Thoughts on the Market

Our Deputy Global Head of Research Michael Zezas and Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore assess the potential market outcomes of the Middle East conflict, weighing its possible duration and economic impact.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Deputy Global Head of Research. Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research. Michael Zezas: Today we're discussing the escalating U.S.-Iran conflict, the market reaction, and what investors should be watching for next. It's Wednesday, March 4th at 7:30am in San Francisco. Ariana Salvatore: And 10:30am in New York. Michael Zezas: So, Ariana, I'm in San Francisco at Morgan Stanley's TMT Conference, but obviously events in the Middle East have captured everyone's attention. There's uncertainty around the conflict and really important questions about how it affects all of us. And of course, markets have to discount all sorts of future uncertainty about very specific impacts – to financial asset prices, to commodity prices – and really look at it through that narrow lens.And so, Ariana, the administration has suggested that this conflict and this campaign could last a few weeks. But also it said it could continue as long as it takes. So, what are the clearest signals investors should watch for to gauge duration? Ariana Salvatore: For now, we're focused on three main indicators. First, I would say, and most important, is clarity around the objectives. The president and others in the administration have referenced things like eliminating Iran's missile arsenal, its navy and limiting proxy activity. Those goals are broader than the earlier focus on just the nuclear programs. Each objective, of course, implies a different timeline. A narrower objective likely means a shorter engagement. Broader ambitions, conversely, would extend it. So that's the first thing. Second, obviously extremely important is traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. We'd viewed a full closure as unlikely, given the economic consequences for Iran itself. But tanker flows have at least temporarily fallen close to zero, and that's significant because production across the region has not been impaired. This is not about oil fields going offline. It's about whether or not oil can actually move. If shipping lanes normalize within weeks, markets can recalibrate. However, if flows remain materially curtailed beyond five weeks, the risks rise meaningfully. Third, the frequency of strikes and proxy activity. Sustained or escalating engagement would suggest a longer conflict. Signs of diplomacy, on the other hand, might indicate de-escalation. Michael Zezas: Right. So, let's build on that and talk about oil. And our colleague, Martijn Rats has really laid this out with a lot of different scenarios. But what we're seeing right now is that when it comes to oil, this is really a shock to the transport of it, not necessarily a shock to its production. So, oil supply exists. The question is really – can it be delivered or not? So, if tanker flows normalize and the geopolitical risk premium fades, what Martijn is saying is that global oil prices could move back towards $60 to $65 a barrel. If the logistical disruption lasts four to five weeks, then prices maybe trade in the $75 to $80 range. And if disruption extends beyond five weeks and flows are materially constrained, then you could see a situation where oil prices have to rise towards $120 or $130 a barrel. And at that level, demand destruction is what becomes the balancing mechanism in setting price for oil. So, one signal to watch is longer dated oil prices. Early month contracts can spike during geopolitical stress, but a sustained move materially above $80 to $85 [per] barrel would likely require longer dated prices to move higher as well. And that might signal that markets believe the disruption is persistent and not temporary. Ariana, what about natural gas here? How does gas situation fit into the energy story? Ariana Salvatore: As of this recording, Qatar has halted liquified natural gas production putting roughly 20 percent of global supply at risk. Prices have, as you might expect, risen sharply, which likely reflects expectations of a relatively short disruption. If exports were to resume quickly, prices could retrace. But, of course, if the outage lasts longer, prices could move meaningfully higher. Again, duration of the conflict is really critical here. Michael Zezas: So, let's bring this back to the U.S. Ariana, how does this conflict feed into the domestic, political and economic backdrop? Ariana Salvatore: When we're thinking about the midterm elections later this year, the way we see it, the clearest transmission channel is gasoline prices. Polling shows a majority of

Our Hong Kong/China Transportation & Infrastructure Analyst Qianlei Fan discusses how China’s travel industry is shifting from a post-pandemic rebound to a multi-year expansion.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Qianlei Fan, Morgan Stanley’s Hong Kong / China Transportation Analyst. Today, I'll share my thoughts on why travel is quickly emerging as one of [the] key drivers of China's economic rebalancing.It’s Tuesday, March the 3rd, at 2pm in Hong Kong. I've just gotten back from my Lunar New Year trip to mainland China. With the longest Chinese New Year break in history, people were out roaming, exploring, laughing, and the whole country felt like it was buzzing with people on a mission to enjoy every minute. According to the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, total domestic tourism spending recorded a robust 19 percent year-on-year growth during the holiday. In fact, China’s tourism industry isn’t just rebounding after the pandemic. It’s entering a structurally stronger phase, supported by policy tailwinds, demographic shifts, and a clear pivot toward experience-driven consumption. By 2030, tourism revenue could reach RMB 12 trillion – equal to roughly USD $1.7 trillion – implying 11 percent annual growth from the mid-2020s. Over the next five years, cumulative domestic and inbound revenue may approach RMB 50 trillion, or USD $7.2 trillion. That scale makes travel more than a cyclical recovery – it’s becoming a core pillar of China’s consumption-led growth. We expect tourism’s share of GDP to rise to about 6.7 percent by 2030, up from 4.8 percent in 2024.Domestic travel remains the backbone.  People aren’t just traveling again; they’re traveling more than before. Policy is reinforcing demand. Extended public holidays, new school breaks, and event-driven tourism are boosting activity. In 2025 alone, around 3,000 large-scale performances attracted more than 43 million attendees. And spending reflects that shift. Domestic tourism spending reached RMB 6.3 trillion in 2025, about 11 percent above pre-COVID levels. Even with slightly lower spend per trip, more frequent travel is lifting overall revenue.International travel is emerging as a second growth engine. By 2030, inbound travel could represent 16 percent of total tourism revenue. In late 2025, inbound visitor growth in major cities was up about 30–50 percent year-over-year, supported by expanded visa-free access, which now accounts for the majority of foreign arrivals. These visitors often stay longer and spend more. Outbound travel is strengthening too. International air traffic grew 22 percent in 2025, far outpacing domestic growth, and now contributes a meaningful share of airline revenue. Demographics and technology are reinforcing the trend. Younger consumers prioritize travel, while older households – with substantial savings – are beginning to spend more as services improve. At the same time, smart hotels, virtual reality attractions, and data-driven operations are enhancing engagement and willingness to pay. This isn’t just pent-up demand. It’s policy, demographics, technology, and supply aligning at once. – with travel at the center of China’s consumption story.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Chief Fixed Income Strategist Vishy Tirupattur and U.S. Head of Credit Strategy Vishwas Patkar discuss the implications of private credit’s exposure to the software industry.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Vishwas Patkar: I'm Vishwas Patkar, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Head of Credit Strategy. Vishy Tirupattur: While potential disruption from AI has been a key driver for markets [in the] last few weeks, the focus of investor agenda has been in the software sector. On today's podcast, we will talk about software in the credit markets and its implications. It's Monday, March 2nd at 10am in New York. Vishwas, let's start by understanding how the exposure in software manifests in the credit markets. How does it compare to software, say, in the equity market? Vishwas Patkar: Yeah, so the software exposure in credit markets is large, and understandably that's why investors are closely watching what's happening with software in the equity market. But what's interesting and important for investors to note is the exposure in credit is very different from what it is in equities. So, for instance, a good chunk of exposure in the credit market is around private issuers. So, we estimate about 80 percent of companies are private in the whole sample set that we looked at. And that's largely a function of the fact that software is not a big part of the more liquid spaces like Investment Grade and High Yield. But it is heavily represented in the more opaque parts of the market, like leveraged loans, CLOs, and, you know, BDCs. So, our analysis found that about 25 percent of BDC portfolios are in software, closely followed by private credit CLOs. And leveraged loan market was about 16 percent. So, that's an important distinction to keep in mind versus the equity market. The second thing I would flag is – because the software sector grew a lot in the loan market through the LBO wave of 2020 and 2021, it has a weaker credit quality skew to it than the overall market. So about 50 percent of borrowers in the sector are rated B - or lower. So, that's the lowest rungs of the rating spectrum. Many of these software deals were underwritten with higher leverage than the broad market. And as a result of that you also have more front-loaded maturities in the sector, which brings the risks of refinancing, if some of this disruption persists. But Vishy, that's a nice segue to you. Over the past couple of years, you looked at the private credit market in depth and that's where I think the exposure we found is the highest in BDCs, you know, which is the public face of private credit. So, in your assessment, what is the risk of software to private credit, given all of the headlines that are popping up? Vishy Tirupattur: Public face of private credit – Vishwas, that's a great line. BDCs – business development corporations for those who are not familiar – are companies that invest in the debt of small and medium sized companies, sourced through non-bank channels. BDCs fund themselves through equity and debt issuance. So, if you look at the portfolios of BDCs to look at their exposure to software, there's a wide variation across the various BDC portfolios. What makes the assessment of these software risks in BDCs challenging is that many of these companies are private companies without the reporting obligations of public companies. So, no earnings reports, no 10-Ks or cues or broadly publicly available financials look at. So, in effect, these companies need to be re underwritten to evaluate which of these companies would be disrupted from AI; and which companies could actually benefit from AI and see their margins expand. So, in the context of BDCs, liability spreads are something we are watching closely. BDC liability spreads have widened but we think more needs to happen there. The clearing levels need to wait for the full resolution of the companies that benefit and that get hurt by disruption that is still awaited. So, we expect credit spreads of BDCs to remain volatile for some time to come. Vishwas Patkar: Okay. So, seems like this is a significant, or at least a non-trivial risk factor for credit markets, given the growth of the sector, leverage, the skew and quality. But Vishy, do you think this could be systemic for risk markets at large? Vishy Tirupattur: So, I do think that this is a significant risk, but I don't think it's a systemic risk. The amount of leverage in BDC is fairly small. About 2x is the kind of leverage. You compare that to the kind of leverage that existed in the financial system before the financial crisis – that’s orders of magnitude smaller risk. And also the linkage to the banking system comes through the back leverage provided to the non-ban

Our Deputy Head of Global Research Michael Zezas and Stephen Byrd, Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research, discuss how the U.S. is positioning AI as a pillar of geopolitical influence and what that means for nations and investors.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Deputy Head of Global Research.Stephen Byrd: And I'm Stephen Byrd, Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research.Michael Zezas: Today – is AI becoming the new anchor of geopolitical power?It's Wednesday, February 27th at noon in New York.So, Stephen, at the recent India AI Impact Summit, the U.S. laid out a vision to promote global AI adoption built around what it calls “real AI sovereignty.” Or strategic autonomy through integration with the American AI stack. But several nations from the global south and possibly parts of Europe – they appear skeptical of dependence on proprietary systems, citing concerns about control, explainability, and data ownership. And it appears that stake isn't just technology policy. It's the future structure of global power, economic stratification, and whether sovereign nations can realistically build competitive alternatives outside the U.S. and China.So, Stephen, you were there and you've been describing a growing chasm in the AI world in terms of access to strategies between the U.S. and much of the global south, and possibly Europe. So, from what you heard at the summit, what are the core points of disagreement driving that divide?Stephen Byrd: There definitely are areas of agreement; and we've seen a couple of high-profile agreements reached between the U.S. government and the Indian government just in the last several days. So there certainly is a lot of overlap. I point to the Pax Silica agreement that's so important to secure supply chains, to secure access to AI technology. I think the focus, for example, for India is, as you said; it is, you know, explainability, open access. I was really struck by Prime Minister Modi's focus on ensuring that all Indians have access to AI tools that can help them in their everyday life.You know, a really tangible example that really stuck with me is – someone in a remote village in India who has a medical condition and there's no doctor or nurse nearby using AI to, you know, take a photo of the condition, receive diagnosis, receive support, figure out what the next steps should be. That's very powerful. So, I'd say, open access explainability is very important.Now, the American hyperscalers are very much trying to serve the Indian market and serve the objectives really of the Indian government. And so, there are versions of their models that are open weights, that are being made freely available for health agencies in India, as an example; to the Indian government, as an example.So, there is an attempt to really serve a number of objectives, but I think this key is around open access, explainability, that I do see that there's a tension.Michael Zezas: So, let's talk about that a little bit more. Because it seems one of the concerns raised is this idea of being captive within proprietary Large Language Models. And maybe that includes the risk of having to pay more over time or losing control of citizen data. But, at the same time, you've described that there are some real benefits to AI that these countries want to adopt.So, what is effectively the tension between being captive to a model or the trade off instead for pursuing open and free models? Is it that there's a major quality difference? And is that trade off acceptable?Stephen Byrd: See, that's what's so fascinating, Mike, is, you know, what we need to be thinking about is not just where the technology is today, but where is it in six months, 12 months, 24 months? And from my perspective, it's very clear. That the proprietary American models are going to be much, much more capable.So, let's put some numbers around that. The big five American firms have assembled about 10 times the compute to train their current LLMs compared to their prior LLMs, and that's a big deal. If the scaling laws hold, then a 10x increase in training compute to result in models are about twice as capable.Now just let that sink in for a minute, twice as capable from here. That's a big deal. And so, when we think about the benefit of deploying these models, whether it's in the life sciences or any number of other disciplines, those benefits could start to get very large. And the challenge for the open models will be – will they be able to keep up in terms of access to compute, to training, access to data to train those models? That's a big question.Now, again, there's room for both approaches and it's very possible for the Indian government to continue to experiment and really see which approach is going to serve their citizens the best. And I was really struck by just how focused the Indian

Our Global Commodities Strategist Martijn Rats discusses the geopolitical drivers behind the recent spike in oil prices and outlines four Iran scenarios.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley’s Global Commodities Strategist.Today – what’s fueling the latest oil market rally.It’s Thursday, February 26th, at 3pm in London.What happens when oil prices jump, even though there’s no actual shortage of oil? That’s the situation we’re in right now. Tensions between the U.S. and Iran have escalated again. Naturally, markets are paying attention.Over the past week, Brent crude rose about $3 to around $72 per barrel. WTI climbed into the mid-$60s. Shipping costs surged. And traders have started paying a premium for protection against a sudden oil spike – the levels we haven’t seen since the early days of the Ukrainian invasion.But here’s the key point: there’s no clear evidence that global oil supply has tightened. Exports are still flowing. Tankers are still moving. And some near-term indicators of physical tightness have actually softened. When oil is truly scarce, buyers scramble for immediate barrels and short-term prices spike relative to future delivery. Instead, those spreads have narrowed, and physical premiums have eased.This isn’t a supply shock. It’s a risk premium. In simple terms, investors are buying insurance. So what could happen next? We see four broad scenarios.Before I outline them though, here’s something we do not see as a core case: a prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Roughly 15 million barrels per day of crude and another 5 million of refined product moves through that corridor. A sustained shutdown would be enormously disruptive. But we think the probability is very low.Now coming back to our four scenarios. The first is straightforward. A negotiated settlement; conflict is avoided. Iranian exports continue and shipping lanes remain open. In that scenario, what unwinds is the geopolitical risk premium – which we estimate at roughly $7 to $9 per barrel. If that fades, Brent could drift back to the low-to-mid $60s, similar to past episodes where prices spiked on fear and then retraced once supply proves unaffected.Second, we could see short-lived frictions – shipping delays, higher insurance costs, temporary logistical issues. That might remove a few hundred thousand barrels per day for, say, a few weeks.. Prices could briefly spike into the $75–80 range. But balancing forces would kick in relatively quickly. For example, China has been building inventories at a steady pace. At higher prices, that stockbuilding would likely slow, helping offset temporary disruptions. That points to some further upside in prices – but then normalization.The third scenario is more serious, but still contained: localized export losses of perhaps 1 to 1.5 million barrels per day for a month or two. Prices would stay elevated longer, but spare capacity and demand adjustments could eventually stabilize the market.Now our last scenario is the more serious and considers a potential shipping shock. The real risk here isn’t wells shutting down – it’s shipping disruption. Global trade of crude oil depends on efficient tanker movement. If transit times were extended even modestly, effective shipping capacity could fall sharply, creating what amounts to a temporary tightening of about 2 to 3 million barrels per day – or about 6 percent of global seaborne supply. That is a logistics shock, not a production outage – but it would push prices toward early-2022-type levels, at least briefly.Now let’s zoom out. Beyond geopolitics, the fundamentals look weak. OPEC+ supply is rising, and our forecasts show a sizable surplus building in 2026. Even if some of that oil ends up in China’s stockpiles, a lot would still likely flow into core OECD inventories. Historically, when the market looks like this, prices tend to fall, not rise.Which brings us back to the central point. Oil isn’t rallying because the world has run out of barrels. It’s rallying because markets are pricing geopolitical risk. And unless that risk turns into actual, sustained disruption, insurance premiums tend to expire.Thank you for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.This podcast references jurisdiction(s) or person(s) which may be the subject of economic sanctions. Readers are solely responsible for ensuring that their investment activities are carried out in compliance with applicable laws.

Original Release Date: Feb 6, 2026Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets and Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter unpack the inner workings of the Federal Reserve to illustrate the challenges that Fed chair nominee Kevin Warsh may face.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. Andrew Sheets: And today on the podcast, a further discussion of a new Fed chair and the challenges they may face. It's Friday, February 6th at 1 pm in New York. Seth, it's great to be here talking with you, and I really want to continue a conversation that listeners have been hearing on this podcast over this week about a new nominee to chair the Federal Reserve: Kevin Warsh. And you are the perfect person to talk about this, not just because you lead our economic research and our macro research, but you've also worked at the Fed. You've seen the inner workings of this organization and what a new Fed chair is going to have to deal with. So, maybe just for some broad framing, when you saw this announcement come out, what were some of the first things to go through your mind? Seth Carpenter: I will say first and foremost, Kevin Warsh's name was one of the names that had regularly come up when the White House was providing names of people they were considering in lots of news cycles. So, I think the first thing that's critically important from my perspective, is – not a shock, right? Sort of a known quantity. Second, when we think about these really important positions, there's a whole range of possible outcomes. And I would've said that of the four names that were in the final set of four that we kept hearing about in the news a lot. You know, some differences here and there across them, but none of them was substantially outside of what I would think of as mainstream sort of thinking. Nothing excessively unorthodox at all like that. So, in that regard as well, I think it should keep anybody from jumping to any big conclusions that there's a huge change that's imminent. I think the other thing that's really important is the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve really is made by a committee. The Federal Open Market Committee and committee matters in these cases. The Fed has been under lots of scrutiny, under lots of pressure, depending on how you want to put it. And so, as a result, there's a lot of discussion within the institution about their independence, making sure they stick very scrupulously to their congressionally given mandate of stable prices, full employment. And so, what does that mean in practice? That means in practice, to get a substantially different outcome from what the committee would've done otherwise… So, the market is pricing; what's the market pricing for the funds rate at the end of this year? About 3.2 percent. Andrew Sheets: Something like that. Yeah. Seth Carpenter: Yeah. So that's a reasonable forecast. It's not too far away from our house view.  For us to end up with a policy rate that's substantially away from that – call it 1 percentage, 2 percentage points away from that. I just don't see that as likely to happen. Because the committee can be led, can be swayed by the chair, but not to the tune of 1 or 2 percentage points. And so, I think for all those reasons, there wasn't that much surprise and there wasn't, for me, a big reason to fully reevaluate where we think the Fed's going. Andrew Sheets: So let me actually dig into that a little bit more because I know our listeners tune in every day to hear a lot about government meetings. But this is a case where that really matters because I think there can sometimes be a misperception around the power of this position. And it's both one of the most public important positions in the world of finance. And yet, as you mentioned, it is overseeing a committee where the majority matters. And so, can you take us just a little bit inside those discussions? I mean, how does the Fed Chair interact with their colleagues? How do they try to convince them and persuade them to take a particular course of action? Seth Carpenter: Great question. And you're right, I sort of spent a bunch of time there at the Fed. I started when Greenspan was chair. I worked under the Bernanke Fed. And of course, for the end of that, Janet Yellen was the vice chair. So, I've worked with her. Jay Powell was on the committee the whole time. So, the cast of characters quite familiar and the process is important. So, I would say a few things. The chair convenes the meetings; the chair creates the agenda for the meeting. The chair directs the staff on what the policy documents are that the comm

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains why he still believes in a growth cycle for equity markets, even as investors show growing concerns around AI.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Mike Wilson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast, I'll be discussing recent concerns around AI disruption. It's Tuesday, February 24th at 1pm in New York. So, let's get after it. Last week you could feel it, that anxious undercurrent in the market. The headlines were noisy, volatility ticked higher, and AI disruption, once again, dominated investor conversations. But beneath the surface level unease something important happened. The S&P 500 Equal Weight Index pushed to a new relative high, keeping our broadening thesis alive and well. On one hand, investors are worried about AI driven disruption, CapEx intensity, and potential labor force reductions. On the other hand, capital is still flowing into formerly lagging areas of the market, just as the median stock is seeing its strongest earnings growth in four years. Let's unpack this. First, there's concern AI will lead to job losses. But even if that's the case, there's typically a phase-in period. Companies don't just eliminate labor overnight. Importantly, before these productivity gains are fully realized, we need broad enterprise adoption. That means building out the agentic application layer, integrating AI into workflows, retraining systems and processes. That takes time, and it is still early days in that regard. Second, what we're seeing now is typical of a major investment cycle. Volatility increases as markets challenge the pace of unbridled spending. Dispersion increases as investors debate winners and losers. Leadership rotates, sometimes sharply. There's also something different this time compared to the internet bubble of the late 1990s. Today we're in an early cycle earnings backdrop. We've just emerged from what was effectively a rolling recession between 2022 and 2025. So, as capital rotates out of the perceived structural losers, it's not just chasing long-term AI beneficiaries, it's also finding classic cyclical winners. On the losing side is long duration services-oriented sectors, particularly software. These areas are more sensitive to uncertainty around longer term cash flows. This area also has a large overhang of private capital deployed over the last 10 to 15 years. There are other forces at play too. Small cap growth, arguably the longest duration segment of the market, began breaking down in late January around the time Kevin Warsh was nominated as Fed chair. While major indices barely reacted, more speculative areas may be responding to expectations of tighter liquidity given Warsh’s, reputation as a balance sheet hawk. Finally, equity markets are typically more volatile when new Fed chairs assume office. Bottom line, our broader thesis of an early cycle rolling recovery remains intact. Market internals are supportive even if index level action feels choppy. That said, near term volatility is likely to persist as we enter a weaker seasonal window for retail demand, while liquidity remains ample, but far from abundant. With this backdrop, a quality cyclical barbell with healthcare makes sense. In small caps, the higher quality S&P 600 looks more attractive than the Russell 2000. And any short-term volatility could present opportunities to add exposure in preferred cyclical areas like Consumer Discretionary Goods, Industrials, and Financials. Of course, risks remain. AI adoption could accelerate faster than expected, pressuring labor markets more abruptly. Pricing power could erode as efficiency spread, and policy makers could react in ways that slow the CapEx cycle while crowded momentum positioning remains vulnerable. Nevertheless, the signal from the internals is clear. Beneath the volatility this looks less like a market rolling over, and more like one that is confirming an early cycle economic expansion. Thanks for tuning in. I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out.

The Supreme Court's latest ruling on tariffs has thrown existing trade agreements into uncertainty. Our Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore and Arunima Sinha, from the U.S and Global Economics teams break down the fallout.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research. Arunima Sinha: And I am Arunima Sinha on the U.S. and Global Economics teams. Ariana Salvatore: Today we'll be talking about the recent Supreme Court decision on tariffs, what it means for existing trade deals, and where trade policy is headed from here. It's Monday, February 23rd at 9am in New York. On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that the president could not use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to impose broad-based tariffs. The ruling didn't give a clear signal on what it could mean for potential refunds, but the Trump administration said it plans to replace the existing tariffs, which is something that we'd long expected – first leveraging Section 122 to impose 15 percent tariffs for 150 days. The president is simultaneously going to launch a few new Section 301 investigations to eventually replace those Section 122 tariffs, since they're only allowed to be in place temporarily. So Arunima, let's start by breaking down some of this tariff math. What does this mean for the headline and effective rate given where we are now versus before? Arunima Sinha: Before the decision, Ariana, we were at a headline tariff rate of about 13 percent. What this decision does is that with the move, especially to 15 percent, for other countries, we think that it takes about a percentage point off of the headline tariff rate. So, we would go to about 12 percent, and then we have another percentage point coming off just because of the shifts in trade patterns. And so instead of a headline tariff rate of about 13 percent, we think that we're going to be at a headline tariff of just about 11 percent. But that's really just related to the Section 122s. And as you noted, this is only going to apply for the next 150 days. So how should we be thinking about trade policy going forward? Ariana Salvatore: I think we should view the 15 percent as probably a likely ceiling for these rates in the medium term; in particular because this 150-day period expires some time around the summer, so even closer to the midterm elections. And as we've been saying politically speaking, it's unpopular to impose high levels of tariffs. We've also been saying that the president will continue to lean on trade policy as his real, only way to address the affordability issue for voters, which is something that we've actually seen on the policy side for the past few months with the imposition of exemptions, more trade framework agreements, et cetera.So really, I think this is just another way for him to continue leaning on this policy avenue. But in that vein, let's talk about specific pockets of relief. What are we thinking about some of their findings on a sector level? Arunima Sinha: So, let's tie this into the affordability aspect that you mentioned, Ariana, and specifically using the consumer goods sector. What we think is that with, just in the near-term period, with the Section 122s applying, for different consumer goods categories, we could see tariff rate differentials go down. So, they could be anywhere between 1 to 4 percentage points lower across different categories. But what we also think could happen is that once we get beyond the 150-day period, and there are no additional sector tariffs that go on. So, the 232s or the 301s, particularly for this particular sector, we could see some of the largest tariff relief that we're expecting to see. So, for example, apparel and accessories could see something like a 16 to 17 percentage point tariff drop. So that particular part I think is important. Just the upside risks to consumer goods. But that of course brings us to the question of bilateral trade deals and how they come into play. What do you think about that, Ariana? Ariana Salvatore: Yeah. So, I think when it comes to the bilateral deals, as we mentioned, there's some opportunities for relief depending on the sectors and the type of tariff exposure by country. As you mentioned, the consumer goods are a good example of this. So, in general, I think that trading partners will have little incentive to abandon the existing deals or framework agreements, just given that the president and the administration have messaged this idea of continuity. So, replacing the IEEPA tariffs with a more durable, legitimate, legal authority. But what's notable is that many of our trading partners are actually now facing potentially even lower levels than they were before. Even with the increase to 15 percent on the 122s

Our Head of European Sustainability Research Rachel Fletcher talks about how AI’s is quickly reshaping employment and productivity across key industries and regions.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Rachel Fletcher: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Rachel Fletcher, Head of European Sustainability Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, how AI is shaking up the global job market. It's Friday, February 20th at 2pm in London. You've probably asked yourself when all the excitement around AI is going to move beyond demos and headlines, and start showing up in ways that matter to your job, your investments, and even your day-to-day life. Our latest global AlphaWise AI survey suggests that the turning point may already be unfolding – especially in the labor market where AI is beginning to influence hiring, productivity, and workplace skills. Our survey covered the U.S., UK, Germany, Japan, and Australia, across five sectors where we see a significant AI adoption benefit. Consumer staples, distribution in retail, real estate, transportation, healthcare, equipment and services, and autos. We found that AI contributed to 11 percent of jobs being eliminated over the past 12 months, with another 12 percent not backfilled. These job cuts were partially offset by 18 percent new hires, which results in a net 4 percent global job loss. It's important to note that the survey focused on companies that had already been adopting AI for at least a year. In fact, most of the companies in our survey had been adopting AI for more than two years. So, this is likely the most significant downside case in terms of the impact of AI on jobs, but it is still an early signal of potential job disruption. In Europe, the picture is nuanced. The UK saw the highest net job loss at 8 percent. This was primarily driven by a lower level of new hires in the UK compared to other countries that we surveyed, as well as a high level of positions not backfilled. This compares to Germany, which posted a 4 percent net job loss in line with the all-country average. There could be some other factors amplifying the impact in the UK. For example, broader labor market weakness driven by higher labor costs and higher levels of unemployment amongst younger workers. Ultimately, disentangling AI from macro forces remains challenging. Moving to sector impacts in Europe, autos experience the largest net job loss at 13 percent, and this compares to a 10 percent global average for the sector. It's possible these numbers reflect persistent sales weakness, and AI driven cost cutting. Transportation was least affected at 3 percent, whilst other sectors clustered around 6 to 7 percent. If we look at the top quintile of European companies reducing headcount, they've outperformed other companies that are more actively hiring. This suggests that investors are rewarding efficiency. On the downside, staffing firms face potential growth risks from AI displacement. On productivity, European firms report 10 to 11 percent gains from AI, close to the 11.5 percent global average, and the U.S. at 10.8 percent. It's worth noting that whilst Europe lags the U.S. in exposure to AI enablers, adopters and adopter enablers make up more than two-thirds of the MSCI Europe Index. However, European AI adopters have traded at a material discount versus their equivalent U.S. AI adoption peers. So, turning AI adoption into real ROI and defending pricing power is crucial for European companies. If we shift our focus to the U.S., there's a contrast. Whilst the global net job change was a 4 percent loss, the U.S. actually saw a 2 percent net gain, driven by AI related hiring. Our U.S. strategists have lifted expectations for S&P 500 margin expansion by 40 basis points in 2026 and 60 basis points in 2027. In our survey, the most frequently cited goals of AI deployment in the U.S. are boosting productivity, personalizing customer interactions, and accelerating data insights. Other common use cases include search, content generation, dashboards, and virtual agents. What's becoming clear is AI is no longer theoretical. Our survey data suggests that it is reshaping hiring, productivity and margins. The investor question is not whether AI matters, but who captures the value. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Head of FX and EM Strategy James Lord and Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter discuss what’s driving the U.S. policy for the dollar and the outlook for other global currencies.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----James Lord: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m James Lord, Global Head of FX and EM Strategy at Morgan Stanley. Seth Carpenter:  And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. James Lord: Today we're talking about U.S. currency policy and whether recent news on intervention and nominations to the Fed change anything for the outlook of the dollar. It's Thursday, February 19th at 3pm in London. So it's been an interesting few weeks in currency markets. Plenty of dollar selling going on But then, we got  news that Kevin Warsh is going to be nominated to  Chair of the Board of Governors. And that sent the dollar back higher, reminding everybody that monetary policy and central bank policy still matter.    So, in the aftermath of the dollar-yen rate check, investors started to discuss whether or not the U.S. might be starting to target a weaker currency. Not just be comfortable with a weaker currency, but actually explicitly target a weaker currency, which would presumably be a shift away from the stronger strong dollar policy that Secretary Bessent referenced. So, what is your understanding? What do you think the strong dollar policy actually means? Seth Carpenter: Strong dollar policy,  that's a phrase, that's a term; it's a concept that lots of Secretaries of the Treasury have used for a long time. And I specifically point to the Secretary of the Treasury because at least in the recent couple of decades, there has been in  standard Washington D.C. approach to things, a strong dichotomy that currency policy is the policy of the Treasury Department, not of the central bank. And that's always been important. I remember when I was working at the Treasury Department, that was still part of the talking points that the secretary used. However, you also hear Secretaries of the Treasury say that exchange rates should be market determined; that that's a key part of it. And with the back and forth between the U.S. and China, for example, there was a lot of discussion: Was the Chinese government  adjusting or manipulating the value of their currency? And there was a push that currencies should be market determined. And so, if you think about those two things, at the same time – pushing really hard that the dollar should be strong, pushing really hard that currencies should be market determined – you start to very quickly run into a bit of an intellectual tension. And I think all of that is pretty intentional. What does it mean?  It means that there's no single clear definition of strong dollar policy. It's a little bit of the eye of the beholder. It's an acknowledgement that the dollar plays a clear key role in global markets, and it's good for the U.S. for that to happen. That's traditionally been what it means. But it has not meant a specific number relative to any other currency or any basket of currency. It has not meant a specific value based on some sort of long run theoretical fair value. It is always meant to be a very vague,  deliberately so, very vague concept. James Lord: So, in that version of what the strong dollar policy means,  presumably the sort of ambiguity still  leaves space for the Treasury to conduct some kind of intervention in dollar-yen, if they wanted to. And that would still be very much consistent with that definition of the strong dollar policy. I also, in the back of my head, always wonder whether the strong dollar policy has anything to do with the dollar's  global role. And the sort of foreign policy power that gives the Treasury in sanctions policy. And other areas where, you know, they can control dollar flows and so on. And that gives the U.S. government some leverage. And that allows them to project strength in foreign policy. Has that anything to do with the traditional versions of the strong policy?  Seth Carpenter: Absolutely. I think all of that is part and parcel to it. But it also helps to explain a little bit of why there's never going to be a very crisp, specific numerical definition of what a strong dollar policy is.So, first and foremost, I think the discussion of intervention; I think it is, in lots of ways, consistent, especially if you have that more expansive definition of strong dollar, i.e. the currency that's very important, or most important in global financial markets and in global trade. So, I think in that regard, you could have both the intervention and the strong dollar at the same time. I will add though that the administration has not had a clear, cons

More Americans are blaming the AI infrastructure expansion for rising electricity bills. Our Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore explains how the topic may influence policy announcements ahead of the midterm elections.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Today I'll be talking about the relationship between affordability, the data center buildout, and the midterm elections. It's Wednesday, February 18th at 10am in New York. Markets and voters continue to grapple with questions on AI, including its potential scope, impact, and disruption across industries. That's been a clear theme on the policy side as voters seem to be pushing back against AI development and data center buildout in particular. In key states, voters are associating the rise in electricity bills with AI infrastructure – and we think that could be an important read across for the midterm elections in November. Now to be sure, electricity inflation has stayed sticky at around four to 5 percent year-over- year, and our economists expect it to remain in that range through this year and next. Nationally the impact of data centers on electricity prices has been relatively modest so far, but regionally, the pressure has been more visible. To that point, a recent survey in Pennsylvania found that nearly twice as many respondents believe AI will hurt the economy as it will help. More than half – 55 percent – think AI is likely to take away jobs in their own industry, and 71 percent said they're concerned about how much electricity data centers consume. But this isn't just a Pennsylvania story. In other battleground states like Arizona and Michigan, voters have actually rejected plans to build new data centers locally. So, what could that mean for the midterm elections? Think back to the off-cycle elections in November of last year. Candidates who ran on this theme of affordability and actually pushed back against data center construction tended to do pretty well in their respective races. Looking ahead to the midterm elections later this year, we see two clear takeaways from a policy perspective. First, it's important to note that more of the policy action here will actually continue to be at the local rather than federal level. Some states with heavy data center build out – so Georgia, Michigan, Ohio, and Texas among others – are now debating who should pay for grid upgrades. Federal proposals on this topic are still pretty nascent and fragmented. Meanwhile, public utility commissions in states like Georgia, Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana have adopted or proposed large load tariffs. These require data centers to shoulder more upfront grid costs; or can reflect conditional charges like long-term contracts, minimum demand charges, exit fees or collateral requirements – all of which are designed to prevent costs from spilling over to households. And secondly, because of that limited federal action, we expect the Trump administration to continue leaning on other levers of affordability policy, where the president actually does have some more unilateral control. We've been expecting the administration to continue focusing on broader affordability areas ranging from housing to trade policy, as we've said on this podcast in the past. That dynamic is especially relevant this week as the Supreme Court could rule as soon as Friday on whether or not the president has the authority under IEEPA to impose the broad-based reciprocal tariffs. The administration thus far has been projecting a message of continuity. But we've noted that a decision that constrains that authority could give the president an opportunity to pursue a lighter touch tariff policy in response to the public's concerns around affordability. That's why we think the AI infrastructure buildout debate will continue to be a flashpoint into November, especially in the context of rising data center demand. Next week, when the president delivers his State of the Union address, we expect to hear plenty about not just affordability, but also AI leadership and competitiveness. But an equally important message will be around the administration's potential policy options to address its associated costs. That tension between AI supremacy and rising everyday costs for voters will be critical in shaping the electoral landscape into November. Thanks for listening. As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen; and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Head of U.S. Internet Research Brian Nowak joins U.S. Small and Mid-Cap Internet Analyst Nathan Feather to explain why the future of agentic commerce is closer than you think.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Brian Nowak: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Brian Nowak, Morgan Stanley's Head of U.S. Internet ResearchNathan Feather: And I'm Nathan Feather, U.S. Small and Mid-Cap Internet Analyst.Brian Nowak: Today, how AI-powered shopping assistants are set to revolutionize the e-commerce experience.It's Tuesday, February 17th at 8am in New York.Nathan, let's talk a little bit about agentic commerce. When was the last time you reordered groceries? Or bought household packaged goods? Or compared prices for items you [b]ought online and said, ‘Boy, I wish there was an easier way to do this. I wish technology could solve this for me.’Nathan Feather: Yeah. Yesterday, about 24 hours ago.Brian Nowak: Well, our work on agentic commerce shows a lot of these capabilities could be [coming] sooner than a lot of people appreciate. We believe that agentic commerce could grow to be 10 to 20 percent of overall U.S. e-commerce by 2030, and potentially add 100 to 300 basis points of overall growth to e-commerce.There are certain categories of spend we think are going to be particularly large unlocks for agentic commerce. I mentioned grocery, I mentioned household essentials. We think these are some of the items that agentic commerce is really going to drive a further digitization of over the next five years.So maybe Nathan, let's start at the very top. Our work we did together shows that 40 to 50 percent of consumers in the U.S. already use different AI tools for product research, but only a mid single digit percentage of them are actually really starting their shopping journey or buying things today. What does that gap tell you about the agentic opportunity and some of the hurdles we have to overcome to close that gap from research to actual purchasing?Nathan Feather: Well, I think what it shows is that clearly there is demand from consumers for these products. We think agentic opens up both evolutionary and revolutionary ways to shop online for consumers. But at the moment, the tools aren't fully developed and the consumer behavior isn't yet there. And so, we think it'll take time for these tools to develop. But once they do, it's clear that the consumer use case is there and you'll start to see adoption.And building on that, Brian, on the large cap side, you've done a lot of work here on how the shopping funnel itself could evolve. Traditionally discovery has flowed through search, social or direct traffic. Now we're seeing agents begin to sit in the start of the funnel acting as the gatekeeper to the transaction. For the biggest platforms with massive reach, how meaningful is that shift?Brian Nowak: It is very meaningful. And I think that this agentic shift in how people research products, price compare products, purchase products, is going to lead to even more advertis[ing] and value creation opportunity for the big social media platforms, for the big video platforms. Because essentially these big platforms that have large corpuses of users, spending a lot of time on them are going to be more important than ever for companies that want to launch new products. Companies that want to introduce their products to new customers.People that want to start new businesses entirely, it's going to be harder to reach new potential customers in an agentic world. So, I think some of these leading social and reach based video platforms are going to go up in value and you'll see more spend on those for people to build awareness around new and existing products.On this point of the products, you know, our work shows that grocery and consumer packaged goods are probably going to be one of the largest category unlocks. You know, we already know that over 50 percent of incremental e-commerce growth in the U.S. is going to come from grocery and CPG. And we think agentic is going to be a similar dynamic where grocery and CPG is going to drive a lot of agentic spend.Why do you think that is? And sort of walk us through, what has to happen in your mind for people to really pivot and start using agents to shop for their weekly grocery basket?Nathan Feather: I think one of the key things about the grocery category is it's a very high friction category online. You have to go through and select each individual ingredient you want [in] the order, ensure that you have the right brand, the right number of units, and ensure that the substitutions – when somebody actually gets to the store – are correct.And so for a user, it just takes a substantial amount of time to build a basket for online grocery. We think agentic can change that by becoming your personal digital shopper. You can say something as simple as, ‘I want to make steak tacos for dinner.’ And it can add all of the ingredients you want to your ord

Iconic investors sit down with Morgan Stanley leaders to go behind the scenes on the critical moments – both successes and setbacks – that shaped who they are today.Watch and listen to the series on your favorite platform.

Arunima Sinha, from the U.S. and Global Economics team, discusses how an upcoming Supreme Court decision could reshape consumer prices, retail margins and the inflation outlook in 2026.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Arunima Sinha: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Arunima Sinha from Morgan Stanley's U.S. and Global Economics Teams.Today: How a single Supreme Court ruling could change the tariff math for U.S. consumers.It's Friday, February 13th at 10am in New York.The U.S. Supreme Court is deciding whether the U.S. president has legal authority to impose sweeping tariffs under IEEPA. That decision could come as soon as next Friday. IEEPA, or the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, is the legal backbone for a significant share of today's consumer goods tariffs. If the Supreme Court limits how it can be used, tariffs on many everyday items could fall quickly – affecting prices on the shelf, margins for retailers, and the broader inflation outlook.As of now, effective tariff rates on consumer goods are running about 15 percent, and that's based on late 2025 November data. And that's quite a bit higher than the roughly 10 percent average, which we're seeing as tariffs on all goods. In a post IEEPA scenario, we think that the effective tariff rate on consumer goods could fall to the mid-11 percent range.It's not zero, but it is meaningfully lower.An important caveat is that this is not going to be eliminating all tariffs. Other trade tools – like Section 232s, which are the national security tariffs, Section 301s, the tariffs that are related to unfair trade practices – would remain in place. Autos and metals, for example, are largely outside the IEEPA discussion.The main pressure point we think is consumer goods. IEEPA has been used for two major sets of tariffs. The fentanyl-related tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China, and the so-called reciprocal tariffs applied broadly across trading partners. And these often stack on top of the existing tariffs, such as the MFN, the Most Favored Nation rates, and the section 301 duties on China that were already existing before 2025.The exposure is really concentrated in certain categories of consumer goods. So, for example, in apparel and footwear, about 60 percent of the applied tariffs are IEEPA related. For furniture and home improvement, it's over 70 percent. For toys, games, and sporting equipment, it's more than 90 percent. So, if the IEEPA authority is curtailed, the category level effects would be meaningful.There are caveats, of course. The court's decision may not be all or nothing. And policymakers could turn to alternative authorities. One example is Section 122, which allows across the board tariffs for up to 15 percent for 150 days. So, tariffs could just reappear under different tools. But in the near term, fully replacing IEEPA-based tariffs on consumer goods may not be straightforward, especially given ongoing affordability concerns.So, how does that matter for the real economy? There are two key channels, prices and margins. On prices we estimate that about 60 percent of the tariff costs are typically passed on to the consumers over two to three quarters, but it’s not instant. Margins though could respond faster. If companies get cost relief before they adjust prices downwards, that creates a temporary margin tailwind. That could influence hiring, investment and earnings across retail and consumer supply chains.Over time, lower tariffs could also reinforce that broader return to core goods disinflation starting in the second quarter of this year. And because tariff driven inflation has weighed more heavily on the middle- and lower-income households, any eventual price relief could disproportionately benefit those groups.At the end of the day, this isn't just a legal story. It is a timing story. If IEEPA authority is curtailed, the arithmetic shifts pretty quickly. Margins move first, prices follow later, and the path back to goods disinflation could accelerate. That's why this is one ruling worth watching before the gavel drops.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share thoughts on the market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets explains how key market indicators reflect a constructive view around the global cyclical outlook, despite a volatile start to 2026.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I'm going to talk about the unusual alignment of a number of key indicators. It's Thursday, February 12th at 2pm in London. A frustrating element of investing is that any indicator at any time can let you down. That makes sense. With so much on the line, the secret to markets probably isn't just one of a hundreds of data series that a thousand of us can access at the push of a button. But many indicators all suggesting the same? That's far more notable. And despite a volatile start to 2026 with big swings in everything from Japanese government bonds to software stocks, it is very much what we think is happening below the surface. Specifically, a variety of indicators linked to optimism around the global cyclical outlook are all stronger, all moving up and to the right. Copper, which is closely followed as an economically sensitive commodity, is up strongly. Korean equities, which have above average cyclicality and sensitivity to global trade is the best performing of any major global equity market over the last year. Financials, which lie at the heart of credit creation, have been outperforming across the U.S., Europe, and Asia. And more recently, year-to-date cyclicals and transports are outperforming. Small caps are leading, breadth is improving, and the yield curve is bear steepening. All of these are the outcomes that you'd expect, all else equal, if global growth is going to be stronger in the future than it is today. Now individually, these data points can be explained away. Maybe Copper is just part of an AI build out story. Maybe Korea is just rebounding off extreme levels of valuation. Maybe Financials are just about deregulation in a steeper yield curve. Maybe the steeper yield curve is just about the policy uncertainty. And small cap stocks have been long-term laggards – maybe every dog has its day. But collectively, well, they're exactly what investors will be looking for to confirm that the global growth backdrop is getting stronger, and we believe they form a pretty powerful, overlapping signal worthy of respect. But if things are getting better, how much is too much. In the face of easier fiscal, monetary, and regulatory policy, the market may focus on other signposts to determine whether we now have too much of a good thing. For example, is there signs of significant inflation on the horizon? Is volatility in the bond market increasing? Is the U.S. dollar deviating significantly from its fair value? Is the credit market showing weakness? And do stocks and credit now react badly when the data is good? So far, not yet. As we discussed on this program last week, long run inflation expectations in the U.S. and euro area remain pretty consistent with central bank targets. Expected volatility in U.S. interest rates has actually fallen year-to-date. The U.S. dollar’s valuation is pretty close to what purchasing power parity would suggest. Credit has been very stable. And better than expected labor market data on Wednesday was treated well. Any single indicator can and eventually will let investors down. But when a broad set of economically sensitive signals all point in the same direction, we listen. Taken together, we think this alignment is still telling a story of supportive fundamental tailwinds while key measures of stress hold. Until that evidence changes, we think those signals deserve respect. Thank you as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

With the U.S.-Canada-Mexico Agreement coming up for review, our Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore unpacks whether our 2025 call for deeper trade integration still holds.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Today I'll be talking about our expectations for the upcoming USMCA review, and how the landscape has shifted from last year. It's Wednesday, February 11th at 4pm in London. As we highlighted last fall, the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement is approaching its first mandatory review in 2026. At the time, we argued that the risks were skewed modestly to the upside. Structural contingencies built into the agreement we think cap downside risk and tilt most outcomes toward preserving and over time deepening North American trade integration. That framing, we think, remains broadly intact. But some developments over the past few months suggest that the timing and the structure of that deeper integration could end up looking a little bit different than we initially expected. We still see a scenario where negotiators resolve targeted frictions and make limited updates, but we're increasingly mindful that some of the more ambitious policy maker goals – for example, new chapters on AI, critical minerals or more explicit guardrails on Chinese investment in Mexico – may be harder to formalize ahead of the mid-2026 deadline. So, what does the base case as we framed it last year still look like? We continue to expect an outcome that preserves the agreement and resolves several outstanding disputes – auto rules of origin, labor enforcement procedures, and select digital trade provisions. On the China question, our view from last year also still holds. We expect incremental steps by Mexico to reduce trans-shipment risk and better align with U.S. trade priorities, though likely without a fully institutionalized enforcement mechanism by mid-2026. And remember, the USMCA’s 10-year escape clause keeps the agreement enforced at least through 2036, meaning the probability of a disruptive trade shock is structurally quite low. What may be shifting is not the direction of travel, but the pace and the form. A more comprehensive agreement may ultimately come, but possibly with a longer runway or through site agreements rather than updates to the USMCA text itself. Of course, those come with an enforcement risk just given the lack of congressional backing. We still expect the formal review to conclude around mid-2026, albeit with a growing possibility that deeper institutional alignment happens further out or via parallel frameworks. It also is possible that into that deadline all three sides decide to extend negotiations out further into the future, extending the uncertainty for even longer. So what does it all mean for macro and markets? For Mexico, maintaining tariff free access to the U.S. continues to be essential. The base case supports ongoing manufacturing integration, especially in autos and electronics. But without the newer, more strategic chapters that policymakers have discussed, the agreement would leave Mexico in a position that it's accustomed to – stable but short of a full nearshoring acceleration. This aligns with our view from last year, but we now see clearer near-term risks to the thesis of rapid institutional, deeper trade integration. For FX, the pace of benefit is from reduced uncertainty, but the effect is likely gradual. The absence of tangible progress on adding to the original deal suggests a more muted near-term impulse. For Canada, the implications are similarly two-sided. Near-term volatility around the review is likely underpriced, but a limited agreement should eventually lead to medium term USD-CAD downside. On the economics front, last year, we argued that the review would reinforce North America as a manufacturing block, even if it didn't fully resolve supply chain diversification from China. We think that remains true today, but with the added nuance that some of the more ambitious integration pathways may be pushed further out or structured outside of the formal USMCA chapters. So bottom line, our base case remains a measured, pragmatic outcome that reduces uncertainty, but preserves the core benefits of North American trade and supports growth across key asset classes. But it also increasingly looks like an outcome that may leave some strategic opportunities on the table for now, setting the stage for deeper alignment later – on a slightly longer horizon, or through a more flexible framework. Thanks for listening. As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen. And share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research Stephen Byrd and U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist Michelle Weaver lay out Morgan Stanley’s four key Research themes for 2026, and how those themes could unfold across markets for the rest of the year.  Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Stephen Byrd: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Stephen Byrd, Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research. Michelle Weaver: And I'm Michelle Weaver, U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist. Stephen Byrd: I was recently on the show to discuss Morgan Stanley's four key themes for 2026. Today, a look at how those themes could actually play out in the real world over the course of this year. It's Tuesday, February 10th at 10am in New York. So one of the biggest challenges for investors right now is separating signal from noise. Markets are reacting to headlines by the minute, but the real drivers of long-term returns tend to move much more slowly and much more powerfully. That's why thematic analysis has been such an important part of how we think about markets, particularly during periods of high volatility. For 2026, our framework is built around four key themes: AI and tech diffusion, the future of energy, the multipolar world, and societal shifts. In other words, three familiar themes and one meaningful evolution from last year. So Michelle, let's start at the top. When investors hear four key themes, what's different about the 2026 framework versus what we laid out in 2025? Michelle Weaver: Well, like you mentioned before, three of our four key themes are the same as last year, so we're gonna continue to see important market impacts from AI and tech diffusion, the future of energy and the multipolar world.But our fourth key theme, societal shifts, is really an expansion of our prior key theme longevity from last year. And while three of the four themes are the same broad categories, the way they impact the market is going to evolve. And these themes don't exist in isolation. They collide and they intersect with one another, having other important market implications. And we'll talk about many of those intersections today as they relate to multiple themes. Let's start with AI. How does the AI and tech diffusion theme specifically evolve since last year? Stephen Byrd: Yeah. You know, you mentioned earlier the evolution of all of our themes, and that was certainly the case with AI and tech diffusion. What I think we'll see in 2026 is a few major evolutions. So, one is a concept that we think of as two worlds of LLM progress and AI adoption; and let me walk through what I mean by that. On LLM progress, we do think that the handful of American LLM developers that have 10 times the compute they had last year are going to be training and producing models of unprecedented capability. We do not think the Chinese models will be able to keep up because they simply do not have the compute required for the training. And so we will see two worlds, very different approaches. That said, the Chinese models are quite excellent in terms of providing low cost solutions to a wide range of very practical business cases. So that's one case of two worlds when we think about the world of AI and tech diffusion. Another is that essentially we could see a really big gap between what you can do with an LLM and what the average user is actually doing with LLMs. Now there're going to be outliers where really leaders will be able to fully utilize LLMs and achieve fairly substantial and breathtaking results. But on average, that won't be the case. And so you'll see a bit of a lag there. That said, I do think when investors see what those frontier capabilities are, I think that does eventually lead to bullishness. So that's one dynamic. Another really big dynamic in 2026 is the mismatch between compute demand and compute supply. We dove very deeply into this in our note, and essentially where we come out is we believe, and our analysis supports this, that the demand for compute is going to be systematically much higher than the supply. That has all kinds of implications. Compute becomes a very precious resource, both at the company level, at the national level. So those are a couple of areas of evolution.So Michelle, let's shift over to the future of energy, which does feel very different today than it did a year ago. Can you kind of walk through what's changed? Michelle Weaver: Well, we absolutely still think that power is one of the key bottlenecks for data center growth. And our power modeling work shows around a 47 gigawatt shortfall before considering innovative time to power solutions. We get down to around a 10 to 20 percent shortfall in power needed in the U.S. though, even after considering those solutions. So power is still very much a bottleneck. But the power picture is becoming even m

Our Chief LatAm Equity Strategist Nikolaj Lippmann discusses why Latin America may be approaching a rare “Spring” moment – where geopolitics, peaking rates, and elections set the scene for an investment-led growth cycle with meaningful market upside.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Nikolaj Lippmann: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Nikolaj Lippmann, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Latin America Equity Strategist. If you ever felt like Latin America is too complicated to follow, today's episode is for you. It's Monday, February 9th at 10am in New York. The big idea in our research is simple. Latin America is facing a trifecta of change that could set up a very different investment story from what investors have gotten used to. We could be moving towards an investment or CapEx cycle in the shadow of the global AI CapEx cycle, and this is a stark departure from prior consumer cycles in Latin America. Latin America's GDP today is about $6 trillion. Yet Latin American equities account for just about 80 basis points of the main global index MSCI All Country World Equity benchmark. In plain English, it's really easy for investors to overlook such a vast region. But the narrative seems to be changing thanks to three key factors. Number one, shifting geopolitics in this increasingly global multipolar world. We can see this with trade rules, security priorities, supply chains that are getting rewritten. Capital and investment will often move alongside with these changing rules. Clearly, as we can all see U.S. priorities in Latin America have shifted, and with them have local priorities and incentives. Second, interest rates may very well have been peaking and could decline into [20]26. When borrowing cost fall, it just becomes easier to fund factories, infrastructure, AI, and expansion into all kinds of different investment, which become more feasible. What is more, we see a big shift in the size and growth of domestic capital markets in almost every country in Latin America – something that happens courtesy of reform and is certainly new versus prior cycles. And finally, elections that could lead to an important policy shift across Latin America. We see signs of movement towards greater fiscal responsibility in many sites of the region, with upcoming elections in Colombia and Brazil. We have already seen new policy makers in Argentina, Chile, Mexico, depart from prior populism. So, when we put all this together -- geopolitics, rates and local election -- you get to the core of our thesis, a possible LatAm spring; meaning a decisive break from the status quo towards fiscal consolidation, monetary easing, and structural reform. And we think that that could be a potential move that restores some confidence and attracts private capital. In our spring scenario, we see interest rates coming down, not rising in a scenario of higher growth to 6 percent in Brazil and Mexico, 7 percent in Argentina, and just 4 percent in Chile. This helps the rerating of the region. There's another powerful factor that I think many investors overlook, and that is a key difference versus prior cycles, as already mentioned. And that's the domestic savings. Local portfolios today are much bigger, much deeper capital markets, and they're heavily skewed towards fixed income. 75 percent of Latin American portfolios are in fixed income versus 25 percent in equity. In Brazil, the number's even higher with 90 to 95 percent in fixed income. If this shifts even halfway towards equity, it can deepen and support local capital markets; it supports valuation. For the region as a whole, sectors most impacted by this transformation would be Financial Services, Energy, Utilities, IT and Healthcare. Up until now, I think Latin America has been viewed as a region where a lot could go wrong. We asked the reverse question. What could go right? If the trifecta lines up: geopolitics, peaking rates and elections that enable a more investment friendly policy and CapEx cycle, Latin America could shift from being seen mainly as a supply of commodities and labor to far more investment driven engine of growth. That's why investors should put Latin America on the radar now and not wait until spring is already in full bloom. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen to the podcast and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets and Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter unpack the inner workings of the Federal Reserve to illustrate the challenges that Fed chair nominee Kevin Warsh may face.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript ----- Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. Andrew Sheets: And today on the podcast, a further discussion of a new Fed chair and the challenges they may face. It's Friday, February 6th at 1 pm in New York. Seth, it's great to be here talking with you, and I really want to continue a conversation that listeners have been hearing on this podcast over this week about a new nominee to chair the Federal Reserve: Kevin Warsh. And you are the perfect person to talk about this, not just because you lead our economic research and our macro research, but you've also worked at the Fed. You've seen the inner workings of this organization and what a new Fed chair is going to have to deal with. So, maybe just for some broad framing, when you saw this announcement come out, what were some of the first things to go through your mind? Seth Carpenter: I will say first and foremost, Kevin Warsh's name was one of the names that had regularly come up when the White House was providing names of people they were considering in lots of news cycles. So, I think the first thing that's critically important from my perspective, is – not a shock, right? Sort of a known quantity. Second, when we think about these really important positions, there's a whole range of possible outcomes. And I would've said that of the four names that were in the final set of four that we kept hearing about in the news a lot. You know, some differences here and there across them, but none of them was substantially outside of what I would think of as mainstream sort of thinking. Nothing excessively unorthodox at all like that. So, in that regard as well, I think it should keep anybody from jumping to any big conclusions that there's a huge change that's imminent. I think the other thing that's really important is the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve really is made by a committee. The Federal Open Market Committee and committee matters in these cases. The Fed has been under lots of scrutiny, under lots of pressure, depending on how you want to put it. And so, as a result, there's a lot of discussion within the institution about their independence, making sure they stick very scrupulously to their congressionally given mandate of stable prices, full employment. And so, what does that mean in practice? That means in practice, to get a substantially different outcome from what the committee would've done otherwise… So, the market is pricing; what's the market pricing for the funds rate at the end of this year? About 3.2 percent. Andrew Sheets: Something like that. Yeah. Seth Carpenter: Yeah. So that's a reasonable forecast. It's not too far away from our house view.  For us to end up with a policy rate that's substantially away from that – call it 1 percentage, 2 percentage points away from that. I just don't see that as likely to happen. Because the committee can be led, can be swayed by the chair, but not to the tune of 1 or 2 percentage points. And so, I think for all those reasons, there wasn't that much surprise and there wasn't, for me, a big reason to fully reevaluate where we think the Fed's going. Andrew Sheets: So let me actually dig into that a little bit more because I know our listeners tune in every day to hear a lot about government meetings. But this is a case where that really matters because I think there can sometimes be a misperception around the power of this position. And it's both one of the most public important positions in the world of finance. And yet, as you mentioned, it is overseeing a committee where the majority matters. And so, can you take us just a little bit inside those discussions? I mean, how does the Fed Chair interact with their colleagues? How do they try to convince them and persuade them to take a particular course of action? Seth Carpenter: Great question. And you're right, I sort of spent a bunch of time there at the Fed. I started when Greenspan was chair. I worked under the Bernanke Fed. And of course, for the end of that, Janet Yellen was the vice chair. So, I've worked with her. Jay Powell was on the committee the whole time. So, the cast of characters quite familiar and the process is important. So, I would say a few things. The chair convenes the meetings; the chair creates the agenda for the meeting. The chair directs the staff on what the policy documents are that the committee is going to get. So, there'

Our Global Head of Macro Strategy Matthew Hornbach and Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen discuss the path for U.S. interest rates after the nomination of Kevin Warsh for next Fed chair.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy. Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Matthew Hornbach: Today we'll be talking about the Federal Open Market Committee meeting that occurred last week.It's Thursday, February 5th at 8:30 am in New York.So, Mike, last week we had the first Federal Open Market Committee meeting of 2026. What were your general impressions from the meeting? And how did it compare to what you had thought going in? Michael Gapen: Well, Matt, I think that the main question for markets was how hawkish a hold or how dovish a hold would this be. As you know, it was widely expected the Fed would be on hold. The incoming data had been fairly solid. Inflation wasn't all that concerning, and most of the employment data suggested things had stabilized. So, it was clear they were going to pause. The question was would they pause or would they be on pause, right? And in our view, it was more of a dovish hold. And by that, it suggests to us, or they suggested to us, I should say, that they still have an easing bias and rates should generally move lower over time. So, that really was the key takeaway for me. Would they signal a prolonged pause and perhaps suggest that they might be done with the easing cycle? Or would they say, yes, we've stopped for now, but we still expect to cut rates later? Perhaps when inflation comes down and therefore kind of retain a dovish bias or an easing bias in the policy rate path. So, to me, that was the main takeaway. Matthew Hornbach: Of course, as we all know, there are supposed to be some personnel changes on the committee this year. And Chair Powell was asked several questions to try to get at the future of this committee and what he himself was going to do personally. What was your impression of his response and what were the takeaways from that part of the press conference? Michael Gapen: Well, clearly, he's been reluctant to, say, pre-announce what he may do when his term is chair ends in May.  But his term as a governor extends into 2028. So, he has options. He could leave normally that's what happens. But he could also stay and he's never really made his intentions clear on that part. I think for maybe personal or professional reasons. But he has his own; he has his own reasons and, and that's fine. And I do think the recent subpoena by the DOJ has changed the calculus in that. At least my own view is that it makes it more likely that he stays around. It may be easier for him to act in response to that subpoena by being on staff. It's a request for additional information; he needs access to that information. I think you could construct a reasonable scenario under which, ‘Well, I have to see this through, therefore, I may stay around.’ But maybe he hasn't come to that conclusion yet. And then stepping back, that just complicates the whole picture in the sense that we now know the administration has put forward Kevin Warsh as the new Fed chair. Will he be replacing the seat that Jay Powell currently sits in? Will he be replacing the seat that Stephen Myron is sitting in? So yes, we have a new name being put forward, but it's not exactly clear where that slot will be; and what the composition of the committee will look like. Matthew Hornbach: Well, you beat me to the punch on mentioning Kevin Warsh… Michael Gapen: I kind of assumed that's where you were going. Matthew Hornbach: It was going to be my next question.  I'm curious as to what you think that means for Fed policy later this year, if anything. And what it might mean more medium term? Michael Gapen: Yeah. Well, first of all, congratulations to Mr. Warsh on the appointment. In terms of what we think it means for the outlook for the Fed's reaction function and interest rate policy, we doubt that there will be a material change in the Fed's reaction function. His previous public remarks don't suggest his views on interest rate policy are substantively outside the mainstream, or at least certainly the collective that's already in the FOMC. Some people would prefer not to ease. The majority of the committee still sees a couple more rate cuts ahead of them. Warsh is generally aligned with that, given his public remarks. But then also all the reserve bank presidents have been renominated. There's an ongoing Supreme Court case about the ability of the administration to fire Lisa Cook. If that is not successful, then Kevin Warsh will arrive in an FOMC where there's 16 other people who all get a say. So, the chair'

Affordability is back in focus in D.C. after the brief U.S. shutdown. Our Deputy Global Head of Research Michael Zezas and Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore look at some proposals in play.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Deputy Global Head of Research for Morgan Stanley. Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research. Michael Zezas: Today we're discussing the continued focus on affordability, and how to parse signals from the noise on different policy proposals coming out of D.C.It's Wednesday, February 4th at 10am in New York. Ariana Salvatore: President Trump signed a bill yesterday, ending the partial government shutdown that had been in place for the past few days. But affordability is still in focus. It's something that our clients have been asking about a lot. And we might hear more news when the president delivers his State of the Union address on February 24th and possibly delivers his budget proposal, which should be around the same time. So, needless to say, it's still a topic that investors have been asking us about and one that we think warrants a little bit more scrutiny. Michael Zezas: But maybe before we get into how to think about these affordability policies, we should hit on what we're seeing as the real pressure points in the debate. Ariana, you recently did some work with our economists. What were some of your findings? Ariana Salvatore: So, Heather Berger and the rest of our U.S. econ[omics] team highlighted three groups in particular that are feeling more of the affordability crunch, so to speak. That's lower income consumers, younger consumers, and renters or recent home buyers. Lower income households have experienced persistently higher inflation and more recently weaker wage growth. Younger consumers were hit hardest when inflation peaked and are more exposed to higher borrowing costs. And lastly, renters and recent buyers are dealing with much higher shelter burdens that aren't fully captured in standard inflation metrics. Now, the reason I laid all that out is because these are also the cohorts where the president's approval ratings have seen the largest declines. Michael Zezas: Right. And so, it makes sense that those are the groups where the administration might be targeting some of these affordability initiatives. Ariana Salvatore: That's right. But that's not the only variable that they're solving for. Broadly speaking, we think that the president and Republicans in Congress really need to solve for four things when it comes to affordability policies. First, targeting these quote right cohorts, which are those, as we mentioned, that have either moved furthest away from the president politically, or have been the most under pressure. Second feasibility, right? So even if Republicans can agree on certain policies, getting them procedurally through Congress can still be a challenge. Third timing – just because the legislative calendar is so tight ahead of the November elections. And fourth speed of disbursement. So basically, how long it would take these policies to translate to an uplift for consumers ahead of the elections. Michael Zezas: So, thinking through each of these constraints, starting with how easy it might be to actually get some of these policies done, most of the policies that are being proposed on the housing side require congressional approval. In terms of these cohorts, it seems like these policies are most likely to focus on – that seems aimed at lower-income and younger voters. And in terms of timing, we know the legislative calendar is tight ahead of the midterms, and the policy makers want to pursue things that can be enacted quickly and show up for voters as soon as possible. Ariana Salvatore: So, using that lens, we think the most realistic near-term tools are probably mostly executive actions. Think agency directives and potential changes to tariff policy. If we do see a second reconciliation bill emerge, it will probably move more slowly but likely cover some of those housing related tax credit changes. But of course, not all these policies would move the needle in the same way. What do we think matters most from a macro perspective? Michael Zezas: So, what our economists have argued is that the affordability policies being discussed – tax credits subsidies, payment pauses – they could be meaningful at a micro level for targeted households, but for the most part, they don't materially change the macro outlook. The exception might be tariffs; that probably has the broadest and most sustained impact on affordability because it directly affects inflation. Lower tariffs would narrow inflation differentials across cohorts, support real income growth and make it easier for th

Our Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Serena Tang and senior leaders from Investment Management Andrew Slimmon and Jitania Kandhari unpack new investment trends from supportive monetary and fiscal policy and shifting market leadership.  Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Serena Tang: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's Chief Cross Asset Strategist. Today we're revisiting the 2026 global equity outlook with two senior leaders from Morgan Stanley Investment Management. Andrew Slimmon: I am Andrew Slimmon, Head of Applied Equity Team within Morgan Stanley Investment Management. Jitania Kandhari: And I'm Jitania Kandhari, Deputy CIO of the Solutions and Multi-Asset Group, Portfolio Manager for Passport Strategies and Head of Macro and Thematic Research for Emerging Market Equities within Morgan Stanley Investment Management.It's Tuesday, February 3rd at 10 am in New York. So as investors are entering in 2026, after several years of very strong equity returns with policy support reaccelerating. As regular listeners have probably heard, Mike Wilson, who of course is CIO and Chief Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley – his view is that we ended a three-year rolling earnings recession in last April and entered a rolling recovery and a new bull market. Now, Andrew, in the spirit of debate, I know you have a different take on valuations and where we are at in the cycle. I’d love to hear how you're framing this for investment management clients. Andrew Slimmon: Yeah, I mean, I guess I focus a little bit more on the behavioral cycle. And I think that from a behavioral cycle we're following a very consistent pattern, which is we had a bad bear market in 2022 that bottomed down 25 percent. And that provided a wonderful opportunity to invest. But early in a behavioral cycle, investors are very pessimistic. And that was really the story of [20]23 and really 2024, which were; investors, you know, were negative on equities. The ratios were all very negative and investors sold out of equities. And that's consistent with a early cycle. And then as you move into the third-fourth year, investors tend to get more optimistic about returns. Doesn't necessarily mean the market goes down. But what it does mean is the market tends to get more volatile and returns start to compress, and ultimately, bull markets die on euphoria. And so, I think it's late cycle, but it's not end of cycle. And that's my theme; is late cycle but not end of cycle.Serena Tang: And I think on that point, one very unusual feature of this environment is that you have both monetary and fiscal policy being supportive at the same time, which, of course, rarely happens outside of recession. So how do you see those dual policy forces shaping market behavior and which parts of the market tend to benefit? Andrew Slimmon: Well, that's exactly right. Look, the last time I checked, page one of the investment handbook says, ‘Don't fight the Fed.’ And so, you have monetary policy easing. And what we; remember what happened in 2021? The Fed raised rates and monetary policy was tightening. Equities do well when the Fed is easing, and that's one of the reasons why I think it's not end of cycle. And then you layer in fiscal policy with tax relief coming, it is a reason to be relatively optimistic on equities in 2026. But it doesn't mean there can't be bumps along the way – and I think a higher level of optimism as we're seeing today is a result of that. But I think you stick with those more procyclical areas: Finance, Industrials, Technology, and then you move down the cap curve a little bit. I think those are the winning trades. They really started to come to the fore in the second half of last year, and I think that will continue into 2026. Serena Tang: Right. And we've definitely seen some bumps recently, but I think on your point around yields. So, Jitania, I think that policy backdrop really ties directly to your idea of the age of capped real rates. In very simple terms, can you explain what that means and what's behind that view? Jitania Kandhari: Sure. When I say age of real rates being capped, I mean like the structural template within which I'm operating, and real rates here are defined by the 10-year on the Treasury yield adjusted for CPI.Firstly, I'd say there was too much linear thinking in markets post Liberation Day. That tariffs equals inflation equals higher rates. Now, tariff impacts, as we have seen, can be offset in several ways, and economic relationships are rarely linear.So, inflation may not go up to the extent market is expecting. So that supports the case for capped rates. And the real constraint is the debt arithmetic, right? So, if you look at the history of public debt in the U.S., whenever there was a surge in public debt during the Civil War, two World Wars, Global Financial Crisis, ev

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson discusses how the nomination of Kevin Warsh to lead the Fed could move markets.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast: The implications of Kevin Warsh’s nomination as the next Fed Chair. It's Monday, February 2nd at 10 am in New York. So, let’s get after it.Last Friday, President Trump officially nominated Kevin Warsh to be the next Chair of the Fed. The prevailing narrative around Warsh is fairly straightforward: he’s seen as more hawkish on the size of the Fed’s balance sheet, potentially more flexible on interest rates, and less comfortable with open-ended liquidity support than the current leadership. That characterization is fair, but it doesn’t answer the more important question—why pick Warsh now, and what problem is this nomination trying to solve?In my view, the answer starts with markets, not politics. Over the past several months, we’ve witnessed parabolic moves in precious metals alongside persistent weakness in the U.S. dollar. While this administration has been very clear that a weaker dollar is not inherently a bad thing—especially as part of a broader economic rebalancing strategy—there’s an important distinction between a controlled decline and a disorderly one.To understand why this matters so much, you need to zoom out. The administration is attempting to rebalance the U.S. economy across three dimensions simultaneously, all with the same ultimate goal—growing out of an enormous debt burden that’s been building for more than two decades. At this point, simply cutting spending isn’t realistic, economically or politically. Nominal growth is the only viable path forward.The current strategy is more supply side driven. It focuses on rebalancing trade through tariffs and a weaker dollar, shifting the economy away from over-consumption and toward investment, and addressing inequality through immigration enforcement and deregulation. The goal is to let companies—not the government—make capital allocation decisions, while boosting income through wages rather than entitlements. If it works, the result should be higher nominal growth with a healthier mix of real growth driven by productivity.Markets, to some extent, have already started to price this in. Since last spring, cyclical stocks have outperformed, market breadth has improved, and leadership has begun to rotate away from the mega-cap names that dominated the last cycle. Small and mid-cap stocks are working again too. That’s exactly what you’d expect in the middle stages of a ‘hotter but shorter’ expansion, my core view. At the same time, the surge in gold tells us something else is going on. Precious metals don’t move like that unless investors are questioning the endgame.That’s where Kevin Warsh comes in. His nomination appears designed to restore credibility around the balance sheet and slow the momentum of that skepticism. Based on Friday’s price action, it worked. Gold and silver sold off sharply, the dollar strengthened modestly, and equities and rates stayed relatively stable. That combination buys time—and time is exactly what this strategy needs to work.One of the best ways to track whether markets are buying into this story is by watching the ratio of the S&P 500 to gold. It’s a simple but powerful proxy for confidence in productive growth. The recent collapse was driven mostly by gold rising—and Friday’s sharp reversal was mainly gold prices falling, one of the largest on record.That doesn’t mean skepticism has been eliminated. Instead, it tells me the administration is paying attention and understands they need to restore confidence. If the ratio continues to recover, it will likely come first through lower gold prices and tighter liquidity expectations, and later through stronger earnings growth driven by productivity gains. That could mean near term risk for other risk assets, including equities. Bottom line, the current ‘run it hot’ approach has a better chance of delivering sustainable growth than prior policy mixes—but it won’t be smooth, and confidence will ebb and flow along the way. Watching how markets respond, especially through signals like gold, the dollar, and capital spending trends, will tell us whether this strategy ultimately succeeds. My view is that it’s the best approach which keeps me bullish on 2026 even if the near term is more rocky.Thanks for tuning in; I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out!

Our Global Head of Fixed Income Andrew Sheets discusses key market metrics indicating that valuations should stay higher for longer, despite some investors’ concerns.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley.Today I'm going to talk about key signposts for stability – in a world that from day to day feels anything but.It's Friday, January 30th at 2pm in London.A core theme for us at Morgan Stanley Research is that easier fiscal, monetary, and regulatory policy in 2026 will support more risk taking, corporate activity and animal spirits. Yes, valuations are high. But with so many forces blowing in the same stimulative direction across so many geographies, those valuations may stay higher for longer.We think that the Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, the European Central Bank, and the Bank of Japan, all lower interest rates more, or raise them less than markets expect. We think that fiscal policy will remain stimulative as governments in the United States, Germany, China, and Japan all spend more. And as I discussed on this program recently, regulation – a sleepy but essential part of this equation – is also aligning to support more risk taking.Of course, one concern with having so much stimulative sail out, so to speak, is that you lose control of the boat. As geopolitical headwinds swirl and the price of gold has risen a 100 percent in the last year, many investors are asking whether we're seeing too much of a shift in both government and fiscal, monetary, and regulatory policy.Specifically, when I speak to investors, I think I can paraphrase these concerns as follows: Are we seeing expectations for future inflation rise sharply? Will we see more volatility in government debt? Has the valuation of the U.S. dollar deviated dramatically from fair value? And are credit markets showing early signs of stress?Notably, so far, the answer to all of these questions based on market pricing is no. The market's expectation for CPI inflation over the next decade is about 2.4 percent. Similar actually to what we saw in 2024, 2023. Expected volatility for U.S. interest rates over the next year is, well, lower than where it was on January 1st. The U.S. dollar, despite a lot of recent headlines, is trading roughly in line with its fair value, based on purchasing power based on data from Bloomberg. And the credit markets long seen as important leading indicators of risk, well, across a lot of different regions, they've been very well behaved, with spreads still historically tight.Uncertainty in U.S. foreign policy, big moves in Japanese interest rates and even larger moves in gold have all contributed to investor concerns around the potential instability of the macro backdrop. It's understandable, but for now we think that a number of key market-based measures of the stability are still holding.While that's the case, we think that a positive fundamental story, specifically our positive view on earnings growth can continue to support markets. Major shifts in these signposts, however, could change that.Thank you as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

Original Release Date: January 16, 2026Our Head of Research Product in Europe Paul Walsh and Chief European Equity Strategist Marina Zavolock break down the main themes for European stocks this year. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Paul Walsh: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's Head of Research Product here in Europe.Marina Zavolock: And I'm Marina Zavolock, Chief European Equity Strategist.Paul Walsh: Today, we are here to talk about the big debates for European equities moving into 2026.It's Friday, January the 16th at 8am in London.Marina, it's great to have you on Thoughts on the Market. I think we've got a fascinating year ahead of us, and there are plenty of big debates to be exploring here in Europe. But let's kick it off with the, sort of, obvious comparison to the U.S.How are you thinking about European equities versus the U.S. right now? When we cast our eyes back to last year, we had this surprising outperformance. Could that repeat?Marina Zavolock: Yeah, the biggest debate of all Paul, that's what you start with. So, actually it's not just last year. If you look since U.S. elections, I think it would surprise most people to know that if you compare in constant currency terms; so if you look in dollar terms or if you look in Euro terms, European equities have outperformed U.S. equities since US elections. I don't think that's something that a lot of people really think about as a fact.And something very interesting has happened at the start of this year. And let me set the scene before I tell you what that is.In the last 10 years, European equities have been in this constantly widening discount range versus the U.S. on valuation. So next one's P/E there's been, you know, we have tactical rallies from time to time; but in the last 10 years, they've always been tactical. But we're in this downward structural range where their discount just keeps going wider and wider and wider. And what's happened on December 31st is that for the first time in 10 years, European equities have broken the top of that discount range now consistently since December 31st. I've lost count of how many trading days that is. So about two weeks, we've broken the top of that discount range. And when you look at long-term history, that's happened a number of times before. And every time that happens, you start to go into an upward range.So, the discount is narrowing and narrowing; not in a straight line, in a range. But the discount narrows over time. The last couple of times that's happened, in the last 20 years, over time you narrow all the way to single digit discount rather than what we have right now in like-for-like terms of 23 percent.Paul Walsh: Yeah, so there's a significant discount. Now, obviously it's great that we are seeing increased inflows into European equities. So far this year, the performance at an index level has been pretty robust. We've just talked about the relative positioning of Europe versus the U.S.; and the perhaps not widely understood local currency outperformance of Europe versus the U.S. last year. But do you think this is a phenomenon that's sustainable? Or are we looking at, sort of, purely a Q1 phenomenon?Marina Zavolock: Yeah, it's a really good question and you make a good point on flows, which I forgot to mention. Which is that, last year in [Q1] we saw this really big diversification flow theme where investors were looking to reduce exposure in the U.S., add exposure to Europe – for a number of reasons that I won't go into.And we're seeing deja vu with that now, mostly on the – not really reducing that much in U.S., but more so, diversifying into Europe. And the feedback I get when speaking to investors is that the U.S. is so big, so concentrated and there's this trend of broadening in the U.S. that's happening; and that broadening is impacting Europe as well.Because if you're thinking about, ‘Okay, what do I invest in outside of seven stocks in the U.S.?’ You're also thinking about, ‘Okay, but Europe has discounts and maybe I should look at those European companies as well.’ That's exactly what's happening. So, diversification flows are sharply going up, in the last month or two in European equities coming into this year.And it's a very good question of whether this is just a [Q1] phenomenon. [Be]cause that's exactly what it was last year. I still struggle to see European equities outperforming the U.S. over the course of the full year because we're going to come into earnings now.We have much lower earnings growth at a headline level than the U.S. I have 4 percent earnings growth forecast. That's driven by some specific sectors. It's, you know, you have pockets of very high growth. But still at a headline level, we have 4 percent earnings growth on our base case. Consensus is too high in our view. And our U.S. equity strategists, they have 17 percent earnings growth, so we ca

Our Deputy Head of Global Research Michael Zezas explains why the risk of a new U.S. government shutdown is worth investor attention, but not overreaction.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Deputy Head of Global Research for Morgan Stanley. Today, we’ll discuss the possibility of a U.S. government shutdown later this week, and what investors should – and should not – be worried about. It’s Wednesday, January 28th at 10:30 am in New York. In recent weeks investors have had to consider all manner of policy catalysts for the markets – including the impact to oil supply and emerging markets from military action in Venezuela, potential military action in Iran, and risks of fracturing of the U.S.-Europe relationship over Greenland. By comparison, a potential U.S. government shutdown may seem rather quaint. But, a good investor aggressively manages all risks, so let's break this down. Amidst funding negotiations in the Senate, Democrats are pressing for tighter rules and more oversight on how immigration enforcement is carried out given recent events. Republicans have signaled some openness to negotiations, but the calendar is really a constraint. With the House out of session until early next week any Senate changes this week could lead to a lapse in funding. So, a brief shutdown this weekend, followed by a short continuing resolution once the House returns, is a very plausible path – not because either side wants a shutdown, but because they haven’t fully coalesced around the strategy and time is short. Of course, once a shutdown happens, there’s a risk it could drag on. But in general our base case is that the economic impact would be manageable. Historically, shutdowns create meaningful hardship for affected workers and contractors. But the aggregate macro effects tend to be modest and reversible. Most spending is eventually made up, and disruptions to growth typically unwind quickly once funding is restored. A useful rule of thumb is that a full shutdown trims roughly one‑tenth of a percentage point from the annualized quarterly GDP for each week it lasts. With several appropriations bills already passed, what we’d face now is a partial shutdown, meaning that figure would be even smaller. For markets, that means the reaction should also be modest. Shutdowns tend not to reprice the fundamental path of earnings, inflation, or the Fed – which are still the dominant drivers of asset performance. So, the market’s inclination will likely be to look past the noise and focus on more substantive catalysts ahead. Finally, it’s worth unpacking the politics here, because they’re relevant. But not in the way investors might think. The shutdown risk is emerging from actions that have contributed to sagging approval ratings for the President and Republicans – leading many investors to ask us what this means for midterm elections and resulting public policy choices. And taken together, one could read these dynamics as an early sign that the Republicans may face a difficult midterm environment. We think it's too early to draw any confident conclusions about this, but even if we could, we’re not sure it matters. First, many of the most market‑relevant policies—on trade, regulation, industrial strategy, re‑shoring, and increasingly AI—are being executed through executive authority, not congressional action. That means their trajectory is unlikely to be altered by near‑term political turbulence. Second, the President would almost certainly veto any effort to roll back last year’s tax bill, which created a suite of incentives aimed at corporate capex. A key driver of the 2026 outlook. Putting it all together, the bottom line is this: A short, calendar‑driven shutdown is a risk worth monitoring, but not one to overreact to. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review. And tell your friends about the podcast. We want everyone to listen.

Our Head of Asian Gaming & Lodging and Hong Kong/India Real Estate Research Praveen Choudhary discusses the first synchronized growth cycle for Hong Kong’s major real estate segments in almost a decade.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Praveen Choudhary, Morgan Stanley’s Head of Asian Gaming & Lodging and Hong Kong/India Real Estate Research. Today – a look at a market that global investors often watch but may not fully appreciate: Hong Kong real estate. It’s Tuesday, January 27th, at 2pm in Hong Kong.Why should investors in New York, London, or Singapore care about trends in Hong Kong property? That’s easy to answer. Because Hong Kong remains one of the world’s most globally sensitive real estate markets. When [the] cycle turns here, it often reflects – and sometimes predicts – broader shift in liquidity, capital flows, and macro sentiment across Asia. And right now, for the first time since 2018, all three major Hong Kong property segments – residential prices, office rents in the Central district of Hong Kong, and retail sales – are set to grow together. That synchronized upturn hasn’t happened in almost a decade. What’s driving this shift? Residential real estate is the engine of this turnaround. Prices have finally bottomed after a 30 percent decline since 2018, and 2026 is shaping out to be a strong year. We actually expect home prices to grow more than 10 percent in 2026, after going up by 5 percent in 2025. And we think that it will grow further in 2027. There are three factors that give us confidence on this out-of-consensus call. The first one is policy. Back in February 2024, Hong Kong scrapped all extra stamp duty that had made it tougher for mainland Chinese or foreign buyers to enter the market. Stamp duty is basically a tax you pay when buying property, or even selling property; and it has been a key way for [the] government to control demand and raise revenue. With those extra charges gone, buying and selling real estate in Hong Kong, especially for mainlanders, is a lot more straightforward and penalty-free. In fact, post the removal of the stamp duty, [the] percentage of units that has been sold to mainlanders have gone to 50 percent of total; earlier it used to be 10-20 percent. Why is it non-consensus? That is because consensus believes that Hong Kong property price can’t go up when China residential outlook is negative. In mid-2025, consensus thought that the recovery was simply a cyclical response to a sharp drop in the Hong Kong Interbank Offered Rate, or HIBOR.But we believe the drivers are supply/demand mismatch, positive carry as rental go up but rates go down, and Hong Kong as a place for global monetary interconnection between China and the world that’s still thriving. Second, demand fundamentals are strengthening. Hong Kong’s population turned positive again, rising to 7.5 million in the first half of 2025. During COVID we had a population decline. Now, talent attraction scheme is driving around 140,000 visa approvals in 2025, which is double what it used to be pre-COVID level. New household formation is tracking above the long‑term average, and mainland buyers are now a powerful force. The third factor is affordability. So, after years of declines, the housing prices have come to a point where affordability is back to a long‑term average. In fact, the income versus the price is now back to 2011 level. You combine this with lower mortgage rates as the Fed cut moves through, and you have pent‑up demand finally returning. And don’t forget the wealth effect: Hang Seng Index climbed almost 30 percent in 2025. That kind of equity rebound historically spills over into property buying. As the recovery in residential real estate picks up speed, we're also seeing a fresh wave of optimism and actions across Hong Kong office and retail markets. So big picture: Hong Kong property market isn't just stabilizing. It’s turning. A 10 percent or more residential price rebound, a Central office market finding its footing, and an improved retail environment – all in the same year – marks the clearest green lights this market has seen since 2018.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

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

In the second of their two-part roundtable, Seth Carpenter and Morgan Stanley’s top economists break down the forces influencing growth across different regions.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. And yesterday I sat down with my colleagues, Michael Gapen, our Chief U.S. Economist, Chetan Ahya, our Chief Asia Economist, and Jen Eisenschmidt, our Chief Europe Economist. And we spent a lot of time talking about monetary policy around the world. Today, let's go back to them, talk about the real side of the economy. It's Friday, January 23rd at 10am in New York. Jens Eisenschmidt: And 4pm in Frankfurt. Chetan Ahya: And 9pm in Hong Kong. Seth Carpenter: Michael, let me start with you, back on the U.S. And when I think about the U.S. economy, we have to start by talking about the U.S. consumer. Walk us through what investors need to understand about consumer spending in the U.S. What's driving it, what's going to hold it up, and where are the risks? Michael Gapen: I think the primary thing to remember here is that the upper income consumer drives about 40 percent or more of total spending.  So, there can be higher inflation that eats into real labor market income growth. There can be inflation dispersion, which hits lower income households more than upper income households. We can have tariffs that get applied to goods and lower- and middle-income households buy goods more than upper income households. But when asset markets continue to appreciate, when home prices hold on to their prior gains, sometimes that doesn't matter in the aggregate statistics because that upper income household keeps spending.I do think that's a lot of what happened in 2025. So, there is a K-shaped economy. I think one of the main risks about the U.S. is that its expansion is narrowly driven.  We think that will broaden out in 2026. If we're right, that inflation comes down and we're past, kind of, the peak effect of tariffs, then we think that lower- and middle-income household can have a little more residual spending power. And you might get the consumer operating on two fronts, rather than one. Seth Carpenter:     Another part of domestic spending that gets a lot of attention is business investment spending, CapEx spending. First would you agree with that statement that CapEx spending last year was characterized by AI CapEx spending? Second, should we feel confident that that underlying sort of momentum in CapEx spending should continue for this year? And then third, what's it going to take for there to be a broadening out, maybe like what you said about consumers, but a broadening out of investment spending so that it's not just the AI story that's driving CapEx. Michael Gapen:  I do agree that the primary, almost exclusive story in 2025 for business spending was AI. So, when you look at residential and non-residential spending, unrelated to AI, that I think did feel the effects of policy uncertainty in a changing environment.  what keeps kind of sustainability around business spending? Obviously, it's a multi-year investment story around AI. There's a level versus growth rate argument here where you can have a heck of a lot of CapEx spending. May not always show up in GDP because some of it is intermediate goods, some of it is imported. But that doesn't diminish, I think, the quality of the overall story. What gets business spending to broaden out, I do think is related to whether consumer spending broadens out. Most business spending kind of follows demand with a lag. So, AI is a different story, but there's a cyclical component to business spending. There could be a housing related component, if mortgage rates come down and stimulate at least a little more turnover in the housing market. So, if the recovery does broaden out, we see greater real income growth in low- and middle-income households. The labor market stabilizes. Maybe mortgage rates come down a little bit, then I think you could get carry through momentum to non-AI related business spending. That would look more like a cyclical upswing for the economy. May be a heavy lift, but that's what I think it would take to get there. Seth Carpenter: So, Jens, let me come to you. We talked yesterday about the ECB possibly easing more on disinflation. But when I think of disinflation, I think of a weak economy. And that's maybe not really the case. So, I guess the first question to you would you characterize euro area economic growth as strong, or a little bit more complicated? Jens Eisenschmidt: A little bit more complicated. And that's always the right answer for an economist – I think it depends. Well, it is strong in so

Our Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter joins our chief regional economists to discuss the outlook for interest rates in the U.S., Japan and Europe.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. And today we're kicking off our quarterly economic roundtable for the year. We're going to try to think about everything that matters in economics around the world. And today we're going to focus a little bit more on central banking. And when we get to tomorrow,  we'll focus on the nuts and bolts of the real side of the economy. I'm joined by our chief regional economists. Michael Gapen: Hi, Seth. I'm Mike Gapen, Chief U.S. Economist at Morgan Stanley. Chetan Ahya: I'm Chetan Ahya, Chief Asia economist. Jens Eisenschmidt: And I'm Jens Eisenschmidt, Chief Europe economist. Seth Carpenter: It's Thursday, January 22nd at 10 am in New York. Jens Eisenschmidt: And 4 pm in Frankfurt. Chetan Ahya: And 9 pm in Hong Kong. Seth Carpenter:  So, Mike Gapen, let me start with you as we head into 2026, what are we thinking about? Are we going into a more stable expansion? Is this just a different phase with the same amount of volatility? What do you think is going to be happening in the U.S. as a baseline outlook? And then if we're going to be wrong, which direction would we be wrong? Michael Gapen: Yeah, Seth, we took the view that we would have more policy certainty. Recent weeks have maybe suggested we're incorrect on that front. But I still believe that when it comes to deregulation, immigration policy and fiscal policy, we have much more clarity there than we did a year ago. So, I think it's another year of modest growth, above trend growth. We're forecasting something around 2.4 percent for 2026. That's about where we finished 2025. I think what's key for markets and the outlook overall will be whether inflation comes down. Firms are still passing through tariffs to the consumer. We think that'll happen at least through the end of the first quarter. It's our view that after that, inflation pressures will start to diminish. If that's the case, then we think the Fed can execute one or two more rate cuts.  But we have those coming [in] the second half of the year. So, it looks like growth is strong enough. The labor market has stabilized enough for the Fed to wait and see, to look around, see the effects of their prior rate cuts, and then push policy closer to neutral if inflation comes down. Seth Carpenter: And if we go back to last year to 2025, I will give you the credit first. Morgan Stanley did not shift its forecast for recession in the U.S. the way some of our main competitors did. On the other hand, and this is where I maybe tweak you just a little bit. We underestimated how much growth there would be in the United States. CapEx spending from AI firms was strong. Consumer spending, especially from the top half of the income distribution in the U.S. was strong. Growth overall for the year was over 2 percent, close to 2.5 percent. So, if that's what we just came off of, why isn't it the case that we'd see even stronger growth? Maybe even a re-acceleration of growth in 2026? Michael Gapen: Well, some of that, say, improvement vis-à-vis our forecast, the outperformance. Some of that I think comes mechanically from trade and inventory variability. So, . I'm not sure that that says a lot about an improving trend rate of growth. Where there was other outperformance was, as you noted, from the consumer. Now our models, and I don't mean to get too technical here, but our model suggests that consumption is overshooting its fundamentals.  Which I think makes it harder for the economy to accelerate further. And then AI; it's harder for AI spending to say get incrementally stronger than where it is. So, we’re getting a little extra boost from fiscal. We've got that coming through. And I just think what it is, is more of the same rather than further acceleration from here. Seth Carpenter:    Do you think there's a chance that the Fed in fact does not cut rates like you have in your forecast? Michael Gapen: Yes, I do think... Where we could be wrong  is we've made assumptions around the One Big Beautiful Bill and what it will contribute to the economy. But as you know, there's a lot of variability around those estimates. If the bill is more catalytic to animal spirits and business spending than we've assumed, you could get, say, a demand driven animal spirits upside to the economy, which may mean inflation doesn't decelerate all that much. But I do think that that's, say, the main upside risk that we're considering. Markets have been gradually taking

All eyes have been on President Trump’s address at the World Economic Forum. Michael Zezas, our Deputy Global Head of Research, and Ariana Salvatore, our Head of Public Policy Research, talk about potential implications for policy and the U.S. outlook.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Deputy Global Head of Research for Morgan Stanley. Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research. Michael Zezas: Today we're discussing our takeaways from President Trump's speech in Davos and what we think it means for investors. It's Wednesday, January 21st at 1pm in New York. Michael Zezas: So, Ariana, over the last couple of weeks, there's been a lot of news about policy proposals coming out of the U.S. and from President Trump around affordability, as well as some geopolitical events around the U.S. relationship with Europe. And investors really started looking towards President Trump's speech at Davos, which he gave earlier today, as a potential vehicle to learn more about what these things would actually mean and what it might mean for the economic outlook and markets. Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, that's right. I think specifically investors were looking for the President to focus on affordability proposals pertaining to housing and some commentary around Greenland. Remember last weekend, President Trump proposed a 10 percent tariff on some EU countries related to this topic specifically. So obviously that did feature in his speech. What did we learn and what do you think are the most important things for markets to know? Michael Zezas: So, maybe the most important headline we got was President Trump appearing to take off the table the use of force when it comes to an attempt to acquire Greenland. And that would seem to, therefore, take off the table the idea of a broader rupture in the U.S.-EU relationship. Both the security relationship vis-a-vis NATO, as well as the economic relationship which could have been ruptured with higher tariffs on both sides, anti coercion measures around trade, and that would be of obvious economic importance. Europe is obviously a major importer of U.S. goods. Not as big as Canada or Mexico, but still pretty significant. So, anything that would've created higher barriers between the two would've had meaningful economic consequences for the U.S. outlook. Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, that's right. And we've been saying that the bilateral trade framework agreement between the U.S. and the EU is actually pretty tenuous in nature, right? So, this doesn't yet have formal backing from the European Parliament. They, in fact, delayed a vote on this exact deal, kind of on the back of these Greenland headlines. So how are we thinking about, you know, what's been priced into markets and maybe what this could mean for something like the dollar going forward? Michael Zezas: Yeah, so it's important to point out that we're not out of the woods yet in terms of potential trade escalation on both sides around the Greenland issue. However, it seems like that bigger tail problem of a decoupling might have gone away. And so, what you saw in markets so far today was that some of the actions over the past, kind of, 24-48 hours with equity market weakness. You know, the S&P was down about 2 percent yesterday. The dollar was weaker. It seemed like more term premium was being baked into the U.S. Treasury market. A lot of that appears to be unwinding today. Said more simply, the idea of a kind of riskier investment environment for the U.S. is getting priced out. At least today, it's getting priced out. And it all makes sense when you think about if there was less of a relationship between the U.S. and Europe, there would be less demand for U.S. dollar holdings overseas. And that's the type of thing that should manifest in a weaker dollar and higher term premia, steeper yield curves for U.S. Treasuries. Ariana Salvatore: Yeah, and that dovetails really nicely with the work that we just put out with the FX team, kind of highlighting some of the policy factors as push factors for countries to move away from the dollar. We think that's happening marginally. We think it's not really a risk in the immediate term, but some of these policy drivers can actually create dollar weakness over the medium to longer term. Michael Zezas: Of course, to the extent that we get news that this is a head fake and that tensions are re-escalating, you'd expect some of those trades to start pushing markets back in the other direction again. Now, President Trump also talked quite a bit about domestic policy, largely about affordability, and some of the policy proposals he's put forward over the last couple of weeks. Was there any new details that you heard that you think are meaningful fo

Our co-heads of Securitized Products Jay Bacow and James Egan explain why recent U.S. government measures won’t change much the outlook for mortgage rates, home prices and sales this year.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Jay Bacow: Jim Egan, I see you sitting across from me wearing a quarter zip. As old things become new again, my teenager would think that is trendy. James Egan: I think this is one of, if not the first, times in my life that a teenager has thought I was trendy, including back when I was a teenager. Jay Bacow: Well, as captain of the chess team in high school, I was never trendy. But Jim… Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jay Bacow, co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley. James Egan: And I'm Jim Egan, the other co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, we're here to talk about some of the programs that are being announced and their implications for the mortgage and U.S. housing markets. It's Tuesday, January 20th at 10am in New York. Now, Jay, there have been a lot of announcements from this administration. Some of them focused on affordability, some of them focused on the mortgage market, some of them focused on the housing market. But I think one of them that had the biggest impact, at least in terms of trading sessions immediately following, was a $200 billion buy program from the GSEs. Can you talk to us a little bit about that program? Jay Bacow: Sure. As you mentioned, President Trump announced that there would be a $200 billion purchase of mortgages, which later was confirmed by FHFA director Bill Pulte, to be purchased by Fannie and Freddie. Now, we would highlight putting this $200 billion number in context. The market was probably expecting the GSEs to buy about a hundred billion dollars of mortgages this year. So, this is maybe an incremental a hundred billion dollars more. The mortgage market round numbers is a $10 trillion market, so in the scope of the size of the market, it's not huge. However, we're only forecasting about [$]175 billion of growth in the mortgage market this year, so this is the GSEs buying more than net issuance. It's also similar in size to the Fed balance sheet runoff, which is something that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant mentioned in his comments last week. And so, the initial impact of this announcement was reasonably meaningful. Mortgage spreads tightened about 15 basis points and headline mortgage rates rallied to below 6 precent for the first time since 2022 on some mortgage measures. James Egan: Alright, so we had a 15 basis point rally almost immediately upon announcement of this program. That took us, I believe, through your bull case for agency mortgages in our 2026 outlook. So, what's next here? Jay Bacow: Well, we have a lot of questions about what is next. There's a lot of things that we're still waiting information on. But we think the initial move has sort of been fully priced in. We don't know the pace of the buying. We don't know if the purchases are going to be outright – like the Fed's purchase programs were. Or purchased and hedging the duration – like historically, the GSEs portfolios have been managed. We don't know how the $200 billion of mortgages will be funded. The way we're kind of thinking about this is if the program is just – and this is a podcast, not a video cast but I'm putting air quotes around just – $200 billion, it is probably priced in and then maybe and then some. However, if the purchases are front loaded or the purchases are increased, or maybe this purchase program indicates possible changes to the composition of the Fed's balance sheet, then there could be further moves in spreads and in mortgage rates.But Jim, what does this mean to the mortgage market writ large? James Egan: Right. So, when we think about what you're talking about, a 15 basis point move in mortgage rates, and we take that into the housing market, the first order implication is on affordability. And this is a move in the right direction, but it is small from a magnitude perspective. You mentioned mortgage rates getting below 6 percent for the first time since 2022. When we think about this in the context of our expectations for 2026, we already had the mortgage rate getting to about 5.75 in the back half of this year. This would take that forecast down to about 5.6 percent. That has a very modest upward implication for our purchase volume forecast, but I want to emphasize the modest piece. We're talking about [$]4.23 million was our original existing home sales forecast. This could take it to [$] 4.25 [million], maybe as high as [$]4.3 [million] with some media effect layered in. But any growth in demand, when we think about the home price side of the equation, we think we'll be met with additional listings. So, it really doesn't change our

Our Head of Research Product in Europe Paul Walsh and Chief European Equity Strategist Marina Zavolock break down the main themes for European stocks this year. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Paul Walsh: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's Head of Research Product here in Europe.Marina Zavolock: And I'm Marina Zavolock, Chief European Equity Strategist.Paul Walsh: Today, we are here to talk about the big debates for European equities moving into 2026.It's Friday, January the 16th at 8am in London.Marina, it's great to have you on Thoughts on the Market. I think we've got a fascinating year ahead of us, and there are plenty of big debates to be exploring here in Europe. But let's kick it off with the, sort of, obvious comparison to the U.S.How are you thinking about European equities versus the U.S. right now? When we cast our eyes back to last year, we had this surprising outperformance. Could that repeat?Marina Zavolock: Yeah, the biggest debate of all Paul, that's what you start with. So, actually it's not just last year. If you look since U.S. elections, I think it would surprise most people to know that if you compare in constant currency terms; so if you look in dollar terms or if you look in Euro terms, European equities have outperformed U.S. equities since US elections. I don't think that's something that a lot of people really think about as a fact.And something very interesting has happened at the start of this year. And let me set the scene before I tell you what that is.In the last 10 years, European equities have been in this constantly widening discount range versus the U.S. on valuation. So next one's P/E there's been, you know, we have tactical rallies from time to time; but in the last 10 years, they've always been tactical. But we're in this downward structural range where their discount just keeps going wider and wider and wider. And what's happened on December 31st is that for the first time in 10 years, European equities have broken the top of that discount range now consistently since December 31st. I've lost count of how many trading days that is. So about two weeks, we've broken the top of that discount range. And when you look at long-term history, that's happened a number of times before. And every time that happens, you start to go into an upward range.So, the discount is narrowing and narrowing; not in a straight line, in a range. But the discount narrows over time. The last couple of times that's happened, in the last 20 years, over time you narrow all the way to single digit discount rather than what we have right now in like-for-like terms of 23 percent.Paul Walsh: Yeah, so there's a significant discount. Now, obviously it's great that we are seeing increased inflows into European equities. So far this year, the performance at an index level has been pretty robust. We've just talked about the relative positioning of Europe versus the U.S.; and the perhaps not widely understood local currency outperformance of Europe versus the U.S. last year. But do you think this is a phenomenon that's sustainable? Or are we looking at, sort of, purely a Q1 phenomenon?Marina Zavolock: Yeah, it's a really good question and you make a good point on flows, which I forgot to mention. Which is that, last year in [Q1] we saw this really big diversification flow theme where investors were looking to reduce exposure in the U.S., add exposure to Europe – for a number of reasons that I won't go into.And we're seeing deja vu with that now, mostly on the – not really reducing that much in U.S., but more so, diversifying into Europe. And the feedback I get when speaking to investors is that the U.S. is so big, so concentrated and there's this trend of broadening in the U.S. that's happening; and that broadening is impacting Europe as well.Because if you're thinking about, ‘Okay, what do I invest in outside of seven stocks in the U.S.?’ You're also thinking about, ‘Okay, but Europe has discounts and maybe I should look at those European companies as well.’ That's exactly what's happening. So, diversification flows are sharply going up, in the last month or two in European equities coming into this year.And it's a very good question of whether this is just a [Q1] phenomenon. [Be]cause that's exactly what it was last year. I still struggle to see European equities outperforming the U.S. over the course of the full year because we're going to come into earnings now.We have much lower earnings growth at a headline level than the U.S. I have 4 percent earnings growth forecast. That's driven by some specific sectors. It's, you know, you have pockets of very high growth. But still at a headline level, we have 4 percent earnings growth on our base case. Consensus is too high in our view. And our U.S. equity strategists, they have 17 percent earnings growth, so we can't compete.Paul Walsh That's a very stark difference.Marina Zavolock: Yea

Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets looks at the implications of the U.S. government’s efforts to ease regulations, from bank balance sheets to asset valuations.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, a core theme of easing policy, and the latest iteration in the U.S. mortgage market. It's Thursday, January 15th at 2pm in London. Central to our thinking for the year ahead is that we're seeing an unusual combination of easing monetary policy, fiscal policy, and regulatory policy – all at the same time. This isn't normal, and usually this type of support is only deployed under much more dire economic conditions. All this is also happening alongside another large supportive force – over $3 trillion of AI- and datacenter-related spending that Morgan Stanley expects all to happen through the end of 2028. This broad-based easing is a global theme. Equities in Japan have been rallying on hopes of even a larger fiscal leasing in that country. In Europe, we think that Germany will continue to spend more while the European Central Bank and Bank of England cut rates more than the market expects.But like many things these days, it's the United States that's at the heart of the story. We think that the U.S. Federal Reserve will continue to lower interest rates this year, even as core inflation persists above its target. The U.S. government will spend about $1.9 trillion more than it takes in, even after adjusting for tariffs as tax cuts from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act kick in. But my focus today is on the third leg of this proverbial three-legged stimulative stool. While easing monetary and fiscal policy probably get the most focus, easing regulatory policy is another big lever that's being pulled in the same direction. Regulatory policy is opaque, and let's face it can be a little boring. But it's extremely important for how financial markets function. Regulation drives the incentives for the buyers of many assets, especially in the all-important banking and insurance sectors. It can set almost by definition what price an asset needs to trade at to be attractive, or how much of an asset a particular actor in the market can or cannot hold. Regulatory policy tightened dramatically in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis, but now it's starting to ease. Our U.S. bank equity analysts expect that finalization of key capital rules later this year – an important regulatory step – could free up about [$]5.8 trillion – with a T – of balance sheet capacity across the Global Systematically Important Banks. In mid-December, the office of the comptroller of the currency and the FDIC withdrew lending guidelines from 2013 that had discouraged banks from making loans to more highly indebted companies. And just last week, the U.S. administration announced that the U.S. mortgage agencies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would buy [$]200 billion of mortgages to hold on their own balance sheet; a significant move that quickly tightens spreads in this key market. For investors, we see several implications. This simultaneous easing across monetary, fiscal, and now regulatory policy supports a market that runs hot and where valuations may overshoot. And in the specific case of these agency mortgages, my colleague Jay Bacow and our mortgage strategy team think that this shift is now very quickly in the price. Having previously been positive on agency mortgage spreads, they've now turned to neutral. Thank you as always for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

Our Head of India Research and Chief India Equity Strategist Ridham Desai addresses a big debate: whether India stocks are poised for a recovery after underperforming other emerging markets in 2025.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Ridham Desai, Morgan Stanley’s Head of India Research and Chief India Equity Strategist. Today: one of the big debates in Asia this year. Can Indian equities recover their strength after a historic slump?   It’s Wednesday, January 14th, at 2pm in Mumbai.India ended 2025 with its weakest relative performance versus Emerging Markets since 1994. That’s right – three decades. The reason? A mid-cycle growth slowdown, rich valuations, and the fact that India doesn’t offer an explicit AI-related trade. Add in delays on the U.S. trade deal plus India’s low beta in a global bull market, and you’ve got a recipe for underperformance. But we think the tide is turning.  Valuations have corrected meaningfully and likely bottomed out in October. More importantly, India’s growth cycle looks poised for a positive surprise. Policymakers have gone all-in on reflation, deploying a mix of aggressive measures to revive momentum. The Reserve Bank of India has cut rates, reduced the cash reserve ratio, infused liquidity and gone in for bank deregulation which are adding fuel to the fire. The government has front-loaded capital expenditure and announced a massive ₹1.5 trillion GST rate cut to encourage people to spend more on goods and services. All these moves – along with improving ties between India and China, Beijing’s new anti-involution push, and the possibility of a major India-U.S. trade deal – are laying solid groundwork for recovery. Put simply, India’s once-tough, post-pandemic economic stance is easing up. And that could open the door to a major shift in how investors see the market going forward. India’s macro backdrop is also evolving. The reduced reliance on oil in GDP, the growing share of exports, especially in services, the ongoing fiscal consolidation – all indicate a smaller saving imbalance. This means structurally lower interest rates ahead. And flexible inflation targeting, and volatility in both inflation and interest rates should continue to decline. High growth with low volatility and falling rates should translate into higher P/E multiples. And don’t forget the household balance sheet shift toward equities. Systematic flows into domestic mutual funds are evidence of this trend. Investor concerns are understandable, but let’s keep them in context. More companies raising capital often signals growth ahead, not just high valuations. Domestic investment remains strong, thanks to a steady shift toward equities. India’s premium valuations reflect solid long-term growth prospects and expectations for lower real interest rates. On the policy front, efforts to boost growth are robust, and we see real growth potentially surprising to the upside. While India isn’t a leader in AI yet, the upcoming AI summit in February could help address concerns about India’s role in tech innovation. What key catalysts should investors watch? Look for positive earnings revisions, further dovishness from the RBI, reforms from the government including privatization, and the long-awaited U.S. trade deal. But also keep an eye on key risks – slower global growth and shifting geopolitical dynamics. So, after fifteen months of relative pain, could India be on the cusp of a structural re-rating? If growth surprises to the upside – and we think it will – the story of 2026 may just be India’s comeback. Stay tuned.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our U.S. Thematic Strategist Michelle Weaver and U.S. Multi-Industry Analyst Chris Snyder discuss a North America Big Debate for 2026: Whether investments in efficiency and productivity will spark a transformation of U.S. manufacturing. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist. Chris Snyder: I'm Chris Snyder, U.S. Multi-Industry Analyst. Michelle Weaver: Today: Will 2026 be the year of U.S. Manufacturing's transformation? It's Tuesday, January 13th at 10am in New York. U.S. reshoring has been an important component of our multipolar world theme, and manufacturing is one of those topics we have always had our eyes on. We've been making some big predictions about a transformation in this sector, so it makes sense that it features prominently in the big debates we've identified for North America in 2026. In the last few years, there's been a steady stream of investments in automation controls and upgrades across U.S. manufacturing. And this is happening against a backdrop of shifting global supply chains and lingering policy uncertainty. Now, the big market debate is whether these investments will generate a whole wave of greenfield projects – that is brand new, multi-year construction initiatives to build facilities, factories, and infrastructure from the ground up. Chris, what exactly is driving this current wave of efficiency and productivity investment in U.S. manufacturing? And how long term of a trend is it? Chris Snyder: I think what's driving the inflection is tariffs. The view that has underpinned my U.S. reshoring call is that I believe companies have to serve the U.S. market. The U.S. accounts for 30 percent of global consumption – equal to EU and China combined. It is also the best margin region in the world. So, companies have to serve the market, and now what they're doing is they're going back and they're looking at their production assets that they have in the U.S. and they're saying, how can I get more out of what's already here? So, the quickest, cheapest, fastest way to bring production online in the U.S. is drive better productivity and efficiency out of the assets you already have. And we're seeing it come through very quickly after Liberation Day. Michelle Weaver: And you think these investments are an on ramp to larger greenfield projects. What evidence do we have that this efficiency spend is setting the stage for a ramp up in new factory builds? Chris Snyder: I think this is absolutely the leading indicator for greenfields because this is telling us that the supply chain cost calculation has changed. What all of these companies are doing are saying, ‘Okay, how can I get products into the U.S. at the cheapest cost possible?’ What we're seeing is the cost of imports have gone higher with tariffs, and now it's more economically advisable for these companies to make the product in the United States. And if that's the case, that means that when they need a new factory, it's going to come to the United States. They might not need a factory now, but when they do, the U.S. is at least incrementally better positioned to get that factory. Other data that we're seeing; I think the most interesting data that's come out of all of this is the bifurcation in global PPI or producer price data. If you look at it on a regional basis, North America markets saw PPI go higher in 2025. They were all the tariff exempt regions – U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Every other region in the world saw PPI down year-to-date. That means that these companies and factories are having to lower prices to stay competitive in the global market and sell their products into the United States. That tells us also where the next factory is going. If you have a factory in the U.S. and a factory in Malaysia, and your U.S. factory is pricing up, that means the return profile is getting better. If your factory in Malaysia is pricing down, it means the returns are getting worse and you're pricing down because it's over-capacitized. That's not a region where you're going to add a factory. You know, what I like to say is – price drives returns, and supply is going to follow returns. And right now, that price data tells us the returns are in the United States. Michelle Weaver: And, for people that might not be familiar with PPI, can you explain it to everyone? It's sort of like CPIs cousin, but how should people think about it? Chris Snyder: Yeah, yeah, so PPI, Producer Price Inflation, it's effectively the prices that my companies, the producers of goods are charging. So maybe this is the price that they would then charge a distributor, who then the distributor ultimately is selling it to a store. And then that's, you know, kind of factoring its way into CPI. But it sta

Our Chief Fixed Income Strategists Vishy Tirupattur discusses the calm market reaction to the latest developments in Venezuela and the potential implications for oil, stocks and bonds.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. On today’s podcast, I will talk about the markets’ response to the complex political developments in Venezuela, and examine the opportunities and risks it presents to the markets. It is Monday, January 12th at 11 am in New York. Despite the far-reaching geopolitical implications of last weekend’s developments in Venezuela, the financial markets have been strikingly calm. Oil prices have barely budged, global equities have rallied, and the reaction in the safe-haven markets – U.S. Treasuries, for example – has been fairly muted. So what explains all of this? Let’s start with oil – the commodity most exposed to the situation in Venezuela. The near-term supply appears very manageable. As Morgan Stanley’s chief commodities strategist Martijn Rats notes, the market entered 2026 oversupplied, and inventories remain flush. That cushion explains why Brent prices have barely budged, and why Martijn sees prices sliding into the mid-$50s in the coming months.The bigger story is medium term. The prospect of reviving Venezuela’s oil industry tilts production risks higher. Despite holding over 300 billion barrels, the world’s largest reserves, [the] current output of Venezuela is just 0.8-1 million barrels per day, making it the smallest producer among the major reserve holders. More Venezuelan barrels hitting global markets could keep prices soft, even against a backdrop of rising geopolitical tensions. For oil, the near-term price risk is low while medium-term price risk leans bearish. Let’s talk about energy stocks. In line with the expectation of our equity energy analysts led by Devin McDermott, energy equities have largely responded favorably, reflecting the potential for increased oil supply and specific company opportunities. U.S. refiners stand out as poised to gain. A post-Maduro Venezuela could mean higher crude exports of the heavy, sour oil that these refiners are built to process. More imported heavy crude is a clear tailwind for U.S. Gulf Coast refiners like Valero (VLO) and Marathon Petroleum (MPC), potentially lowering their input costs and improving their margins. Similarly, Chevron (CVX), the only U.S. major still operating there under a sanctions waiver, is also poised to rally on the back of this. So for energy stocks, while [the] geopolitical story is complex, the market’s message is straightforward. The prospect of greater supply is good news, and some companies appear uniquely positioned to gain as Venezuela’s next chapter unfolds. Nowhere has the market reaction been more dramatic than in Venezuela’s own sovereign debt. As Simon Waever, Morgan Stanley’s global head of sovereign credit strategy anticipated, prices of Venezuela’s defaulted bonds – both the government bonds (VENZ) as well as the bonds of state oil company PDVSA – soared to multi-year highs following the weekend’s events. The bond complex has already rallied over 25 percent since last weekend to reach an average price of about $35, thanks to the increased likelihood of a creditor-friendly transition. A clearer path for a potential debt restructuring deal improves the prospects for future debt recovery. We expect further upside as the markets price a higher recovery rate if Venezuela’s oil production increases further. So what's the bottom line: Last week’s developments in Venezuela are a major geopolitical event, but the financial market reaction reflects both the contained nature of the shock and the prospect of constructive outcomes ahead – more oil supply, creditor-friendly debt resolution, etc. Oil markets are signaling that global supply can weather the storm, equity investors are cheering beneficiaries like refiners and seeing the broader risk backdrop as unchanged, and bond investors are selectively adding Venezuela’s beaten-down debt in hopes of an eventual recovery. For now, the takeaway is that this political event has not affected the market’s positive momentum – if anything, it has created pockets of opportunity and reinforced prevailing trends such as ample oil, and strong credit appetite. As always, we’ll keep you informed of any material changes. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.Important note regarding economic sanctions. This report references jurisdictions which may be the subject of economic sanctions. Readers are solely responsible for ensuring that their investment activities are carried out in compliance with applicable laws.

Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets takes a look at multiple indicators that are pointing on the same direction: strong growth for markets and the economy.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I'm going to talk about an unusual alignment of signs of optimism for the global cyclical backdrop and why these are important to watch. It's Friday, January 9th at 2pm in London. 2026 is now well underway. Forecasting is difficult and a humbling exercise; and 2025 certainly showed that even in a good year for markets, you can have some serious twists and turns. But overall, Morgan Stanley Research still thinks the year ahead will be a positive one, with equities higher and bond yields modestly lower. It's off to an eventful start, certainly, but we think that core message remains in place. But instead of going back again to our forecasts through the year ahead, I wanted to focus instead on a wide variety of different assets that have long been viewed as leading indicators of the global cyclical environment. I think these are important, and what's notable is that they're all moving in the same direction – all indicating a stronger cyclical backdrop. While today's market certainly has some areas of speculative activity and excessive valuations, the alignment of these things suggests something more substantive may be going on. First, Copper prices, which tend to be volatile but economically sensitive, have been rising sharply up about 40 percent in the last year. A key index of non-traded industrial commodities for everything from Glass to Tin, which is useful because it means it's less likely to be influenced by investor activity, well, it's been up 10 percent over the last year. Korean equities, which tend to be highly cyclical and thus have long been viewed by investors as a proxy for global economic optimism, well, they were the best performing major market last year, up 80 percent. Smaller cap stocks, which again, tend to be more economically sensitive, well, they've been outperforming larger ones. And last but not least, Financial stocks in the U.S. and Europe. Again, a sector that tends to be quite economically sensitive. Well, they've been outperforming the broader market and to a pretty significant degree. These are different assets in different regions that all appear to be saying the same thing – that the outlook for global cyclical activity has been getting better and has now actually been doing so for some time. Now, any individual indicator can be wrong. But when multiple indicators all point in the same direction, that's pretty worthy of attention. And I think this ties in nicely with a key message from my colleague, Mike Wilson from Monday's episode; that the positive case for U.S. equities is very much linked to better fundamental activity. Specifically, our view that earnings growth may be stronger than appreciated. Of course, the data will have a say, and if these indicators turn down, it could suggest a weaker economic and cyclical backdrop. But for now, these various cyclical indicators are giving a positive read. If they continue to do so, it may raise more questions around central bank policy and to what extent further rate cuts are consistent with these signs of a stronger global growth backdrop. For now, we think they remain supporting evidence of our core view that this market cycle can still burn hotter before it burns out. Thank you as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also, please tell a friend or colleague about us today.

Our Head of U.S. Internet Research Brian Nowak and Andrew Percoco, Head of North America Autos and Shared Mobility Research, discuss why adoption of autonomous vehicles is likely to gain traction this year.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Brian Nowak: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Brian Nowak, Morgan Stanley's Head of U.S. Internet Research. Andrew Percoco: And I'm Andrew Percoco, Head of North America Autos and Shared Mobility Research. Brian Nowak: Today we're going to talk about why we think 2026 could be a game changer and a point of inflection for autonomous vehicles and autonomous driving. It's Thursday, January 8th at 10am in New York. So, Andrew, let's get started. Have you ridden an autonomous car before? Andrew Percoco: Yeah, absolutely. Took a few in L.A., took one in San Francisco not too long ago. Pretty seamless and interesting experience to say the least. Brian Nowak: Any accidents or awkward left turns? Or did you feel pretty comfortable the whole time? Andrew Percoco: No, I felt pretty comfortable the whole time. No edge cases, no issues. So, all five star reviews for me. Brian Nowak: Andrew, we think your answer is going to be a lot more common as we go throughout 2026. As autonomous availability scales throughout more and more cities. Things are changing quickly. And we kind of look at our model on a city-by-city basis. We think that overall availability for autonomous driving in the U.S. is going to go from about 15 percent of the urban population at the end of 2025 to over 30 percent of the urban population by year end 2026. Andrew Percoco: Yeah, totally agree. Brian, I'm just curious. Like maybe layout for us, you know, what you're expecting for 2026 in more detail in terms of city rollouts, players involved and what we should be watching for throughout the next, you know, nine to 12 months. Brian Nowak: We have multiple new cities across the United States where we expect Waymo, Tesla, Zoox, and others to expand their fleet, expand autonomous driving availability, and ultimately make the product a lot more available and commonplace for people. There are also new potential edge cases that we think we're going to see. We're going to have our first snow cities with Waymo expected to launch in Washington, D.C.; potentially in Colorado, potentially in Michigan. So, we could have proof of concept that autonomous driving can also work in snow throughout [20]26 and into 2027 as well. So, in all, we think as we sit here at the start of [20]26, one year from now, there's going to be a lot more people who are going to say: I'm using an autonomous car to drive me around in my everyday practice. Andrew Percoco: Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. And I guess, what do you think the drivers are to get us there, right? There's also some concerns about safety, adoption, you know, cost structure. What are the main drivers that really make this growth algorithm work and really scales the robotaxi business for some of the key players? Brian Nowak: Part of it is regulatory. You know, we are still in a situation where we are dealing with state-by-state regulatory approvals needed for these autonomous vehicles and autonomous fleets to be built. We'll see if that changes, but for now, it's state by state regulation. After that, it comes down to technology, and each of the platforms needs to prove that their autonomous offerings are significantly safer than human driving. That is also linked to regulatory approval. And so, when we think about fleets becoming safer, proving that they can drive people more miles without having an accident than even a human can – we think about the autonomous players then scaling up their fleets. To make the cars and fleets available to more people. That is sort of the flywheel that we think is going to play out throughout 2026. The other part that we're very focused on across all the players from Waymo to Tesla to Zoox and others is the cost of the cars. And there is a big difference between the cost of a Waymo per mile versus the cost of a Tesla per mile. And we think one of the tension points, Andrew, that you can, you can talk about a little bit here, is the difference in the safety data and what we see on Tesla as of now versus Waymo – versus the cost advantage that Tesla has. So, talk about the cost advantage that Tesla has through all this as of right now. Andrew Percoco: Yeah, definitely. So, you know, as you mentioned, Tesla today has a very clear cost advantage over many of the robotaxi peers that they're competing with. A lot of that's driven by their vertical integration, and their sensor suite, right? So, their vehicle, the cost of their vehicle is – call it $35,000. You've got the camera only sensor approach. So, you don't have lidar, expensive lidar, and radar in the vehicle. And that

Our Chief Fixed Income Strategist Vishy Tirupattur is joined by Dan Toscano, the firm’s Chairman of Markets in Private Equity, unpack how credit markets are changing—and what the AI buildup means for the road ahead.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Today is a special edition of our podcast. We are joined by Dan Toscano, Chairman of Markets in Private Equity at Morgan Stanley, and a seasoned practitioner of credit markets over many, many credit cycles. We will get his thoughts on the ongoing evolution and revolution in credit marketsIt's Wednesday, January 7th at 10am in New York. Dan, welcome.Dan Toscano: Glad to be here.Vishy Tirupattur: So, to get our – the listeners familiar with your journey, can you talk a little bit about your experience in the credit markets, and how you got to where we are today?Dan Toscano: Yeah, sure. So, I've been doing this a long time. You used the nice word seasoned. My kids would refer to it as old. But I started in this journey in 1988. And to make a long story short, my first job on Wall Street was buying junk bonds in the infancy of the junk bond market, when most of what we were financing were LBOs. So, if you're familiar with Barbarians at the Gate, one of the first bonds we bought were RJR Nabisco reset notes. And I've been doing this ever since, so over almost four decades now.Vishy Tirupattur: So, the junk bond market evolved into high yield market, syndicated loan market, CLO market, financial crisis. So, talk to us about your experiences during this transition.Dan Toscano: Yeah. I mean, one of the things these markets do is they finance evolution in industries. So, when I think back to the early days of financing leveraged buyouts, they were called bootstrap deals. The first deal I did as an intermediary on Wall Street as opposed to as an investor, was a buyout with Bain Capital in 1993. At the time, Bain Capital had a $600 million AUM private equity platform. Think about that in the scale of what Bain Capital does in private equity today. You know, back then it was corporate carve outs, and trying to make the global economy more efficient. And you remember the rise of the conglomerate. And so, one of the early things we financed a lot of was the de-conglomeration of big corporates. So, they would spin off assets that were not central to the business or the strengths that they had as an organization.So, that was the early days of private equity. There was obviously the telecom build out in the late 90’s and the resulting bust. And then into the GFC. And we sit here today with the distinctions of private capital, private credit, public credit, syndicated credit, and all the amazing things that are being financed in, you know, what I think of as the next industrial revolution.Vishy Tirupattur: In terms of things that have changed a lot – a lot also changed following the financial crisis. So, if you dig deep into that one thing that happened was the introduction of leveraged lending guidelines. Can you talk about what leveraged lending guidelines did to the credit markets?Dan Toscano: Yeah, I mean, it was a big change for underwriters because it dictated what you could and couldn't participate in as an underwriter or a lender, and so it really cut off one end of the market that was determined by – and I think the thing most famously attributed to the leveraged lending guidelines was this maximum leverage notion of six times leverage is the cap. Nothing beyond that. And so that really limited the ability for Wall Street firms to underwrite and distribute capital to support those deals.And inadvertently, or maybe by plan, really gave rise to the growth in the private credit market. So, when you think about everything that's going on in the world today, including, which I'm sure we'll talk about, the relaxation of the leveraged lending guidelines, it was really fuel for private credit.Vishy Tirupattur: So private credit, this relaxation that you mentioned, you know, a few weeks ago, the FDIC and the OCC withdrew the leveraged lending guidelines in total. What do you expect that will do to the private credit markets? Will that make private credit market share decrease and bank market share increase?Dan Toscano: I think many people think of these as being mutually exclusive. We've never thought of it that way. It exists more on a continuum. And so, what I think the relaxation of those guidelines or the elimination of those guidelines really frees the banks to participate in the entire continuum, either as lenders or as underwriters.And so, in addition to the opportunity that gives the banks to really find the best solutions for their clients, I think this will also continue the blurring of distinctions between public market credit and private market credit. Because now th

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

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

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

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

Original Release Date: December 3, 2025Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy Michael Zezas and Chief Global Cross-Asset Strategist Serena Tang address themes that are key for markets next year.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.Serena Tang: And I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's Chief Global Cross-Asset Strategist.Michael Zezas: Today we'll be talking about key investor debates coming out of our year ahead outlook.It's Wednesday, December 3rd at 10:30am in New York.So, Serena, it was a couple weeks ago that you led the publication of our cross-asset outlook for 2026. And so, you've been engaging with clients over the past few weeks about our views – where they differ. And it seems there's some common themes, really common questions that come up that represent some important debates within the market.Is that fair?Serena Tang: Yeah, that's very fair. And, by the way, I think those important debates, are from investors globally. So, you have investors in Europe, Asia, Australia, North America, all kind of wanting to understand our views on AI, on equity valuations, on the dollar.Michael Zezas: So, let's start with talking about equity markets a bit. And one of the common questions – and I get it too, even though I don't cover equity markets – is really about how AI is affecting valuations. One of the concerns is that the stock market might be too high, might be overvalued because people have overinvested in anything related to AI. What does the evidence say? How are you addressing that question?Serena Tang: It is interesting you say that because I think when investors talk about equities being too high, of valuations – AI related valuations being very stretched, it's very much about parallels to that 1990s valuation bubble.But the way I approach it is like there are some very important differences from that time period, from valuations back then. First of all, I think companies in major equity indices are higher quality than the past. They operate more efficiently. They deliver strong profitability, and in general pretty solid free cash flow.I think we also need to consider how technology now represents a larger share of the index, which has helped push overall net margins to about 14 percent compared to 8 percent during that 1990s valuation bubble. And you know, when margins are higher, I think paying premium for stocks is more justified.In other words, I think multiples in the U.S. right now look more reasonable after adjusting for profit margins and changes in index composition. But we also have to consider, and this is something that we stress in our outlook, the policy backdrop is unusually favorable, right? Like you have economists expecting the Fed to continue easing rates into next year. We have the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that could lower corporate taxes, and deregulation is continuing to be a priority in the U.S.And I think this combination, you know, monetary easing, fiscal stimulus, deregulation. That combination rarely occurs outside of a recession. And I think this creates an environment that supports valuation, which is by the way why we recommend an overweight position in U.S. equities, even if absolute and relative valuation look elevated.Michael Zezas: Got it. So, if I'm hearing you right, what I think you're saying is that comparisons to some bubbles of the past don't necessarily stack up because profitability is better. There aren't excesses in the system. Monetary policy might be on the path that's more accommodative. And so, when compared against all of that, the valuations actually don't look that bad.Serena Tang: Exactly.Michael Zezas: Got it. And sticking with the equity markets, then another common question is – it's related to AI, but it's sort of around this idea that a small set of companies have really been driving most of the growth in the market recently. And it would be better or healthier if the equity market were to perform across a wider set of companies and names, particularly in mid- and small cap companies. Is that something that we see on the horizon?Serena Tang: Yes. We are expecting U.S. stock earnings to sort of broaden out here and it's one of the reasons why our U.S. equity strategy team has upgraded small caps and now prefer it over large caps. And I think like all of this – it comes from the fact that we are in a new bull market. I think we have a very early cycle earnings recovery here. I mean, as discussed before, the macro environment is supportive. And Fed rate cuts over the next 12 months, growth positive tax and regulatory policies, they don't just support valuations. They also act as a tailwind to earnings.And I think like on top of that, leaner cost structures, improving earnings revisions, AI driven efficienc

Original Release Date: November 13, 2025Live from Morgan Stanley’s European Tech, Media and Telecom Conference in Barcelona, our roundtable of analysts discusses tech disruptions and datacenter growth, and how Europe factors in.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Paul Walsh: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's European Head of Research Product. Today we return to my conversation with Adam Wood. Head of European Technology and Payments, Emmet Kelly, Head of European Telco and Data Centers, and Lee Simpson, Head of European Technology. We were live on stage at Morgan Stanley's 25th TMT Europe conference. We had so much to discuss around the themes of AI enablers, semiconductors, and telcos. So, we are back with a concluding episode on tech disruption and data center investments. It's Thursday the 13th of November at 8am in Barcelona. After speaking with the panel about the U.S. being overweight AI enablers, and the pockets of opportunity in Europe, I wanted to ask them about AI disruption, which has been a key theme here in Europe. I started by asking Adam how he was thinking about this theme. Adam Wood: It’s fascinating to see this year how we've gone in most of those sectors to how positive can GenAI be for these companies? How well are they going to monetize the opportunities? How much are they going to take advantage internally to take their own margins up? To flipping in the second half of the year, mainly to, how disruptive are they going to be? And how on earth are they going to fend off these challenges? Paul Walsh: And I think that speaks to the extent to which, as a theme, this has really, you know, built momentum. Adam Wood: Absolutely. And I mean, look, I think the first point, you know, that you made is absolutely correct – that it's very difficult to disprove this. It's going to take time for that to happen. It's impossible to do in the short term. I think the other issue is that what we've seen is – if we look at the revenues of some of the companies, you know,  and huge investments going in there. And investors can clearly see the benefit of GenAI.  And so investors are right to ask the question, well, where's the revenue for these businesses? You know, where are we seeing it in info services or in IT services, or in enterprise software. And the reality is today, you know, we're not seeing it. And it's hard for analysts to point to evidence that – well, no, here's the revenue base, here's the benefit that's coming through. And so, investors naturally flip to, well, if there's no benefit, then surely, we should focus on the risk. So, I think we totally understand, you know, why people are focused on the negative side of things today. I think there are differences between the sub-sectors. I mean, I think if we look, you know, at IT services, first of all, from an investor point of view, I think that's been pretty well placed in the losers’ buckets and people are most concerned about that sub-sector… Paul Walsh: Something you and the global team have written a lot about. Adam Wood: Yeah, we've written about, you know, the risk of disruption in that space, the need for those companies to invest, and then the challenges they face. But I mean, if we just keep it very, very simplistic. If Gen AI is a technology that, you know, displaces labor to any extent – companies that have played labor arbitrage and provide labor for the last 20 - 25 years, you know, they're going to have to make changes to their business model. So, I think that's understandable. And they're going to have to demonstrate how they can change and invest and produce a business model that addresses those concerns. I'd probably put info services in the middle. But the challenge in that space is you have real identifiable companies that have emerged, that have a revenue base and that are challenging a subset of the products of those businesses. So again, it's perfectly understandable that investors would worry.  In that context, it's not a potential threat on the horizon. It's a real threat that exists today against certainly their businesses. I think software is probably the most interesting. I'd put it in the kind of final bucket where I actually believe… Well, I think first of all, we certainly wouldn't take the view that there's  no risk of disruption and things aren't going to change. Clearly that is going to be the case. I think what we'd want to do though is we'd want to continue to use frameworks that we've used historically to think about how software companies differentiate themselves, what the barriers to entry are. We don't think we need to throw all of those things away just because we have GenAI, this new set of capabilities. And I think investors will come back most easily to that space. Paul Walsh:&nbs

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

Original Release Date: November 17, 2025In the first of a two-part episode presenting our 2026 outlooks, Chief Global Cross-Asset Strategist Serena Tang has Chief Global Economist Seth Carpenter explain his thoughts on how economies around the world are expected to perform and how central banks may respond.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Serena Tang: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's Chief Global Cross-Asset Strategist. Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist. Serena Tang: Today, we'll focus on [the] all-important macroeconomic backdrop. Serena Tang: It's Monday, November 17th at 10am in New York. So, Seth, 2025 has been a year of transition. Global growth slowed under the weight of tariffs and policy uncertainty. Yet resilience in consumer spending and AI driven investments kept recession fears at bay. Your team has published its economic outlook for 2026. So, what's your view on global growth for the year ahead? Seth Carpenter: We really think next year is going to be the global economy slowing down a little bit more just like it did this year, settling into a slower growth rate. But at the same time, we think inflation is going to keep drifting down in most of the world. Now that anodyne view, though, masks some heterogeneity around the world; and importantly, some real uncertainty about different ways things could possibly go. Here in the U.S., we think there is more slowing to come in the near term, especially the fourth quarter of this year and the beginning of next year. But once the economy works its way through the tariffs, maybe some of the lagged effects of monetary policy, we'll start to see things pick up a bit in the second half of the year. China's a different story. We see the really tepid growth there pushed down by the deflationary spiral they've been in. We think that continues for next year, and so they're probably not quite going to get to their 5 percent growth target. And in Europe, there's this push and pull of fiscal policy across the continent. There's a central bank that thinks they've achieved their job in terms of inflation, but overall, we think growth there is, kind of, unremarkable, a little bit over 1 percent. Not bad, but nothing to write home about at all. So that's where we think things are going in general. But I have to say next year, may well be a year for surprises. Serena Tang: Right. So where do you see the biggest drivers of global growth in 2026, and what are some of the key downside risks? Seth Carpenter: That's a great question. I really do think that the U.S. is going to be a real key driver of the story here. And in fact – and maybe we'll talk about this later – if we're wrong, there's some upside scenarios, there's some downside scenarios. But most of them around the world are going to come from the U.S. Two things are going on right now in the U.S. We've had strong spending data. We've also had very, very weak employment data. That usually doesn't last for very long. And so that's why we think in the near term there's some slowdown in the U.S. and then over time things recover. We could be wrong in either direction. And so, if we're wrong and the labor market sending the real signal, then the downside risk to the U.S. economy – and by extension the global economy – really is a recession in the U.S. Now, given the starting point, given how low unemployment is, given the spending businesses are doing for AI, if we did get that recession, it would be mild. On the other hand, like I said, spending is strong. Business spending, especially CapEx for AI; household spending, especially at the top end of the income distribution where wealth is rising from stocks, where the liability side of the balance sheet is insulated with fixed rate mortgages. That spending could just stay strong, and we might see this upside surprise where the spending really dominates the scene. And again, that would spill over for the rest of the world. What I don't see is a lot of reason to suspect that you're going to get a big breakout next year to the upside or the downside from either Europe or China, relative to our baseline scenarios. It could happen, but I really think most of the story is going to be driven in the U.S. Serena Tang: So, Seth, markets have been focused on the Fed, as it should. What is the likely path in 2026 and how are you thinking about central bank policy in general in other regions? Seth Carpenter: Absolutely. The Fed is always of central importance to most people in markets. Our view – and the market's view, I have to say, has been evolving here. Our view is that the Fed's actually got a few more rate cuts to get through, and that by the time we get to the middle of next year, the middle of 2026, they're going to have their policy rat

Our Thematic and Equity Strategist Michelle Weaver and Power, Utilities, and Clean Tech Analyst David Arcaro discuss how investments in AI data centers are affecting electricity bills for U.S. consumers.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist.David Arcaro: And I'm Dave Arcaro, U.S. Power, Utilities, and Clean Tech Analyst.Michelle Weaver: Today, a hot topic. Are data centers’ raising your electricity bills?It's Tuesday, December 23rd at 10am in New York.Most of us have probably noticed our electricity bills have been creeping up. And it's putting pressure on U.S. consumers, especially with higher prices and paychecks not keeping pace. More and more people are pointing to data centers as the reason behind these rising costs, but the story isn't that simple.Regional differences, shifting policies and local utility responses are all at play here. Dave, there's no doubt that data centers are becoming a much bigger part of the story when it comes to U.S. electricity demand. For listeners who might not follow these numbers every day, could you break down how data centers' share of overall electricity use is expected to grow over the next 10 years? And what does that mean for the grid and for the average consumer?David Arcaro: Definitely they're becoming much bigger, much more important and more impactful across the industry in a big way. Data centers were 6 percent of total electricity consumption in the U.S. last year. We're actually forecasting that to triple to 18 percent by 2030, and then hit 20 percent in the early 2030s. So very strong growth, and increasing proportion of the overall utility, electricity use.In aggregate, this is reflecting about 150 gigawatts of new data centers by 2030. Just a very large amount. And this is going to cause a major strain on the electric grid and is going to require substantial build out and upgrading of the transmission system along with construction of new power generation – like gas plants and large-scale renewables, wind, solar, and battery storage across the entire U.S.And generally, when we see utilities investing in additional infrastructure, they need to get that cost recovered. We would typically expect that to lead to higher electric rates for consumers. That's the overall pressure that we're facing right now on the system, from all these data centers coming in.We've got these substantial infrastructure needs. That means utilities will need to charge higher prices to consumers to cover the cost of those investments.Michelle Weaver: What are the main challenges utilities companies face in meeting this rising demand from data centers?David Arcaro: There are a number of challenges. If I were to pick a few of the biggest ones that I see, I think managing affordability is one of the biggest challenges the industry faces right now, because this overall data center growth is absolutely a shock to their business, and it needs to be managed carefully given the political and regulatory challenges that can arise when customer bills are getting are escalating faster than expected. The utility industry faces scrutiny and constant attention from a political and regulatory standpoint, so it's a balance that has to be very carefully managed. There are also reliability challenges that are important.Utilities have to keep the lights on, you know, that's priority number one. The demand for electricity is growing much faster than the supply of new generation that we're seeing; new power plants just aren't being built fast enough. New transmission assets are not being built, as quickly as the data centers are coming on. So, in many areas we're seeing that leads to essentially less of a buffer, and more risk of outages during periods of extreme weather.Michelle Weaver: And you mentioned, companies are thinking about how can they insulate consumers. Can you take us through some of the specifics of what these utility companies are doing? And what regulators are doing to respond, to protect existing customers from rate increases driven by data centers?David Arcaro: Definitely. The industry is getting creative and trying to be proactive in addressing this issue. Many utilities, we're seeing them isolate data centers and charge them higher electric rates, specifically for those data center customers to try to cover all of the grid costs that are attributable to the data center's needs.A couple examples. In Indiana, we're seeing that there's a utility there who's building new power plants, specifically for a very large data center that's coming into the state and they're ring fencing it. They're only charging the data center itself for those costs of the power plants. In Georgia, a utility there is charging a higher rate for the data centers that are coming in to the Atlanta area – such that it act

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