Thoughts on the Market

As China tries to smooth out its COVID caseload, investors should take note of the impacts those COVID policies have on global economies and key 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, November 30th, at 11 a.m. in New York. Investors remain intently focused on China's COVID policies, as the tightening and loosening of travel and quarantine policies has implications for key drivers of markets. Namely the outlook for global inflation, monetary policy and global growth. We're paying close attention, and here's what we think you need to know. Importantly, our China economics team thinks that China's restrictive COVID zero policy will be a thing of the past come spring of 2023, but there will be many fits and starts along the way. Increased vaccination, availability of medical treatment and public messaging about the lessening of COVID dangers will be signposts for a full reopening of China, but we should expect episodic returns to restrictions in the meantime as China tries to smooth out its COVID caseload. This dynamic is important to understand for its implications to the outlook for the global economy and key markets. For example, the economic growth story for Asia should be weak in the near term, but begin to improve and outperform the rest of the world from the second quarter of 2023 through the balance of the year. In the U.S., the reopening of the China economy should help ease inflation as the supply of core goods picks up with supply chains running more smoothly. This, in turn, supports the notion that the Fed will be able to slow and eventually pause its rate hikes in 2023, even if headline inflation sees a rebound via higher gas prices from higher China demand for oil. And where might this overall economic dynamic be most visible to investors? Look to the foreign exchange markets. China's currency should relatively benefit, particularly if reopening leads investors back to its equity markets. The U.S. dollar, however, should peak, as the Fed approaches pausing its interest rate hikes and, accordingly, ceasing the increase in the interest rate advantage for holding U.S. dollar assets versus the rest of the world. Of course, the evolution of the COVID pandemic has been anything but straightforward. So we'll keep monitoring the situation with China and adjust our market views as needed. 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.

Traditional ESG investing strategies highlight companies with top scores across ESG metrics, but new research shows value in focusing instead on those companies who have a higher rate of change as they improve their ESG metrics.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Sustainability Research. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll focus on our new approach to identifying opportunities that can generate both Alpha and ESG impact. It's Tuesday, November 29th, at 10 a.m. in New York. On previous episodes of this podcast we've discussed how, although sustainable investing has been a trend over the past decade, it has faced significant pushback from critics arguing that ESG strategies - or environmental, social and governance - sacrifice long term returns in favor of the pursuit of certain ESG objectives. We have done some new work here at Morgan Stanley, suggesting that it is possible to identify opportunities that can deliver excess returns, or alpha, and make an ESG impact. Our research found that what we call "ESG rate of change", companies that are leaders on improving ESG metrics, should be a critical focus for investors looking to identify companies that meet both criteria. What do we mean by "ESG rate of change"? Traditional ESG screens focus on "ESG best-in-class" metrics. That is, companies that are already scoring well on sustainability factors. But there is a case to be made for companies that are making significant improvements. For example, we find that there are companies using innovative technologies that can reduce costs and improve efficiency. These companies, which we call deflation enablers, generally screen very favorably on a range of ESG metrics and are reaping the financial benefits of improved efficiency. A surprisingly broad range of technologies are dropping in cost to such an extent that they offer significant net benefits, both financial and ESG oriented. Some examples of such technologies are very cheap solar, wind and clean hydrogen, energy storage cost reductions, cheaper carbon capture, improved molecular plastics recycling, more efficient electric motors, a wide range of recycling technologies, and a range of increasingly inexpensive waste to energy technology. To get even more specific, as we look at these various technologies and the sectors they touch, we think the utility sector is arguably the most advantaged among the carbon heavy sectors in terms of its ESG potential. Why is that? Because many utilities have the potential to create an "everybody wins" outcome in which customer bills are lower, CO2 emissions are reduced, and utility earnings per share growth is enhanced. This is a rare combination. In the U.S. utility sector many management teams are shutting down expensive coal fired power plants and building renewables, energy storage and transmission, which achieve superior earnings per share growth. Many of these stocks would screen negatively on classic ESG metrics such as carbon intensity, but these ESG improvers may be positioned to deliver superior stock returns and play a critical role in the transition to clean energy. As with most things, applying this new strategy we're proposing isn't simply a matter of looking at companies with improving ESG metrics. It's about really understanding what's driving these changes. Here's where sector specific expertise is key. In fact, we believe that in the absence of fundamental insight, ESG criteria can be misapplied and could lead to unintended outcomes. The potential for enhanced performance, in our view, comes from a true marriage of ESG investing principles and deep sector expertise. 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 we head into a new year, Europe faces multiple challenges across inflation, energy and financial conditions, meaning investors will want to keep an eye on recession risk, the ECB, and European equities. Chief European Equity Strategist Graham Secker and Chief European economist Jens Eisenschmidt discuss.----- Transcript -----Graham Secker Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Graham Secker, Morgan Stanley's Chief European Equity Strategist.Jens Eisenschmidt And I'm Jens Eisenschmidt, Morgan Stanley's Chief European Economist.Graham Secker And on this special episode of the podcast, we'll discuss our 2023 outlook for Europe's economy and equity market, and what investors should pay close attention to next year. It's Monday, November the 28th, at 3 p.m. in London.Graham Secker So Jens, Europe faces multiple challenges right now. Inflation is soaring, energy supply is uncertain, and financial conditions are tightening. This very tricky environment has already impacted the economy of the euro area, but is Europe headed into a recession? And what is your growth outlook for the year ahead?Jens Eisenschmidt So yes, we do see a recession coming. In year-on-year terms we see negative growth of minus 0.2% next year. There's heterogeneity behind that, Germany is most affected of the large countries, Spain is least affected. In general, the drivers are that you mentioned, we have inflation that eats into real disposable income that is bad for consumption. We have the energy situation, which is highly uncertain, which is not great for investment. And we do have monetary policy that's starting to get restrictive, leading to a tightening in financial conditions which is actually already priced into markets. And, you know, that's the transmission lack of monetary policy. So that leads to lower growth predominantly in 23 and 24.Graham Secker And maybe just to drill into the inflation side of that a little bit more. Specifically, do you expect inflation to rise further from here? And then when you look into the next 12 months, what are the key drivers of your inflation profile?Jens Eisenschmidt So inflation will rise, according to our forecast, a little bit further, but not by an awful lot. We really see it peaking in December on headline terms. Just to remind you, we had an increase to 10.7 in October that was predominantly driven by energy and food inflation, so around 70% of that was energy and food. And of course, it's natural to look into these two components to see what's going to happen in the future. Here we think food inflation probably has still some time to go because there is some delayed response to the input prices that have peaked already at some point past this year. But energy is probably flat from here or maybe even slightly falling, which then gets you some base effects which will lead and are the main driver of our forecast for a lower headline inflation in the next year. Core inflation will be probably more sticky. We see 4% this year and 4% next. And here again, we have these processes like food inflation, services inflation that react with some lag to input prices coming down. So, it will take some time. Further out in the profile, we do see core inflation remaining above 2% simply because there will be a wage catch up process.Graham Secker And with that core inflation profile, what does that mean for the ECB? What are your forecasts for the ECB's monetary policy path from here?Jens Eisenschmidt We really think that the ECB needs to have seen the peak in inflation, and that's probably you're right, both core and headline. We see a peak, as I said, in December, core similarly, but at a high level and, you know, convincingly only coming down afterwards. So, the ECB will have to see it in the rear mirror and be very, very clear that inflation now is really falling before they can stop their rate hike cycle, which we think will be April. So, we see another 50 basis point increase in December 25, 25 in February, in March for the ECB then to really stop its hiking cycle in April having reached 2.5% on the deposit facility rate, which is already in restrictive territory. So, Graham, turning to you, bearing in mind all that just said about the macro backdrop, how will it impact European equities both near-term and longer term?Graham Secker Having been bearish on European equities for much of this year, at the beginning of October we shifted to a more neutral stance on European equities specifically. But we've had pretty strong rally over the course of the last couple of months, which sets us up, we think, for some downside into the first quarter of next year. In my mind, I really have the profile that we saw in 2008, 2009 around the global financial crisis. Then equity valuations, the price to earnings ratio troughed in October a weight, the market rallies for a couple of months, but then as the earnings downgrades kicked in the start of 2009, the actual index itself went back down to the lows. So, it was

As we enter the holiday shopping season, the challenges facing consumers and retailers look quite different from 2021, so how will inflation and high inventory impact profit margins?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver from the Morgan Stanley's U.S. Equity Strategy Team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss our outlook for holiday spending in the U.S. It's Friday, November 25th, at 1 p.m. in New York. With the holiday shopping season just around the corner, we collaborated with the Morgan Stanley U.S. economics team and several of the consumer teams, namely airlines, consumer goods, e-commerce and electronics, to analyze our consumer survey data around holiday spending. The big takeaway is that this year's holiday shopping season is going to be quite different from the one we had last year. In 2021, we saw major supply chain malfunctions that impacted inventories and caused shoppers to start buying much earlier in the season. Limited supplies also gave companies a lot of pricing power, and this year the situation looks like it is shaping up to be the exact opposite. High inventory levels should push stores to offer discounts as they attempt to clear merchandise off shelves. Companies offering the biggest discounts will be able to grab the largest wallet share, but this will likely be a hit to their profit margins. Additionally, inflation has weighed heavily on consumers throughout the year, and it remains their number one concern heading into the holiday shopping season. This year, we're likely to see a very bargain savvy consumer. Our survey showed that 70% of shoppers are waiting for stores to offer discounts before they begin their holiday shopping, and the majority are waiting to see deals in excess of 20%. Additionally, consumers are likely to be more price sensitive this year. About a third of consumers said they would buy a lot less gifts and holiday products if stores raise prices. U.S. consumers are largely expecting to spend about the same amount on holiday gifts and products this year versus last year. So retailers will be competing for a similarly sized pool of revenue as last year, and will have to offer competitive prices to get shoppers to choose their products. This creates a really tough environment for profit margins. We also asked consumers specifically if they are planning to spend more or less this year in a variety of popular gift areas. The biggest spending declines are expected for luxury gifts, sports equipment, home and kitchen and electronics, all areas where we saw overconsumption during lockdown. Looking at the industry implications, services are expected to hold up better than goods overall. Department stores and specialty retailers, consumer durable goods, large volume retailers and tech hardware are all likely to face a more challenging season. On the other hand, demand for travel and flights remains very strong, and the Morgan Stanley transportation team remains bullish on the U.S. airlines overall, as they believe travel interest remains resilient despite consumer and macro fears. 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 the recent meeting between U.S. President Biden and China’s President Xi has signaled near term stability for the relationship between the two countries, investors will need to understand what this means for future economic disconnection.----- 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 U.S. public policy and financial markets. It's Wednesday, November 23rd, at 10 a.m. in New York. Last week, many of my colleagues and I were in Singapore meeting with clients for Morgan Stanley's annual Asia Pacific Summit. Top of mind for many was the recent meeting between U.S. President Biden and China's President Xi. In particular, there was much Thanksgiving that the two sides seemed to agree on a few points that would create some near-term stability in the relationship. But we caution investors not to read more into their meeting beyond that, and accordingly continue to prepare for a multipolar world where the U.S. and China disassociate in key economic areas. True, there were statements of respect for each other's position on Taiwan, a return to key policy dialogs, and a recognition on both sides of the importance of the bilateral relationship to the well-being of the wider world. But that doesn't mean the two sides found a way to remain interconnected economically. Rather, it just signals that economic disconnection may be orderly and spread out as opposed to disorderly and quick. Look beyond the soothing statements from the meeting, and you see policies on both sides showing work toward economic disconnection with industrial policies and trade barriers aimed at creating separate economic and technological ecosystems. An orderly transition to this state may be costly, but it need not be disruptive. This dynamic still leaves plenty of cross-currents for markets. It's good news overall for the macroeconomic outlook as it takes a potential growth shock off the table. It's also good for key geographies that will benefit from investment towards supply chain realignment, such as Mexico, as we recently highlighted in collaborative research with our Mexico strategist. But it poses challenges for companies that will be compelled to take on higher labor and CapEx costs as the U.S. seeks distance from China on key technologies. Semiconductors have been and will continue to be a key space to watch as the sector incrementally shifts production to higher cost areas in order to comply with U.S. regulatory demands. So bottom line, we should all feel a bit better about the outlook for markets following the Biden/Xi meeting, but just a bit. The U.S.-China relationship isn't going back to its inter-connected past, and the cost of disconnecting in key areas is sure to hurt some investments and help others. With Thanksgiving this week, I want to take a moment to thank you, our listeners, for sharing this podcast with your friends and colleagues. As we pass another exciting milestone of 1 million downloads in a single month, we hope you continue to tune in to thoughts on the market as we navigate our ever changing world. Happy Thanksgiving from all of us here at Morgan Stanley.

The year ahead outlook is a process of collaboration between strategists and economists from across the firm, so what were analysts debating when thinking about 2023, and how were those debates resolved? Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets and Head of Fixed Income Research Vishy Tirupattur discuss.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Morgan Stanley's Chief Cross Asset Strategist. Vishy Tirupattur: And I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Head of Fixed Income Research. Andrew Sheets: And on this special episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing some of the key debates underpinning Morgan Stanley's 2023 year ahead outlook. It's Tuesday, November 22nd at 3 p.m. in London. Vishy Tirupattur: And 10 a.m. in New York. Andrew Sheets: So Vishy, within Morgan Stanley research we collaborate a lot, but I think it's not an exaggeration to say that when we sit down to write our year ahead outlooks for strategy and economics, it's probably one of the most collaborative exercises that we do. Part of that is some pretty intense debate. So that's what I was hoping to talk to you about, kind of give listeners some insight into what are the types of things that Morgan Stanley research analysts were debating when thinking about 2023 and how we resolved some of those issues. And I think maybe the best place to start is just this question of inflation, right? Inflation was the big surprise of 2022. We underestimated it. A lot of forecasters underestimated inflation. As we look into 2023, Morgan Stanley's economists are forecasting inflation to come down. So, how did that debate go? Why do we have conviction that this time inflation really is going to moderate? Vishy Tirupattur: Thanks, Andrew. And it is absolutely the case that challenging each other's view is critically important and not a surprise that we spent a lot of time on inflation. Given that we have many upside surprises to inflation throughout the year, you know, there was understandable skepticism about the forecasts that US inflation will show a steady decline over the course of 2023. Our economists, clearly, acknowledge the uncertainty associated with it, but they took some comfort in a few things. One in the base effect. Two, normalizing supply chains and weaker labor markets. They also saw that in certain goods, certain core goods, such as autos, for example, they expect to see deflation, not just disinflation. And there's also a factor of medical services, which has a reset in prices that will exert a steady drag on the core inflation. So all said and done, there is significant uncertainty, but there are still clearly some reasons why our economists expect to see inflation decline. Andrew Sheets: I think that's so interesting because even after we published this outlook, it's fair to say that a lot of investor skepticism has related to this idea that inflation can moderate. And another area where I think when we've been talking to investors there's some disagreement is around the growth outlook, especially for the U.S. economy. You know, we're forecasting what I would describe as a soft landing, i.e., U.S. growth slows but you do not see a U.S. recession next year. A lot of investors do expect a U.S. recession. So why did we take a different view? Why do we think the U.S. economy can kind of avoid this recessionary path? Vishy Tirupattur: I think the key point here is the U.S. economy slows down quite substantially. It barely skirts recession. So a 0.5% growth expectation for 2023 for the U.S. is not exactly robust growth. I think basically our economists think that the tighter monetary policy will stop tightening incrementally early in 2023, and that will play out in slowing the economy substantially without outright jumping into contraction mode. Although we all agree that there is a considerable uncertainty associated with it. Andrew Sheets: We've talked a bit about U.S. inflation and U.S. growth. These things have major implications for the U.S. dollar. Again, I think an area that was subject to a lot of debate was our forecast that the dollar's going to decline next year. And so, given that the U.S. is still this outperforming economy, that's avoiding a recession, given that it still offers higher interest rates, why don't we think the dollar does well in that environment? Vishy Tirupattur: I think the key to this out-of-consensus view on dollar is that the decline in inflation, as our economists forecast and as we just discussed, we think will limit the potential for US rates going much higher. And furthermore, given that the monetary policy is in restrictive territory, we think there is a greater chance that we will see more downside surprises in individual data points. And while this is happening, the outlook for China, right, even though it is still challenging, appears to be shifting in the positive direction. There's a decent chance that the

While the outlook for 2023 may seem relatively unexciting, investors will want to prepare for a volatile path to get there, and focus on some key inflection points.----- 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, November 21st, at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. Last week, we published our 2023 U.S. equities outlook. In it, we detail the path to our 2023 year end S&P 500 price target of 3900. While the price may seem unexciting relative to where we're currently trading, we think the path will be quite volatile with several key inflection points investors will need to trade to make above average returns next year. The main pushback in focus from investors has centered around the first inflection - the near-term tactical upside call we made about a month ago.Let's review a few key points of the call as we discuss how the rest of the year may play out. First, the primary tactical driver to our bullish call was simply respecting the 200 week moving average. As noted when we made the call last month, the 200 week moving average does not give way for the S&P 500 until a recession is undeniable. In short, until it is clear we are going to have a full blown labor cycle where the unemployment rate rises by at least 1-1.5%, the S&P 500 will give the benefit of the doubt to the soft landing outcome. A negative payroll release also does the trick. Second, in addition to the 200 week moving averages key support, falling interest rate volatility led to higher equity valuations that are driving this rally. Much like with the 200 week moving average, though, this factor can provide support for the higher PE's achieved over the past month, but is no longer arguing for further upside. In other words, both the 200 week moving average and the interest rate volatility factors have run their course, in our view. However, a third factor market breadth has emerged as a best tactical argument for higher prices before the fundamentals take over again. Market breadth has improved materially over the past month. As noted last week, both small caps and the equal weighted S&P 500 have outperformed the market weighted index significantly during this rally. In fact, the equal weighted S&P 500 has been outperforming since last year, while the small caps have been outperforming since May. Importantly, such relative moves by the small caps and average stocks did not prevent the broader market from making a new low this fall. However, the improvement in breadth is a new development, and that indicator does argue for even higher prices in the broader market cap weighted S&P 500 before this rally is complete. Bottom line tactically bullish calls are difficult to make, especially when they go against one's fundamental view that remains decidedly bearish. When we weigh the tactical evidence, we remain positive for this rally to continue into year end even though the easy money has likely been made. From here, we expect more choppiness and misdirection with respect to what's leading. For example, from the October lows it's been a cyclical, smallcap led rally with the longer duration growth stocks lagging. If this rally is to have further legs, we think it will have to be led by the Nasdaq, which has been the laggard. In the end, investors should be prepared for volatility to remain both high intraday and day to day with swings in leadership. After all, it's still a bear market, and that means it's not going to get any easier before the fundamentals take over to complete this bear market next year. As we approach the holiday, I want to say a special thank you to our listeners. We've recently passed an exciting milestone of over 1 million downloads in a single month, and it's all made possible by you tuning in and sharing the podcast with friends and colleagues. Happy Thanksgiving to you and your families.

At the recent 20th Party Congress in China, policy makers made economic growth a top priority, but what are the roadblocks that may be of concern to global investors?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Robin Xing, Morgan Stanley's Chief China Economist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I will discuss the outlook for China after the 20th Party Congress. It's Friday, November 18th, at 8 a.m. in Hong Kong. China's Communist Party convenes a national Congress every five years to unveil mid to long term policy agenda and reshuffle its leadership. The one concluded two weeks ago marks the 20th Congress since the party's founding in 1921. One of the key takeaways is that economic growth remains the Chinese government's top priority, even as national security and the supply chain self-sufficiency have gained more importance. The top leadership's goal is to grow China to an income level on par with medium developed country by 2035. We think this suggests a per capita GDP target of $20,000, up from $12,000 today, and it would require close to 4% average growth in GDP in the coming decade. Well, this growth target is achievable, but only with continued policy focus on growth. While China's economy has grown 6.7% a year over the last decade, its potential growth has likely entered a downward trajectory, trending toward 3% at the end of this decade, there is aging of the Chinese population, which is a main structure headwind. That could reduce labor input and the pace of capital accumulation. Meanwhile, productivity growth might also slow as geopolitical tensions increase the trend towards what Morgan Stanley terms slowbalization. The result of which is reduced foreign direct investment, particularly among sectors considered sensitive to national security. In this context, we believe Beijing will remain pragmatic in dealing with geopolitical tensions because of its reliance on key commodities and the fact exports account for a quarter of Chinese employment. So China is very intertwined with global economy and it relies a lot on the access to global market. Another issue of concern to global investors is China's regulatory reset since 2020 and its impact on the private sector. It seems to have entered a more stable stage. We don't expect major regulatory surprises from here considering that the party Congress didn't identify any new areas with major challenges domestically, except for population aging and the self-sufficiency of supply chain. As investors adopt a "seeing is believing" mentality towards their long term concerns around China's growth, policy, geopolitics, the more pressing near-term risk remains COVID zero. This is likely the biggest overhang on Chinese economic growth and the news flow around reopening have tended to trigger market volatility. We see rising urgency for an exit from COVID zero in the context of its economic cost, including lower income growth, elevated youth unemployment and even fiscal sustainability risks. We think Beijing will likely aim for a calibrated COVID exit, and the three key signposts are necessary to facilitate a smooth reopening, elderly vaccination, availability of domestic COVID treatment pills and facilities, and continued effort to steer public opinion away from fear of the virus. Considering it could take 3 to 6 months for the key signposts to play out, we expect a full reopening next spring at the earliest. This underpins our forecast of a modest recovery starting in the second quarter of 2023, led by private consumption. Before a full reopening, we see growth continue to muddle through at the subpar level, sustained mainly by public CapEx. 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 risks to both home sales and home prices continuing to challenge the housing market, investors will want to know what is keeping the U.S. housing market from a sharp fall mirroring the great financial crisis? Co-heads of U.S. 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. Securities Products Research. Jim Egan: And on this episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing our year ahead outlook for the U.S. housing market for 2023. It's Thursday, November 17th, at 1 p.m. in New York. Jay Bacow: So Jim, it's outlook season. And when we think about the outlook for the housing market, we’re not just looking in 2023, people live in their houses for their whole lives. Jim Egan: Exactly. We are contemplating what's going to happen to the housing market, not just in 23, but beyond in this year's version of the outlook. But just to remind the listeners, we have talked about this on this podcast in the past, but our view for 2023 hasn't changed all that much. What we think we're going to see is a bifurcation narrative in the housing market between activity, so home sales and housing starts, and home prices. The biggest driver of that bifurcation, affordability. Because of the increase in prices, because of the incredible increase in mortgage rates that we've seen this year, affordability has been deteriorating faster than we've ever seen it. That's going to bring sales down. But the affordability for current homeowners really hasn't changed all that much. We're talking about deterioration for first time homebuyers, for prospective homebuyers. Current homeowners in a lot of instances have locked in very low 30 year fixed rate mortgages. We think they're just incentivized to keep their homes off the market, they're locked into their current mortgage, if you will. That keeps supply down, that also means they're not buying a home on the follow, so it means that sales fall even faster. Sales have outpaced the drop during the great financial crisis. We think that continues through the middle of next year. We think sales ultimately fall 11% next year from an already double digit decrease in 2022 on a year over year basis. But we do think home prices are more protected. We think they only fall 4% year over year next year, but when we look out to 2024, it's that same affordability metric that we really want to be focused on. And, home prices plays a role, but so do mortgage rates. Jay, how are we thinking about the path for mortgage rates into 2024? Jay Bacow: Right. So obviously the biggest driver of mortgage rates are first where Treasury rates are and then the risk premium between Treasury rates and mortgages. The drive for Treasury rates, among other things, is expectations for Fed policy. And our economists are expecting the Fed to cut rates by 25 basis points in every single meeting in 2024, bringing the Fed rate 200 basis points lower. When you overlay the fact that the yield curve is inverted and our interest rate strategists are expecting the ten year note to fall further in 2023, and risk premia on mortgages is already pretty wide and we think that spread can narrow. We think the mortgage rate to the homeowner can go from a peak of a little over 7% this year to perhaps below 6% by 2024. Jim, that should help affordability right, at least on the margins. Jim Egan: It should. And that is already playing a role in our sales forecasts and our price forecasts. I mentioned that sales are falling faster than they did during the great financial crisis. We think that that pace of change really inflects in the second half of next year. Not that home sales will increase, we think they'll still fall, they're just going to fall on a more mild or more modest pace. Home prices, the trajectory there also could potentially be more protected in this improved affordability environment because I don't get the sense that inventories are really going to increase with that drop in mortgage rates. Jay Bacow: Right. And when we look at the distribution of mortgage rates in America right now, it's not uniformly distributed. The average mortgage rate is 3.5%, but right now when we think how many homeowners have at least 25 basis points of incentive to refinance, which is generally the minimum threshold, it rounds to 0.0%. If mortgage rates go down to 4%, about 2.5 points below where they are right now, we're still only at about 10% of the universe has incentive to refinance. So while rates coming down will help, you're not going to get a flood of supply. Jim Egan: We think that’s important when it comes to just how far home prices can fall here. The lock in effect will still be very prevalent. And we do think that that continues to support home prices, even if they are falling on a year over

In looking ahead to 2023, the big dynamics of this year are poised to shift and investors will want to look for safety amidst the coming uncertainty. Chief Cross Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets and Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter discuss.----- Transcript -----Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's global chief economist. Andrew Sheets: And I'm Andrew Sheets, Morgan Stanley's chief cross-asset strategist. Seth Carpenter: And on part two of this special two-part episode of the podcast, we're going to focus on Morgan Stanley's Year Ahead strategy outlook. It's Wednesday, November 16th, at 10 a.m. in New York. Andrew Sheets: And 3 p.m. in London. Seth Carpenter: Andrew, on the first part of this, you spent a bunch of time asking me questions about the outlook for the global economy. I'm going to turn the tables on you and start to ask you questions about how investors should be thinking about different asset prices going forward. There really was a big change this year, we came out of last year with big growth, things slowed down, but inflation surprised everyone to the upside. Central banks around the world started hiking rates aggressively. We've seen massive moves in FX markets, especially in the dollar. Things look very, very different. If you were to say, looking forward from here to the next year, what the biggest conviction call you have in terms of asset allocation, what would it be? Andrew Sheets: Thanks, Seth. It's that high grade bonds do very well. You know, I think this is a backdrop where 2022 was defined by surprisingly resilient growth, surprisingly high inflation, and surprisingly hawkish monetary policy relative to where I think a lot of investors thought the year would start. And, you know, if I think about 2023 and what you and the economics team are forecasting, it's big shifts to all three of those dynamics. It's much softer growth, it's softer inflationary pressure. And it's central banks pausing their tightening cycles and then ultimately easing as we look further ahead. So, you know, 2022 is exceptionally bad for high grade bonds, investment grade rated bonds, whether they're governments or mortgages or securitized bonds or municipals. So as the economy slows, as investors are looking for some safety amidst all that economic uncertainty, we think high grade bonds will be the place to be. Seth Carpenter: What is it that's so special about investment grade bonds as opposed to, for example, high yield bonds? And what is it about fixed income securities instead of equities that you think is so attractive? Andrew Sheets: Yeah. Thanks, Seth. So I do think there's an important distinction here because, you know, if I think about a lot of different assets in the market, I think there are a lot of assets that are primarily concerned at the moment with rate uncertainty or policy uncertainty. When will the ECB finally stop hiking rates? When will the Fed finally stop hiking rates? How high will Fed funds go? Now there's another group of assets, and I think you could put the S&P 500 here, U.S. high yield bonds here that are concerned about those questions of interest rates. Obviously, interest rates matter for these markets, but those markets are also concerned about the economic slowdown and how much will the economy slow. So I think when people look into the year ahead, what you want to focus on are assets that are much more about whether or not rate uncertainty falls than they are about how much will the economy decelerate. So we think of high grade bonds as a perfect example of an asset class that cares quite a bit about interest rate uncertainty while being a lot less vulnerable to the risk that the economy slows. And I think emerging market assets are also an example of an asset class that's really sensitive, maybe more sensitive to the question of how high will the Fed hike rates? And just given where it's currently priced, given how much it's already declined this year, might be a lot less sensitive of that question of, you know, whether or not the U.S. goes into recession or whether or not Europe goes into recession. So good for high grade bonds and then we think good for emerging market assets. Seth Carpenter: Okay. That makes a lot of sense. High grade bonds, fixed income, obviously, you talked a little bit about where some of the risks are. And whenever I think about fixed income securities and I think about risk, how are you advising clients to think about market-based risks around the world as we're going into the next year?  Andrew Sheets: I think you a point that you and your team have made that central banks, especially the Fed, are very aware of the liquidity risks around quantitative tightening and might modify it if they felt it was starting to lead to less functional markets. I think that's important. I think if that's our assumption, then investors shouldn't avoid these

As we look ahead to 2023, we see a divergence away from the trends of 2022 in key areas across growth, inflation, and central bank policy. 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, Morgan Stanley's chief cross-asset strategist. Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's global chief economist. Andrew Sheets: And on the special two-part episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing Morgan Stanley's Global Year Ahead outlook for 2023. Today, we'll focus on economics, and tomorrow we'll turn our attention to strategy. It's Tuesday, November 15th at 3 p.m. in London. Seth Carpenter: And it's 10 a.m. in New York. Andrew Sheets: So, Seth I think the place to start is if we look ahead into 2023, the backdrop that you and your team are forecasting looks different in a number of important ways. You know, 2022 was a year of surprisingly resilient growth, stubbornly high inflation and aggressively tightening policy. And yet as we look ahead, all three of those elements are changing. I was hoping you could comment on that shift broadly and also dig deeper into what's changing the growth outlook for the global economy into next year. Seth Carpenter: You're right, Andrew, this year, in 2022, we've seen growth sort of hang in there. We came off of last year in 2021, a super strong year for growth recovering from COVID. But the theme this year really has been a great deal of inflation around the world, especially in developed markets. And with that, we've seen a lot of central banks everywhere start to raise interest rates a great deal. So what does that mean as we end this year and go into next year? Well, we think we'll start to see a bit of a divergence. In the developed market world where we've seen both a lot of inflation and a lot of central bank hiking, we think we get a great deal of slowing and in fact a bit of contraction. For the euro area and for the U.K, we're writing down a recession starting in the fourth quarter of this year and going into the beginning of next year. And then after that, any sort of recovery from the recession is going to be muted by still tight monetary policy. For the US, you know, we're writing down a forecast that just barely skirts a recession for next year with growth that's only slightly positive. That much slower growth is also the reflection of the Federal Reserve tightening policy, trying to wrench out of the system all the inflation we've seen so far. In sharp contrast, a lot of EM is going to outperform, especially EM Asia, where the inflationary pressures have been less so far this year, and central banks, instead of tightening aggressively to get restrictive and squeeze inflation out, they're actually just normalizing policy. And as a result, we think they'll be able to outperform. Andrew Sheets: And Seth, you know, you mentioned inflation coming in hot throughout a lot of 2022 being one of the big stories of the year that we've been in. You and your team are forecasting it to moderate across a number of major economies. What drives a change in this really important theme from 2022? Seth Carpenter: Absolutely. We do realize that inflation is going to continue to be a very central theme for all sorts of markets everywhere. And the fact that we have a forecast with inflation coming down across the world is a really important part of our thesis. So, how can we get any comfort on the idea that inflation is going to come down? I think if you break up inflation into different parts, it makes it easier to understand when we're thinking about headline inflation, clearly, we have food, commodity prices and we've got energy prices that have been really high in part of the story this year. Oil prices have generally peaked, but the main point is we're not going to see the massive month on month and year on year increases that we were seeing for a lot of this year. Now, when we think about core inflation, I like to separate things out between goods and services inflation. For goods, the story over the past year and a half has been global supply chains and we know looking at all sorts of data that global supply chains are not fixed yet, but they are getting better. The key exception there that remains to be seen is automobiles, where we have still seen supply chain issues. But by and large, we think consumer goods are going to come down in price and with it pull inflation down overall. I think the key then is what goes on in services and here the story is just different across different economies because it is very domestic. But the key here is if we see the kind of slowing down in economies, especially in developed market economies where monetary policy will be restrictive, we should see less aggregate demand, weaker labor markets and with it lower services inflation. Andrew Sheets: How do you think

As we transition away from our fire and ice narrative and into the late cycle stage, investors will want to change up their strategies as we finish one cycle and begin another.----- 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, November 14th, at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. Last year's fire and ice narrative worked so well, we decided to dust off another Robert Frost jewel to describe this year's outlook, with The Road Not Taken. As described by many literary experts, and Frost himself, the poem presents the dilemma we all face in life that different choices lead to different outcomes, and while the road taken can be a good one, these choices create doubt and even remorse about the road not taken. For the year ahead, we think investors will need to be more tactical with their views on the economy, policy, earnings and valuation. This is because we are closer to the end of the cycle at this point, and that means that trends in these key variables can zig and zag before the final path is clear. In other words, while flexibility is always important to successful investing, it's critical now. In contrast, the set-up was so poor a year ago that the trends in all of the variables mentioned above were headed lower in our view. Therefore, the right choice or strategy was about managing or profiting from the new downtrend. After all, Fire and Ice the poem is not a debate about the destination, it's about the path to that destination. In the case of our bear market call, it was a combination of both fire and ice - inflation and slowing growth, a bad combination for stocks. As it turned out, the cocktail has been just as bad for bonds, at least so far. However, as the ice overtakes the fire and inflation cools off, we're becoming more confident that bonds should beat stocks in this final verse that has yet to fully play out. That divergence can create new opportunities and confusion about the road we are on, and why we have recently pivoted to a more bullish tactical view on equities. In the near term, we maintain our tactically bullish call as we transition from fire to ice, a window of opportunity when long term interest rates typically fall prior to the magnitude of the slowdown being reflected in earnings estimates. This is the classic late cycle period between the Fed's last hike and the recession. Historically, this period is a profitable one for stocks. Three months ago, we suggested the Fed's pause would coincide with the arrival of a recession this cycle, given the extreme inflation dynamics. In short, the Fed would not be able to pause until payrolls were negative, the unequivocal indicator of a recession, but too late to kick save the cycle or the downtrend for stocks. However, the jobs market has remained stronger for longer, even in the face of weakening earnings. More importantly, this may persist into next year, leaving the window open for a period when the Fed can slow or pause rate hikes before we see an unemployment cycle emerge. That's what we think is behind the current rally, and we think it can go higher. We won't have evidence of the hard freeze for a few more months, and markets can dream of a less hawkish Fed, lower interest rates and resilient earnings in the interim. Last week's softer than expected inflation report was a critically necessary data point to fuel that dream for longer. We expect long duration growth stocks to lead the next phase of this rally as interest rates fall further. That means Nasdaq should catch up to the Dow's outsized move higher so far. Unfortunately, we have more confidence today than we did a few months ago in our well below consensus earnings forecast for next year, and that means the bear market will likely resume once this rally is finished. Bottom line, the path forward is much more uncertain than a year ago and likely to bring several twists and periods of remorse for investors wishing they had traded it differently. If one were to take our 12 month S&P 500 bear, base and bull targets of 3500, 3900, and 4200 at face value, they might say it looks like we are expecting a generally boring year. However, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, we would argue the past 12 months have been boring because a bear market was so likely we simply set our defensive strategy and stayed with it. That strategy has worked well all year, even during this recent rally. But that kind of strategy won't work over the next 12 months, in our view. Instead, investment success will require one to turn over the portfolio more frequently as we finish one cycle and begin another. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the A

Education technology, or EdTech, saw significant adoption during the COVID-19 pandemic, yet opportunity remains in this still young industry if one looks long-term. Head of Products for European Equity Research Paul Walsh and Head of the European Internet Services Team Miriam Josiah discuss.----- Transcript -----Paul Walsh:] Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's Head of Products for European Equity Research. Miriam Josiah: And I'm Miriam Josiah, Head of the European Internet Services Team within Morgan Stanley Research. Paul Walsh: And on this very special episode of the podcast series, we'll be talking about the long-term outlook for education technology, or EdTech. It's Friday, it's the 11th of November, and it's 2 p.m. here in London. Paul Walsh: So Miriam, next week you'll be heading to Barcelona for Morgan Stanley's annual Tech, Media and Telecom Conference, which focuses on key debates and trends in these industries. EdTech, while still in its infancy, is a segment where your team sees a lot of potential for growth. But before we get there, let's please start with the basics. What exactly is EdTech? Miriam Josiah: So people often think of it as online learning for K-12 or university students. But we found EdTech to be quite a broad term for the digitalization of learning. So there are actually dozens of segments within EdTech. One of them is workforce education, which we think is particularly interesting and underappreciated. Paul Walsh: And certainly many of us got a firsthand look at EdTech during COVID-19 lockdowns, whether through our children—as was the case for me personally—work related training or for our own amusement. And not surprisingly, companies in the education technology space saw a huge spike from pandemic-driven demand. So what's happening now that schools and businesses have reopened? Miriam Josiah: So here's one of the reasons our team looked closely at EdTech. Essentially, even as we've returned to in-person training and education, the demand for remote learning hasn't dropped off. Yes, COVID 19 accelerated industry growth by about two years, but the global EdTech market, currently valued at $300 billion, is still expected to grow at an annual rate of 16% to reach $400 billion by 2025. So this demand is here to stay. Paul Walsh: It sounds like it, and that's tremendously interesting. So can you explain why that is, please? Miriam Josiah: So we think there are a few reasons EdTech demand will continue to grow. Firstly, the pandemic changed our behaviors in many ways, including how we think about learning. For example, in many classrooms, students watch the lecture on their own time and use the classroom for more hands-on learning. This is one reason demand is still growing, particularly within K-12 education. Paul Walsh: And if we take a step back, Miriam, does a challenging macroeconomic environment help or hurt the outlook for EdTech? And can you help us understand why? Miriam Josiah: So, in many ways, we think it helps. You have global teacher shortages, rising school costs and, in the case of workplace, there's a need to reskill and upskill workers. So these are a few of the important drivers. Meanwhile, there's a few other positives for EdTech, such as a growing global population and lower penetration rates. To put things in perspective, global spending on education is around $6.5 trillion a year and even with double digit growth over the next few years, EdTech will only represent around 5% of total education spending in 2025. Suffice to say, we are in the very early stages of growth. Paul Walsh: Yeah, absolutely. It sounds like it. And thinking about stock valuations, they soared for companies that saw surging demand during the pandemic. And since then, we've seen that trend reverse, in some cases really quite dramatically. So where does that leave us today? Miriam Josiah: So one thing to note is that this segment is very fragmented with many small companies, some of which are not publicly traded. Among the larger players in the space, we've seen a similar trend with stock prices soaring and now correcting. And so valuations are attractive. And we think this is a good entry point for investors, especially if they have a longer time horizon. At the same time, the market's seeing a fair bit of M&A activity, which may present opportunities for upside for investors. Paul Walsh: Absolutely no doubt. Industries that are fragmented, hard to define and still in their infancy can really be fertile ground for investors who have the time and the wherewithal to research and invest in individual companies. So what are the biggest risks to your growth outlook for the EdTech industry? Miriam Josiah: So firstly, as I mentioned, a lot of the sector is made up of private companies and a lot of these are loss-making startups. So in an environment of tighter access to capital, this may be a gr

It’s almost two full days after the midterm elections in the U.S. and while we still don’t know the outcome, markets may know enough to forecast its impact.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Jesus, 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 Thursday, November 10th, at 3 p.m. in New York. It's nearly two full days after polls closed across America, and we still don't know which party will control Congress. But for investors, we very likely know all we need to know at this point. Let me explain. It may take several days, maybe weeks to determine which party will control the Senate. But knowing which party controls the Senate won't matter much if Republicans gain a majority in the House of Representatives, as they appear likely to do as of this recording. That's because Republicans controlling at least one chamber of Congress is enough to yield a divided government, meaning that the party in control of the White House is not also in control of Congress and so can't unilaterally choose its legislative path. For bond markets, this is a mostly friendly outcome. It takes off the table the scenario that could have led to fiscal policy from Congress that would cut against the Fed's inflation goals. That scenario would have been one where Democrats keep control of the House and expand their Senate majority. That outcome might have suggested inflation was less a political and electoral concern than previously thought, and through a broader Senate majority, given Democrats more room to legislate. If markets perceived that combination of a willingness and ability to legislate as increasing the probability of enacting spending measures, like a child tax credit, that would support aggregate demand in the US economy, then investors would also have to price in the possibility of a higher than expected peak Fed funds rate, pushing Treasury yields higher. Of course, this appears not to be what happened. So, the bottom line, the election outcome is important and still up in the air, but markets may know enough to move on. 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. 

Critics of sustainable investing have said that Environmental, Social, and Governance strategies require investors to sacrifice long-term returns, but is this really the case?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephan Kessler, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Quantitative Investment Strategies. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss the value of a quantitative approach to low carbon investing. It's Wednesday, November 9th, at 2 p.m. in London. Sustainable investing has been a hot trend over the past decade, and most recently the new Inflation Reduction Act in the U.S. has brought it into even sharper focus. Short for environmental, social and governance, ESG covers a broad range of topics and themes, for example, carbon emissions, percentage of waste recycled, employee engagement scores, human rights policies, independent board members, and shareholder rights. This breadth, however, has made defining sustainable investing a key challenge for investors. Furthermore, critics of ESG have also pushed back, arguing that ESG strategies sacrifice long term performance in favor of alignment with what has been disparagingly termed "woke capitalism". This ongoing market debate shows no sign of abating any time soon, and so investors are looking for rigorous ways to assess ESG factors, with decarbonization being top of mind. In some recent work by quant analyst Jacob Lorenzen and myself, we decided to focus on climate change and more specifically carbon emissions as the key metric. Our systematic approach uses mathematic modeling to analyze how investors can integrate a low carbon tilt in various strategy portfolios and what kind of results they can expect. So what did this analysis tell us? Essentially, we found little evidence that incorporating an ESG tilt substantially affects a risk adjusted performance of equity portfolios, positively or negatively. While potentially disappointing to investors looking for outperformance via ESG overlays, this conclusion may be encouraging to others because it suggests that investors can create low carbon portfolios without sacrificing performance. In other words, our results for equity benchmark, smart beta and long/short portfolios argue that environmentally aware investing could be considered one of the few "free lunches" in finance. Our framework focused on carbon reduction portfolios, but also takes other ESG aspects into account. When screening companies for environmental harm, fossil fuel revenue, or non ESG climate considerations, our results are robust. This result is important as it shows that investors can focus on a broad range of ESG criteria or carbon alone- in all cases, the performance impact on portfolios is minimal. Thus, investors can adapt our framework to their objectives without needing to worry about returns. And so what does the future hold for ESG investing? While overall we find ESG to have a minor impact on performance, their investment strategies and time periods of the past decade where it did matter and created positive returns. One possible explanation for this effect is a build up of an ESG valuation premium. ESG may have been riding its own wave as global investors increasingly incorporated ESG into their investments, whether for value alignment or in search of outperformance. As we look ahead, the long run outperformance of broad ESG strategies may be more muted. In fact, ESG guidelines and requirements may even require companies causing significant environmental harm to pay a premium for market access. However, we do believe there are potential alpha opportunities using specialized screens, or in specific industries such as utilities and clean tech. 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. 

Increasingly, consumers are moving from traditional cable and satellite subscriptions to connected TV devices, so where do the advertisers go from here? U.S. Media Analyst Ben Swinburne and U.S. Internet Analyst Brian Nowak discuss.----- Transcript -----Ben Swinburne: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ben Swinburne, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Media Analyst. Brian Nowak: And I'm Brian Nowak, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Internet Analyst. Ben Swinburne: On this special episode of the podcast we'll focus on connected TV and the changing television space. It's Tuesday, November 8th, at 10 a.m. in New York. Ben Swinburne: Consumer behavior in the television space has been changing rapidly over the past decade, and the COVID pandemic further accelerated this trend. While most people still watch traditional linear TV through their cable and satellite subscription, consumers are shifting to streaming at a rapid pace. In fact, most of our listeners probably use some sort of connected TV, or CTV device at home that allows their television to support video content streaming. As our media analyst, I've watched how this has led to widespread "cord cutting", as an increasing number of customers cancel their traditional subscriptions in favor of only using these streaming or video on demand formats. So let's dig into the opportunities and challenges within the connected TV space and particularly interconnected TV advertising. Brian, let's start with some definitions. What is CTV advertising, what's so great about it? Brian Nowak: CTV advertising is nothing more than adding advertising to all that streaming engagement that you mentioned earlier. You talked about how people are increasingly watching connected television through streaming devices, through their televisions. The idea of showing ads around it is CTV advertising. As far as what's so great about it, for years traditional linear television has largely been driven by branded advertising to reach people. The hope with connected television over time is that not only will connected television enable you to have reach and strong branding capabilities, but also the potential for better targeting, a more direct link between an advertising dollar and an actual transaction from those ads. And the vision of connected television advertising over time is we may be able to have broad based performance advertising across all of the streaming television engagement. So with that as a backdrop Ben, who benefits in your view, from connected television? And which companies may be most at risk from this transition? Ben Swinburne: Well Brian, you talked about both targeting and performance ads, things that are not typically associated with broadcast or linear television advertising. So I have to say the biggest beneficiary of the shift to connected TV from an advertising point of view are marketers. Not only are marketers looking for ways to spend their money with a better return on an advertising spend, but they're facing rapidly declining audiences, meaning it's harder and harder to reach the audiences that they want to reach. Connected TV brings the promise of both greater audience, particularly "cord cutters", but also reaching them more effectively with performance based and targeting tools that don't exist in linear. Speaking of which, when we think about who may be at risk, well we don't think it's a complete zero sum game. And we do think connected TV expands the television ad market over the long term. We think the largest area of market share risk is linear television. Brian Nowak: So let's dig a little more into your point about linear television Ben. How do you think about the market share between linear television and connected television the next 5 to 10 years? And what role do sports and live sports play into that overall market share? Ben Swinburne: So we expect connected TV advertising to reach and ultimately surpass linear television by the end of the decade. It could happen faster, particularly we're focused on local markets, which right now connected TV doesn't really reach. And it it could also happen faster if sports moves quickly over from linear into streaming. Right now, live sports really dominates linear television. It is the by far source of the largest audiences, and those audiences are live, and it's really holding up the linear bundle more than any other kind of programing. But we are certainly starting to see sports content leak out into streaming services, which has both the potential to erode those live audiences that advertisers value so much, but also bring them into a streaming environment which would create more opportunities to use targeting and performance based tools. Brian, what are some of the challenges of connected TV advertising relative to linear? Brian Nowak: In the near term macro. Over the longer term proof that the technology works. As with any new, less proven advertising media, weaker macro backdrop

With the Fed continuing to focus on inflation and the upcoming midterm elections suggesting market volatility, investors may be wondering, is the U.S. equity market rally really over?----- 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, November 7th, at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. Last week's pullback in major U.S. stock indices was not a surprise as the Fed remained committed to its mandate of getting inflation under control. However, if our tactical rally in U.S. stocks is going to have legs, 10 year U.S. Treasury yields will need to come down from current levels. Otherwise, it will be difficult to see higher prices for the S&P 500, given how sensitive this large cap growth index is to interest rates. Furthermore, we remain of the view that 2023 earnings forecasts are as much as 20% too high, so it will be difficult for stocks to move higher without valuations expanding. Does this mean the U.S. equity rally is over? We don't think so, but it's going to remain very noisy in the near term. First, we have two more important events this week to contend with: the Consumer Price Index release on Thursday and the midterm elections on Tuesday. On the former, we aren't that focused on it because it tells us little about the trajectory of inflation going forward. Nevertheless, we appreciate that the bond market remains fixated on such data points and will trade it. Therefore, it's likely to keep interest rate volatility high through Thursday. If interest rate volatility falls with the passing of these data, equity valuations can then expand further. In terms of interest rate levels, we think next week's midterms could play a bigger role. Should the polls prove correct, the Republicans are likely to win at least one chamber of Congress. This should throw a wrench into the aggressive fiscal spending plans the Democrats would still like to get done. Furthermore, Republican leadership has talked about freezing spending via the debt ceiling, much like they did with the Budget Control Act in 2011. This would be a sharp reversal from the past few years when budget deficits reached levels not seen since World War II. In our view, a clean sweep by the Republicans on Tuesday could greatly raise the odds of such an outcome. Such a decisive win should invoke the kind of rally and 10 year Treasury bonds to keep the equity market moving higher. One caveat to consider is that the election results may not be clear on Tuesday night, given the delay in counting mail in ballots. That means we can expect price volatility in equity markets will remain high and provide fodder for bears and bulls alike. Bottom line, we remain tactically bullish on U.S. equities, assuming longer term interest rate levels begin to fall. This week's midterm elections provide a potential catalyst in that regard. If the Republicans win decisive control of both the House and Senate, as some polls and betting markets are suggesting. Because this is purely a tactical trading view and not in line with our core fundamental view which remains bearish, we will remain disciplined on how much leash to give it. Last week we said that 3700 on the S&P 500 is our stop loss level for this rally, and markets traded exactly to that level after Friday's strong labor report before recovering nicely. For this week, we think that level could be challenged again given the uncertainty around election results. Anxiety around the Consumer Price Index Thursday morning is another reason to think both interest rate and equity volatility will remain high. Therefore, we are willing to give a bit more wiggle room to our stop loss level for next week, something like 3625 to 3650, assuming the 10 year Treasury yields don't make a new high. Conversely, if 10 year Treasury yields do trade about 4.35% and the S&P 500 tests 3625, we would suggest clients to exit bullish trades at that point. In short, the bear market rally is likely to hang around for longer than most expect if it can survive this week's test. 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 prices for bonds go down and yields go up, investors may be asking why the price is so low, and what this shift may do to the broader market and asset allocation.----- 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, November 4th, at 2 p.m. in London. The market is a funny thing. Relative to January 1st of this year, the U.S. 30 year Treasury bond is set to pay out all of the same coupons, and return the exact same amount of principal when it matures in 2052. But the market has decided that that same bond today is worth 36% less than at the start of the year. So what happened? Well, yields rose. That 30 year U.S. bond might be the exact same entity, but investors now need all of those future payments to yield 4.2% per year, not the 1.9% they needed on January 1st. It's another way of saying that there's been a major change in what's considered the minimal accepted return on safe assets. And that large jump in yields has led to the largest drop in bond prices that we've seen in recorded history. But the implications are broader. Many assets have bond-like characteristics, where you pay money today for a string of payments in the future. Whether it's an office building, a rental unit or a company with a future set of earnings, you can get very different current values for the exact same asset today by varying what sort of yield it's required to produce. And so if bonds are now priced lower to generate higher returns in the future, so should many other assets that have similar bond-like characteristics. For markets, we see a couple of implications. First, these rising yields have made bonds increasingly competitive relative to stocks. Currently, $100 of the S&P 500 is expected to yield about $6.25 of earnings next year. $100 of U.S. 1 to 5 year corporate bonds yields about $6 of interest, despite having just one sixth the volatility of the stock market. It's been 14 years since the earnings yield on stocks and the yield on corporate bonds has been so similar. Higher yields on safe assets may also shift broader asset allocation decisions. At this time last year, 30 year BBB- rated investment grade bonds yielded just 3.3%. Given such low returns, it's no wonder that many asset allocators, especially those with longer time horizons, pushed into alternative asset classes and private markets in an effort to generate higher returns. But that calculus now looks different. Yields on those same investment grade bonds have risen from that 3.3% to 6.3%. With public markets now offering many more opportunities for a safe, reliable, long run return, we'd expect asset allocators to start to swing back in this direction, especially favoring various forms of investment grade debt. 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 developed markets heal from the pandemic, labor force participation has recovered in some areas faster than others, so how will a return to work impact the broader economy in places like the U.K. and the U.S.? U.S. Economist Julian Richers and European Economist Markus Guetschow discuss.----- Transcript -----Julian Richers: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Julian Richers from the Morgan Stanley U.S. Economics Team. Markus Guetschow: And I'm Markus Guetschow from the European Economics Team. Julian Richers: On this special episode of the podcast, we'll focus on the issue of labor force participation across developed markets and its broader economic implications. It's Thursday, November 3rd, at 10 a.m. in New York. Markus Guetschow: And 3 p.m. in London. Markus Guetschow: It's no secret that the COVID pandemic profoundly disrupted labor markets across the globe. Labor shortages, rather than unemployment, have now become the key challenge to economies everywhere, and the 'great resignation' has become a catchphrase. In the U.K. and U.S. in particular, are experiencing a slow recovery in labor participation post-COVID, which is adding to an already complex set of policy trade offs by the Fed and the Bank of England. At the same time, Europe looks like a bright spot. So Julian, 'nobody wants to work anymore' has become a punchline. What kind of picture do the data on labor supply really paint in the U.S.? Julian Richers: In the U.S. at least we have seen a massive decline in labor force participation at the onset of the pandemic and really an incomplete recovery so far. Less immigration and more retirements have been major contributors to that drop initially, but since then it also is that prime age workers, so workers age 25 to 54, have been slow to come back. Now in contrast to the U.S., I think your analysis shows that labor supply in the euro area has already fully recovered to pre-pandemic levels. What drove that faster rebound and what's your outlook for the euro area from here? Can we learn something about what this may mean for other countries? Markus Guetschow: We've seen a remarkably quick bounce back in the labor market in the euro area after the pandemic recession, with participation already one percentage point above pre-pandemic levels by mid 22, and also about the level implied by pre-crisis trends. We think that furlough schemes that kept workers in the jobs during COVID were a key supporting factor here. We don't expect to return to pre-crisis labor supply growth, however, with increasing headwinds from immigration and demographics increasingly a factor in the euro area. The U.K. had a similarly generous furlough scheme, but dynamics are in many ways more similar to the U.S., with participation almost one percentage point below 4Q 19 levels in the middle of 2022. Post-Brexit migration flows are one obvious reasons, but we also point to a record number of workers out of the labor force due to health reasons. But let me turn back to the U.S. What makes the US labor market so challenging right now, and how would a potential rise in labor supply affect the economic growth outlook and the Fed's monetary policy? Julian Richers: Well, really, the U.S. labor market has just remained extremely resilient, even though the overall economy has clearly slowed. The U.S. economy is also now producing a lot more output with about the same amount of workers as we did before the pandemic. So structurally, labor demand is still high. At the same time, a lot of the losses in participation among older workers will not reverse. But prime age workers have been coming back and there is still more room for them to go. So prime age, labor force participation should be increasing and that will be key for some relaxation in the labor market. For the Fed that's key, right? Removing pressure from the labor market is very important to feel more confident about the inflation outlook. Wage growth has been extremely high because there still is a pretty significant shortage of workers, and workers are quitting at high rates to go to higher paying jobs. Now, as the economy slows more and labor demand begins to cool, that should lessen. But really, getting more people into the labor force is just going to be key to see wage growth moderate and the unemployment rate go up for good reasons and not for job cuts. So an expansion in labor supply in particular, if it's coming from more primary workers, is really key to manage a soft landing the Fed is looking for. Marcus, how about the ECB in the Bank of England? Maybe walk us through the thinking there and give us a sense of the outlook for the U.K. and the euro area into 2023. Markus Guetschow: So the ECB is facing a different set of issues altogether. Labor market supply is closely monitored, but with rates growth really rather modest to date, despite record low unemployment, much less of a focus for monetary policy. Instead, with rates

This coming Tuesday is the midterm election in the U.S., so what should investors watch out for as the results roll in? And which outcomes might influence market moves?----- 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, November 2nd at 10 a.m. in New York. On Tuesday, Americans will cast their ballots for members of Congress. Well, most Americans will. Many will have already voted by mail. And that's important to know, because it means that, like in 2020, investors may have to wait days to reliably know who will control Congress. And that uncertainty could spell volatility in the bond markets, under the right conditions. Allow me to explain. Like in 2020, the increased use of vote by mail means that early vote counts reported may not be a good indicator of who's winning a particular race, especially in races expected to be close. Mailin ballots are typically cast more often by Democrats than Republicans, and in many jurisdictions are counted after in-person voting. That means that early reported results may look favorable to Republicans, but like in 2020, leads can vanish over time. And so we'll need to reserve judgment on which party seems poised to control Congress. While that uncertainty is playing out, it helps to know which outcomes would be market movers and which ones might have no immediate impact. For example, let's consider what it would mean if Republicans take back control of one or both houses of Congress, which polls and prediction markets are pointing to as the most likely outcome. We wouldn't anticipate this 'divided government' outcome being a market mover, at least not in the near term. That's because the most we can take away from this are some hypothetical concerns. A divided government tends to deliver a weaker fiscal response to a recession. And Republicans have publicly touted their intent to use the debt ceiling and government funding deadlines as negotiating points to reduce government spending in 2023 and 2024. But in recent years, markets have dismissed those types of negotiations as political theater. So perhaps these events would only matter in the moment if the economy and or markets were already showing substantial weakness. But what if instead Democrats do what the polling data suggests they're very unlikely to do, not only keep control of Congress, but expand their majorities. If the early vote counting makes this seem like a real possibility, perhaps because Democrats outperform in early tallies in places like Pennsylvania, then expect market gyrations, particularly in the bond market. That's because if Democrats were to pull off such an outcome, bond markets could come to see a risk  that fiscal policy will be pulling in a different direction than monetary policy, meaning the Fed could have to hike rates even more than currently expected to bring inflation down to target. Expanded Democratic majorities could be a signal that inflation was not the electoral challenge many feared. Without that political constraint, investors could equate these expanded majorities with an increased chance that Democrats would revisit many of their previously abandoned spending plans. So bottom line, be prepared. The polls are showing Democrats are unlikely to expand majorities, but the history of markets is rife with examples of unexpected outcomes creating market volatility. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us for a view on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show. 

Over the last decade private markets have outperformed versus public markets, but given the recent public market volatility, will private markets continue to attract investors? Head of Brokers, Asset Managers, and the Exchanges Team Mike Cyprys and Head of European Asset Managers, Exchanges, and Diversified Financials Research Bruce Hamilton discuss.----- Transcript -----Mike Cyprys: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Cyprys, Morgan Stanley's Head of Brokers, Asset Managers and Exchanges Team. Bruce Hamilton: And I'm Bruce Hamilton, Head of European Asset Managers, the exchanges and Diversified Financials Research. Mike Cyprys: And on this special episode of the podcast, we'll talk about our outlook on the private markets industry against an uncertain macro backdrop and market upheaval. It's Tuesday, November 1st at noon in New York. Bruce Hamilton: And 4 p.m. in London. Mike Cyprys: We spend most of our time on this podcast talking about public markets, which are stocks and bonds traded on public exchanges like Nasdaq and Euronext. But today, we're going to talk a little bit about the private markets, which are equity and debt of privately owned companies. You probably know it as private equity, venture capital and private credit, but it also encompasses private real estate and infrastructure investments, all of this largely held in funds owned by institutions such as pension funds and endowments and increasingly high net worth investors. Today, there is nearly 10 trillion of assets held across these funds globally. But despite the different structure, private markets have been faced with the same macro challenges facing public markets here in 2022. So Bruce, before we get into some of the specifics, let's maybe set the context for our listeners. How have private markets fared vis a vis public markets over the last decade? Bruce Hamilton: So the industry has grown at around 12% per annum on average over the past decade in terms of asset growth and a faster 17% over the past three years, driven by increasing allocations from institutional investors attracted to the historic outperformance of private markets versus public markets, a smoother ride on valuations given that assets are not mark to market, unlike public markets, and an ability to source a more diversified set of exposures, including the faster growth in earlier stage companies. Mike Cyprys: And what are some of the near-term specific risks facing private markets right now amidst this challenging market backdrop? Bruce Hamilton: The near-term concerns really focus around the implications of a tougher economic environment, impacting corporate earnings growth at the same time that increasing central bank interest rates across the globe are feeding into increased borrowing costs for these companies. This raises questions on how this will impact the profitability and investment returns from these companies and whether investors will continue to view the private markets as an attractive place to allocate capital. The uncertain economic outlook has dramatically reduced the appetite to finance new private market deals. However, there are factors that mitigate the risks forced to refinance in the short term. Secondly, corporate balance sheets are in relatively good health in terms of profits to cover interest payments or interest cover. Moreover, flexibility built into financing structures such as hedging to lock in lower interest rates should reduce the impact of rising rates. Importantly, the private market industry also has significant dry powder, or available capital, to invest in new opportunities or protect existing investments. For players active in the private markets. We think that there are undoubtedly risks in the near term, linked to congested fundraising with many private market firms seeking to raise capital from clients against a decline in public markets, which has left clients with less money in their pockets. From the performance of existing portfolio companies, given the more difficult market and economic environment and from subdued company disposal and investment activity linked to the more difficult financing markets. This has kept us pretty cautious on the sector this year. Bruce Hamilton: But Mike, despite these near-term risks and concerns, you remain convicted in your bullish outlook on the next five years. In a recent work, you've outlined five key themes that you see lifting private markets to your 17 trillion assets under management forecast. What are these themes and how do you see them playing out over time? Mike Cyprys: Look, clearly, I would echo your concerns in the short term. And I do think growth moderates after an exceptional period here. But we do see a number of growth drivers that we feel are more enduring. Specifically, five key engines of growth, if you will. First is democratization of private markets that we think can spur retail growth and unlock a $17 tril

Despite companies beginning to report earnings misses and poor stock performance, the S&P 500 is on the rise, leading many to wonder how the Fed will react to this new data in their coming meeting.----- 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, October 31st at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. Two weeks ago, we turned tactically bullish on U.S. equities. Some clients felt this call came out of left field, given our well-established bearish view on the fundamentals. To be clear, this call is based almost entirely on technicals rather than the fundamentals which remain unsupportive of most equity prices and the S&P 500. Today, we will put some meat around the fundamental drivers for why this call can work for longer than most expect. Last week was the biggest one for third quarter earnings season in terms of market cap reporting. More specifically it included all of the mega-cap tech stocks that make up much of the S&P 500. On one hand, these companies did not disappoint the fundamental bears like us who've been expecting weaker earnings to finally emerge. In fact, several of these large tech stocks reported third quarter results that were even worse than we were expecting. Furthermore, the primary driver of the downside was due to negative operating leverage, which is a core part of our thesis on earnings as described in the fire and ice narrative. However, these large earnings misses and poor stock performance did not translate into negative price performance for the S&P 500 or even the NASDAQ 100. This price action is very much in line with our tactical bullish call a few weeks ago. In addition to the supportive tactical picture we discussed in prior notes, we fully expected third quarter results to be weak. However, we also expected most companies would punt on providing any material guidance for 2023, leaving the consensus forward 12 month earnings per share estimates relatively unchanged. This is why the primary index didn't go down in our view, and actually rose 4%. The other driver for why the S&P 500 rose, in our view, is tied to the upcoming Fed meeting this week. While the Fed has hawkishly surprised most investors this year, we've now reached a point where both bond and stock markets may be pricing in too much hawkishness. First, other central banks are starting to slow their rate of tightening. Second, there are growing signs the labor market is finally at risk of a downturn as earnings disappoint and job openings continue to fall. Third, the 3 month 10 year yield curve is finally inverted, and that is one item Fed Chair Jay Powell has said he's watching closely as a sign the Fed has gone far enough. However, the best evidence the Fed has already done enough to beat inflation comes from the simple fact that money supply growth has collapsed over the past year. Money supply is now growing just 2.5% year over year. This is down from a peak of 27% year over year back in March of 2021. A monetarist which suggests inflation is likely to fall just as rapidly as it tends to lag money supply growth by 16 months. This means longer term interest rates are likely to follow, which can serve as a driver of higher valuations until the forward earnings per share estimates fall more meaningfully. What this all means for equity markets is that we have a window where stocks can rally on the expectation inflation is coming down, which allows the Fed to pause its rate hikes at some point in the near future, if not this week. Moreover, this pause must occur while earnings forecasts remain high. The bottom line is that we continue to think there's further upside toward 4000 - 4150 from the current 3900 level. However, for that to happen, longer term interest rates will need to come down, and that will likely require a less hawkish message from the Fed. That puts a lot of pressure on this week's Fed meeting for our tactical call to keep working. If the Fed comes in hawkish and squashes any hopes for a pause before it's too late, the rally could very well be over. More practically, anyone who jumped on board this tactical trade should use 3700 on the S&P 500 as a stop loss for remaining bullish. Conversely, should longer term interest rates fall after Wednesday's meeting, we would gain more confidence in our 4150 upside target for the trade and even consider further upside depending on the message from the Fed. 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 U.K. grapples with structural, political, and economic issues, how are markets affected across assets, and what stories may look better for investors than others? Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets and U.K. Economist Bruna Skarica discuss.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Morgan stanley's Chief Cross-Asset Strategist. Bruna Skarica: And I'm Bruna Skarica, Morgan Stanley's U.K. Economist. Andrew Sheets: And on part two of this special two part edition of the podcast, we'll be talking about the market implications of the latest political, economic and market developments in the U.K. It's Friday, October. 28th at 2 p.m. in London. Bruna Skarica: So Andrew, we already discussed the economic outlook for the U.K., and today I'd like to turn our conversation to you and your cross asset views. Obviously the current economic and political situation in the U.K. has a very significant impact on both macro and micro markets. Let's start with one of the number one investor questions around the U.K., which is the mortgage market. Roughly one in four mortgages has a variable rate and current estimates suggest that more than a third of UK mortgage holders will see their rates rise from under two to over 6% over the next year. What is your outlook for the mortgage market and its impact on the U.K. consumer, especially amid what is already severe cost of living crisis? Andrew Sheets: Like the U.S. most household debt in the U.K. is held in the form of mortgages. Unlike t,vhe U.S., though, those mortgages tend to have a quite short period where the rate is fixed. The typical U.K. mortgage, the rate is only fixed for 2 to 5 years. Which means that if you bought a house in 2020 or 2021, a lot of those mortgages are coming due for a reset very soon. And that reset is large. The mortgage, when it was taken out in 2020, might have had a rate of 2%. The current rate that it will reset to is closer to 6%. So that's a tripling of the interest rate that these homeowners face. So this is a very severe consumer shock, especially if you layer it on top of higher utility bills. This is, I think, a big challenge that, as you correctly identified in our conversation yesterday, that the Bank of England is worried about. And, you know, this is one reason why we think the pound will weaken. I'm sure we'll talk about the pound more, but if rate rises in the U.K. work their way into the household much faster because the mortgage fixed period is much shorter, maybe that means the Bank of England can't hike as much as markets expect. Whereas the Fed can because the dynamics in the mortgage market are so much different. Bruna Skarica: Indeed. Now, aside from that, U.K. rates have also seen a historical level of volatility this year. The pound as well has been weak all year, even though it has rallied a bit recently. Perhaps let's focus on the currency first. How do you see the pound from here? Do you think the downside risks have subsided or the structural risks still remain? Andrew Sheets: So the pound is a very inexpensive currency. It's inexpensive on a number of the different valuation measures that we look at, purchasing power parity, a real effective exchange rate and it's certainly fallen a lot. But our view is that the pound will fall further and that this temporary bounce that the pound has enjoyed in the aftermath of another new leadership team in the country is ultimately going to be short lived. A lot of the economic challenges that were there before the mini budget are still there. Weak economic growth, a large current account deficit, trade friction coming out of Brexit. And also I think this part about the Bank of England maybe not raising rates as much as the market expects, there's that much less interest income for investors for holding the pound. We forecast a medium term level for the pound relative to the dollar, about 1.05, so still lower from here. And we do think the pound will be the underperformer across U.K. assets. Bruna Skarica: Now aside from the pound I've mentioned, investors have been very focused on the UK rates market where we have indeed seen a lot of volatility in recent weeks. Now what do valuations look like here after all the fiscal U-turns? And is Morgan Stanley still bearish on gilts? Andrew Sheets: It's common to talk about historic moves in the global market and sometimes you realize you're talking about a market that's been around for 10 years or 20 years. The U.K. bond market's been around for hundreds of years. And we saw some of the largest moves in that history over the last 2 months. So these have been really extreme moves, both up and down, as a result of the fallout from that mini budget. But going forward we think U.K. rates will rise further from here, we think bonds will underperform and there are a couple of reasons for that. One is that the real interest rate on U.K. gilts, the yiel

As the U.K. deals with a bout of market volatility, political transitions, and sticky inflation, how will policy makers and the Bank of England respond, and where might the U.K. economy be headed from here? Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets and U.K. Economist Bruna Skarica discuss.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Morgan Stanley's Chief Cross-Asset Strategist. Bruna Skarica: And I'm Bruna Skarica, Morgan Stanley's U.K. Economist. Andrew Sheets: And on this special two part edition of the podcast, we'll be focused on the latest political, economic and market developments in the United Kingdom and how investors should think about the situation now and going forward. It's Thursday, October 27th at 2 p.m. in London. Andrew Sheets: So Bruna, the world's eyes have been on the U.K. over the last couple of months, not only because it's the world's sixth largest economy, but because it's been experiencing an unprecedented level of market volatility, and it also has had an unusually large amount of political volatility. So I think a good place to start this discussion is just taking a step back. How would you currently frame the economic challenges facing the U.K.? Bruna Skarica: Indeed, the level of volatility has truly been historic, both in the macro space, in the market and in politics. Now, in terms of what Prime Minister Sunak has on his tray coming into number 10, first let me mention the fiscal challenges. Chancellor Hunt, who's currently in number 11, has already reversed nearly all the measures from the mini budget, which was the catalyst of all this turbulence. Still, there is more to come. We think another £30 billion of fiscal tightening will be needed to stabilize debt to GDP ratio in the medium term. So more austerity, which of course, will be negative for growth. Now, this fiscal tightening, of course, comes in order to facilitate Bank of England's monetary tightening and help return inflation to the 2% target. The Bank of England has already hiked the bank rate to 2.25%, and we expect further hikes to come. So a lot of monetary tightening weighing on growth, too. And all of this is coming in the context of a very large external shock, that is the energy price move that has led to a spike in utility bills that the state is helping to counter, but that is weighing on UK's disposable income.Andrew Sheets: Given all of these challenges, how do you think the Bank of England is going to react? They have an upcoming meeting on November 3rd, and they’re facing a backdrop where on the one hand the U.K. has some of the highest core inflation in the developed world, and on the other hand it has a number of these risks to growth which you just outlined. How do you think they try to thread that needle and what do you think they ultimately do? Bruna Skarica: Indeed, the Bank of England has this year had a really complicated task at its hand. What started as the energy shock to inflation first impacting headline inflation, then spread on to pretty much every part of the consumer basket. The Bank of England we think has no choice but to tighten further from here. Chief Economist Pearl, in the aftermath of the mini budget, said that there will be a significant monetary response to the fiscal news and financial market volatility. As I mentioned, the mini budget was almost entirely scrapped, volatility subsided and so we think this significant response on November 3rd will come in the form of a 75 basis point hike. And we also see clear messaging from the Bank of England next week that this should be perceived as a one off level shift and that the pace of tightening will slow from December, as a lot of monetary tightening has already been delivered. We're expecting a 50 basis point move from the bank then and then two more 25 basis points hikes in the first quarter of next year, leaving the terminal rate at 4%. Andrew Sheets: In the Bank of England's thinking, how does inflation come down? You know, because you still have imported inflation from a weak currency, you still have some of the higher friction cost to trade coming through from Brexit, you still have quite high core inflation. What do you think the Bank of England is looking at that gives it conviction? Alternatively, what do you think is the most likely way those predictions could be wrong? Bruna Skarica: Well, the first thing to mention is the energy price inflation. It is true that our in-house Morgan Stanley view is that energy prices, for example natural gas prices, will not meaningfully correct from here. However, even if they stay at their current levels, inflation itself is going to slow and that's going to be a big drag on headline inflation over the course of next year and more so into 2024 and 2025. Additionally, the U.K. has seen a very sharp increase in traded goods inflation and our Morgan Stanley in-house view is that some of this is going to come of

As the U.K. attempts stabilize its debt to GDP ratio, as well as curb inflation, the question becomes, to what extent will the Bank of England continue to tighten monetary policy?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Global Chief Economist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about recent developments in the U.K. and what the implications might be for other economies. It's Wednesday, October 26th, at 10 a.m. in New York.The political environment in the U.K. is fluid, to say the least. For markets, the most important shift was the fiscal policy U-turn. The tax cuts proposed by former Chancellor Kwarteng have been withdrawn apart from  two measures related to the National Health Service and property taxes. In total, the reversal of the mini budget tax cuts brings in £32 billion of revenue for the Treasury. Media reports suggested that Chancellor Hunt was told by the fiscal watchdog, the OBR, that medium term stability of the debt to GDP ratio would require about £72 billion of higher revenue. There's a gap of about £40 billion implying tighter fiscal policy to come. The clearest market impact came from the swings in gilt yields following the original fiscal announcement. The 80 basis point sell off in 30 year gilts prompted the Bank of England to announce an intervention to restore financial stability for a central bank about to start actively selling bonds to change course and begin buying anew was a delicate proposition. But so far, the needle appears to have been threaded. And yet, despite the recent calm, the majority of client conversations over the past month have included concern about other possible market disruptions. Part of the proposed fiscal plan was meant to address surging energy prices. Inflation in the UK is 10.1% of which only 6.5% is core inflation. The large share of inflation from food and energy prices works like a tax. From a household perspective, the average British household has a disposable income of approximately £31,000 a year and went from paying just over £1,000 a year for electricity and gas to roughly £4,000. Households lost 10% of their disposable income. Of course, the inflation dynamics in the U.K. resemble those in the euro area, in the latter headline inflation is 10%, but core inflation constitutes just under half of that. The hit to discretionary income is even larger for the continent. Our Europe growth forecasts have been below consensus for this reason. We look for more fiscal measures there, but our basic view is that fiscal support can only mitigate the depth of the recession, not avoid it entirely. Central banks are tightening monetary policy to restrain demand and thereby bring down inflation. The necessary outcome, then, is a shortfall in economic activity. For the U.K. the structural frictions from Brexit exacerbate the issue and the Bank of England, like our U.K. team, expect the labor force itself to remain inert. Consequently, after the recession, even when growth resumes, we expect the level of GDP to be about one and a half percent below the pre-COVID trend at the end of 2023. For the Bank of England, we are looking for the bank rate to rise to 4%, below market expectations. The shift in the fiscal stance tipped the balance for our U.K. economist Bruna Skarica. She revised her call for the next meeting down to 75 basis points from 100 basis points. And so while the next meeting may be a close call, in the bigger picture we think there will be less tightening than markets are pricing in because of the tighter fiscal outlook. 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.

The Biden administration recently imposed new trade restrictions on exports to China, but what sectors will be impacted and will we continue to see more policy pressure from the U.S. to China?----- 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 U.S. public policy and financial markets. It's Tuesday, October 25th, at 10 a.m. in New York. On October 7th, the Biden administration announced another round of controls on the export of advanced computing and semiconductor equipment to China. The stated goal is to protect U.S. national security and foreign policy interests by limiting China's ability to develop cutting edge chip and computing technology. This news drove volatility in equity markets in China recently, but we think it shouldn't come as a surprise to investors. In fact, we argue that investors should expect the U.S. to continue pressing forward with trade restrictions on China. It's all part of our slowbalization and multipolar world frameworks. In short, as China's economy grows into a legit challenger to U.S. hegemony, U.S. policy has changed to protect its economic and military advantages. Export controls are one of those policies springing from a law passed in 2018, one of the few pieces of legislation that received bipartisan support during the Trump administration. And this law gives broad authority to the executive branch to decide what's in scope for export restrictions. So as the competition between the U.S. and China grows and new technologies over time become old technologies, expect export controls and other non-tariff barriers to spread across multiple industries. Other policy barriers could arise, too. As we've stated in prior podcasts, we still see scope for Congress to create an outbound investment control function for the White House. All in all, the net result is a managed delinking of the U.S. and China economies in some key sectors. For investors, the read through is clear; the policy pressure from the U.S. and China is unlikely to abate any time soon. The bad news from this? It means new costs to fund the supply chains that will have to be built, a particular challenge for tech hardware companies globally. The good news? This isn't a hard decoupling of the U.S. and China. Slowly but surely, these measures set up new rules of engagement and coexistence for the U.S. and China economies, meaning the worst outcomes for the global economy are likely to be avoided. 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 equities enjoy their best week since the summer highs in June, investors seem at the mercy of powerful market trends, so when might these trends take a turn to the downside?----- 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, October 24th, at 11:30 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. Last week, we made a tactically bullish call for U.S. equities, and stocks did not disappoint us. The S&P 500 had its best week since June 24th, which was the beginning of the big summer rally. As a reminder, this is a tactical call based almost purely on technicals rather than fundamentals, which remain unsupportive of higher equity prices over the next 3 to 6 months. Furthermore, the price action of the markets has become more technical than normal, and investors are forced to do things they don't want to, both on the upside and the downside. Witness September, which resulted in the worst month for U.S. equities since the COVID lockdowns in March of 2020. The same price action can happen now on the upside, and one needs to respect that in the near term, in our view. As noted last week, the 200 week moving average is a powerful technical support level for stocks, particularly in the absence of an outright recession, which we don't have yet. While some may argue a recession is inevitable over the next 6 to 12 months, the market will not price it, in our view, until it's definitive. The typical signal required for that can only come from the jobs market. While nonfarm payrolls is a lagging indicator that gets revised later, the equity market tends to be focused on it. More specifically, it usually takes a negative payroll reading for the market to fully price a recession. Today, that number is a positive 265,000, and it's unlikely we get a negative payroll number in the next month or two. Of course, we also appreciate the fact that if one waits for such data to arrive, the opportunity to trade it will be missed. The question is one of timing. In the absence of hard data from either companies cutting guidance significantly for 2023 or unemployment claims spiking, the door is left open for a tactical trade higher before reality sets in. Finally, as we begin the transition from fire to ice, falling inflation expectations could lead to a period of falling interest rates that may be interpreted by the equity market as bullish, until the reality of what that means for earnings is fully revealed. Given the strong technical support just below current levels, the S&P 500 can continue to rally toward 4000 or 4150 in the absence of capitulation from companies on 2023 earnings guidance. Conversely, should interest rates remain sticky at current levels, all bets are off on how far this equity rally can go beyond current prices. As a result, we stay tactically bullish as we enter the meat of what is likely to be a sloppy earnings season. We just don't have the confidence that there will be enough capitulation on 2023 earnings to take 2023 earnings per share forecasts down in the manner that it takes stocks to new lows. Instead, our base case is, that happens in either December when holiday demand fails to materialize or during fourth quarter earnings season in January and February, when companies are forced to discuss their outlooks for 2023 decisively. In the meantime, enjoy the rally. 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.

The U.K.’s economy continues to face a host of challenges, including high inflation and a weak currency, and while these problems are not insurmountable, they may weigh significantly on the economic outlook.----- 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, October 21st at 2 p.m. in London. The eyes of the financial world remain on the United Kingdom, the world's 6th largest economy that is facing a complicated, interwoven set of challenges. We talked about the U.K. several weeks ago on this program, but I wanted to revisit it. It's a fascinating cross-asset story. First, among these challenges is inflation. High U.K. Inflation is partly due to global factors like commodity prices, but even excluding food and energy core inflation is about 6.5%. And since the U.K. runs a large current account deficit, importing much more than it exports, a weak currency is driving even higher costs through all those imported items. Meanwhile, Brexit continues to reduce the supply of labor and increase the costs of trade, further boosting inflation and reducing the benefit that a weaker currency would otherwise bring. The circularity here is unmissable; high inflation is driving currency weakness and vice versa. High inflation has depressed U.K. real interest rates, making the currency less attractive to hold. And high inflation relative to other countries undermines valuations. On an inflation adjusted basis, also known as purchasing power parity, the British pound hasn't fallen that much more than, say, the Swiss franc over the last year. If inflation is high, why doesn't the Bank of England simply raise rates to slow its pace? The bank is moving, but the Bank of England has raised rates by less than the market expected in 6 of the last 8 meetings. The Bank of England's hesitation is understandable, most UK mortgage debt is only fixed for 2 to 5 years, which means that roughly $100,000 loans are resetting every month. The impact is that higher rates can flow through into the economy unusually fast, much faster than, say, in the United States. Another way to slow inflation will be through tighter fiscal policy. But here we've seen some rather volatile recent political headlines. The U.K. government initially proposed a plan to loosen fiscal policy, but following a volatile market reaction has now changed course and reversed a number of those proposals. It still remains to be seen exactly what policy the U.K. government will settle on and what response the markets will have. The UK's problems are not insurmountable, but for now they remain significant. Our U.K. interest rate strategists think that expectations for 5 year inflation can move higher, along with yields. While our foreign exchange strategists are forecasting a lower British pound against the dollar. The one bright spot for the U.K. might be its credit market. Yielding over 7%, U.K. investment grade credit actually represents issuers from all over the world, including the United States. While less liquid than some other markets, we think it looks increasingly attractive as a combination of stability and yield amidst an uncertain environment. 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 European earnings have been remarkably resilient this year, and consensus estimates for earnings and corporate margins remain high, there may be reason to believe there’s further yet to fall. ----- 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 outlook for European earnings for the upcoming third quarter reporting season and beyond. It's Thursday, October the 20th, at 2 p.m. in London. Having been cautious on European equities for much of this year, we have recently started to flag the potential for more two-way price action in the near-term, reflecting a backdrop of low investor positioning, coupled with the potential for an inflection in U.S. inflation and interest rates over the next few months. To be clear, we haven't seen either of these two events occur yet, however we are conscious that each week that passes ultimately takes us closer to just such an outcome. Given that high inflation and rising interest rates have been the key drivers pushing equity valuations lower this year, any sign that these two metrics are peaking out would suggest that we are approaching a potential floor for equity PE ratios. However, while this is good news to a degree, history suggests that we need to be closer to a bottom in the economic and earnings cycle before equity markets put in their final price low. So far this year, European earnings have stood out for their remarkable resilience, with the region enjoying double digit upgrades on the back of currency weakness and a doubling of profitability for the energy sector. Looking into the third quarter reporting season, we expect this resilience to persist for a bit longer yet. Currency effects are arguably even more supportive this quarter than last, and the global and domestic economies have yet to show a more material slowdown that would be associated with recessionary conditions. Our own third quarter preview survey also points to a solid quarter ahead, with Morgan Stanley analysts expecting 50% of sectors to beat consensus expectations this quarter versus just 13% that could miss. Longer term, however, this same survey paints a more gloomy picture on the profit outlook, with our analysts saying downside risks to 2023 consensus forecasts across 70% of European sectors and upside risks in just 3; banks, insurance and utilities. In the history of this survey, we have never seen expectations this low before, nor such a divergence between the short term and longer term outlooks. From our own strategy perspective, we remain cautious on European earnings and note that most, if not all of our models are predicting a meaningful drop in profits next year. Specifically, consensus earnings look very optimistic in the context of Morgan Stanley GDP forecasts, current commodity prices, dividend futures and the latest readings from the economic indicators we look at, such as the purchasing managers indices. In addition to a likely top line slowdown associated with an economic recession, we see significant risks around corporate margins, too. Over the last 12 to 18 months, inflation has positively contributed to company profitability, as strong pricing power has allowed rising input costs to be passed on to customers. However, as demand weakens, this pricing power should wane, leaving companies squeezed between rising input costs and slowing output prices. In this vein, our own margin lead indicator suggests that next year could see the largest fall in European margins since the global financial crisis. However, consensus estimates assume that 16 out of 20 European sectors will actually see their margins expand next year. Our concern around overly optimistic earnings and margin assumptions next year is shared by many investors we speak to. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that all of the bad news is already in the price. Analyzing prior profit cycles suggests that equity markets tend to bottom 1 to 2 months before earnings revisions trough, and that it takes about 7 to 8 months for provisions to reach their final low. If history repeats itself in this cycle, this would point to a final equity low sometime in the first quarter of 2023, even if price to earnings ratios bottom 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.

As the EU puts new regulations on sustainability funds, how will categorization of these funds be impacted, and how might that change investment strategies? Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research Michael Zezas and Head of Fixed Income and ESG Research Carolyn Campbell discuss.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research. Carolyn Campbell: And I'm Carolyn Campbell, I lead our Fixed Income and ESG Research Team. Michael Zezas: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll focus on sustainability funds and their investment strategies within an evolving regulatory context. It's Wednesday, October 19th, at 10 a.m. in New York. Michael Zezas: There are just over 1400 dedicated fixed income sustainability funds with assets under management, around $475 billion off from a peak of $545 billion at the end of 2021. This is a sizable market, but as EU regulators weigh in on what these funds can and can't own, it begs the question what kinds of bonds might they start buying? So Carolyn, let's maybe start with the essentials behind the EU Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation, SFDR, and what it requires of financial market participants. Specifically, what are Article 8 and Article 9 products? Carolyn Campbell: So under the SFDR, fund managers are required to classify their funds in one of three ways. The first, Article 8, or what's known as a light green fund, is a sustainability fund that promotes environmental or social characteristics. The dark green funds, which are Article 9 funds, invest in sustainable investments and have an environmental or a social factor as an objective. They also, importantly, cannot do significant harm to other environmental or social objectives. And then lastly, we have the non sustainability funds which are Article 6. Michael Zezas: And despite the regulator's goal to increase transparency and accountability, there's still a high degree of uncertainty in the regulatory landscape around what can and should be included in sustainability funds. What does this uncertainty mean for the types of products that are currently being included in these funds, and how might that change in the future? Carolyn Campbell: So by and large, the regulatory uncertainty has meant that funds are more likely to take a conservative approach when constructing their holdings for fear of regulatory repercussions or just reputational risk. In particular, where investors need to have a "sustainable investment" that does not do significant harm to other environmental objectives, which is what we have in Article 9, we expect to see them gravitate increasingly towards high quality green bonds. And as a reminder, green bonds are different from regular bonds because the net proceeds of those bonds goes towards green projects. Think of it as retrofitting buildings to be more environmentally friendly, investing in climate change adaptation solutions, or building out clean transportation infrastructure. Green bonds fit pretty neatly into these Article 9 funds because they're demonstrably sustainable investments. And since you know where the proceeds are going, it's less likely that they're violating that last part, the ‘do no significant harm’. So some of the Article 9 funds are full green bond funds. But the ones that are not actually only hold around an average of 10% of their fund in green bonds or other types of ESG label bonds like social or sustainability bonds. And we see similar figures in the Article 8 funds as well. So we expect that green bonds of higher quality, meaning that they're aligned with the more rigorous EU green bond standard that report on impact have limited amounts of proceeds going towards refinancing, have limited look back periods etc.. Those stand to benefit from an increased appetite from these sustainability funds for the best types of green bonds. Michael Zezas: Carolyn, you've noted that most ESG funds currently favor low emission sectors, particularly financials. What about sectors that were previously maligned by ESG funds, the so-called high emitting or hard to abate sectors? What is the rate of change approach that might benefit these sectors? Carolyn Campbell: So the SFDR is structured in a way to favor the low emitting sectors because they have to report on the principal adverse impacts and because they can't do significant harm. But what we're increasingly hearing is an appetite to invest directly in the transition. So allocating funds to the higher emitting companies, but those that have viable decarbonization plans and for which an improvement on different ESG metrics may drive better financial performance. When we look to the fund holdings of the fixed income sustainability funds, we see that they're currently underweight these sectors despite some real opportunity from the transition. As ESG has evolved

As U.S. Public Debt continues to break records, should investors be concerned by the amount debt has risen? Or are there other, more influential factors at play?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Macro Strategy. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about how macro investors may want to view rising U.S. public debt. It's Tuesday, October 18th, at 10 a.m. in New York. U.S. public debt made breaking news headlines this month by rising above $31 trillion for the first time. In a decade, it's projected to hit $45 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office or CBO. By the time new hires today are ready to retire, U.S. debt to GDP could be at 185%. The CBO argues that high and rising debt could increase the likelihood of a fiscal crisis, because investors might lose confidence in the U.S. government's ability to service and repay its debt. They also believe that it could lead to higher inflation expectations, erode confidence in the U.S. dollar as a reserve currency, and constrain policymakers from using deficits in a countercyclical way. The government debt load in Japan has stood as a notable counterpoint to concerns of this nature for decades. With gross debt a whopping 263% of GDP, and no fiscal crisis that has occurred or appears to be on the horizon, Japan's situation should mitigate some of the CBO's concerns. Still, the amount of debt matters, especially to those invested in it. As both the level of debt and interest rates rise further, net interest income for U.S. households may contribute more to total income over time. Nevertheless, the level of government debt vis a vis the size of the economy and its contribution to societal income, are not the most pressing issues. The problem with debt has always been predicting the price at which it gets bought and the value it provides investors. The current size of the debt at $31 trillion is just a distraction. This staggering number fundamentally diverts attention from what matters most here. So what does matter the most here? First, the speed at which the debt accumulates. Second, the risk characteristics of the debt that investors will buy. Third, the price at which investors will buy it and the value it provides at that price. And fourth, the major drivers of the yields in the marketplace for it. The amount of debt, the Federal Reserve's retreat from buying it, and foreign investors' waning appetite have left some analysts and investors wondering who will buy at all. The relevant question for macro investors, however, is not who will buy the securities, but at what price. The marginal buyer or seller moves prices, not the largest. Consider that at least 3.5% of outstanding U.S. Treasuries change hands every single day. That's an open invitation for many investors, including those who use leverage, to move prices. So what determines the level of Treasury yields over time? In the end, the most important factor, at least over the past 30 years, has been the Fed's interest rate policy and forward guidance around it. So, bottom line, macro investors should pay more attention to the Fed and the economic data that the Fed care most about than the overall amount of government debt investors will need to purchase or which investors will do the buying. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show.

Last week's September inflation data brought a subsequent rally in stocks, but can this rally hold while the bond market continues to follow the Fed?----- 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, October 17th, at 1 p.m. in New York. So, let's get after it.No rest for the weary as days feel like weeks and weeks feel like months in terms of price action in the financial markets. While there's always a lot going on and worth analyzing, it's fair to say last week was always going to be about the September inflation data one way or another.From our vantage point, inflation has peaked. While 8% is hardly a rate the Fed can live with, the seeds have been sown for lower prices in many goods and services. Housing is at a standstill, commodity prices have fallen substantially since April, and inventory is starting to balloon at many companies at a time when demand is falling. That means discounting should be pervasive this holiday shopping season. Finally, the comparisons get much more challenging next year, which should bring the rate of change on inflation down substantially on a year-over-year basis.At the end of last year, the bond market may have looked to be the most mispriced market in the world. That underpricing of inflation and rates was a direct result of Fed guidance. Recall that last December the Fed was suggesting they would only hike 50 basis points in 2022. More surprisingly, the bond market bought it and ten-year yields closed out the year at just 1.5%. Fast forward to today and we think the bond market is likely making the same mistake but on the other side.We think inflation is peaking, as I mentioned, and we think it falls sharply next year. Shouldn't the rates market begin to ignore Fed guidance and discount that? We can't be sure, but if rates do fall under that premise, it will give legs to the rally in stocks that began last Thursday. As we have been noting in our last few podcasts, the downside destination of earnings-per-share forecasts for next year is becoming more clear, but the path remains very uncertain. More specifically, we're becoming skeptical this quarter will bring enough earnings capitulation from companies on next year's numbers for the final price lows of this bear market to happen now. Instead, we think it may be the fourth quarter reporting season that brings the formal 2023 guidance disappointment.So how far can this rally in stocks run? We think 4000 on the S&P 500 is a good guess and we would not rule out another attempt to retake the 200-day moving average, which is about 4150. While that seems like an awfully big move, it would be in line with bear market rallies this year and prior ones. The other factor we have to respect is the technicals. As noted two weeks ago, the 200-week moving average is a formidable level for the S&P 500 that's hard to take out without a fight. In fact, it usually takes a full-blown recession, which we do not yet have.Bottom line, we think a tradable bear market rally has begun last Thursday. However, we also believe the 200-week moving average will eventually give way, like it typically does when earnings forecasts fall by 20%+. The final price lows for this bear are likely to be closer to 3000-3200 when companies capitulate and guide 2023 forecasts lower during the fourth quarter earnings season that's in January and February. 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.

When investing in overseas markets, 'hedging' one's investment not only offers potential protection from the fluctuations of the local currency but potentially may also lead to higher returns.----- 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, October 14th, at 2 p.m. in London.How much is the Japanese stock market down this year? That seems like a pretty basic question and yet, it isn't. If you're a Japan-based investor who thinks about the world in Japanese yen, the market has dropped about 6% year-to-date, a pretty mild decline, all things considered. But if you're a U.S. investor, who thinks about the world in U.S. dollars, the market has fallen 26%.That's a big difference, and it's entirely linked to the fact that when investing overseas, your return is a function of both the changes in that foreign market and the changes in its currency's value versus your own. When a U.S. investor buys Japanese equities, the actual transaction will look something like this. The investor sells their dollars for yen and then uses those yen to buy Japanese stocks. When the investor eventually goes to sell their investment, they need to reverse those steps, selling yen and buying the dollars back. This means that the investor is ultimately exposed to fluctuations in the value of the yen.Given this, there's an increased focus on investing overseas but removing the impact of currency fluctuations, that is, 'hedging' the foreign exchange exposure. There are a few reasons that this can be an attractive strategy for U.S. based investors.First, it reduces a two-variable problem to a one-variable problem. We reckon that most stock market investors are more comfortable with stocks than they are with currencies. An unhedged investment, as we just discussed, involves both, while a hedged investment will more closely track just the local stock market return, the thing the investor likely has a stronger opinion on.Second, our deep dive into the historical impact of currency hedging shows encouraging results, with hedging improving both returns and diversification for U.S. investors when investing overseas. Historically, this has been true for stocks, but also for overseas bonds.Third, investors don't always need to pay extra to hedge. Indeed, hedging can provide extra yield. The general principle is that if you sit in a country with a higher interest rate than the country you're investing in, the hedge should pay you roughly the interest rate difference. One-year interest rates in the U.S. are about 4.5% higher than one-year rates in Japan. Buying Japanese stocks and removing the fluctuations of the yen will pay an investor an extra 4.5% for their trouble, give or take.So why is that? The explanation requires a little detour into foreign exchange pricing and the theory behind it.Foreign exchange markets price with the assumption that everything is in balance. So, if one country has higher one-year interest rates than another, its currency is assumed to lose value over the next year. So, if we think about the investor in our example, they still take their U.S. dollars, exchange them for yen and buy the Japanese equity market. But what they'll also do is go into the foreign exchange market where the dollar is expected to be 4.5% cheaper in one year's time and buy that foreign exchange forward, and 'hedge' the dollar at that weaker level. That means when they go to unwind their position in a year's time, sell their yen and buy dollars, they get to buy the dollar at that favorable lower locked-in exchange rate.Hedging comes with risks. If the US dollar declined sharply, investors may wish that they had more exposure to other currencies through their foreign holdings. But given wide interest rate differentials, volatile foreign exchange markets and the fact that the goal of most U.S. portfolios is to deliver the highest possible return in dollars, investing with hedging can ultimately be an attractive avenue to explore when looking for diversification overseas.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.

Increasing ESG pervasiveness has led to increasing confusion, in particular around how investors might apply these criteria to the utility sector. Head of Sustainability Research and Clean Energy Stephen Byrd and Equity Analyst for the Power and Utilities Industry Dave Arcaro discuss. ----- Transcript -----Stephen Byrd Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Sustainability Research and Clean Energy.Dave Arcaro And I'm Dave Arcaro, Equity Analyst for the Power and Utilities Industry.Stephen Byrd And on this special episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing a new framework for investors to approach ESG analysis within the utility space. It's Thursday, October 13th, at noon in New York.Stephen Byrd Our listeners are no doubt well aware that ESG criteria—that is environmental, social and governance criteria—have become an increasingly important part of the investment process. This growth has been spurred by a continual search for better long term financial returns, as well as a conscious pursuit of better alignment with values. Yet despite ESG's seeming pervasiveness within the financial ecosystem, there's been a genuine confusion and even controversy among investors about how to apply ESG metrics to the utility sector in particular. And so, in an effort to bring clarity to this key market debate, today we're going to share an innovative framework designed to drive both Alpha, which is the returns aspect, and impact, which is the societal benefit. So Dave, let's start with the problem. What causes this investor confusion and how does the new ESG framework address this problem?Dave Arcaro There are a few sources of confusion or debate that we're hearing from investors. The first seems to be centered on the lack of a clear distinction between ESG criteria that are likely to have a direct impact on stock performance, and then those that are more focused on achieving the maximum positive impact on ESG goals. Secondly, there is too much focus directly on carbon emissions, and there isn't enough focus on the social and governance criteria in the utility space. These can also have an impact on stocks and on key utility constituents, things like lobbying, operations, customer relationships. The new ESG framework that we've introduced here addresses these issues. It expands the environmental assessment, incorporates specific social and governance criteria that are most relevant for utilities, like customer and lobbying metrics, and it adds a new perspective. For each of these metrics, we assess which ones truly have an impact on alpha generation and which ones have the largest purely societal impact.Stephen Byrd And stepping back, Dave, we've seen that the utility sector is arguably the best positioned among the carbon heavy sectors in terms of its ESG potential. Can you walk us through that thought?Dave Arcaro Utilities are in a unique position because they can often create an outcome in which everybody wins when it comes to decarbonizing. This is because when utilities shut down coal and replace it with renewables, it often has three benefits; carbon emissions decline, customer bills are reduced because renewables have gotten so cheap and the utility also grows its earnings. So, it's a strong incentive for utilities to set ambitious plans to decarbonize their fleets.Stephen Byrd Now Dave, typically, when considering the E, that is environmental criteria, ESG analysis tends to focus solely or primarily at least on carbon dioxide. Is this a fair approach or should investors be considering other factors?Dave Arcaro We think other factors should come into play here, and we recommend investors consider the rate of change in carbon emissions, the CO2 intensity of the fleet, risks from climate change, and also impacts on biodiversity. Some of these are more readily available than others, but we think the environmental assessment should expand beyond a simple look at carbon emissions.Dave Arcaro So, Stephen, I want to turn it to you. The E part of ESG is always drawing attention when investors talk about utilities. But so far it seems that there's been little focus on the S, social, and G, governance, criteria when assessing U.S. utilities. What are some of the key areas that investors should concentrate on?Stephen Byrd The utility sector really is one of the most heavily regulated sectors, so both social and governance factors can impact the success of the utility business and drive stock performance as well. The short list of metrics that we found to have a clear linkage to share price performance would be one, corporate spending on lobbying activities, especially through 501c4 entities. Two, operational excellence, which for utilities really reflects safety and reliability. Three, risk of customer defection due to high bills and worsening grid reliability. And four, impacts to low-income communities. So, we use these metrics to round out a holistic ESG assessment of the i

As consumption of goods slows post COVID, companies are experiencing a build up in inventory that could have far reaching implications. Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research Michael Zezas and U.S. Equity Strategist Michelle Weaver discuss.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research. Michelle Weaver: And I'm Michelle Weaver from the U.S. Equity Strategy Team. Michael Zezas: And on this special episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll focus on what we see as an inventory problem with far reaching implications. It's Wednesday, October 12th, at 10 a.m. in New York. Michael Zezas: Michelle, can you start by taking us through some of the background on how we ended up with this problem of companies carrying high inventories, which could pressure them to discount prices leading to weaker earnings. Michelle Weaver: I'm sure listeners remember the COVID lockdowns when many of us overspent on a number of goods, especially things like furniture, tech products and leisure equipment. But now, with the recovery from COVID and supply chain bottlenecks easing, we're seeing a new challenge, inventory build coupled with slowing demand. Throughout 2022, we've been dealing with really high inflation, rising interest rates and declining consumer confidence. And while consumer confidence has rebounded from the all time lows that we saw this summer, it remains weak and we think consumers are still going to pare back spending in the face of macro concerns. We think inventory is one of the key problems that will weigh on S&P 500 earnings, and supports our negative call on earnings for the market. Michael Zezas: And how broad based is this problem? Which industries are most at risk? Michelle Weaver: This is a pretty broad problem for publicly traded companies. Inventory to sales for the median U.S. company have been on the rise since the financial crisis and are now at the highest level since 1990. And it's especially a problem for consumer staples, tech and industrials companies. We also looked at the difference between growth rates for inventory and sales. For the S&P 500 overall, there's an 8% mismatch between inventory growth and sales growth, meaning the median company is growing their inventory 8% faster than their growing sales. The median company within goods producing industries has a whopping 19% mismatch between inventory and sales growth. Consumer retailers face some of the biggest risks from these problems, and companies there are already seeing inventory pile up. They have already turned to discounting to try and move out some of this excess inventory. This is also a big problem for tech hardware companies, consumer markets and PCs have been the first to see excess inventory given how much overconsumption these goods saw during COVID. And the tech hardware team is expecting this to broaden out and start causing issues for enterprise hardware. Michael Zezas: And are there any beneficiaries from the current inventory situation? And if so, what drives the advantage for them? Michelle Weaver: Machinery is one industry where inventories remain tight and they're still seeing really strong demand. Inventories across machinery are still in line or below their longer term averages and there's especially big problems in agriculture equipment. Off price retailers who sell their excess inventory from other brands are another area that are expected to benefit from excess inventories. Michael Zezas: And Michelle, how do you expect companies to deal with the glut of inventory they're facing and how will this impact them in the final quarter of this year and into next year? Michelle Weaver: It's likely going to take several quarters for inventory to normalize, but it really varies by industry and we expect inventory to remain an issue for the market into 2023. Faced with a glut of inventory, companies are going to need to decide whether they want to accept high costs to keep holding inventory, destroy inventory, try and keep prices high and take a hit on the number of units sold, or slash prices to stimulate demand. And we think many are going to turn to aggressive discounting to solve their inventory issue. This could spark a race to the bottom as retailers try and cut prices faster than peers and move out as much inventory as possible. And this dynamic will weigh heavily on margins and fuel the earnings slowdown we are predicting. Michael Zezas: Well, Michelle, thanks for taking the time to talk. Michelle Weaver: Great speaking with you, Mike. Michael Zezas: As a reminder, 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 find the show.

All over the world elections are taking place that will have profound effects on both local and global economies, so where are policy moves being made and how might investors use these moves to anticipate economic shifts? ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Global Chief Economist for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about political economy and how elections have consequences. It's Tuesday, October 11th, at 8 a.m. in New York. Economics is a relatively new field, born in 1776 after the publication of Adam Smith's 'Wealth of Nations'. But until the 1900s, everyone called it political economy. Politics and economics are still hard to separate. Fiscal policy is only sometimes the result of economic events, but almost always a driver of economic outcomes. And because of its power, uncertainty about policy can be a drag all by itself. Brazil has a second round ballot on October 30th between the incumbent Bolsonaro and former President Lula. Both candidates are likely to change or scrap an existing fiscal rule that caps government spending, but most observers think that Lula is likely to have a looser fiscal stance of the two. And so while our LatAm team questions not whether fiscal deficits will increase, but by how much, last week's congressional elections could lead to a split government which is taken to mean a smaller size of any deficit widening. So our LatAm team is pointing to a different risk that a possible President Lula, and he currently leads in most polls, that there might be an unwinding of recent reforms for state owned enterprises, the public sector and labor markets that were meant to enhance Brazil's competitiveness. As is often the case, politics here is more about the medium term than the immediate. In the U.K., it wasn't exactly the same thing. The newly appointed UK Prime Minister, Liz Truss, announced an ambitious fiscal package, including an energy price freeze and the biggest set of tax cuts since the 1970s. The echo to 1980s supply side economics was plain in terms of politics. In terms of economics, boosting productivity might allow more growth and lower inflation at a time where the opposite of each is at hand. But in a country with a 95% debt to GDP ratio and following on fiscal expansion that drove inflation through demand, the lack of details on how to pay for the tax cuts and the energy subsidies elicited a sharp, immediate market reaction. The gilt curve sold off sharply, and the pound reached an all time low of 103 against the dollar. The Bank of England intervened, buying gilts to contain volatility and to lower rates. And in the wake of that turmoil, Chancellor Kwarteng scrapped the tax cuts for the top bracket but kept the rest, leaving about £43 billion a year of additional cost. The outcome now seems to be a faster pace of hiking by the bank and an awareness that the U.K. will not have the fiscal space needed to avoid a recession. Barring unorthodox moves like scrapping the remuneration of bank reserves at the Bank of England, the Chancellor is going to need to find 30 to £40 billion in spending cuts to stabilize the debt to GDP ratio over the next five years. In Italy, elections brought a center right populist coalition led by Giorgia Meloni to a majority in both the lower house and the Senate. The Coalition's stated policy goals are expansionary. More social spending and labor tax cuts are top priorities, along with increasing pension benefits. Our economists estimate that the proposed measures would increase the deficit by roughly 2 to 4 percentage points of GDP, boosting the debt to GDP ratio next year. Such policies will prove difficult during a time of rising interest rates and heightened market scrutiny about debt dynamics. So, Maloney recently expressed her willingness to respect the EU budget rules, but reconciling that view with the policy priorities is going to be a challenge. Our main concern is less a repeat of the U.K. experience, but rather medium term debt sustainability. So let me finish up back home. For the U.S. midterm elections polls have been shifting but most point to at least one house of the Congress changing hands, thus a split government. Our base case from my colleague Mike Zezas as a result is gridlock, but divided governments do not always lead to such benign outcomes. I was a Treasury official during a government shutdown. It was not fun. And in fact, following the 2010 midterms, divided government led to a debt ceiling standoff, government shutdown, and ultimately contractionary policy in the form of the Budget Control Act. Such an outcome is easily conceivable after this midterm election, and with inflation high, even with weak growth, we could easily see another installment of contractionary policy. With growth only expected to be barely positive, that's a real risk. Policy always matters. Thanks for li

Last week stocks rallied quickly but dropped just as fast as markets continue to hope for a more dovish Fed, but will this 2-way risk continue as evidence for a drop in earnings continues to accumulate?----- 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, October 10th, at 1:30 p.m. in New York. So let's get after it. Last week started with one of the biggest 2 day rallies in history, only to give most of it back by Friday's close. The culprit for this higher 2-way volatility is a combination of deteriorating fundamentals with oversold technicals. As noted last week, September was one of the worst months in what's been a difficult year, and the equity market was primed for a rally, especially with the S&P 500 closing right at its 200 week moving average on the prior Friday. Low quality stocks led the rally as further evidence the rebound was just bear market action rather than the beginning of a new bull. There is also still lingering hope for a Fed pivot, but the economic data that matters the most for such a pivot, jobs and inflation, continue to dash any hopes for a more dovish Fed. The sellout of momentum and retail, to some degree, does keep 2-way risk alive in the short term as it gets quiet for the next few weeks on the earnings front. Over the past month, there has been evidence that our call for lower earnings next year is coming to fruition. Large, important companies across a wide swath of industries have either reported or preannounced earnings and guided significantly lower for the fourth quarter. Some of these misses were as much as 30%, which is exactly what's needed for next year's estimates to finally take the step function lower, we think is necessary for the bear market to be over. The question is, will enough of this happen during third quarter earnings season, or will we need to wait for fourth quarter reporting in January and February when companies tend to formally guide for the next year? We think the evidence is already there and should be strong enough for this quarter for bottoms up consensus estimates have finally come down to reality, but we just don't know for sure. Therefore, over the next two weeks, stocks could continue to exhibit 2-way risk and defend that 200 week moving average at around 3600. One interesting development that supports our less optimistic view on 2023 earnings is in the dividend futures market. More specifically, we've noticed that dividend futures have traded materially lower, even as forward earnings per share forecasts have remained sticky to the upside. One reason this might be happening now is that cash flows are weakening. This is tied to the lower quality earnings per share we predicted earlier this year as companies struggled with the timing and costs versus revenues as the economy fully reopened. Things like inventory, labor costs and other latent expenses are wreaking havoc on cash flow. Accrual accounting earnings per share will likely follow 6 to 12 months later. In short, it's just another sign that our materially lower than consensus earnings per share forecasts next year are likely to be correct. If anything, we are now leaning more toward our bear case on S&P 500 earnings per share for next year, which is $190. The consensus is at $238. Bottom line, the valuation compression in equity markets this year is due to interest rates rising rather than concern about growth. This is evidenced by the very low equity risk premium, currently 260 basis points, that we still observe. The bear market will not be over until either earnings per share forecasts are more in line with our view, or the valuation better reflects the risk via the equity risk premium channel. Bear markets are about price and time, price takes your money, time takes your patience. Let the market wear everybody else out. When nobody is calling for the bottom, you will then know it's finally time to step in. 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. 

While China’s policy objectives strive for common prosperity, the country’s strict COVID management poses risks to employment and income, so when might Chinese policymakers start to reopen and recover?----- 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 focusing on the expected reopening of China's economy. It's Friday, October 7th, at 8:30 a.m. in Hong Kong. When my colleagues and I discuss Asia's growth outlook with investors, one of the top questions we get is, when will China reopen and what the roadmap will look like. We believe a reopening will happen not because the rest of the world is now living with COVID, but because the effects of China's strict COVID management are now increasingly at odds with its policy objective of achieving common prosperity. The challenges of a sharp rise in youth unemployment and significantly lower income growth, especially for the low income segments of the population, have become more pronounced this year ever since the onset of Omicron. To put this in context, the youth unemployment rate is at 19% and our wage growth proxy has decelerated from around 9% pre-COVID, to just about 2.2% year on year. These issues are further exacerbated by the intensifying spillover effects from weaker exports and a continued drag from property sector. Over the next five quarters, growth in developed markets will likely remain below 2% year on year. The continued shift in DM consumer spending towards services will mean global goods demand will deflate further. And as exports weaken, manufacturing CapEx will also follow suit, which will further weigh on employment creation. As for the property market, the pace of resolution of funding issues and uncompleted projects are still relatively sluggish. With the outlook for the drivers of GDP growth weakening, we think the only meaningful policy lever is a shift in COVID management aimed at reopening, reviving consumption and allowing services sector activity to lift aggregate demand towards a sustainable recovery. As things stand, several steps are necessary for a smooth reopening. They are, number one, renewed campaign to lift booster vaccination rates, especially amongst the elderly population. Number two, shaping the public perception on COVID. And number three, ensuring adequate medical facilities, equipment and treatment methods in the next 3 to 6 months. We therefore anticipate that policymakers will, in the spring of 2023, with the peak COVID and flu season behind us, be able to proceed with a broader reopening plan. Of course, we think that reopening in China will be gradual, as policymakers will remain mindful of the potential burden on the health care system. Against this backdrop, we see the recovery strengthening from second quarter of 2023 onwards. In the next two quarters, we estimate GDP growth will be subpar at around 3%. But as China reopens from the spring of 2023, we expect GDP growth will strengthen to 5.5% in the second half of the 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. 

As month over month data begins to show a downturn in home prices, will overall price growth and sales begin to fall steeper than expected? Co-Heads of U.S. 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 why home prices could turn negative in 2023. It's Thursday, October 6th, at 3 p.m. in New York. Jay Bacow: Jim, it seems like every month the housing data is getting worse when we look at the sales activity. But, now I think I just saw something about home prices falling? What's going on there? I thought we call it home price appreciation, now we're seeing home price depreciation? Jim Egan: There is a lot going on out there. There's a lot of volatility, things are moving fast, and yes, there are home price indices that are showing negative numbers. I would caveat that a lot of those negative numbers are month over month, not the year over year that we've typically talked about here. But that doesn't mean it isn't important. Jay Bacow: In the past we've talked about this bifurcation narrative where we were going to get a big drop in home sales and housing starts, which we've seen, but home prices were more protected. Do you still believe that? Jim Egan: We do still believe in the bifurcation narrative, but the levels of the forecasts have changed, and they've changed for a couple of reasons. I think one reason is that there have been a number of forecast changes, expectations for 2023 are different. Our U.S. economics team has raised their hiking forecast 25 basis points in each of the next three meetings, and our interest rate team on the back of that forecast change has moved up their expectations for the 10 year Treasury. What that move means for us is that the incredible affordability deterioration that we've seen, probably isn't going to get a whole lot better next year. And that's happening in a world in which you mentioned some home prices turning negative. The home price deceleration that we were calling for, from plus 20% all the way down to plus 3% at the end of next year, that relied upon or I can say we expected home prices to fall month over month, but we thought that was going to start in September. It started in July. Sales volumes have been coming in weaker than we thought they would. When we take that weaker than expected housing data, we marry that with different expectations for affordability next year, the forecasts have to change. Jay Bacow: And so what exactly are we forecasting for this year and next year? Jim Egan: So in this world, we do think that sales are going to fall steeper than we thought. We think that starts are going to fall steeper than we thought, and that next year a single unit starts are going to be lower in 2023 than they were in 2022. We had originally been forecasting a return to growth in 2023, but the change to the forecast that's getting the most attention is that we went from plus 3% year over year growth in December of 2023 to -3% year over year growth by the end of next year. Jay Bacow: So if I buy a house today, it might be lower a year from now? That seems worrisome. Jim Egan: Yes. And I think there is a positive and a negative headline to that, right. The negative headline, the worrisome, if you will, that you mentioned is that not only is it down 3% next year, but that's down 7% from where we are right now. The positive headline is that even with that decrease in home prices from today, that only brings us back to January of 2022. That's 32% above where they were in March of 2020. Jay Bacow: All right, that doesn't seem so bad, given that stocks are a lot lower than where they were in January of 2022. So it's more stalling out than a real correction in home prices. But, why wouldn't home prices fall further from there? Jim Egan: We haven't seen anything in the data that changes kind of the underlying narrative that we've been discussing on this podcast in the past. In particular, two things. The first is how robust credit standards have been. If anything, lending standards, which were pretty tight to begin with in the first quarter of 2020, have tightened substantially since then. What that means, again, it constrains sales volumes. We think sales are going to fall more than home prices, but it also means that the likelihood of defaults and foreclosures is limited. And it is those distressed transactions, those forced sellers that we would need to see a leg down in prices. The other point is, away from defaults and foreclosures, actual inventory is still incredibly low. And because current homeowners sit on 30 year fixed rate mortgages, well below the current mortgage rate, when

As globalization slows and companies begin to nearshore their supply chains, investors may be wondering what the costs and benefits are of bringing manufacturing back home.Important note regarding economic sanctions. This research references country/ies which are generally the subject of comprehensive or selective sanctions programs administered or enforced by the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), the European Union and/or by other countries and multi-national bodies. Any references in this report to entities, debt or equity instruments, projects or persons that may be covered by such sanctions are strictly informational, and should not be read as recommending or advising as to any investment activities in relation to such entities, instruments or projects. Users of this report are solely responsible for ensuring that their investment activities in relation to any sanctioned country/ies are carried out in compliance with applicable sanctions.----- Transcript -----Welcome the 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 U.S. public policy and financial markets. It's Wednesday, October 5th, at 10 a.m. in New York. We speak often here about the themes of slowing globalization, or slowbalization, and the shift to a multipolar world. It's important to understand these megatrends, as they will likely impact global commerce for decades to come and in many ways we cannot yet anticipate. But one impact we have anticipated is multinational companies spending money to shift their supply chains. Whereas globalization meant companies could focus on lowering their labor and transportation costs through 'just in time' logistics, 'just in case' logistics are the watchword of the multipolar world. Companies will have to invest money to nearshore or friend shore to protect their supply chains from seizing up due to geopolitical conflicts, be it war, such as Russia invading Ukraine leading to sanctions, or the proliferation of policies by Western governments, preventing companies from producing and/or sourcing sensitive technologies overseas. Now, we're increasingly seeing evidence that this dynamic is already at play. Take Apple, for example, which, according to the Wall Street Journal, recently released a supplier list showing that in September of 2021, 48 of its suppliers had manufacturing sites in the U.S., up from 25 just a year before. The article goes on to cite several semiconductor chip makers who have recently opened US based sites. One company recently agreed to invest as much as $100 billion in a semiconductor manufacturing facility in upstate New York. Another announced plans to invest $20 billion for chip factories in Ohio. So it's clear that companies are starting to respond to geopolitical incentives. The long term public policy benefits of these moves could prove to be quite sound, but in the short term they're a challenge to markets. These investments cost money and represent elevated costs relative to what these companies would have enjoyed had the geopolitical environment not become more challenging. That means investors have to price in yet another margin pressure on top of the ones our colleague Mike Wilson continues to highlight in U.S. equities, from labor costs and the fed hiking rates to engineer slower economic growth. So bottom line for investors, shifting to a new geopolitical world order may be necessary, but it will cost something along the way. And for the moment, that means extra pressure on a U.S. equity market that's already got its fair share. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show. 

With investors becoming pervasively bearish on stocks and bonds in the face of a worsening growth outlook, can the U.S. investment grade credit market provide shelter from the storm?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Global Director of Fixed Income Research. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll share why corporate credit markets may be a sheltering opportunity amid current turbulence. It's Tuesday, October 4th, at 11 a.m. in New York. At a September meeting, the Federal Open Market Committee delivered a third consecutive 75 basis point rate hike, just as consensus had expected. The markets took this to mean a higher peak and a longer hiking cycle, resulting in sharp spikes in bond yields and a sell off in equities. At the moment, both 2 and 10 year Treasury yields stand at decade highs, thanks to pervasively bearish sentiment among investors across both stocks and bonds. As regular listeners may have heard on this podcast, Morgan Stanley's Chief Global Economist, Seth Carpenter, has said that the worst of the global slowdown is still likely ahead. And our Chief U.S. Equity Strategist, Mike Wilson, recently revised down his earnings expectations for U.S. equities. Navigating this choppy waters is a challenge in both risk free and risky assets due to duration risk in the former, and growth or earnings risks in the latter. Against this backdrop, we think the U.S. investment grade corporate bonds, IG, particularly at the front end of the curve, which is to say 1 to 5 year segment, could provide a safer alternative with lower downside for investors looking for income, especially on the back of much higher yields. But investors may wonder, wont credit fundamentals deteriorate if economy slows, or worse, enters the recession and company earnings decline. Here is where the starting point matters. After inching higher in Q1, median investment grade leverage improved modestly in the second quarter and is well below its post-COVID peak in the second quarter of 2020. Gross leverage is roughly in line with pre-COVID levels. Notably, while median leverage is back to pre-COVID levels, the percentage of debt in the leverage tail has declined meaningfully. But if earnings were to decline, as our equity strategists expect, leverage ratios may pick back up. That said, interest coverage is the offsetting consideration. Given the amount of debt that investment grade companies have raised at very low coupons over the years, their ability to cover interest has been a bright spot for some time. Despite sharply higher rates, median interest coverage improved in the second quarter and is around the highest levels since early 1990. This modest improvement in interest coverage comes down to the fact that even though yields on new debt are higher than the average of all outstanding debt, the bonds that are maturing have relatively high coupons. Therefore, most companies have not had to refinance at substantially higher funding levels. In fact, absolute dollar level of interest expense paid out by IG companies actually declined in the quarter and is now well below the peaks of 2021. With limited near-term financing needs, higher rates are unlikely to dent these very healthy interest coverage ratios. The combination of strong in-place investment grade fundamentals, relatively low duration for the 1 to 5 year segment and yields at decade highs, suggests that this part of the credit market offers a relatively safe haven to weather the storms that are coming for the markets. History provides some validation as well. Looking back to the stagflationary periods of 1970s and 80's, while we saw multiple decisions and volatility in equity markets, IG credit was relatively stable with very modest defaults. And while history doesn't repeat, it does sometimes rhyme, so we look to the relative safety of IG credit once again in the current environment. 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 rates and currency markets experiencing increasing volatility, the state of global U.S. dollar supply has begun to force central bank moves, leaving the question of when and how the Fed may react up for debate.----- 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, October 3rd, at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. The month of September followed its typical seasonal pattern as the worst month of the year, and given how bad this year has been, I don't say that lightly. But as bad as stocks have been, rates and currency markets have been even more volatile. With volatility this severe, some of the cavalry has been called in. The Bank of England's surprise move last week was arguably necessary to protect against a sharp fall in U.K. bonds. Some may argue the U.K. is in a unique situation, and so this doesn't portend other central banks doing the same thing. However, this is how it starts. In other words, investors can't be as adamant the Fed will choose or be able to follow through on its tough talk. Like it or not, the world is still dependent on U.S. dollars, which provide the oxygen for global economies and markets. Former U.S. Treasury Secretary John Connolly's famous quote that "the dollar is our currency, but it's your problem" continues to ring true. It's also one of the primary reasons why several countries have been working so hard to de-dollarise over the past decade. The U.S. dollar is very important for the direction of global financial markets, and this is why we track the growth of global dollar supply so closely. In fact, the primary reason for our mid-cycle transition call in March of 2021 was our observation that U.S. dollar money supply growth had peaked. Indeed, this is exactly when the most speculative assets in the marketplace peaked and began to suffer. Things like cryptocurrencies, SPACs, recent IPOs and profitless growth stocks trading at excessive valuations. Now we find global U.S. dollar money supply growth negative on a year over year basis, a level where financial and economic accidents have occurred historically. In many ways, that's exactly what happened in the U.K. bond market last week, forcing the Bank of England's hand. There are many reasons why a U.S. dollar liquidity is so tight; central banks raising rates and shrinking balance sheets, higher oil prices and inflation in many goods bought and sold in dollars, incremental regulatory tightening and lower velocity of money in the real economy as activity dries up in critical areas like housing. In short, U.S. dollar supply is tight for many reasons beyond Fed policy, but only the Fed can print the dollars necessary to fix the problem quickly. We looked at the four largest economies in the world, the U.S., China, the Eurozone and Japan, to gauge how much U.S. dollar liquidity is tightening. More specifically, money supply in U.S. dollars for the Big Four is down approximately $4 trillion from the peak in March. As already mentioned, the year over year growth rate is now in negative territory for the first time since March of 2015, a period that immediately preceded a global manufacturing recession. In our view, such tightness is unsustainable because it will lead to intolerable economic and financial stress, and the problem can be fixed very easily by the Fed if it so chooses. The first question to ask is, when does the U.S. dollar become a U.S. problem? Nobody knows, but more price action of the kind we've been experiencing should eventually get the Fed to back off. The second question to ask is, will slowing or ending quantitative tightening be enough? Or will the Fed need to restart quantitative easing? In our opinion, the answer may be the latter if one is looking for stocks to rebound sustainably. Which leads us to the final point of this podcast - a Fed pivot is likely at some point given the trajectory of global U.S. dollar money supply. However, the timing is uncertain and won't change the downward trajectory of earnings, our primary concern for stocks at this point. Bottom line, in the absence of a Fed pivot, risk assets are likely headed lower. Conversely, a Fed pivot, or the anticipation of one, can still lead to sharp rallies like we are experiencing this morning. Just keep in mind that the light at the end of the tunnel you might see if that happens, is actually the train of the oncoming earnings recession that even the Fed can't stop. 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.

Amidst increased volatility across credit, equity and FX markets, many investors this week are wondering, what is the path ahead for Fed intervention? Chief Cross Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets, Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter and Head of Thematic and Public Policy Research Michael Zezas discuss.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts in the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley. Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter. Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. Michael Zezas: And I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research. Andrew Sheets: And on this special edition of the podcast, we'll be talking about intervention, inflation and what's ahead for markets. It's Friday, September 30th at 9 a.m. in San Francisco. Michael Zezas: So, Andrew, Seth, we've been on the road all week seeing clients and that's come amidst some very unusual moves in the markets and interventions by a couple of central banks. Andrew, can you put in a context for us what's happened and maybe why it's happened? Andrew Sheets: Thanks, Mike. So I think you have the intersection of three pretty interesting stories that have been happening over the last couple of weeks. The first, and probably most important, is that core inflation in the U.S. remains higher than the Federal Reserve would like, which has kept Fed policy hawkish, which has kept the dollar strong and U.S. yields moving higher. Now, one of the currencies that the dollar has been strongest against is the Japanese yen, which has fallen sharply in value this year. Now we saw Japan finally intervene into the currency markets to a limited extent to try to support the yen but that support was short lived and we saw the dollar continue to strengthen. The other story that we saw occurred in the U.K., a country we discussed on this podcast recently about some of its unique economic challenges. The U.K. has also seen a weak currency against the dollar. But in addition to that, because of the market's reaction to recent fiscal policy proposals, we saw a very large rise in U.K. bond yields, which caused market dislocations and pushed the Bank of England to intervene in bond markets in a way that drove some of the largest moves in U.K. interest rates, really in recorded history. So a lot's been going on, Mike, it's been a very busy couple of weeks, but it's a story at its core about inflation leading to intervention, but ultimately not really changing a core backdrop of higher U.S. yields and a stronger U.S. dollar. Seth Carpenter: I completely agree with you on that, Andrew. And I think it brings up some of the questions that you and I have got in our client meetings this week, which is, 'where can this end?' Any trend that's not sustainable won't last forever, as the saying goes. So what would cause sort of an end to the dollar's run? And I think a natural place to look is, what would cause the Fed to stop hiking? I think the first thing that's worth strongly emphasizing is, from the Fed's perspective, a narrow monetary policy mandate, the rising dollar is actually a good thing. A stronger dollar means lower imported inflation. A stronger dollar means less demand for U.S. exports from the rest of the world. The Fed is fighting inflation by hiking interest rates, trying to slow the economy and thereby reduce inflationary pressures. Right now, this run in the dollar is doing their job for them. Michael Zezas: I would add to that that we've been getting a lot of questions about, 'when would the Fed or the Treasury see this weakness and want to intervene on behalf of markets?' And I think the answer is it's unlikely to happen anytime soon. And there's really kind of two reasons for that. One, doing so would contradict the Fed and the Treasury's own stated goals of fighting inflation right now. I think there are heavy political and policy incentives that haven't changed that support that being the policy direction for those institutions. And then the second is, even if you intervened right now, our FX research team has pointed out it's probably unlikely to work. At the moment, there aren't a tremendous amount of FX reserves in the system with which to intervene. And so any intervention would probably deliver short term results. So long story short, if the intervention is against your goals and wouldn't likely work anyway, it's probably not going to happen. So, Andrew, I think this kind of brings the conversation back around to you. If there really isn't going to be any net change in the Federal Reserve's stance towards monetary policy, then what should investors expect going forward? Andrew Sheets: So at the risk of sounding simplistic, if we're not going to see a change in policy response from the Fed, then we shouldn't expect a major change in market dynamics. Core inflation remains higher than we think the Fed is comfortable with. That will keep pressure on the Fed to

Asia and EM equities are on the verge of the longest bear market in their history, so what is the likelihood that a sharp fall in prices follows soon after?----- 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 discussing the ongoing bear market in Asia and Emerging Market equities. It's Thursday, September the 29th at 8 a.m. in Singapore. We have repeatedly emphasized that patience may be rewarded during what will likely, by the end of this month, become the longest bear market in the history of Asia and Emerging Market equities. Indeed, we argued that the August Jackson Hole speech by Fed Chair Powell, and the mid-September upside surprise in U.S. CPI inflation likely accelerated a downward move towards our bear case targets near term. And in recent weeks, the MSCI Emerging Markets Index has indeed given back almost all of the gains it had recorded from the COVID recession lows. To our mind, this raises the likelihood that a classic capitulation trough, a sudden sharp fall in prices and high trading volumes, could be forming in a matter of weeks. Now, all cycles are not made alike, and this one is unusual in a number of key regards. Most notably, the dislocations in the supply side of the global economy caused by COVID and geopolitics. Moreover, China is not easing policy to the same extent as helped generate troughs in late 2008 and early 2016. Thus, caution is warranted in drawing too firm a set of conclusions from relationships that have held in the past. That said, by the end of this month, the current bear market will likely become the longest in the history of the asset class, overtaking in days duration that triggered by the dot com bust in the early 2000's. And after a more than 35% drawdown, the MSCI Emerging Markets Index is now trading close to prior trough valuations at only 10x price to consensus forward earnings. Our experience covering all previous bear markets back to 1997/1998 suggests to us ten sets of indicators to monitor. We've recently undertaken an exercise to score each indicator from 1, which equates to a trough indicator not enforced at all to 5, which indicates a compelling trough indicator already in place. Currently, the sum of the scores across the factors is 32 out of a maximum of 50, which we view as suggesting that a trough is approaching but not yet fully conclusive at this stage. In our view, the U.S. dollar, which continues to rise, including after the most recent FOMC meeting, gives the least sign of an impending trough in EM equities. Whilst the underperformance of the Korean equity market and the semiconductor sector, the recent sharp fall in oil price and the fall in the oil price relative to the gold price give the strongest signs. In this regard, we would note that within our coverage we recently downgraded the energy sector to neutral, upgrading defensive sectors, including telecoms and utilities. We intend to update the evolution of these indicators as appropriate as we attempt to help clients move through the trough of this unusually long Asia and Emerging Markets equity bear market. 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.

As the Fed continues to increase their peak rate of interest, the path for a soft landing narrows, so what deflationary indicators need to show up in the real economy to take the pressure off of policy tightening?----- 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 the narrowing path for a soft landing for the U.S. economy. It's Wednesday, September 28, at 10 a.m. in New York. Last week, we revised our outlook to reflect the expectation that the Fed will take its policy rate to a higher peak between 4.5% to 4.75% by early next year. And that's 75 basis points additional tightening than what we had envisioned previously. Tighter policy should push the real economy further below potential and substantially slow job gains. And while higher interest rates are needed to create that additional slack in the economy, this dynamic raises the risk of recession. There's still a path to a soft landing here, but it seems clear to us that path has narrowed. Now beyond directly interest sensitive sectors such as housing and durable goods, we've seen little evidence that the real economy is responding to the Fed's policy tightening. Just think about how strong monthly job gains remain in the range of 300,000. So in the absence of a broader slowdown, and facing persistent core inflation pressures such as a worrisome acceleration in rental prices, the Fed is on track to continue tightening at a faster pace than we had originally anticipated. Looking to the November meeting, we expect the Fed to hike rates by 75 basis points, and then begin to step down the pace of those rate hikes to 50 basis points in December and 25 basis points in January. We then expect the Fed to stay on hold until the first 25 basis point rate cut in December 2023. While inflation has remained stubborn, the growth environment has softened, and the lagged effect of monetary policy on economic activity points to further slowing ahead. So in response to substantially more drag from higher interest rates, we've lowered our 2023 growth forecast to just 0.5%. We then think a mild recovery sets in in the second half of 2023, but growth remains well below potential all year. In our forecast, weakness in economic activity will be spread more broadly, and monetary policy acts with a 2 to 3 quarter lag on interest rate sensitive sectors such as durable goods. So the sharper slowdown we envision in 2023 predominantly reflects a downshift in consumption growth. Business investment also tends to respond with a lag and will become a negative for growth in the first half of 2023. With growth falling more rapidly below potential, the labor market is on track to follow suit. We now see job gains bottoming at 55,000 per month by the middle of 2023. Lower job growth in combination with a rising participation rate, lifts the unemployment rate further to 4.4% by the end of next year. Inflation pressures have still not turned decisively lower, in particular because of rising shelter costs. High frequency measures point to eventual deceleration, though it should be gradual, even as the labor market loosens on below potential growth. We see core PCE inflation at 4.6% on a year over year basis in the fourth quarter of this year, and slow to 3.1% year over year in the fourth quarter of next year. So inflation is a good deal lower by the end of next year, but that's still too high to allow for rate cuts much before the end of 2023. Turning to risks, we think the risk to the outlook and monetary policy path now skew to the downside and a policy mistake is coming into focus. At the Fed's current pace of tightening uncertainty as to how the economy will respond a few months down the line is high. The labor market tends to be slow moving, but we and frankly monetary policymakers have no experience with interest rate changes of this magnitude. And activity could come to a halt faster than expected. Essentially, the higher the peak rate of interest the Fed aims for, the greater the risk of recession. We are already moving through sustained below potential GDP growth. We now need to see job gains slow materially over the next few months to ease the pressure on the pace of policy tightening. 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 the global oil market has seen a decrease in demand, supply issues are still prevalent, leaving investors to question where oil prices are headed next.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley's Global Commodity Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss the current state of the global oil market. It's Tuesday, September 27th, at 2 p.m. in London. U.S. consumers have no doubt noticed and appreciated a welcome relief from the recent pain at the gas pump. Up until last week, U.S. gas prices had been sinking every day for more than three months, marking the second longest such streak on record going back to 2005. This gas price plunge in the U.S. was driven in part by the unprecedented releases of emergency oil by the White House. But what else is happening globally on the macro level? Looking at the telltale signs in the oil markets, they tell a clear story that physical tightness has waned. Spot prices have fallen, forward curves have flattened, physical differentials have come in and refining margins have weakened. A growth slowdown in all main economic blocks has pointed to weaker oil demand for some time, and this is now also visible in oil specific data. China has been a particularly important contributor to this. However, prices have also corrected substantially by now. Adjusted for inflation, Brent crude oil is back below its 15 year average price. In this context, the current price is not particularly high. Also, the Brent futures curve has in fact flattened to such an extent that current time spreads would have historically corresponded with much higher inventories expressed in days of demand. That means, in short, that the market structure is already discounting a significant inventory built and/or a large demand decline. Then there is still meaningful uncertainty over what will happen to oil supply from Russia once the EU import embargo kicks in later this year for crude oil, and early next year for oil products. The EU still imports about three and a half million barrels a day of oil from Russia. Redirecting such a large volume to other buyers, and then redirecting other oil back to Europe is possible over time, but probably not without significant disruption for an extended period. For a while, we suspect that this will lead to a net loss of oil supply to the markets in the order of one and a half million barrels a day. To attract enough other oil to Europe, European oil prices will need to stay elevated. The relative price of oil in Europe is Brent crude oil. Elsewhere, there are supply issues too. We started off the year forecasting nearly a million barrels a day of oil production growth from the United States. But so far this year, actual growth in the first six months of the year has just been half that level. We still assume some back end loaded growth later this year, but have lowered our forecast already several times. Then Nigerian oil production has deteriorated much faster than expected, currently at the lowest level since the early 1970s. Kazakhstan exports via the CBC terminal are hampered, OPEC's spare capacity has fallen to just over 1%, and the rig count recovery in the Middle East remains surprisingly anemic. The long term structural outlook for the oil market still remains one of tightness, but for now this is overshadowed by cyclical demand challenges. As long as macroeconomic conditions remain so weak, oil prices will probably continue to linger on. However, that should not be taken as a sign that the structural issues in the oil market around investment and capacity are solved. As we all know, after recession comes recovery. Once demand picks up, the structural issues will likely reassert themselves. We have lowered our near-term oil price forecast, but still see a firmer market at some point in 2023 again. 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 last week’s Fed meeting and another rate hike, both stocks and bonds dropped back to June lows. The question is, will this turn to the downside continue to accelerate?----- 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, September 26, at 11 a.m. in New York. So let's get after it. Last week's Fed meeting gave us the 75 basis point hike most investors were expecting, and similar messaging to what we heard at Jackson Hole a month ago. In short, the Fed means business with inflation and is willing to do whatever it takes to combat it. So why was there such a dramatic reaction in the bond and stock markets? Were investors still hoping the Fed would make a dovish pivot? Whatever the reason, both stocks and bonds are right back to their June lows, with many bellwether stocks and treasuries even lower. As we wrote a few weeks ago, we think investor hopes for a Fed pivot were misplaced, and Chair Powell has now made that crystal clear. Secondly, we noted last week that the only remaining hope for stocks would be if the bond market rallied at the back end on the view that the Fed was finally ahead of the curve and would win its fight against inflation, while slowing the economy materially. Instead, interest rates spiked higher, squelching any hopes for stocks. While 15.6x price earnings ratio is back to the June lows, that P/E still embeds what we think is a mispriced equity risk premium given the risk to earnings. Said another way, with a Fed pivot now off the table, the path on bond and equity prices will come down to growth - economic growth for bonds and earnings growth for stocks. On both counts we are pessimistic, particularly on the latter as supported by our recent cuts to earnings forecasts. We have been discussing these forecasts with clients for the past several weeks and while most are in agreement that consensus 2023 earnings estimates are too high, there is still a debate on how much. Suffice it to say, we are at the low end of client expectations. Interestingly, recent economic data have kept the economic soft landing view alive, and interest rates have moved above our rates team's year end forecast. From an equity market standpoint, that means no relief for valuations as earnings come down. This is a major reason why stocks sank to their June lows on Friday. Ultimately, we do think economic surprise data will likely disappoint again, but until it does there is no end in sight for the rise in 10 year yields, especially with the run off of the Fed's balance sheet increasing. As such, our rates team has raised its year end target for 10 year Treasury yields to 4% from 3.5%. This is a very tough backdrop for stocks and epitomizes our fire and ice thesis to a T. In other words, rising cost of capital and lower liquidity in the face of slower earnings growth or even outright declines. Finally, the Fed's historically hawkish action has led to record strength in the U.S. dollar. On a year over year basis the dollar is now up 21% and still rising. Based on our analysis that every 1% change in the dollar has a .5% impact on S&P 500 earnings growth, fourth quarter S&P 500 earnings will face an approximate 10% headwind to growth all else equal. This is in addition to the other challenges we've been discussing for months, like the pay back in demand and higher cost from inflation to name a few. Bottom line Part 2 of our Fire and ice thesis is now on full display, with rates and the U.S. dollar ratcheting higher, just as the negative revisions for earnings appear set to accelerate to the downside. In our view, the bear market in stocks will not be over until the S&P 500 reaches the range of our base and bear targets, i.e. 3000 to 3400 later this fall. 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.

After another Fed meeting and another historically high rate hike, it’s clear that the Fed is committed to fighting inflation, but how and when will the real economy see the effects? 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 Research. Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. Andrew Sheets:] And on this special edition of the podcast, we'll be talking about the global economy and the challenges that central banks face. It's Friday, September 23rd at 2 p.m. in New York. Andrew Sheets: So, Seth, it's great to talk to you. It's great to talk to you face to face, in person, we're both sitting here in New York and we're sitting here on a week where there was an enormous amount of focus on the challenges that central banks are facing, particularly the Federal Reserve. So I think that's a good place to start. When you think about the predicament that the Federal Reserve is in, how would you describe it? Seth Carpenter: I think the Federal Reserve is in a such a challenging situation because they have inflation that they know, that everyone knows, is just simply too high. So they're trying to orchestrate what what is sometimes called a soft landing, that is slowing the economy enough so that the inflationary pressures go away, but not so much that the economy starts to contract and we lose millions of jobs. That's a tricky proposition. Andrew Sheets: So we had a Federal Reserve meeting this week where the Fed raised its target interest rate by 75 basis points, a relatively large move by the standards of the last 20 years. What did you take away from that meeting? And as you think about that from kind of a bigger picture perspective, what's the Fed trying to communicate? Seth Carpenter: So the Federal Reserve is clear, they are committed to tightening policy in order to get inflation under control, and the way they will do that is by slowing the economy. That said, every quarter they also provide their own projections for how the economy is likely to evolve over the next several years, and this set of projections go all the way out to 2025. So, a very long term view. And one thing I took away from that was they are willing to be patient with inflation coming down if they can manage to get it down without causing a recession. And what do I mean by patient? In their forecasts, it's still all the way out in 2025 that inflation is just a little bit above their 2% target. So they're not trying to get inflation down this year. They're not trying to get inflation down next year. They're not trying to get inflation down even over a two year period, it's quite a long, protracted process that they have in mind. Andrew Sheets: One question that's coming up a lot in our meetings with investors is, what's the lag between the Fed raising interest rates today and when that interest rate rise really hits the economy? Because, you are dealing with a somewhat unique situation that the American consumer, to an unusual extent, has most of their debt in a 30 year fixed rate mortgage or some sort of less interest rate sensitive vehicle relative to history. And so if a larger share of American debt is in these fixed rate mortgages, what the Fed does today might take longer to work its way through the economy. So how do you think about that and maybe how do you think the Fed thinks about that issue? Seth Carpenter: It's not going to be immediate. In round terms, if you take data for the past 35 years and come up with averages, you know, probably take something like two or three quarters for monetary policy to start to affect the real side of the economy. And then another two or three quarters after that for the slowing in the real side of the economy to start to affect inflation. So, quite a long period of time. Even more complicated is the fact that markets, as you know as well as anyone, start to anticipate central bank. So it's not really from when the central bank changes its policy tools when markets start to build in the tightening. So that gives them a little bit of a head start. So right now, the Fed just pushed its policy rate up to just over 3%, but markets have been pricing in some hiking for some time. So I would say we're already feeling some of the slowing of the real side of the economy from the markets having priced in policy, but there's still a lot more to come. Where is it showing up? You mentioned housing. Mortgage rates have gone up, home prices have appreciated over the past several years, and as a result we have seen new home sales, existing home sales both turnover and start to fall down. So we are starting to see some of it. How much more we see and how deep it goes, I think remains to be seen. Andrew Sheets: So Seth, another issue that investors

With high returns in mind, investors may be looking to get in on the ground floor with the next ambitious and disruptive technology, but how are these ‘moonshots’ identified and which ones could make a near-term impact? Head of Thematic Research in Europe Ed Stanley and Head of the Global Autos and Shared Mobility Team Adam Jonas discuss.----- Transcript -----Ed Stanley: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ed Stanley, Morgan Stanley's Head of Thematic Research based in London. Adam Jonas: And I'm Adam Jonas, Head of the Global Autos and Shared Mobility Team. Ed Stanley: And on this special episode of the podcast, we'll be discussing the bold potential of moonshot technologies, and particularly in the face of deepening global recession fears. It's Thursday, the 22nd of September, at 4 p.m. in London. Adam Jonas: And 11 a.m. in New York. Adam Jonas: Let me start with an eye popping number. Since 2000, 1% of companies have generated roughly 40% of shareholder returns by developing moonshots, that is ambitious and radical solutions to seemingly insurmountable problems using disruptive technology. So here at Morgan Stanley Research, we naturally spend a lot of time wondering what are the potential moonshots of the next decade? What's the next light bulb, airplane, satellite, internet? What technologies are developing literally as I record this that we'll be focused on in 2032? So Ed, I know you really want to dig into the specifics of some of the sectors that are touched on in the Moonshot Technologies report you wrote, but first can you maybe explain the framework for identifying these moonshots? Ed Stanley: So this is a totally different horizon and way of thinking to what most investors are used to. Typically, when looking for investable themes or technologies in public markets, we focus on those that are at or have surpassed a 20% adoption rate, those essentially with the wind at their back already. But clearly, with moonshots, we're looking much, much earlier, but with a much greater risk reward skew. There are a number of potentially groundbreaking technologies out there incubating right now. The next iPhone moment is out there, is being developed, and it should be all of our job to sniff out what, when and where that pivotal product will come from. But the question we've received is how do you whittle that funnel of potential technologies down? So we come at it from first principles. Academic research, either by individuals, governments or companies, tends to be the genesis for most groundbreaking ideas. This then feeds patenting, or in other words R&D, for small and big companies alike to build a moat around that research they pioneered. And then venture capital comes in to support some of those speculative innovations, but importantly, only those that have product market fit, which is what we focus on. Adam Jonas: So Ed, why do you think now is such an interesting time to be thinking about moonshots, given such a challenging macro backdrop? Ed Stanley: It's a great question. So if you take a step back, there are always reasons to be concerned in the markets. But moments of peak anxiety in hindsight tend to be the moments of peak opportunity. I'll steal an overused cliche, necessity is the mother of invention. We're more likely to see breakthroughs in energy technology, for example, at the moment, at the point of peak acute pain than five years ago when there was no real impetus. This is exactly why some of the most innovative companies are born during or just after recession or inflationary periods. In fact, if you look at the stats, one third of Fortune 500 companies were born in the handful of recessionary years over the last century. So macro may be getting worse, but we remain pretty committed to uncovering long term, game changing themes and investments. Adam Jonas: Can you give us a summary of the output and to which moonshots really stood out to you as having the potential for profound change over the medium term? Ed Stanley: Sure. So there are clearly some that are not only profound but frankly unfathomable in terms of their potential impacts. Things like life extension, a startup developing artificial general intelligence, also known as a singularity, and Web3 remains a fascinating sandbox of crypto and blockchain experiments. So there's a wealth of fascinating moonshots in there, but I'd focus on two that have more prescient implications for investors near-term. First is pre-fab housing. It's nothing new as a concept. It's essentially the process of bringing construction into the factory to increase efficiency. But we're now moving from 2D assemblies of walls and roof panels to the real moonshot, which is 3D assembly of the entire house, pre-made, and that is now happening. These pre-built whole houses can be 40 to 50% cheaper and quicker, and so coming back to your question around why now? Moonshots like this have little momentum in good yea

Though the Fed continues to raise interest rates, inflation is still high year over year, so why haven’t rate hikes begun to bring inflation down yet?----- 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 U.S. public policy and financial markets. It's Wednesday, September 21st at 10 a.m. in New York. The Fed continues to hike interest rates, but inflation is still running hot in the U.S. as demonstrated by last week's 8.3% year over year growth in the Consumer Price Index. When and how the Fed will eventually succeed in dampening inflation is an important consideration for markets, but investors should also focus on another question. Why hasn't fed hiking worked to bring down inflation yet? Well, there's a strong case to be made that the U.S. economy is less sensitive to changes in interest rates today than it has been in the past. In total, about 90% of all household debt today is fixed rate, meaning that as the Fed hikes rates and market rates rise, consumers’ debts don't cost them more to service. If they did, then rising interest rates would dampen economic growth by dampening aggregate demand. Those higher rates would in theory crimp consumption, as households direct less of their money toward buying goods and services and more toward paying their debts. That, in turn, would ease inflation. Understanding this dynamic is important for investors in a few ways. Take the housing market, for example. After the housing crisis that touched off the global financial crisis in 2008 and 2009, adjustable rate mortgages only now make up a small fraction of all mortgages. Sure, higher mortgage rates means buying a new home is effectively more expensive, but with so many more mortgages in the U.S. carrying a fixed rate and issued to individuals with higher credit scores, the cost of owning a home to current owners hasn't changed. That means there's little incentive for homeowners to sell and or reduce the asking price for their home. Hence, our housing strategists expect home sales to decline meaningfully, but you may not see a lot of price deterioration in the aggregate. The bond market is another place we see this dynamic on display. Our interest rate strategy team expects you'll see the yield curve continue to flatten and invert, with shorter maturity yields rising faster than longer ones. Why? Because shorter maturities typically track the Fed funds rate, which the Fed has clearly stated will continue going higher until there's clear evidence of inflation deceleration, which could take longer given the economy's lessened sensitivity to rising rates. For bond investors, the bottom line is you should consider something that historically has been pretty unusual - longer maturities might perform better even as rates go higher. 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.