: And 2 p.m. in London. Ariana Salvatore: The recent news about the U.S. banking system has brought even more focus on the cryptocurrency markets. Our listeners may have heard about a series of insolvencies and collapses of major crypto players last year, with the most notable being the FTX exchange. These events have raised concerns among policymakers and are signaling a need to regulate cryptocurrencies as a means of protecting investors. Sheena, before we dig into any potential regulatory path for crypto from here, I think it's important to try to get a grip on a question that might seem basic, but in fact is one that policymakers have actually been grappling with for quite some time. And that is, what is a cryptocurrency from a regulatory perspective. Is it a security or is it a commodity? How should it be classified from a regulatory perspective? Sheena Shah: So cryptos could be classified as many things: securities, commodities, currencies, or even something else. But the U.S. regulators are making their view very clear. The SEC is saying every crypto apart from Bitcoin is a security. The definition will determine what products can be offered, which companies can offer them, which regulator will be in charge and maybe even how transactions are taxed. There is agreement that Bitcoin should be classified as a commodity, partly due to its decentralized nature, and no regulator is classifying Bitcoin as a currency as this would admit that it's a direct competitor with the U.S. dollar. Ariana Salvatore: Got it. So taking a step back for a second, cryptocurrencies up until this point have been largely unregulated and volatility is obviously nothing new in the space. What has been happening in crypto markets lately that's just now suggesting a need for regulation? Sheena Shah: Well, last year crypto prices were in a bear market and the collapse of the FTX exchange just increased the politician interest in this area. Trading data tell us that the average U.

While oil and gas prices generally move in similar directions, their current situation has deviated from market norms.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley's Global Commodities Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll give you an update on the global oil and gas markets. It's Tuesday, March 14th at 2 p.m. in London. Energy markets are currently confronted with an unusual situation: usually oil and gas prices move in similar directions, but at the moment they have quite different prospects. Let's start with the global gas market, that is the gas market outside the United States, which has its own dynamic. Over the last 12 months, the center of activity in global gas has been Europe. This time last year, Europe still received close to 400 million cubic meters a day of natural gas from Russia. Over last summer, this fell by around 90% to just a trickle, causing a severe spike in European gas prices. At the time, we argued that gas prices needed to rise to drive demand destruction and attract LNG, that is liquefied natural gas that can be transported on tankers, to Europe. Prices indeed rose. By August, European gas prices reached over €300 per megawatt hour, that is more than 20x their normal level. Since then, the European gas market has seen the most dramatic turn around. For starters, demand destruction has been far greater than expected. Warm weather has helped, but that has certainly not been the main driver. At the same time, LNG imports into Europe have risen to levels that seemed unlikely this time last year. Remarkably, European gas prices have been declining for some time already, but energy imports just keep coming. The European gas market now faces the surprising situation that if demand stays as weak as it currently is, and LNG imports continue at the level of the last few months, inventories could fill over the summer to such an extent that Europe could run out of physical storage capacity sometime around August. In the space of a few months, the European gas market has gone from worrying about what commodity analysts call 'tank bottoms', to now concern over 'tank tops'. To prevent overstocking this summer, European gas prices probably need to fall further to send a signal to LNG suppliers that they need to send at least some of their energy cargoes elsewhere. However, that then creates a better supply situation elsewhere in the LNG market, putting downward pressure on prices there too. In contrast, the oil market presents a very different picture. Oil prices also gave up a large part of their gains late last year as the market worried about recession. However, even at the point when 70% of bank economists consensually forecast a recession, Brent crude oil did not fall much below $80 a barrel. At the moment, the oil market is modestly oversupplied, which is not uncommon for this time of the year. However, from here, the oil market has several tailwinds. First is another year of recovery in aviation, which is likely to drive growth and jet fuel consumption. Second is China's reopening. While there may be some concern in other markets over the impact of China's reopening, in the oil market the indications so far have simply been positive. And finally, there is supply risk for Russia. Although oil exports from Russia have continued, a lot of this oil is piling up at sea. That cannot continue at the current pace for very long and we would still estimate that Russian oil exports will eventually come under some pressure as the year progresses. Put these factors together and the oil market will likely come into balance in 2Q and reenter a deficit once again in the third and fourth quarter. Inventories are already low and likely to decline further in the second half. Spare capacity in OPEC is still very limited and investment levels have been modest in recent years. As the oil market tightens, prices are likely to find their way higher again. In inflation adjusted terms the average oil price over the last 15 years is $93 a barrel. This is not a market where oil prices should be below the historic average. In fact, we'd argue the opposite. As mentioned, oil and gas prices usually move in similar directions, but so far this year they have already diverged quite substantially. Given the current outlook, we think these trends have further to run- global gas faces headwinds, but oil is likely to find its way higher again later this year. 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.

Banking news and other market pressures are leading some depositors to move funds from traditional banks to higher-yielding securities. How will this affect economic growth and equity prices?----- 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 13th at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. The speed and size of the Silicon Valley bank wind down over the last week was startling to many investors, even those who have been negative on the stock for months on the basis of exactly what transpired- a classic mismatch between assets and liabilities and risk taking beyond what a typical depositor does. To be clear about our view, we do not think there's a systemic issue plaguing the entire banking system, like in 2007 to 2009, particularly with the FDIC decision to backstop uninsured deposits. However, last week's events are likely to have a negative impact on economic growth at a time when growth is already waning in many parts of the economy. Rather than do a forensic autopsy of what happened at Silicon Valley and other banks, I will instead focus my comments and what it may mean for equity prices more broadly. First, I would remind listeners that Fed policy works with long and variable lags. Second, the pace of Fed tightening over the past year is unprecedented when one considers the Fed has also been engaged in aggressive quantitative tightening. Third, the focus on market based measures of financial conditions, like stock and bond prices, may have lulled both investors and the Fed itself into thinking policy tightening had not yet gone far enough. Meanwhile, more traditional measures like the yield curve have been flashing warnings for the past 6 months, closing last week near its lowest point of the cycle. From a bank's perspective, such an inversion usually means it's more difficult to make new profitable loans, and new credit is how money supply expands. However, over the past year, bank funding costs have not kept pace with the higher Fed funds rate, allowing banks to create credit at profitable net interest margins. In short, most banks have been paying well below market rates, like T-bills, because depositors have been slow to realize they can get much better rates elsewhere. But that's changed recently, with depositors deciding to pull their money from traditional banks and placing it in higher yielding securities like money markets, T-bills and the like. Ultimately, banks will likely decide to raise the interest rate they pay depositors, but that means lower profits and lower loan supply. Even before this recent exodus of deposits, loan officers have been tightening their lending standards. In our view, such tightening is likely to become even more prevalent, and that poses another headwind for money supply and consequently economic and earnings growth. In other words, it's now harder to hold the view that growth will continue to hold up in the face of the fastest Fed tightening cycle in modern times. Secondarily, the margin deterioration across most industries we've been discussing for months was already getting worse. Any top line shortfall relative to expectations from tighter money supply will only exacerbate this negative operating leverage dynamic. The bottom line is that Fed policy works with long and variable lags. Many of the key variables used by the Fed and investors to judge whether Fed policy changes are having their desired effect are backward looking- things like employment and inflation metrics. Forward looking survey data, like consumer and corporate confidence, are often better at telling us what to expect rather than what's currently happening. On that score the picture is pessimistic about where growth is likely headed, especially for earnings. Rather than a random or idiosyncratic shock, we view last week's events as just one more supporting factor for our negative earnings growth outlook. In short, Fed policy is starting to bite and it's unlikely to reverse, even if the Fed were to pause its rate hikes or quantitative tightening. Instead, we think the die is likely cast for further earnings disappointments relative to consensus and company expectations, which means lower equity prices before this bear market is over. 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.

As the advancement of generative AI takes off, how might this inflection point in technology impact markets, companies, and investors alike? Equity Analyst and Head of U.S. Internet Research Brian Nowak and Head of the U.S. Software Research Team Keith Weiss discuss.----- Transcript -----Brian Nowak: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Brian Nowak, Equity Analyst and Head of U.S. Internet Research for Morgan Stanley. Keith Weiss: And I'm Keith Weiss, Head of the U.S. Software Research Team. Brian Nowak: Today, we're at Morgan Stanley's annual Tech, Media, and Telecom conference in downtown San Francisco. We've been here most of the week talking with industry leaders and emerging companies across the spectrum, and the topic on everyone's mind is clearly A.I. So today, we're going to share some of what we're hearing and our views on the rise of artificial intelligence tools. It's Thursday, March 9th at 2 p.m. here on the West Coast. Brian Nowak: All week, Keith and I have been meeting with companies and speaking with new companies that are developing technologies in artificial intelligence. We've written research about how we think that artificial intelligence is reaching somewhat of an iPhone inflection moment with new people using new tools, and businesses starting to realize artificial intelligence is here to stay and can drive real change. Keith, talk to us about how we reached this moment of inflection and how do you think about some of the big picture changes across technology? Keith Weiss: Well, thank you for having me, Brian. So we've been talking about artificial intelligence for some time now. Software companies have been infusing their solutions with machine learning driven type algorithms that optimize outcomes for quite some time. But I do think the iPhone analogy is apt, for two reasons. One, what we're talking about today with generative AI is more foundational technologies. You can almost think about that as the operating system on the mobile phone like the iOS operating system. And what we've heard all week long is companies are really seeing opportunity to create new apps on top of that operating system, new use cases for this generative AI. The other reason why this is such an apt analogy is, like the iPhone, this is really capturing the imagination of not just technology executives, not just investors like you and I, but everyday people. This is something that our kids are coming home from high school and saying, "Hey, dad, look at what I'm able to do or with chatGPT, isn't this incredible?" So you have that marketing moment of everybody realizes that this new capability, this new powerful technology is really available to everybody. Keith Weiss: So, Brian, what do you think are going to be the impacts of this technology on the consumer internet companies that you cover? Brian Nowak: We expect significant change. There is approximately $6 trillion of U.S. consumer expenditure that we think is going to be addressed by change. We see changes across search. We see more personalized search, more complete search. We see increasing uses of chatbots that can drive more accurate, personalized and complete answers in a faster manner across all types of categories. Think about improved e-commerce search helping you find products you would like to buy faster. Think about travel itinerary AI chatbots that create entire travel itineraries for your family. We see the capability for social media to change, better rank ordering and algorithms that determine what paid and organic content to show people at each moment. We see new creator tools, generative AI is going to enable people to make not only static images but more video based images across the entire economy. So people will be able to express themselves in more ways across social media, which will drive more engagement and ultimately more monetization for those social media platforms. We see e-commerce companies being able to better match inventory to people. Long tail inventory that previously perhaps could not find the right person or the right potential buyer will now better be able to be matched to buyers and to wallets. We see the shared economy across rideshare and food delivery also benefiting from this. Again, you're going to have more information to better match drivers to potential riders, restaurants to potential eaters. And down the line we go where we ultimately see artificial intelligence leading to an acceleration in digitization of consumers time, digitization of consumers wallets and all of that was going to bring more dollars online to the consumer internet companies. Brian Nowak: Now that's the consumer side, how do you think about artificial intelligence impacting enterprise in the B2B side? Keith Weiss: Yeah, I think there's a lot of commonalities into what you went through. On one level you talked about search, and what these generative AI technologies are able to do is put the questi

While the U.S. has surprised investors with its economic resilience, new labor market and retail sales data could challenge this continued strength.----- 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, March 9th at 2 p.m. in London. One of the biggest surprises this year has been the resilience of the U.S. economy. This story faces a key test over the next week, with a large bearing on how investors may think about where we are in the cycle. Investors entered this year downbeat on U.S. growth, with widespread expectations of a recession. A payback in high levels of consumption over the pandemic, and the lagged impact of higher interest rates, were both big drivers of this view. And indeed many traditionally leading indicators of economic activity did, and still do, point to elevated economic risk. Yet the story so far has been different. The U.S. economy is still seeing robust consumption and jobs growth and more economically sensitive stocks have been major outperformers. Last month the U.S. economy added half a million jobs and saw very robust retail sales, data points that were taken by the market as a sign that the economy may not be slowing at all. That might be the case, but what's interesting is that this story is about to get a key update. Over the next week, we'll get the next release of data on the U.S. labor market and retail sales. And that data comes with a big uncertainty. The uncertainty is how much of the strength in January's data was flattered by so-called seasonal adjustments. For obvious reasons, a lot of things are sold in December and a lot of people are hired to sell them. In January, activity and jobs usually drop off, and so seasonal adjustments are important to help look through all this noise. To be more specific, retail sales usually drop 20% between December and January. This time around, they only dropped 16%, and since they dropped less than normal this was reported as a healthy gain. The U.S. usually loses 3 million jobs in January as seasonal workers are let go. This time the U.S. lost two and a half million jobs. December holidays are real and we should adjust for them. But if consumption patterns have changed since 2020, historical seasonal adjustments could be misleading. This month's data may give us a much cleaner picture of where that activity really is. If activity is once again strong, it could help further fuel the idea that U.S. growth this year will be better than feared. But if it's weak, investors may start to think that January's strength was something of a statistical quirk, especially in the face of other forward indicators that look much softer. Because of this, we think weak data over the next couple of days could be especially good for bonds. But either way, this data has a major bearing on the market narrative. 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.

While there is some skepticism that Asia’s growth will outperform this year, there are a few promising indicators that investors may want to keep in mind.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Chetan Ahya, Chief Asia Economist at Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be discussing how Asia's growth is bouncing back. It's Wednesday, March 8th at 9 a.m. in Hong Kong. The last time I came on this podcast, I spoke about why we expect Asia's growth to outperform in 2023. To briefly recap, we expect Asia's growth to be five percentage points higher than the developed markets by the end of the year. One of the key debates we have with investors is precisely about how the growth outlook is tracking relative to our bullish forecasts. Investors are generally skeptical on two counts. First, for China, investors believe that consumption growth will not be sustained after the initial reopening boost. Second, for region excluding China, investors saw that there was a soft patch in the consumption data for some of the economies, and so they are questioning if this will persist over time and across geographies. For China, we have already seen a sharp rebound in services spending in areas like dining out, domestic travel and hotels. We expect consumption growth to continue to recover towards the pre-COVID strength in a broad-based manner. Crucially, this consumption growth is being supported by the sustainable drivers of job growth and income growth rather than a drawdown in excess savings. Private sector confidence is being revived by the alignment of policies towards a pro-growth stance. This shift in stance also means that policymakers will likely be taking quick and concerted policy action to address any remaining or fresh impediments to growth. In other words, this policy stance is likely to persist at least until we get clear signs of a sustainable recovery. Moreover, the property sector, which some investors fear might be a drag on household sentiment, appears to be recovering faster than our expectations. For region excluding China, we focus on the next largest economies in purchasing power parity terms, which is India and Japan. For India, growth indicators did slow post the festive season in October, but have reaccelerated in early 2023. Cyclically strong trailing demand has only lifted capacity utilization, and structurally government policies are still very much geared towards reviving private investment. We see private CapEx cycle unfolding, which will sustain gains in employment and allow consumption growth to stay strong in the coming quarters. For Japan, we see three reasons why growth should improve in 2023. Monetary policy will remain accommodative, private CapEx is now on the mend and Japan will benefit from the full reopening of China this spring, in form of increased tourism and goods exports. Overall, we think we are still on track for our base case narrative of growth acceleration and outperformance. In fact, we see marginal upside risk to our above consensus growth forecasts, which will be driven predominantly by China and its spillover impact to the rest of the region. For China, the upside to growth forecasts stems from the possibility that pro-growth pragmatism may set in motion a much stronger recovery than currently expected. 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.

Original Release on February 24th, 2023: As short-term bond yields continue to rise, what impact does this comparatively high yield have on the broader market?----- 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 Friday, February 24th at 2 p.m. in London. One of the biggest stories brewing in the background of markets is the sharp rise in yields on safe, short-term bonds. A 6 month Treasury bill is a great example. In November of 2021, it yielded just 0.06%. Today, just 14 months later, it yields 5.1%, its highest yield since July of 2007. The rise in safe short-term yields is notable for its speed and severity, as the last 12 months have seen the fastest rise of these yields in over 40 years. But it also has broader investment implications. Higher yields on cash like instruments impact markets in three distinct ways, all of which reduce the incentive for investors to take market exposure. First and most simply, higher short term rates raise the bar for what a traditional investor needs to earn. If one can now get 5% yields holding short term government bonds over the next 12 months, how much more does the stock market, which is significantly more volatile, need to deliver in order to be relatively more appealing? Second, higher yields impact the carry for so-called leveraged investors. There is a significant amount of market activity that's done by investors who buy securities with borrowed money, the rate of which is often driven by short term yields. When short term yields are low, as they've been for much of the last 12 years, this borrowing to buy strategy is attractive. But with U.S. yields now elevated, this type of buyer is less incentivized to hold either U.S. stocks or bonds. Third, higher short term yields drive up the cost of buying assets in another market and hedging them back to your home currency. If you're an investor in, say, Japan, who wants to buy an asset in the U.S. but also wants to remove the risk of a large change in the exchange rate over the next year, the costs of removing that risk will be roughly the difference between 1 year yields in the US and 1 year yields in Japan. As 1 year yields in the U.S. have soared, the cost of this hedging has become a lot more expensive for these global investors, potentially reducing overseas demand for U.S. assets and driving this demand somewhere else. We think a market like Europe may be a relative beneficiary as hedging costs for U.S. assets rise. The fact that U.S. investors are being paid so well to hold cash-like exposure reduces the attractiveness of U.S. stocks and bonds. But this challenge isn't equal globally. Both inflation and the yield on short-term cash are much lower in Asia, which is one of several reasons why we think equities in Asia will outperform other global markets going forward. 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. 

While equity markets continue to rally, the key to the end of the bear market may be in the fundamentals.----- 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 6th at 2 p.m. in New York. So let's get after it. Given our focus on the technicals in the short term, I'm going to provide an update on that view today, which contrasts with our intermediate term view that the bear market is not over. In short, equity markets traded right to technical support levels on Thursday last week and held. More importantly, they reacted strongly from those levels, which suggests this will not be a one day wonder, meaning the bear market rally may not be over yet. While my comments will focus on the S&P 500, these observations apply to most of the other major indices as well: the Nasdaq, Russell 2000 and the Dow Industrials, which remains the weakest of the bunch. First, as already mentioned, the key support levels were tested twice over the past few weeks, but on Thursday equity prices reacted strongly around the second test. As a strategist, I respect the price action and need to incorporate it into our fundamental view, which remains bearish. In addition to the strong rebound, the S&P 500 was able to recapture its uptrend from the rally that began in October. However, we did not observe any positive divergence on the second retest, and that leaves the door open that this rally may still be on borrowed time. We would point out that one of the reasons we called the rally in October had to do with the fact that we did get a very strong positive divergence on that secondary low in mid-October. For listeners who don't use technical analysis, a positive divergence is when markets make new price lows on less momentum. We measure momentum through price oscillators like relative strength or moving average convergence divergence. The other thing we're watching closely from a tactical standpoint is the longer term uptrend that began after the financial crisis in 2009. We continue to think it is critical that the S&P 500 get back above it to confirm the cyclical bear market is over. This trend line has provided critical resistance and support over the past 14 years during the secular bull market. More recently, it has been more of a resistance line and that level comes in today at around 4150 on the S&P 500. While we think the S&P 500 could make another attempt at this key resistance, it will require two things to surmount it- lower 10 year U.S. Treasury yields and a weaker dollar. In fact, we think Friday's sharp fall in 10 year yields was an important driver of the bounce in stocks. The dollar, too, showed some signs of exhaustion and it would be helpful if it can decline more meaningfully. As we suggested last week, in the absence of a weaker dollar and lower yields, this bear market rally will likely fail once again. The bottom line, there is plenty of bullish and bearish fodder in the technicals in our view, and one will need to take a view on the fundamentals to decide this bear market for stocks is over. Our view remains the same, the bear market is not over, but we acknowledge that Friday's price action may push out the next leg lower for a few more weeks. As we've been discussing on prior podcasts, the main reason we believe the bear market is not over is because the earnings recession has much further to go. Rather than repeating our case once again, we would like to highlight an important note published last week by Todd Castagno, our Global Valuation, Accounting and Tax team, appropriately entitled Exhausted Earnings. In this note, the team discusses their analysis of accruals and to what extent net income is diverging from cash flows. In short, the gap between reported earnings and cash flow is the widest in 25 years. This analysis supports our negative operating leverage thesis and means earnings estimates have a long way to fall over the next several quarters. Unfortunately, most stock valuations do not reflect this risk and why we think the risk reward for U.S. equities remains poor despite the positive price action last week. 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.

The way companies and individuals spend their money has changed in the wake of the COVID pandemic. How might market leadership shift as a result and will new market winners come into focus? Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets and Chief Investment Officer for Wealth Management Lisa Shalett discuss.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley Research. Lisa Shalett: And I'm Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management. Andrew Sheets: And on part two of this special episode, we'll be continuing our discussion of the "Next American Productivity Renaissance". It's Friday, March 3rd at 2 p.m. in London. Lisa Shalett: And it's 9 a.m. in New York. Andrew Sheets: So Lisa, let's take this to markets, how do you think this impacts equity market leadership, given that we've been in a market that's really been defined by the age of secular stagnation. What do you think happens now and who will be those new leaders? Lisa Shalett: This is one of the most important, I think, outcomes of our thesis. And that is that pendulums swing and market leadership shifts all the time, but when it's at that moment of inflection there's huge amounts of pushback, typically. Our sense is that the wealth creation ahead of us may not be in the current leadership in consumer tech, but rather in enterprise tech and the technology providers who are the leaders in new automation technologies that are going to allow us potentially to automate parts of our economy that have heretofore resisted. So it's a lot of the services side of the economy. Think of financial services, consumer services, government services, education services, how manual some of those industries are. And yet when we think about these triads or four or five level combinations of things like artificial intelligence, and machine learning, and optical scanning, and natural language processing and voice recognition. These are things that could really transform service-oriented businesses in terms of their margins and the economics of them. And so we envision a leadership that is potentially bimodal, that includes the tech enterprise enablers. Some of the software or software-as-a-service, some of the technology consultants who will help implement these automation programs and some of the beneficiaries, the tech takers, right. Think about some of those banks, those insurance companies, those healthcare companies, educational-oriented institutions that are just so heavy in manual service support infrastructures that could be rationalized. Andrew Sheets: So I'd like to dive into two of those threads and in just a little bit more detail. Just in terms of, kind of, the decade we've just been in. And, you know, I think it was pretty unique that it was a decade with some of the lowest cost of capital we've ever seen in economic history, and yet, you know, it's kind of left us with an economy where it's very easy to order food and very hard to take a train to the airport. We've had a lot of investment in consumer-led technology and a lot less in infrastructure. Do you think that equation has finally changed in a bigger way? And what do you think that means for maybe winners and losers of the changes that might be happening? Lisa Shalett: Our perspective is that I don't know that it's a permanent change. I think pendulums swing and there are waves when technology is more consumer-oriented. The issue with consumer technology, as we know and certainly with the smartphone, has been there's 2 billion people implementing that technology in 2 billion different ways. So it's very hard to scale those productivity benefits, if there are any, across an economy. When you go through periods of enterprise or economy-wide or infrastructure deepening-based technology spends, that's when economies can transform. And so I think it's a phase in the market. But I think one that is really important, you know, when we think about the advancement of overall return on assets in the economy. Andrew Sheets: And so, Lisa, digging into that technology piece, is there an example that stands out to you of a type of technology consumption that you think could be more fleeting as a result of the post-COVID period? And to your point about the more tangible, long lasting shifts in technology investment, the types of things that will be a lot more permanent and could really surprise people in their permanence over the longer run? Lisa Shalett: I'm not a technology visionary, but I do think that so many of the consumer technologies that we see over time end up being cannibalizing and substitutive as opposed to truly revolutionary. So, think about the consumption of media. We're still consuming media, it's just on what mode. Are we consuming it through a radio broadcast, a television broadcast, now streaming services on demand and etc, but it's conte

The COVID pandemic changed the way the U.S. engages with work, but how will these shifts impact structural changes to capital investment? Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets and Chief Investment Officer for Wealth Management Lisa Shalett discuss.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley Research. Lisa Shalett: And I'm Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management. Andrew Sheets: And on this special two-part episode, we'll be discussing what we see as the "Next American Productivity Renaissance". It's Thursday, March 2nd at 2 p.m. in London. Lisa Shalett: And it's 9 a.m. in New York. Andrew Sheets: So while everybody has been paying close attention, and rightly so, to 40 year highs of inflation that we've been having recently, there's another legacy from this pandemic that we want to dig into more deeply. We believe that the COVID crisis catalyzed an incredibly powerful regime shift, a once-in-a-generation shock to the labor markets which transformed the nature of work and is accelerating structural changes to capital investment. Lisa, you believe we're on the cusp of what you call the "Next American Productivity Renaissance", and this renaissance is underpinned by an upcoming capital spending supercycle. So, I guess the place to start is what does that mean and what's driving it? Lisa Shalett: I mean, I think that some of these trends were already beginning to take form before COVID struck, but COVID was really an accelerant. And so if we think about first the detachment from the labor force and the way COVID really transformed the way we think about work, and those jobs that maybe were not flexible to convert to a remote setting, or a work from home setting, and carried with them in-person high risk attributes. I think that was really one of the first dimensions of it, but then it was really about companies having to fundamentally rethink and re-engineer business models towards digitization, right? The removal of human contact. And then you overlay those two major pillars with things like decarbonization and the issues that emerged around how we make this transition to a cleaner energy mix around the world. Obviously COVID accelerated some of the issues around supply chain and deglobalization and how do we secure supply chains. And last but not least, I think it has really become clear we're talking about a world where incentives to invest either to substitute for labor, to strengthen our infrastructure, to commit to some of these climate change initiatives, to re-engineer supply chains or to deal with this new multipolar world. The incentives and the argument for capital spending has really changed. Andrew Sheets: So Lisa actually it's that last point on labor market tightness that I'd like to dive into a little bit more. Because I mean, it's fair to say that this would actually be a pretty normal cyclical phenomenon that as labor markets get tighter, as workers are harder to find, that companies decide that now it's worth investing more to make their existing workers more productive. Do you think that's a fair characterization of some past capital spending cycles that we've seen? And how do you think this one could fit into that pattern? Lisa Shalett [00:04:19] Yes, I think very often, you know, we've gone through these periods where the capital for labor substitution has been at the forefront. Now, one of the things that very often we have to wait for are what I call the supply side enablers of that. There have been eras where there's more automation-oriented technology that is available, and then there's eras where perhaps there's been less. And I think that one of the things that we're positing is that after the golden age of private equity that we're entering one of those periods of technology J-curve explosion, right, where the availability of automation-orienting technologies is there. So it enables part of the dialog around capital for labor arithmetic. Andrew Sheets: I also want to ask you about decarbonization as a theme, which you cited as one of these drivers of the productivity renaissance and capital deepening because I think you do encounter a view out there in the world that decarbonization and environmental regulation is negative for productivity. What do you think the market might be missing about decarbonization as a theme? And how does it drive higher productivity in the future rather than lower productivity? Lisa Shalett: I think fundamentally that there is no doubt that as we make this transition, there are going to be bumps and bruises along the road. And part of the issue is that as we move away from what is perhaps the lowest cost, but most dirty technologies that there may be pressures on inflation. But the flip side of that is that it creates huge incentives to drive productivity improvement in some of

After the passing of the Inflation Reduction Act in the U.S., other countries may be looking to invest more in their own energy transitions.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between public policy and financial markets. It's Wednesday, March 1st at 10 a.m. in New York. When Congress passed and the president signed into law the Inflation Reduction Act last year, they may have started a race among global governments to spend new money in an attempt to cut carbon output dramatically. Consider the European Union, where our economists and strategists are flagging that they expect, later this month, there will be an announcement of a major allocation of government funds to mirror the nearly $370 billion allocated by the U.S. toward its own energy transition. In the U.S., we've already flagged that much of the investment opportunity lies in the domestic clean tech space. As Stephen Byrd, our Global Head of Sustainability Research, has flagged the IRA's monetary allocation and rules creating preferences for materials sourced domestically or in friendly national confines, means that the U.S. clean tech space is seeing a substantial growth in demand for its products and services. In the EU, the story is more nuanced as we await details on what a final version of the European Commission's Green Deal Industrial Plan is, a process that could take us into the summer or beyond. Streamlining regulations to encourage private funding and expand the network for trade partners on green tech equipment is expected to be in focus. So the near term macro impacts are murky, but at a sector level, such a policy should present opportunities in utilities, capital goods, materials and construction. In short, this policy would mean the EU is finding ways to accelerate demand for these green enabler companies. So, in line with the transition to decarbonization as one of our big three investment themes for 2023, investors would do well to follow the money and see where there may be 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 U.S. economy remains resilient in the face of continued rate hikes, investors may wonder if the Fed will re-accelerate their policy tightening or if cuts are on their way.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Sarah Wolfe from the U.S. Economics Team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the economic response to the Fed's monetary tightening. It's Tuesday, February 28th, at 1 p.m. in New York. The Fed has been tightening monetary policy at the fastest rate in recent history. And yet the U.S. economy has been so remarkably resilient thus far that investors have begun to interpret this resilience as a sign that the economy has been less affected by monetary policy than initially expected. And so recession fears seem to have turned into fears of re acceleration. Of course, interest sensitive parts of the economy have largely reacted as expected to the Fed hiking interest rates. Housing activity responded immediately to higher interest rates, declining significantly more than in prior cycles and what our models would imply. Consumer spending on durable goods has dampened as well, which is also expected. And yet other factors have bolstered the economy, even in the face of higher rates. The labor market has shown more resilience since the start of the hiking cycle as companies caught up on significant staffing shortfalls. Households have spent out excess savings supporting spending, and consumers saw their spending power boosted by declining energy prices just as monetary tightening began. As these pillars of resilience fade over the coming months, an economic slowdown should become more apparent. Staffing levels are closing in on levels more consistent with the level of economic output, pointing to a weaker backdrop for job growth for the remainder of 2023 and 2024. Excess savings now look roughly normal for large parts of the population, and energy prices are unlikely to be a major boost for household spending in coming months. Residential investment and consumption growth should bottom in mid 2023, while business investment deteriorates throughout our forecast horizon. We expect growth will remain below potential until the end of 2024 as rates move back towards neutral. But even with more deceleration ahead, greater resilience so far is shifting out the policy path. We continue to expect the Fed to deliver a 25 basis point hike about its March and May meetings, bringing peak policy rates to 5 to 5.25%. However, with a less significant and delayed slowdown in the labor market, with a more moderate increase in the unemployment rate, the Fed's pace of monetary easing is likely to be slower, and the first rate cut is likely to occur later. We think the Fed will hold rates at these levels for a longer period rather than hike to a higher peak, as this carries less of a risk of over tightening. We now see the Fed delivering the first rate cut in March 2024 versus our previous estimate of December 2023, and cutting rates at a slower pace of 25 basis points each quarter next year. This brings the federal funds rate to 4.25% by the end of 2024. With rates well above neutral throughout the forecast horizon, growth remains below potential as well. As for the U.S. consumer, while excess savings boosted spending in 2022 despite rising interest rates, we expect consumers to return to saving more this year, which means a step down in spending. 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 we enter the final month of the first quarter, recalling the history of bear market trends could help predict whether earnings will fall again.----- 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, February 27th at 11am in New York. So let's get after it. Our equity strategy framework incorporates several key components. Overall earnings tend to determine price action the most. For example, if a company beats the current forecast on earnings and shows accelerating growth, the stock tends to go up, assuming it isn't egregiously priced. This dynamic is what drives most bull markets, earnings estimates are steadily rising with no end in sight to that trend. During bear markets, however, that is not the case. Instead, earnings forecasts are typically falling. Needless to say, falling earnings forecasts are a rarity for such a high quality diversified index like the S&P 500, and that's why bear markets are much more infrequent than bull markets. However, once they start, it's very hard to argue the bear markets over until those earnings forecasts stop falling. Stocks have bottomed both before, after and coincidentally with those troughs in earnings estimates. If this bear market turns out to have ended in October of last year, it will be the farthest in advance that stocks have discounted the trough in forward 12 month earnings. More importantly, this assumes earnings estimates have indeed troughed, which is unlikely in our view. In fact, our top down earnings models suggest that estimates aren't likely to trough until September, which would put the trough in stocks still in front of us. Finally, we would note that the Fed's reaction function is very different today given the inflationary backdrop. In fact, during every material earnings recession over the past 30 years, the Fed was already easing policy before we reached the trough in EPS forecasts. They are still tightening today. During such periods, there is usually a vigorous debate as to when the earnings estimates will trough. This uncertainty creates the very choppy price action we witness during bear markets, which can include very sharp rallies like the one we've experienced over the past year. Furthermore, earnings forecasts have started to flatten out, but we would caution that this is what typically happens during bear markets. The stock's fall in the last month of the calendar quarter as they discount upcoming results and then rally when the forward estimates actually come down. Over the past year, this pattern has been observed with stocks selling off the month leading up to the earnings season and then rallying on the relief that the worst may be behind us. We think that dynamic is at work again this quarter, with the stocks selling off in December in anticipation of bad news and then rallying on the relief it's the last cut. Given that we are about to enter the last calendar month of the first quarter later this week, we think the risk of stocks falling further is high. Bottom line, we don't believe the earnings forecasts are done and we think they're going to fall again in the next few months. This is a key debate in the market, and our take is that while the economic data appears to have stabilized and even turned up again in certain areas, our negative operating leverage cycle is alive and well and could overwhelm any economic scenario over the next six months. We remain defensive going into March with the worst of this earnings cycle still ahead of us. 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.

As short-term bond yields continue to rise, what impact does this comparatively high yield have on the broader market?----- 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 Friday, February 24th at 2 p.m. in London. One of the biggest stories brewing in the background of markets is the sharp rise in yields on safe, short-term bonds. A 6 month Treasury bill is a great example. In November of 2021, it yielded just 0.06%. Today, just 14 months later, it yields 5.1%, its highest yield since July of 2007. The rise in safe short-term yields is notable for its speed and severity, as the last 12 months have seen the fastest rise of these yields in over 40 years. But it also has broader investment implications. Higher yields on cash like instruments impact markets in three distinct ways, all of which reduce the incentive for investors to take market exposure. First and most simply, higher short term rates raise the bar for what a traditional investor needs to earn. If one can now get 5% yields holding short term government bonds over the next 12 months, how much more does the stock market, which is significantly more volatile, need to deliver in order to be relatively more appealing? Second, higher yields impact the carry for so-called leveraged investors. There is a significant amount of market activity that's done by investors who buy securities with borrowed money, the rate of which is often driven by short term yields. When short term yields are low, as they've been for much of the last 12 years, this borrowing to buy strategy is attractive. But with U.S. yields now elevated, this type of buyer is less incentivized to hold either U.S. stocks or bonds. Third, higher short term yields drive up the cost of buying assets in another market and hedging them back to your home currency. If you're an investor in, say, Japan, who wants to buy an asset in the U.S. but also wants to remove the risk of a large change in the exchange rate over the next year, the costs of removing that risk will be roughly the difference between 1 year yields in the US and 1 year yields in Japan. As 1 year yields in the U.S. have soared, the cost of this hedging has become a lot more expensive for these global investors, potentially reducing overseas demand for U.S. assets and driving this demand somewhere else. We think a market like Europe may be a relative beneficiary as hedging costs for U.S. assets rise. The fact that U.S. investors are being paid so well to hold cash-like exposure reduces the attractiveness of U.S. stocks and bonds. But this challenge isn't equal globally. Both inflation and the yield on short-term cash are much lower in Asia, which is one of several reasons why we think equities in Asia will outperform other global markets going forward. 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.

Companies continue their attempts to mitigate their environmental impact. But are some merely buying their way out of the problem using carbon offsets? Global Head of Sustainability Research Stephen Byrd and Head of ESG Fixed-Income Research Carolyn Campbell discuss. ----- Transcript -----Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Sustainability Research. Carolyn Campbell: And I'm Carolyn Campbell, Head of Morgan Stanley's ESG Fixed-Income Research. Stephen Byrd: On this special episode of the podcast, we'll discuss the voluntary carbon offset market and the role carbon offsets play in achieving companies' decarbonization goals. It's Thursday, February 23rd at 10 a.m. in New York. Stephen Byrd: As extreme weather becomes the new normal, and sustainability rises in importance on investors' agendas, many companies are working towards mitigating their environmental impact. But even so, there's persistent public concern that some companies claiming to be carbon neutral may in fact be "greenwashing" by purchasing so-called carbon offsets. So, Carolyn, let's start with the basics. What exactly are carbon offsets and why should investors care? Carolyn Campbell: So a carbon offset represents one ton of carbon dioxide equivalent removed, reduced or avoided in the atmosphere. Companies are buying offsets to neutralize their own emissions. They essentially subtract the amount of carbon offsets purchased from their total emissions, from their operations and supply chain. These offsets are useful because it allows a company to take action against their emissions now, while implementing longer term decarbonization strategies. However, there's concern that these companies are just buying their way out of the problem and are using these offsets that do not actually do anything with respect to actually limiting global warming. So, Stephen, some of these offsets focus on reducing carbon dioxide emissions, while others aim to directly remove these emissions from the atmosphere. Between these so-called avoidance and removal offsets, how do you see the market evolving for each over the next 5 to 10 years, let's say? Stephen Byrd: Yeah, Carolyn, I think the balance is set to shift in favor of removal over the coming decade. So we developed an assessment of the potential mix shift from carbon avoidance to carbon removal projects, which shows the long term importance of removal projects as well as the near-term to medium term need for avoidance projects. We're bullish that over the long term removal projects, and think of these projects as projects that demonstrably and permanently take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, as generating enough carbon offset credits to reach company's net zero targets, again in the long term. However, over the near to medium term, call it the next 5 to 10 years, we expect the volume of removal projects to fall short. As a result, we think carbon avoidance projects, and these would be projects that avoid new atmospheric emissions of carbon dioxide. These will play an important role as offset purchasers shift their mix of carbon offsets towards removal over the course of this decade. Carolyn, one of the big debates in the market around voluntary carbon offsets involves nature based projects versus technology based projects. Could you give us some examples of each and just talk through, is one type significantly better than the other? And which one do you think will likely gain the most traction? Carolyn Campbell: Sure. So on the one side, we've got these nature based projects which include things like reforestation, afforestation and avoided deforestation projects. In essence planting trees and protecting forests that are already there. There's also other projects related to grasslands and coastal conservation. On the other side, we've got these tech based projects which are actually quite wide ranging. This includes things like deploying new renewable technology or capping oil wells to prevent methane leakage, substituting wood burning stove for clean cookstoves, everything up to direct air capture and carbon capture, so on and so forth. So in our view, these tech based offsets will eventually dominate the market, but they face some scaling and cost hurdles over in the near term. Tech based offsets have some key advantages. They're highly measurable and they have a high probability of permanence, both disadvantages on the nature based side. Nature based sides, like I said, have measurement hurdles, but we think they represent an important interim solution until either geographic limits are reached because there's no more area left to reforest, or legislative conservation takes over. Removal technologies, like direct air capture and carbon capture, yield highly quantifiable results. And that drives a value in a market where the lack of confidence is a major obstacle to growth. So we think that's where the mark

With housing affordability plateauing and inventory picking up, sales could be poised to rise again in the near future.----- 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. Securities Products Research. Jim Egan: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing the U.S. housing and mortgage markets. It's Wednesday, February 22nd, at 11 a.m. in New York. Jay Bacow: All right. So, Jim, when we're looking at data on the housing market, it seems like it's all over the place. We've got home sale activity pointing one direction. We've got home prices doing other things. What's going on? You've had this bifurcation narrative. Is the bifurcation narrative still bifurcating? Jim Egan: So to remind our listeners, the bifurcation narrative for our housing forecasts is between home prices, which we thought were a lot more protected, and housing activity, so sales and housing starts where we thought you were going to see a lot more weakness. And I would say that bifurcation narrative still exists. But, as you're saying, the different data have been pointing to different things. For instance, purchase applications, they picked up sequentially in January from December. And after declining in every single month of 2022, the homebuilder confidence has increased in both January and February. Jay Bacow: All right. But when I think about what happened over that time period, mortgage rates fell almost 100 basis points from their highs in November, as you measure that purchase application pick up from December to January. Is that playing a role? Do you think that there are signs that maybe housing activity is going to pick back up? Jim Egan: So from a mortgage rate perspective, it'd be difficult for us to say it isn't. So we do think that that's playing a role, but we also think it's a little too early to say that housing activity is going to pick back up from here. For one thing, mortgage rates might have come down 100 basis points from mid-November into January, but they've also begun to move higher over the past few weeks. For another, the variables that we've been paying close attention to haven't really shown much improvement. Jay Bacow: Those variables, you mean affordability and supply. How are those looking now? Jim Egan: Exactly. Now let's think about what drove our bifurcation hypothesis in the first place. Because of the record growth in home prices that we saw in 2021 and 2022, combined with the sharp increase in mortgage rates in 2022. They were up almost 400 basis points before that 100 basis point decline that we talked about. Affordability deteriorated more than at any point in over three decades. In fact, the year over year deterioration was roughly three times what we experienced in the years leading up to the GFC. Jay Bacow: Now we want to remind our listeners that this affordability deterioration is really for first time homebuyers. Given the vast predominance of the fixed rate mortgage in the United States most homeowners have a low 30 year fixed rate mortgage with an average rate of about 3.5%. Obviously, their affordability didn't change. What did change was prospective homeowners that are looking to buy a house and now would have to take a mortgage at a higher rate. That does mean that those people with a low fixed rate mortgage, they've got low rates. Jim Egan: And that means that they simply have not been incentivized to list their homes for sale. The inventory of existing homes available for sale plummeted to over 40 year lows. And we only really have 40 years of data. More importantly for the drop in sales volumes that we've seen, if an existing homeowner is not selling their home, they're also not buying a home on the follow that further exaggerates the drop. But thinking about where we are today, affordability is no longer rapidly deteriorating. In fact, it's basically been unchanged over the past three months. And inventories, they remain near 40 year lows, but they're also no longer falling rapidly. If anything, they're actually kind of increasing on the margins. It is only on the margins because of that lock in effect that you mentioned Jay. Jay Bacow: Okay. But it is increasing slightly. So if you have a little bit of a pickup in inventory in basically unchanged affordability, what does that mean for home sales? Jim Egan: Affordability is challenged and supply is very tight, but both are no longer getting even more stretched. In other words, we don't see a catalyst for sales volumes to inflect higher from here, but we also don't think the ingredients are in place for large month over month declines to continue either. I wouldn't say that sales have bottomed, but I would lean more towards they are in the process of bottoming right now. We expect volumes to be weak in the first hal

While the causes of the European equity rally have become more clear over time, so have the caveats that warrant caution over optimism for cyclical stocks.----- 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 deflating safety cushion for European equities. It's Tuesday, February the 21st at 3 p.m. in London. With the benefit of hindsight, it's relatively easy to justify the European equity rally since the start of October, given that we've seen an improvement in the macro news flow against a backdrop of low valuation and depressed investor sentiment and positioning. While the macro outlook could continue to improve from here, we think the safety cushion that low valuation and depressed sentiment had previously provided has deflated considerably as investors have been drawn back into the market by rising price momentum. On valuation, the MSCI Europe Index still looks quite inexpensive on a next 12 month forward PE of 13, however the same ratio for Europe's median stock has risen to 16, which is at the upper end of its historic range. Admittedly, a less padded safety cushion is not necessarily a problem if the fundamental economic and earnings trends continue to improve. However, there is now considerably less margin for any disappointment going forward. This rebound in European equities has been led primarily by cyclical sectors who have outperformed their defensive peers by nearly 20% over the last six months. Historically, this pace of outperformance has tended to be a good sign, suggesting that we had started a new economic cycle with further upside for cyclical stocks ahead. However, while this sounds encouraging, we see three caveats that warrant caution rather than optimism at this point. First, we have seen no deterioration in cyclicals’ profitability yet, and the lack of any downturn now makes it harder to envisage an EPS upturn required to drive share prices higher going forward. Second, we get a very different message from the yield curve, which has consistently proved to be one of the best economic leading indicators over many cycles. Today's inverted yield curve is usually followed by a period of cyclical underperformance and not outperformance. And thirdly, cyclicals. Valuations look elevated, with the group trading in a similar price to book value as defensives. When this has happened previously, it usually signals cyclicals’ underperformance ahead. Given our cautious view on cyclicals, we prefer small and mid-cap stocks as a way to gain exposure to a European recovery. Having underperformed both large caps and cyclicals significantly over the last year, relative valuations for smaller stocks looks much more appealing, and relative performance looks like it is breaking out of its prior downtrend. In addition, we see two specific macro catalysts that should help smaller stocks in 2023, namely falling inflation and a rising euro. Historically, both these trends have tended to favor smaller companies over larger companies, and we expect the same to happen this year. At the country level we think the case for small and mid-cap stocks looks most compelling in Germany, where the relative index, the MDAX, has significantly lagged its larger equivalent, the DAX, such that relative valuations are close to a record low. 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 our outlook for global equities becomes more cautious, what is influencing the move and what should investors watch as the story develops?----- 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 Friday, February 17th at 2 p.m. in London. We recently moved to an underweight stance in global equities as part of our cross-asset allocations. I want to talk a bit about why we did this, why we did it recently and what we're watching. The 'why' behind this move is straightforward, global equities now have low risk-adjusted returns in our framework. Our expected return for global stocks is now below what we see for bonds in the U.S., Europe or emerging markets, and it's also lower than what we expect for U.S. dollar cash. With lower expected returns and higher expected volatility, we think it makes sense to hold a lower than normal amount of global equities, hence our underweight stance. In terms of why we've made this change recently, a few things have shifted. Per Morgan Stanley's forecast, we entered the year expecting low returns for U.S. equities, but higher returns for non-U.S. stocks. But as prices have gone up in 2023, our expected returns outside the U.S. have also fallen, while in the U.S. they're now negative. We also think about expected returns based on longer-run valuations, and then adjusting these for economic conditions. We frame those economic expectations through something we call our cycle indicator, which is trying to look at economic data through the lens of being either stronger or weaker than average, and improving or softening. That indicator recently flipped, indicating a regime where the data is still strong but it's no longer improving, and historically that's often meant lower than average equity returns. And all of this has happened at a time when yields have risen, which is improving expected returns for a lot of other assets. The U.S. aggregate bond index now yields about 4.7%, while 12 month U.S. Treasury bills yield about the same amount. That is raising the bar for what global equities need to return to be relatively more attractive within one's portfolio. For a change like this, what are the risks? Well, one would be a stronger economy, which tends to be better for stocks relative to other assets. And some recent data has been strong, especially related to the U.S. labor market and retail sales. Our economists, however, think the growth story is still murky. Recent economic data is being impacted by large seasonal adjustments, which may be accurate, but which could also be flattering January data if economic patterns have changed versus their pre-COVID trends. Meanwhile, other economic indicators from PMIs to the yield curve to commodity prices suggest a softer growth backdrop ahead. Falling expected returns for stocks relative to other assets have led us to downgrade global equities to underweight. A surprising rebound in global growth is a risk to this change, but for now, we see better risk adjusted reward elsewhere in one's portfolio. 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.

Next month the leadership of the Bank of Japan will change hands, so what policy shifts might be in store and what does this imply for markets?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Daniel Blake from Morgan Stanley's Asia and Emerging Markets Equity Strategy team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss Japanese equity markets and the changing of the guard at the Bank of Japan. It's Thursday, February 16th at 8 a.m. in Singapore. March the 10th will mark the end of an era for Japan, with Haruhiko Kuroda completing his final meeting at the helm of the Bank of Japan. Alongside the late Shinzo Abe, Kuroda-san has been instrumental in creating and implementing the famous Abenomics program over the last decade, and we think he's been successful in bringing Japan out of its long running deflationary stance. And just this week we've had the nomination of his replacement, Kazuo Ueda, a well-respected University of Tokyo professor and former Bank of Japan board member. He may not be a household name outside of the economics community, but his central bank and policy bloodlines run deep, having studied a Ph.D. at MIT alongside former Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and under the tutelage of Stanley Fischer, former Bank of Israel governor and vice Fed chair. So as we see a generational handover at the BoJ, what do we expect next and what does it imply for equity markets? Firstly, Japan has made a lot of progress, but we don't think the mission has been fully accomplished on the Bank of Japan's 2% inflation target. Current inflation is being driven by cost pressures and while wage growth is picking up, we don't think wages will move up to the levels needed to see inflation at 2% being sustained. So we don't expect the BoJ under Ueda-san to embark on a tightening cycle the way we have seen for the Fed and the ECB. However, we can look for some change and in particular we think Ueda-san will look to resolve some of the market dysfunction associated with the policy of yield curve control. This is where the BoJ looks to cap bond yields at the ten year maturity, around a target of 0%. We expect he'll exit this policy of yield curve control by summer 2023, allowing the curve to steepen. And thirdly, we'll be watching closely his perspective on negative interest rate policy as we weigh up the costs and benefits and the transmission of negative rates into the real economy, albeit at the cost of profitability impacts for the banking sector. His testimony before the DIT on February 24th and his approach to negative interest rates under his governorship will be important to watch. We expect negative interest rate policy to be dropped, but not until 2024 in our base case, but this remains a key debate. So in terms of implications, this is more evolution than revolution for macro policy in Japan. And importantly, we see fiscal policy remaining supportive as the program of new capitalism and Ueda-san looks to strengthen social safety nets and double defense spending from 1% of GDP. Secondly, for equity markets, we see a resilient but still range bound outlook for the benchmark TOPIX Index. Our base case target of 2020 for December 2023 implies it doesn't quite break the top of its three year trading range, but remains well supported. Finally, at a sector level, banks and insurers may benefit from a tilting policy away from yield curve control. Again, especially if followed by a move back to zero rates from negative rate policy. In summary, we'll be watching for any shifts in the BoJ reaction function under the new leadership of Kazuo Ueda, but we do not expect a macro shock to asset markets. Instead, some micro adjustment in the yield curve control policy, and potentially negative interest rates, could help the sustainability of very low interest rates in Japan. Thanks for listening and if you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. 

As potential candidates begin to announce their presidential campaigns, is it time to start considering how the 2024 race will drive markets?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between public policy and financial markets. It's Wednesday, February 15th at 10 a.m. in New York. With the news that Nikki Haley, former South Carolina governor and ambassador to the United Nations, is now running for the Republican nomination for president, investors are starting to ask questions about how the 2024 race for the White House will drive markets. Well, in our view, it's not worth spending too much time on, at least not yet through the lens of an investor, particularly when compared to the very relevant debate about the path of monetary policy and inflation. Let me explain. When it comes to understanding the impact of elections on markets, it's all about the policy paths opened up by different outcomes. Markets would care deeply, for example, if information we had today, say about who's running for president, could reliably tell us something about whether there will be in 2025 changes in tax policy, existing and emerging trade barriers with China or policy toward Ukraine. But at this point, projecting such changes is nearly pure speculation. Consider that, this far ahead of the election, knowing who the declared candidates are doesn't give us a lot of new information about who will become president. Polls, while never a perfect predictor, have little predictive value this far ahead of an election. Look at Barack Obama and Donald Trump who, when they declared their candidacies, didn't have strong poll numbers but obviously found political success. Also, remember that knowing who will become president is only one piece of the puzzle in forecasting policy outcomes. We also need to assess whether the president's party will control Congress or not. If they do, the markets reasonably might want to present higher probabilities of more dramatic policy changes. But again, this far out, there are far too many variables to make this assessment. Consider we know little about potential congressional candidates, their policy positions, and even which policy issues will motivate the election, which is still over a year and a half away. So bottom line, while it's certainly not too early to think about the 2024 election as a voter, as an investor you're better served focusing elsewhere for the time being. We'll clue you in when there's more for investors to work with. 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.

Though U.S. consumer spending was surprisingly robust in 2022, this poses both new and continuing challenges as households draw down their excess savings.----- Transcript -----Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver from the Morgan Stanley U.S. Equity Strategy Team. Sarah Wolfe: And I'm Sarah Wolfe from the U.S. Economics Team. Michelle Weaver: On this special episode of the podcast, we'll discuss how the U.S. consumer is faring. It's Tuesday, February 14th at 10 a.m. in New York. Michelle Weaver: The health of the consumer is critical for the equity market, and consumer spending last year helped companies continue to grow their earnings. Sarah, can you give us a snapshot of the overall health of the U.S. consumer right now? Do people still have plenty of savings, and what are you expecting around consumer savings for the rest of the year? Sarah Wolfe: The U.S. consumer was extraordinarily strong in 2022, despite negative real disposable income growth. For perspective, spending was about 3% growth year over year in 2022, and real disposable income was negative 6.5%. Part of that was inflation eroding all income gains, but it was also a tough year as we lapped fiscal stimulus from 2021. So what got consumers through negative 6.5% real income growth? It was this excess savings story. Consumers tapped their excess savings pretty significantly, and we estimate that the drawdown was roughly 30% from its peak. However, when we look into 2023, we don't think consumers are going to be tapping into their savings reserves quite as much. Michelle Weaver: It sounds like households draw down quite a bit of their excess saving. Is there any danger that they're going to run out? And if that's the case, when do you think that will play out? Sarah Wolfe: So we don't think 100% of excess savings are going to get spent ever. Remember, savings is not cash in your wallet, it's just anything that hasn't been spent. So some of these savings have moved into longer term investment vehicles as well. We think that an additional 15% will get spent in 2023, and 10% in 2024, after 30% drawdown last year. This slower drawdown in the excess savings will allow the savings rate to recover after sitting at a two decade low in 2022 at roughly 3%. But there are important divergences when you look at the distributional holding of excess savings. For example, the bottom 25% has drawn down over 50% of their excess savings, compared to 30% overall. And we believe they're on track to run their savings dry by 2Q 2023. Michelle Weaver: Great. And then income, of course, is another really important source of spending for consumers. And the January jobs report we got was a big surprise. And the labor market continues to be pretty resilient without any clear signs of stopping. I run a proprietary survey in conjunction with our Alphawise team, and in our most recent wave we found that despite the tech layoffs that have been all over the news, 31% of people are actually less worried about losing their job now versus a year ago. Can you tell me a little bit about what your team expects for the labor market in 2023? Sarah Wolfe: Well, the February jobs report was a whopper by any standard, 517,000 jobs and the unemployment rate hitting all time lows at 3.4%. However, I think it's important to put these numbers into a bit of context. We identified three temporary factors that boosted nonfarm payrolls in January and that we think are unlikely to persist in February. The first is weather. A warmer than usual January added about 130,000 jobs last month. The return of strike workers added 36,000 jobs and seasonal factors added 3 million jobs. Typically, we see the shedding of a lot of workers in January after the holidays, so leisure and hospitality, retail workers, transportation. But because we're dealing with significant labor shortages, and as a result companies are hoarding workers, we're seeing a lot fewer layoffs than we typically would given this time of the year and as a result, the seasonal factors are adding too many jobs right now. We expect the February print to be about 200,000, which is more in line with the trend that we had seen from July until December of 2022. We continue to expect job growth to slow this year, hitting a low of 50,000 jobs a month in mid 2023, pushing the unemployment rate up to about 3.9% by the end of this year. Michelle, you mentioned that you have an alphawise survey. Could you tell us a little bit more about what the survey’s telling you about consumer spending plans? Michelle Weaver: Sure. So on this wave of the survey, we asked people to think about major purchases that they're planning on making over the next three months. And we defined a major purchase like a vehicle, large appliance or vacation. And we found that about a quarter of people are considering shifting to a cheaper alternative, while a third are expecting to delay the purchase al