Thoughts on the Market

Our global economists Seth Carpenter and Rajeev Sibal discuss how global trade will need to realign in response to escalating U.S. tariff policy.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. 

Our European Sustainability Strategists Rachel Fletcher and Arushi Agarwal discuss how fermentation presents a new opportunity to tap into the alternative proteins market, offering a solution to mounting food supply challenges.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript -----Rachel Fletcher: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Rachel Fletcher Morgan Stanley's, Head of EMEA Sustainability Research.Arushi Agarwal: And I'm Arushi Agarwal European Sustainability Strategist, based in London.Rachel Fletcher: From kombucha to kimchi, probiotic rich fermented foods have long been staples at health-focused grocers. On the show today, a deeper dive into the future of fermentation technology. Does it hold the key to meeting the world's growing nutrition needs as people live longer, healthier lives?It's Wednesday, 26th of March, at 3 pm in London.Many of you listening may remember hearing about longevity. It's one of our four long-term secular themes that we're following closely at Morgan Stanley; and this year we are looking even more closely at a sub-theme – affordable, healthy nutrition. Arushi, in your recent report, you highlight that traditional agriculture is facing many significant challenges. What are they and how urgent is this situation?Arushi Agarwal: There are four key environmental and social issues that we highlight in the note. Now, the first two, which are related to emissions intensity and resource consumption are quite well known. So traditional agriculture is responsible for almost a third of global greenhouse gas emissions, and it also uses more than 50 percent of the world's land and freshwater resources. What we believe are issues that are less focused on – are related to current agricultural practices and climate change that could affect our ability to serve the rising demand for nutrition.We highlight some studies in the note. One of them states that the produce that we have today has on average 40 percent less nutrition than it did over 80 years ago; and this is due to elevated use of chemicals and decline in soil fertility. Another study that we refer to estimates that average yields could decline by 30 to 50 percent before the end of the century, and this is even in the slowest of the warming scenarios.Rachel Fletcher: I think everyone would agree that there are four very serious issues. Are there potential solutions to these challenges?Arushi Agarwal: Yes, so when we've written about the future of food previously, we've identified alternative proteins, precision agriculture, and seeds technology as possible solutions for improving food security and reducing emissions.If I focus on alternative proteins, this category has so far been dominated by plant-based food, which has seen a moderation in growth due to challenges related to taste and price. However, we still see significant need for alternative proteins, and synthetic biology-led fermentation is a new way to tap into this market.In simple terms, this technology involves growing large amounts of microorganisms in tanks, which can then be harvested and used as a source of protein or other nutrients. We believe this technology can support healthy longevity, provide access to reliable and affordable food, and also fill many of the nutritional gaps that are related to plant-based food.Rachel Fletcher: So how big is the fermentation market and why are we focusing on it right now?Arushi Agarwal: So, we estimate a base case of $30 billion by 2030. This represents a 5,000-kiloton market for fermented proteins. We think the market will develop in two phases. Phase one from 2025 to 2027 will be focused on whey protein and animal nutrition. We are already seeing a few players sell products at competitive prices in these markets. Moving on to phase two from 2028 to 2030, we expect the market will expand to the egg, meat and daily replacement industry.There are a few reasons we think investors should start paying attention now. 2024 was a pivotal year in validating the technology's proof of concept. A lot of companies moved from labs to pilot state. They achieved regulatory approvals to sell their products in markets like U.S. and Singapore, and they also conducted extensive market testing. As this technology scales, we believe the next three years will be critical for commercialization.Rachel Fletcher: So, there's potentially significant growth there, but what's the capital investment needed for this scaling effort?Arushi Agarwal: A lot of CapEx will be required. Scaling of this technology will require large initial CapEx, predominantly in setting up bioreactors or fermentation tanks. Achieving our 2030 base case stamp will require 200 million liters in bioreactor capacity. This equals to an initial investment opportunity of a hundred billion dollars. But once these facilities are all set up, ongoing expenses will focus on input costs for carbon, oxygen, water, nitrogen

Our European Heads of Diversified Financials and Banks Research Bruce Hamilton and Alvaro Serrano discuss the biggest themes and debates from the recent Morgan Stanley European Financials Conference.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. ----- Transcript -----Bruce Hamilton: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Bruce Hamilton, Head of European Diversified Financials.Alvaro Serrano: And I'm Alvaro Serrano, Head of European Banks.Bruce Hamilton: Today we'll discuss our key takeaways from Morgan Stanley's 21st European Financials Conference last week.It's Tuesday, March 25th, 3pm, here in London.We were both at the conference here in London where we had more than 550 registered clients and roughly a hundred corporates in attendance. Alvaro, once again, you were the conference chair, and I wondered if you could first talk about the title of the conference this year – Europe's moment. What inspired this and was it a clear theme at the conference?Alvaro Serrano: European banks are probably one of the strongest performing sectors globally. That has been on the back of expectations and prospects of a Ukraine peace deal, expectations of high defense spending, and we were going to German elections. I think it's fair to say that post German elections, Germany has delivered above expectations on the fiscal package. And the announcement was a big boost, at a time where U.S. growth is starting to be questioned. I think it's turning the investment flows into Europe. It's Europe's moment to shine, and hence the title.Bruce Hamilton: And what were some of the other sort of key themes and debates that emerge from company presentations and panels at the conference?Alvaro Serrano: The German fiscal/financial package definitely dominated the debate. But it was how it fed through the PNL that was the more tangible discussion. First of all, on NII – Net Interest Income – definitely more optimism among banks. The yield curve has steepened more than 50 basis points since the announcement together with increased prospects of loan growth. Accelerated loan growth is definitely improving the confidence from management teams on the median term growth outlook. I think that was the biggest takeaway for me.Bruce Hamilton: Got it. And our North American colleagues have been tracking the risks and opportunities for U.S. financials under the Trump administration. How, if at all, are European financials better positioned than their U.S. counterparts?Alvaro Serrano: Ultimately deregulation has been a big theme in the U.S. from the new administration. We've seen tangible sort of measures like the delay in implementation of Basel endgame; and some steps in around consumer legislation – so that we haven't seen [in] Europe.We had events from the supervisory arm of the ECB. And I think the overall message is that there's unlikely to be deregulation on the capital front.What grabbed a lot of the headlines, a lot of the debate was the proposal from the European Commission on Capital Markets Union now rebranded Savings and Investment Union. There's been measures and proposals around savings products, around a reform of the securitization market, which have pretty positive implications. Medium term, it should increase the velocity of the bank's balance sheets, and ultimately the profitability. So, more optimistic on the medium-term outlook.Bruce, I wanted to turn it over to you. The capital markets recovery cycle was a very big topic of discussion, especially given the rising investor concerns lately. What did you learn at the conference?Bruce Hamilton: So, yeah, you're right. I mean, obviously the capital markets cycle is pretty key for the performance of the diversified financial sector – as was clear from investor polling. I would say the messages from the companies were mixed. On the one hand, the more transactional driven models – so, some of the exchanges that the investment platforms – were relatively upbeat, across asset classes. Volume, momentum has been strong through the first quarter of this year. And so that was encouraging.And looking further out – the confidence around some of these secular growth drivers, across the business model. So, data growth, software solutions growth, post-trade opportunities, expanding fixed income offerings were all clear from the exchanges.On the other hand, the business models that are more geared to sort of deal activity, to M&A – sort of private market firms. Clearly there, the messaging was more mixed, given the slower start to the year in the light of tariff uncertainty, which has driven a widening in bid our spread. So certainly there, the messaging was a little bit more downbeat. Though in the context of a still-improving sort of multi-year recovery cycle anticipated in capital markets. So, a pause rather than a cancellation of that improvement.Alvaro Serrano: And what about private markets? Es

Our CIO and Chief U.S. equity strategist Mike Wilson discusses investors’ outlook following last week’s Fed meeting, and lists the key signals to gauge whether stocks can fully rebound from the recent correction.  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 recent rally in stocks and why it can continue. It's Monday, March 24th at 11:30am in New York. So let’s get after it. Last week's Fed meeting appeared to come as a relief to many market participants as Chair Powell seemed to downplay concerns about inflation, offering a bit more emphasis on the growth side of the Fed’s mandate. The Fed also made the decision to slow the pace of balance sheet runoff, a development that came sooner than some expected and indicated the Fed is ready to act, if necessary. Looking ahead, investors are now very focused on the April 2nd reciprocal tariff deadline. While this catalyst could offer some incremental clarity on tariff rates and countries and products in scope, we think it's more a starting point for tariff negotiations – as opposed to a clearing event. In short, a Fed put seems closer to being in the money than a Trump put though it probably would require material labor weakness or choppier credit and funding markets. So far, DOGE firings have had little impact on data like jobless claims or the overall unemployment rate. There may also be a lag between when employees are laid off and when these individuals show up as unemployed, given that severance is offered to most. The more important question for labor markets is whether the recent decline in the stock market, fall in confidence and rise in economic trade uncertainty will lead to layoffs in the private economy. Our economists' base case assumes that these factors won't drive an unemployment cycle this year; but payrolls, claims, and the unemployment rate will be critical to monitor to inform that view going forward.  As usual, looking at the S&P 500 alone does not fully describe the magnitude of the correction in equities. As I noted last week, equity markets got as oversold in this correction as they were during the bear market of 2022. One could ask: Is this the bottom or the beginning of something more severe? In our experience, it’s rare for volatility to end when price momentum is at its lows. However, you can get strong rallies from these conditions which is why we expected one to begin when the S&P 500 reached the bottom end of our first half trading range of 5500 on March 13th. Since then, stocks have rallied with lower quality, higher beta equities leading the bounce, so far. We believe that can continue in the near-term even though we are still advocating higher quality stocks in one's core portfolio for the intermediate term – given weakness in earnings revisions since last November. More specifically, earnings revisions have remained in negative territory for the major U.S. averages all year and have not yet showed signs of bottoming. However, we are starting to see some interesting shifts in revisions trends under the surface. The most notable change here is that the Magnificent 7 earnings revisions look to be stabilizing after a steep decline. This could halt the underperformance of these mega cap stocks in the near term as we head into earnings season and this would help stabilize the S&P 500, in line with our call from two weeks ago. It could also help to attract flows back into the U.S. In our view, one of the reasons why we've seen capital rotate to international markets is that the high-quality leadership cohort of the U.S. equity market began to underperform. So, if this group regains relative strength we could see a rotation back to the U.S. Finally, the weaker U.S. dollar could also reverse the relative earnings revisions downtrend between U.S. and European companies. If you remember, at the end of last year, the U.S. dollar was very strong and provided a headwind to U.S. relative revisions when companies reported fourth quarter results, as we previewed. This may be going the other way for first quarter results season and drive money back to the U.S., at least temporarily.  Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Amid lower growth and inflation concerns in the US, investors have begun scouring international markets for other opportunities. Our analysts Andrew Sheets, Neville Mandimika and Anlin Zhang dig into one potential outperforming category. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley. 

Our Global Head of Macro Strategy Matthew Hornbach and Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen discuss the outcome of the recent FOMC meeting, and the outlook for interest rates in 2025 and 2026.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're talking about the March Federal Open Market Committee meeting and the path for rates from here.It's Thursday, March 20th at 10am in New York.Mike, the Fed released a new set of projections yesterday. What do these say and what did you learn from them?Michael Gapen: Yeah, Matt, well, the Fed's forecast actually now look a lot like our outlook for the U.S. economy. So, they revised down their expectation of growth. They revised up their expectation for inflation. So, it has a bit of a stagflation, slower growth, stickier inflation outlook – which is very much what we were thinking coming into this year. The Fed also, though, highlighted high policy uncertainty. They wrote down a forecast, but I'm not all that convinced that they have a lot of confidence in how things will evolve.So, I think for me, really, the bigger story were their updated perceptions about uncertainty and risks to the outlook. So, in December, if you remember, they told us; virtually everybody on the committee said, uncertainty around inflation is high and risk to inflation to the upside. They complemented that this week with the fact that uncertainty around growth in the labor market is high, but risk to growth is to the downside, the unemployment rate to the upside. So, you have kind of competing risks here around the Fed's dual mandate. They've got upside risk to inflation, downside risk to growth.To me, that's kind of the really important message. It's hard to have a confidence in a forecast right now, but I think that risk assessment is really interesting.Matthew Hornbach: And with that in mind, and given all the policy uncertainty that the Fed mentioned, what did Powell say about how the Fed should react? In other words, what is appropriate policy at this stage?Michael Gapen: Right. Yeah, it's tricky, right? So, on one side of your mandate, you think risks to inflation are squarely to the upside and growth in labor markets to the downside. So, what do you do? And I think Powell said, I think that the logical answer, which is, well, right now you do nothing, and you wait.But then I think what Powell said is: How we think this plays out is – tariffs may boost inflation in the short run. Which we're going to try to ignore. And if the economy does weaken and the labor market softens, we'll ease policy in order to support activity, right? So, there might be, say, symmetric risks around their dual mandate, but there's asymmetry in the policy outlook.He said we're either going to be on hold or we're going to be cutting rates. And generally, I think that's the right thing.Matthew Hornbach: So, Mike, what I heard from you was that the Fed was going to look through inflation in the near term, and then eventually cut. I mean, do you think they can do that?Michael Gapen: Yeah, I think, Matt, that's a great question. My answer to that is, I think it's easier said than done. We agree that the next move from the Fed is going to be a cut, but we think that cut comes much later.This is a very data dependent Fed. So, I think in the moment, if tariffs boost inflation now and weaken activity later, it's easy to say, ‘I'm going to look through that and cut.’ But in practice, I think it's hard.So, Matt, actually, at this point, though, I think I would actually kind of ask you the same question, but in a different way, right? We doubt the Fed may be able to do this. But the market priced in more rate cuts this year than we think is likely. How would you explain the market pricing and how far away from my expectation do you think it could run?Matthew Hornbach: What’s really interesting about how the market has priced the recent events is – it’s actually pricing more in line with the spirt of your view. In the sense that the market has priced more rate cuts in 2026 than it’s pricing in 2025. So, in spirit, the market is very much with you. But as we like to say, the market price is an average of all possible outcomes. And if one of the outcomes is the Fed does nothing for the foreseeable future. And the other outcome is the Fed cuts aggressively this year. Then the market price has to reflect some degree of additional easing in 2025 that wouldn't necessarily be aligned with a rational baseline for Fed policy.So, market in some ways is reflecting the idea that you're proposing in your forecast. But it's also reflecting the idea that it's a market and that it has to be priced for some amount of risk premia that the Fed is ultimately forc

Our analysts Michael Cyprys and Stephen Grambling discuss prediction markets’ rising popularity and how they could disrupt the U.S. sports betting industry.----- Transcript -----Michael Cyprys: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Cyprys, Morgan Stanley's head of U.S. Brokers, Asset Managers, and Exchanges Research.Stephen Grambling: And I'm Stephen Grambling, head of U.S. Gaming, Lodging, and Leisure.Michael Cyprys: Today, we'll talk about sports betting and how prediction markets can disrupt it.It's Wednesday, March 19th at 10 am in New York.Sports betting used to be against the law in most of America, outside of Nevada. That changed in 2018, when the U.S. Supreme Court declared a federal ban on sports betting to be unconstitutional. As a result, many American states legalized sports betting. Over the last seven years, it's become even more popular and profitable. The American sports betting industry posted a record [$]13.7 billion of revenues last year. That's up from 2023's record of [$]11 billion, according to the American Gaming Association.Now, prediction markets are set to potentially disrupt this industry.Stephen, to set the stage, how is the U.S. sports betting industry currently organized and regulated?Stephen Grambling: Well, as you mentioned, Mike, with the overturning of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act in 2018, legalization of sports betting turned to the states. The path to legislation varies by state with different constituents to consider – beyond even the local government. You know, Senate and Congress, but also tribal casinos, commercial casinos, sports teams, leagues, etc.We now have 38 states plus D.C. and Puerto Rico offering legal sports betting in some format, collecting billions of dollars in taxes in aggregate. At this point, the big states that are remaining are really only Texas, Florida, Georgia, and California. Each state forms its own framework across taxes, what sports can or can't bet on, and regulations around advertising. This means a separate commission for each state regulates the industry, in conjunction with state lawmakers,Michael Cyprys: I see. And what exactly are betting exchanges and how do they fit within the U.S. sports betting market?Stephen Grambling: Betting exchanges have existed for a long time in markets around the world. These are really exchanges – and are platforms – where individuals can bet directly against each other on an event outcome, rather than against a bookmaker. These exchanges match opposing bets and then take a commission on the winnings and typically offer better odds by eliminating traditional bookmaker margins.That said, the all in commission can range at two to five per cent. Whereas the spread on a traditional singles bet is about five to six per cent. So, it's relatively small. This is also known as the, the vigorish or the vig, or what the book gets to keep. Due to the need to be perfectly balanced as an exchange, these platforms, which operate in various markets, as I said around the world, are generally more akin to premarket, single bets. So single bet, or sometimes people call them straight bets, are really just betting on the outcome of a match or the over-under. They don't typically impact things like multi leg bets, also known as parlays, since there's less of a consistent betting pool.Because the type of bets are more limited than what a sports book offers, these exchanges somewhat plateaued in popularity in markets like the UK. For frame of reference, we estimate these singles bets are about $900 million in markets where it's legal for sports betting, and roughly another $800 million in states without legislation.Again, this is really just the market for people who only bet on that type of bet; that don't do both singles bets and parlays, or parlays alone.Mike, maybe turning it back to you, sports betting is a type of prediction market. But from where you sit, how would you define prediction markets more broadly, and can you give some examples?Michael Cyprys: Sure. So prediction markets are a type of marketplace where event contracts trade. Sometimes they're called forecast markets or even information markets. A core feature here is trading an outcome at an event, such as the November election, economic indicators, or even corporate events. But unlike futures contracts, event contracts have a defined risk and defined reward.Generally, they're structured as binary options, which can be easily understood. For instance, a contract could pay a dollar if the consumer price index, or CPI, exceeds say, 3 per cent in March. If an investor buys that contract for 75 cents, they could generate a 25 percent potential return if CPI comes in over 3 per cent and they collect a dollar on that contract.Now, the counterparty on the other side of that trade is the investor who sold that contract, collected the 75 cents, and they would stand to lose 25 cents potentially – if they

Our Chief Fixed Income Strategist Vishy Tirupattur explains why credit markets have held firm amid macro volatility, and the scenarios which could hurt its strong foundation.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Today, I will talk about why credit markets have been resilient even as other markets have been volatile – and market implications going forward. It's Tuesday, March 18th, at 11 am in New York. Market sentiment has shifted quickly from post-election euphoria and animal spirits to increasingly growing concern about downside risks to the U.S. economy, driven by ongoing policy uncertainty and a spate of uninspiring soft data. However, signaling from different markets has not been uniform. For example, after reaching an all-time high just a few weeks ago, the S&P 500 index has given up all of its gains since the election and then some. Treasury yields have also yo-yoed, from a 40-basis points selloff to a 60+ basis points rally. Yet in the middle of this volatility in equities and rates, credit markets have barely budged. In other words, credit has been a low beta asset class so far. This resilience which resonates with our long-standing constructive view on credit has strong underpinnings. We had expected that many of the supporting factors from 2024 would continue – such as solid credit fundamentals, strong investor demand driven by elevated overall yields rather than the level of spreads. While we expected the economic growth in 2025 to slow somewhat, to about 2 per cent, we thought that would still be a robust level for credit investors. These expectations have largely played out until recently. While we maintain our overall positive stance on credit, some of the factors contributing to its resilience are changing, calling the persistence of credit’s low beta into question. While we did anticipate that sequencing and severity of policy would be key drivers of the economy and markets in 2025, growth constraining policies, especially tariffs, have come in faster and broader than what we had penciled in. Incorporating these policy signals, our U.S. economists have marked down real GDP growth to 1.5 per cent in 2025 and 1.2 per cent in 2026. From a credit perspective, we would highlight that our economists are not calling for a recession. Their growth expectations still leave us in territory we would deem credit friendly, although edging towards the bottom of our comfort zone. On the positive side of the ledger, cooling growth may also temper animal spirits and continue to constrain corporate debt supply, keeping market technicals supportive. Also, while treasury yields have rallied, overall yields are still at levels that sustain demand from yield-motivated buyers. That said, if growth concerns intensify from these levels, with weakness in soft data spreading notably to hard data, the probability of markets assigning above-average recession probabilities will increase. This could challenge credit’s low beta, that has prevailed so far, and the credit beta could increase on further drawdowns in risk assets. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains the stock market tumble and whether investors can hope for a rally.----- 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 recent Equity Market correction and what to look for next. It's Monday, March 17th at 11:30am in New York.  So let’s get after it.  Major U.S. equity Indices are as oversold as they've been since 2022. Sentiment, positioning gauges are bearish, and seasonals improve in the second half of March for earnings revisions and price. Furthermore, recent dollar weakness should provide a tailwind to first quarter earnings season and second quarter guidance, particularly relative to the fourth quarter results; and the decline in rates should benefit economic surprises. In short, I stand by our view that 5,500 on the S&P 500 should provide support for a tradable rally led by lower quality, higher beta stocks that have sold off the most, and it looks like it may have started on Friday. The more important question is whether such a rally is likely to extend into something more durable and mark the end of the volatility we’ve seen YTD? The short answer is – probably not.  First, from a technical standpoint there has been significant damage to the major indices—more than what we witnessed in recent 10 per cent corrections, like last summer. More specifically, the S&P 500, Nasdaq 100, Russell 1000 growth and value indices have all traded straight through their respective 200-day moving averages, making these levels now resistance, rather than support. Meanwhile, many stocks are closer to a 20 per cent correction with the lower quality Russell 2000 falling below its 200 week moving average for the first time since the 2022 bear market. At a minimum, this kind of technical damage will take time to repair, even if we don’t get additional price degradation at the index level. In order to forecast a larger, sustainable recovery, it’s important to acknowledge what’s really been driving this correction. From my conversations with institutional investors, there appears to be a lot of focus on the tariff announcements and other rapid-fire policy announcements from the new administration. While these factors are weighing on sentiment and confidence, other factors started this correction in December. In our year ahead outlook, we forecasted a tougher first half of the year for several reasons. First, stocks were extended on a valuation basis and relative to the key macro and fundamental drivers like earnings revisions, which peaked in early December. Second, the Fed went on hold in mid-December after aggressively cutting rates by 100 basis points over the prior three months. Third, we expected AI capex growth to decelerate this year and investors now have the DeepSeek development to consider. Add in immigration enforcement, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) exceeding expectations, and tariffs – and it’s no surprise that growth expectations are hitting equities in the form of lower multiples. As noted, we highlighted these growth headwinds in December and have been citing a first half range for the S&P 500 of 5500-6100 with a preference for large cap quality. Finally, President Trump has recently indicated he is not focused on the stock market in the near term as a barometer of his policies and agenda. Perhaps more than anything else, this is what led to the most recent technical breakdown in the S&P 500. In my view, it will take more than just an oversold market to get more than a tradable rally. Earnings revisions are the most important variable and while we could see some seasonal strength or stabilization in revisions, we believe it will take a few quarters for this factor to resume a positive uptrend. As noted in our outlook, the growth-positive policy changes like tax cuts, de-regulation, less crowding out and lower yields could arrive later in the second half of the year – but we think that’s too far away for the market to contemplate for now.  Finally, while the Trump put apparently doesn’t exist, the Fed put is alive and well, in our view. However, that will likely require conditions to get worse either on growth, especially labor, or in the credit and funding market, neither of which would be equity-positive, initially. Bottom line, a short-term rally from our targeted 5500 level is looking more likely after Friday’s price action. It’s also being led by lower quality stocks. This helps support my secondary view that the current rally is unlikely to lead to new highs until the numerous growth headwinds are reversed or monetary policy is loosened once again. The transition from a government heavy economy to one that is more privately driven should ultimately be better for many st

As equity markets gyrate in response to unpredictable U.S. policy, credit has taken longer to respond. Our Head of Corporate Credit Research, Andrew Sheets, suggests other indicators investors should have an eye on, including growth data.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today on the podcast, I’ll be discussing how much comfort or concern equity and credit markets should be taking from each other’s recent moves.It’s Friday, March 14th at 2pm in London. Credit has weakened as markets have gyrated in the face of rising uncertainty around U.S. economic policy. But it has been a clear outperformer. The credit market has taken longer to react to recent headlines, and seen a far more modest response to them. While the U.S. stock market, measured as the S&P 500, is down about 10 per cent, the U.S. High Yield bond index, comprised of lower-rated corporate bonds, is down about just 1 per cent.How much comfort should stock markets take from credit’s resilience? And what could cause Credit to now catch-down to that larger weakness in equities?A good place to start with these questions is what we think are really three distinct stories behind the volatility and weakness that we’re seeing in markets. First, the nature of U.S. policy towards tariffs, with plenty of on-again, off-again drama, has weakened business confidence and dealmaking; and that’s cut off a key source of corporate animal spirits and potential upside in the market. Second and somewhat relatedly, that reduced upside has lowered enthusiasm for many of the stocks that had previously been doing the best. Many of these stocks were widely held, and that’s created vulnerability and forced selling as previously popular positions were cut. And third, there have been growing concerns that this lower confidence from businesses and consumers will spill over into actual spending, and raise the odds of weaker growth and even a recession.I think a lot of credit’s resilience over the last month and a half, can be chalked up to the fact that the asset class is rightfully more relaxed about the first two of these issues. Lower corporate confidence may be a problem for the stock market, but it can actually be an ok thing if you’re a lender because it keeps borrowers more conservative. And somewhat relatedly, the sell-off in popular, high-flying stocks is also less of an issue. A lot of these companies are, for the most part, quite different from the issuers that dominate the corporate credit market.But the third issue, however, is a big deal. Credit is extremely sensitive to large changes in the economy. Morgan Stanley’s recent downgrade of U.S. growth expectations, the lower prices on key commodities, the lower yields on government bonds and the underperformance of smaller more cyclical stocks are all potential signs that risks to growth are rising. It's these factors that the credit market, perhaps a little bit belatedly, is now reacting to.So what does this all mean?First, we’re mindful of the temptation for equity investors to look over at the credit market and take comfort from its resilience. But remember, two of the biggest issues that have faced stocks – those lower odds of animal spirits, and the heavy concentration in a lot of the same names – were never really a credit story. And so to feel better about those risks, we think you’ll want to look at other different indicators.Second, what about the risk from the other direction, that credit catches up – or maybe more accurately down – to the stock market? This is all about that third factor: growth. If the growth data holds up, we think credit investors will feel justified in their more modest reaction, as all-in yields remain good. But if data weakens, the risks to credit grow rapidly, especially as our U.S. economists think that the Fed could struggle to lower interest rates as fast as markets are currently hoping they will.And so with growth so important, and Morgan Stanley’s tracking estimates for U.S. growth currently weak, we think it's too early to go bottom fishing in corporate bonds. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Chief Asia Economist Chetan Ahya discusses the early indications of India’s economic recovery and why the country looks best-positioned in the region for growth.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Asia Economist. Today I’ll be taking a look at the Indian economy amidst escalating trade tensions in Asia and around the globe. It’s Thursday, March 13, at 2pm in Hong Kong.Over the last few months, investors have been skeptical about India’s growth narrative. Investors – like us – have been caught off-guard by the surprising recent slowdown in India’s growth. With the benefit of hindsight, we can very clearly attribute the slowdown to an unexpected double tightening of fiscal and monetary policy. But India seems to be on its way to recovery. Green shoots are already emerging in recent data. And we believe the recovery will continue to firm up over the coming months. What makes us so confident in our outlook for India? We see several key factors behind this trend: First, fiscal policy’s turning supportive for growth again. The government has been ramping up capital expenditure for infrastructure projects like roads and railways, with growth accelerating markedly in recent months. They have also cut income tax for households which will be effective from April 2025. Second, monetary policy easing across rates, liquidity, and the regulatory front. With CPI inflation recently printing at just 3.6 per cent which is below target, we believe the central bank will continue to pursue easy monetary policy. And third, moderation in food inflation will mean real household incomes will be lifted. Finally, the strength in services exports. Services exports include IT services, and increasingly business services. In fact, post-COVID India’s had very strong growth in business services exports. And the key reason for that is, post-COVID, I think businesses have come to realize that if you can work from home, you can work from Bangalore. India's services exports have nearly doubled since December 2020, outpacing the 40 per cent rise in goods exports over the same period. This has resulted in services exports reaching $410 billion on an annualized basis in January, almost equal to the $430 billion of goods exports. Moreover, India continues to gain market share in services exports, which now account for 4.5 per cent of the global total, up from 4 per cent in 2020. To be sure there are some risks. India does face reciprocal tariff risks due to its large trade surplus with the US and high tariff rates that India imposes select imports from the U.S. But we believe that by September-October this year, India can reach a trade deal with the U.S. In any case, India's goods exports-to-GDP ratio is the lowest in the region. And even if global trade slows down due to tariff uncertainties, India's economy won't be as severely affected. In fact, it could potentially outperform the other economies in the region.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.

While tariffs continue to dominate headlines, our Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy Michael Zezas suggests investors should also focus on the sectoral impacts of additional U.S. policy choices.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy. Today, we’ll be talking about U.S. policy impacts on the market that aren’t about tariffs.It’s Wednesday, March 12th, at 10:30am in New York.If tariffs are dominating your attention, we sympathize. Again this week we heard the U.S. commit to raising tariffs and work out a resolution, this time all within the span of a workday. These twists and turns in the tariff path are likely to continue, but in the meantime it might make sense for investors to take some time to look away – instead focusing on some key sectoral impacts of U.S. policy choices that our Research colleagues have called out. For example, Andrew Percoco, who leads our Clean Energy Equity Research team, calls out that clean Energy stocks may be pricing in too high a probability of an Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) repeal. He cites a letter signed by 18 Republicans urging the speaker of the house to protect some of the energy tax credits in the IRA. That’s a good call out, in our view. Republicans’ slim majority means only a handful need to oppose a legislative action in order to block its enactment. Another example is around Managed Care companies. Erin Wright, who leads our Healthcare Services Research Effort, analyzed the impact to companies of cuts to the Medicaid program and found the impact to their sector’s bottom line to be manageable. So, keeping an in-line view for the sector. We think the sector won’t ultimately face this risk, as, like with the IRA, we do not expect there to be sufficient Republican votes to enact the cuts. Finally, Patrick Wood, who leads the Medtech team, caught up with a former FDA director to talk about how staffing cuts might affect the industry. In short, expect delays in approvals of new medical technologies. In particular, it seems the risk is most acute in the most cutting edge technologies, where skilled FDA staff are hard to find. Neurology and brain/computer interfaces stand out as areas of development that might slow in this market sector. All that said, if you just can’t turn away from tariffs, we reiterate our guidance here: Tariffs are likely going up, even if the precise path is uncertain. And whether or not you’re constructive on the goals the administration is attempting to achieve, the path to achieving them carries costs and execution risk. Our U.S. economics team’s recent downgrade of the U.S. growth outlook for this and next year exemplifies this. 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 analysts Adam Jonas and Michelle Weaver share a glimpse into the future from Morgan Stanley’s Annual Tech, Media, and Telecom (TMT) Conference, as agentic AI powers autonomous vehicles, humanoid robots and more.

Our Head of U.S. IT Hardware Erik Woodring gives his key takeaways from Morgan Stanley’s Technology, Media and Telecom (TMT) conference, including why there appears to be a long runway ahead for AI infrastructure spending, despite macro uncertainty. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Erik Woodring, Morgan Stanley’s Head of U.S. IT Hardware Research. Here are some reflections I recorded last week at Morgan Stanley’s Technology, Media, and Telecom Conference in San Francisco. It’s Monday, March 10th at 9am in New York. This was another year of record attendance at our TMT Conference. And what is clear from speaking to investors is that the demand for new, under-discovered or under-appreciated ideas is higher than ever. In a stock-pickers’ market – like the one we have now – investors are really digging into themes and single name ideas. Big picture – uncertainty was a key theme this week. Whether it’s tariffs and the changing geopolitical landscape, market volatility, or government spending, the level of relative uncertainty is elevated. That said, we are not hearing about a material change in demand for PCs, smartphones, and other technology hardware. On the enterprise side of my coverage, we are emerging from one of the most prolonged downcycles in the last 10-plus years, and what we heard from several enterprise hardware vendors and others is an expectation that most enterprise hardware markets – PCs , Servers, and Storage – return to growth this year given pent up refresh demand. This, despite the challenges of navigating the tariff situation, which is resulting in most companies raising prices to mitigate higher input costs. On the consumer side of the world, the demand environment for more discretionary products like speakers, cameras, PCs and other endpoint devices looks a bit more challenged. The recent downtick in consumer sentiment is contributing to this environment given the close correlation between sentiment and discretionary spending on consumer technology goods. Against this backdrop, the most dynamic topic of the conference remains GenerativeAI. What I’ve been hearing is a confidence that new GenAI solutions can increasingly meet the needs of market participants. They also continue to evolve rapidly and build momentum towards successful GenAI monetization. To this point, underlying infrastructure spending—on servers, storage and other data center componentry – to enable these emerging AI solutions remains robust. To put some numbers behind this, the 10 largest cloud customers are spending upwards of [$]350 billion this year in capex, which is up over 30 percent year-over-year. Keep in mind that this is coming off the strongest year of growth on record in 2024. Early indications for 2026 CapEx spending still point to growth, albeit a deceleration from 2025. And what’s even more compelling is that it’s still early days. My fireside chats this week highlighted that AI infrastructure spending from their largest and most sophisticated customers is only in the second inning, while AI investments from enterprises, down to small and mid-sized businesses, is only in the first inning, or maybe even earlier. So there appears to be a long runway ahead for AI infrastructure spending, despite the volatility we have seen in AI infrastructure stocks, which we see as an opportunity for investors. I’d just highlight that amidst the elevated market uncertainty, there is a prioritization on cost efficiencies and adopting GenAI to drive these efficiencies. Company executives from some of the major players this week all discussed near-term cost efficiency initiatives, and we expect these efforts to both help protect the bottom line and drive productivity growth amidst a quickly changing market backdrop. 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.

While policy noise continues to dominate the headlines, our Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy Michael Zezas points out a key theme: a transition toward a multipolar world.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy. Today we’ll be discussing what investors need to focus on amidst all the U.S. policy headlines.It’s Friday, March 7th, at 12:30 pm in New York.In recent weeks the news flow on tariffs, immigration, and geopolitics has been relentless, culminating in this week’s state of the union address by President Trump and, if headlines hold, a partial reversal in course on Mexico and Canada tariffs that were just levied earlier this week. Understandably, measures of policy uncertainty, such as the Baker, Bloom, and Davis index, have reached all time highs. And this tracks with the confusion expressed by investing and corporate clients. In our view, this policy noise is going to continue. But, there is an important signal. These developments track with one of our four key themes of 2025. The transition toward a multipolar world. The tense White House meeting between Presidents Trump and Zelensky, played out live in front of the news cameras, was another reminder that the U.S. is evolving its role in driving international affairs. And tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China are a reminder of the U.S.’s interest in rewiring global trade. The reasons behind this are myriad and complex, but in the near term it's about the U.S. looking more inward. Economic populism is, well, popular with voters in both parties. There’s a few net takeaways for investors here. One is a positive for the European defense sector. The combination of tariffs and the evolving U.S. posture on global security has long been part of our thesis on why Europe would eventually chart a new path and step up to spend more on defense. The current situation in Russia and Ukraine underscores this, with potential for another $0.9-$2.7 trillion in defense spending through 2035. Germany’s new ‘whatever it takes’ approach to defense spending is a key signpost in this trend, per our colleagues in European economics, equities, and foreign exchange. Another critical takeaway is around the effects of U.S. trade realignment on both macro markets and equity sector preferences. Whether these trade policy changes play out well over time or not, the attempt costs something in the near term. Tariffs are part of that cost. And while the precise path of tariff increases is unclear, what is clear is that they’re headed higher in the aggregate, a tactic in service of the administration’s goal of reducing trade deficits and creating reciprocal trade barriers in order to incentivize greater production in the U.S. Over the next year, our economists expect that those tariff costs will crimp economic activity. That slower growth should eventually feed through into a more dovish monetary policy. Both factors, in the view of our U.S. rates strategy team, should continue pushing yields lower – good news for bond investors, but more challenging posture for equity investors, and a key reason our cross asset team is currently flagging a preference for fixed income. That tariff activity should also drive supply chain realignment. But, going forward, changing those supply chains may now be more costly. Per work from our Global economics team, the supply chains that need to be moved now are complex and concentrated in geopolitical rivals. That’s a challenge for certain sectors, like U.S. IT hardware and consumer discretionary. But the investment to make it happen creates demand and is a benefit for the capital goods and broader industrials sector. Bottom line, the policy noise will continue, as will the market cross currents it’s driving. We’ll keep you informed on it all here. 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.

Recorded at our 2025 Technology, Media and Telecom (TMT) Conference, TMT Credit Research Analyst Lindsay Tyler joins Head of Investment Grade Debt Coverage Michelle Wang to discuss the how the industry is strategically raising capital to fund growth.----- Transcript -----Lindsay Tyler: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Lindsay Tyler, Morgan Stanley's Lead Investment Grade TMT Credit Research Analyst, and I'm here with Michelle Wang, Head of Investment Grade Debt Coverage in Global Capital Markets.On this special episode, we're recording at the Morgan Stanley Technology, Media, and Telecom (TMT) Conference, and we will discuss the latest on the technology space from the fixed income perspective.It's Thursday, March 6th at 12 pm in San Francisco.What a week it's been. Last I heard, we had over 350 companies here in attendance.To set the stage for our discussion, technology has grown from about 2 percent of the broader investment grade market – about two decades ago – to almost 10 percent now; though that is still relatively a small percentage, relative to the weightings in the equity market.So, can you address two questions? First, why was tech historically such a small part of investment grade? And then second, what has driven the growth sense?Michelle Wang: Technology is still a relatively young industry, right? I'm in my 40s and well over 90 percent of the companies that I cover were founded well within my lifetime. And if you add to that the fact that investment grade debt is, by definition, a later stage capital raising tool. When the business of these companies reaches sufficient scale and cash generation to be rated investment grade by the rating agencies, you wind up with just a small subset of the overall investment grade universe.The second question on what has been driving the growth? Twofold. Number one the organic maturation of the tech industry results in an increasing number of scaled investment grade companies. And then secondly, the increasing use of debt as a cheap source of capital to fund their growth. This could be to fund R&D or CapEx or, in some cases, M&A.Lindsay Tyler: Right, and I would just add in this context that my view for this year on technology credit is a more neutral one, and that's against a backdrop of being more cautious on the communications and media space.And part of that is just driven by the spread compression and the lack of dispersion that we see in the market. And you mentioned M&A and capital allocation; I do think that financial policy and changes there, whether it's investment, M&A, shareholder returns – that will be the main driver of credit spreads.But let's turn back to the conference and on the – you know, I mentioned investment. Let's talk about investment.AI has dominated the conversation here at the conference the past two years, and this year is no different. Morgan Stanley's research department has four key investment themes. One of those is AI and tech diffusion.But from the fixed income angle, there is that focus on ongoing and upcoming hyperscaler AI CapEx needs.Michelle Wang: Yep.Lindsay Tyler: There are significant cash flows generated by many of these companies, but we just discussed that the investment grade tech space has grown relative to the index in recent history.Can you discuss the scale of the technology CapEx that we're talking about and the related implications from your perspective?Michelle Wang: Let's actually get into some of the numbers. So in the past three years, total hyperscaler CapEx has increased from [$]125 billion three years ago to [$]220 billion today; and is expected to exceed [$]300 billion in 2027.The hyperscalers have all publicly stated that generative AI is key to their future growth aspirations. So, why are they spending all this money? They're investing heavily in the digital infrastructure to propel this growth. These companies, however, as you've pointed out, are some of the most scaled, best capitalized companies in the entire world. They have a combined market cap of [$]9 trillion. Among them, their balance sheet cash ranges from [$]70 to [$]100 billion per company. And their annual free cash flow, so the money that they generate organically, ranges from [$]30 to [$]75 billion.So they can certainly fund some of this CapEx organically. However, the unprecedented amount of spend for GenAI raises the probability that these hyperscalers could choose to raise capital externally.Lindsay Tyler: Got it.Michelle Wang: Now, how this capital is raised is where it gets really interesting. The most straightforward way to raise capital for a lot of these companies is just to do an investment grade bond deal.Lindsay Tyler: Yep.Michelle Wang: However, there are other more customized funding solutions available for them to achieve objectives like more favorable accounting or rating agency treatment, ways for them

While central bank policy will always matter for markets, our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets explains why investors should not be worried about the number of Fed cuts in 2025.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I’m going to talk about why the number of Fed rate cuts this year may matter less than you think.It's Wednesday, March 5th, at 2pm in London.Financial markets spend a lot of time discussing the Federal Reserve. And for good reason. The central bank of the world’s largest economy plays a central role in fighting inflation and setting interest rates. And what they’ll do this year is topical and shifting. At Morgan Stanley, our economists think that US Tariff and Immigration policy will lead the Fed to keep rates somewhat higher, for somewhat longer, than they did at the start of the year.Yet we think there may be just a little bit too much focus on just how much the Fed changes policy over the course of the year. Indeed, we’d go as far as to say that given the choice, investors should be rooting for less change, not more.To start, for all that’s happened in the world since the end of October of 2024, expectations for the Fed’s interest rate path have been remarkably stable. The US 2-year Treasury, which is a decent proxy of where the Fed’s rate will average over the next 24 months, has hovered in a very narrow range. It simply hasn’t been telling us very much; other factors have been moving markets.There’s also a pretty reasonable rule of thumb from history: stability is good. A stable Fed funds rate, almost by definition, implies a stable equilibrium that doesn’t involve overly high inflation pushing rates further up, or overly weak growth pushing them further down. The best growth in recent history, in the mid-1990s, occurred after the Fed reduced interest rates less than one-percent, and then kept them stable, at a pretty elevated rate for a pretty extended period of time.Large changes in rates, on the other hand, in either direction are a different story. Some of the markets worst losses have coincided with the largest declines in the Fed’s target rate – because those large rate cuts usually occur only when there is a large, unexpected slowing in the economy; something markets often don’t like.Meanwhile, we think the Fed also very much wants to avoid a scenario where it has to start raising rates again, given the potential confusion that this could signal after it only recently continued to lower them. And so if over the course of this year, the Fed does need to raise rates, given the very high bar we think they’ve given themselves for action – it probably suggests that something unexpected, and not in a necessarily good way, has occurred.Central bank policy will always matter for markets. But for investors, the question of whether the Fed will cut once, which is the Morgan Stanley base-case, twice, or not at all in 2025 may not matter all that much, at least for credit. Far more important is the performance of the economy, and whether big changes to tariffs or immigration policy drive big changes to growth and inflation. Those big changes, which could drive big changes in Fed policy responses, are the scenario that worries us.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today. 

Our U.S. Public Policy and Currency analysts, Ariana Salvatore and Andrew Watrous, discuss why the dollar fell at the beginning of the first Trump administration and whether it could happen again this year. ----- Transcript ----Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Public Policy Strategist.Andrew Watrous: And I'm Andrew Watrous, G10 FX Strategist here at Morgan Stanley.Ariana Salvatore: Today, we'll focus on the U.S. dollar and how it might fare in global markets during the first year of the new Trump administration.It's Tuesday, March 4th at 10am in New York.So, Andrew, a few weeks ago, James Lord came on to talk about the foreign exchange volatility. Since then, tariffs and trade policy have been in the news. Last night at midnight, 25 percent tariffs on Mexico and Canada went into effect, in addition to 10 percent on China. So, let's set the scene for today's conversation. Is the dollar still dominant in global currency markets?Andrew Watrous: Yes, it is. The U.S. dollar is used in about $7 trillion worth of daily FX transactions. And the dollar's share of all currency transactions has been pretty stable over the last few decades. And something like 80 percent of all trade finance is invoiced in dollars, and that share has been pretty stable too.A big part of that dollar dominance is because of the depth and safety of the Treasury security market.Ariana Salvatore: That makes sense. And the dollar fell in 2017, the first year of the Trump administration. Why did that happen?Andrew Watrous: Yeah, so 2017 gets a lot of client attention because the Fed was hiking, there was a lot of uncertainty about would happen in NAFTA, and the U.S. passed a fiscally expansionary budget bill that year.So, people have asked us, ‘Why the U.S. dollar went down despite all those factors?’ And I think there are three reasons. One is that even though the possibility that the U.S. could leave NAFTA was all over the headlines that year, U.S. tariffs didn't actually go up. Another factor is that global growth turned out to be really strong in 2017, and that was helped in part by fiscal policy in China and Europe. And finally, there were some political risks in Europe that didn't end up materializing.So, investors took a sigh of relief about the possibility that I think had been priced in a bit that the Eurozone might break up. And then a lot of those factors went into reverse in 2018 and the U.S. dollar went up.Ariana Salvatore: So, applying that framework with those factors to today, is it possible that we see a repeat of 2017 in terms of the U.S. dollar decline?Andrew Watrous: Yeah, I think it's likely that the U.S. dollar continues to go lower for some of the same reasons as we saw in 2017. So, I think that compared to 2017, there's a lot more U.S. dollar positive risk premium around trade policy. So, the bar is higher for the U.S. dollar to go up just from trade headlines alone.And just like in 2017, European policy developments could be a tailwind to the euro. We've been highlighting the potential for German fiscal expansion as European defense policy comes into focus. And unlike in 2017, when the Fed was raising rates, now the Fed is probably going to cut more this year. So that's a headwind to the dollar that didn't exist back in 2017.So, on trade, Ariana. What developments do you expect? Do you think that Trump's new policies will make 2025 different in any way from 2017?Ariana Salvatore: So, taking a step back and looking at this from a very high level, a few things are different in spite of the fact that we're actually talking about a lot of similar policies. Tariffs and tax policy were a big focus in 2017 to 2019, and to be sure, this time around, they are too, but in a slightly different way.So, for example, on tax cuts, we're not talking about bringing rates lower on the individual and corporate side. We're talking about extending current policy. And on tariffs and trade policy, this round I would characterize as much broader, right? So, Trump has scoped in a broader range of trading partners into the discussion like Mexico and Canada; and is talking about a starting point that level-wise is much higher than what we saw in the whole 2018 2019 trade friction period.The highest rate back then we ever saw was 25 percent, and that was on the final batch of Chinese goods, that list four. Whereas this time, we're talking about 25 percent as a starting point for Mexico and Canada.I think sequencing is also a really important distinction. In 2017, we saw the tax cuts through the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) come first, followed by trade tensions in 2018 to 2019. This time around, it's really the inverse. Republicans just passed their budget resolution in the House. That lays the groundwork for the tax cut extensions.But in the meantime, Trump has been talking about tariff implementation since before he w

Our Semiconductors and Software analysts Joe Moore and Keith Weiss dive into the biggest market debate around AI and why it’s likely to shape conversations at Morgan Stanley’s Technology, Media and Telecom (TMT) Conference in San Francisco. ----- Transcript -----Joe Moore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Joe Moore, Morgan Stanley's Head of U.S. Semiconductors.Keith Weiss: And I'm Keith Weiss, Head of U.S. Software.Joe Moore: Today on the show, one of the biggest market debates in the tech sector has been around AI and the Return On Investment, or ROI. In fact, we think this will be the number one topic of conversation at Morgan Stanley's annual Technology, Media and Telecom (TMT) conference in San Francisco.And that's precisely where we're bringing you this episode from.It's Monday, March 3rd, 7am in San Francisco.So, let's get right into it. ChatGPT was released November 2022. Since then, the biggest tech players have gained more than $9 trillion in combined market capitalization. They're up more than double the amount of the S&P 500 index. And there's a lot of investor expectation for a new technology cycle centered around AI. And that's what's driving a lot of this momentum.You know, that said, there's also a significant investor concern around this topic of ROI, especially given the unprecedented level of investment that we've seen and sparse data points still on the returns.So where are we now? Is 2025 going to be a year when the ROI and GenAI finally turns positive?Keith Weiss: If we take a step back and think about the staging of how innovation cycles tend to play out, I think it's a helpful context.And it starts with research. I would say the period up until When ChatGPT was released – up until that November 2022 – was a period of where the fundamental research was being done on the transformer models; utilizing, machine learning. And what fundamental research is, is trying to figure out if these fundamental capabilities are realistic. If we can do this in software, if you will.And with the release of ChatGPT, it was a very strong, uh, stamp of approval of ‘Yes, like these transformer models can work.’Then you start stage two. And I think that's basically November 22 through where are today of, where you have two tracks going on. One is development. So these large language models, they can do natural language processing well.They can contextually understand unstructured and semi structured data. They can generate content. They could create text; they could create images and videos.So, there's these fundamental capabilities. But you have to develop a product to get work done. How are we going to utilize those capabilities? So, we've been working on development of product over the past two years. And at the same time, we've been scaling out the infrastructure for that product development.And now, heading into 2025, I think we're ready to go into the next stage of the innovation cycle, which will be market uptake.And that's when revenue starts to flow to the software companies that are trying to automate business processes. We definitely think that monetization starts to ramp in 2025, which should prove out a better ROI or start to prove out the ROI of all this investment that we've been making.Joe Moore: Morgan Stanley Research projects that GenAI can potentially drive a $1.1 trillion dollar revenue opportunity in 2028, up from $45 billion in 2024. Can you break this down for our listeners?Keith Weiss: We recently put out a report where we tried to size kind of what the revenue generation capability is from GenerativeAI, because that's an important part of this ROI equation. You have the return on the top of where you could actually monetize this. On the bottom, obviously, investment. And we took a look at all the investment needed to serve this type of functionality.The [$]1.1 trillion, if you will, it breaks down into two big components. Um, One side of the equation is in my backyard, and that's the enterprise software side of the equation. It's about a third of that number. And what we see occurring is the automation of more and more of the work being done by information workers; for people in overall.And what we see is about 25 percent, of overall labor being impacted today. And we see that growing to over 45 percent over the next three years.So, what that's going to look like from a software perspective is a[n] opportunity ramping up to about, just about $400 billion of software opportunity by 2028. At that point, GenerativeAI will represent about 22 percent of overall software spending. At that point, the overall software market we expect to be about a $1.8 trillion market.The other side of the equation, the bigger side of the equation, is actually the consumer platforms. And that kind of makes sense if you think about the broader economy, it's basically one-third B2B, two-thirds B2C. The automation is relatively equivalent o

Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy explains why conflicting news on tariffs and government spending may point to a case for bonds.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy. Today we’ll be discussing recent U.S. public policy headline noise and the signal within that for investors.It’s Friday, February 28th, at 12:30 pm in New York.For investors paying attention to events in Washington, D.C., the past few weeks have been disorienting. Tariff announcements have continued, but with shifting details on timing and magnitude. And Congress passed a bill to enable substantial spending cuts, but subsequent media reports made clear the votes to actually enact these cuts later this year may not be there.  Our recent client conversations have revealed that investors’ confusion has reached new heights, and there’s little consensus, or conviction, about whether U.S. policy choices are set to help or hurt the economy and markets. Net-net, it's a lot of policy noise, and very little signal. That said, here’s what we think investors can anchor to. For all the headlines on potential new tariffs for China, Mexico, Canada and on products like copper, actual tariff actions have followed a graduated pace, in line with our base case of ‘fast announcement, slow implementation’ – where tariffs on China start and continue to climb, but tariffs on the rest of world move slowly and are more subject to negotiation. Tariffs on Mexico and Canada appear, in our view, likely to be pushed out once again given progress in negotiation on harmonizing trade policy and progress in reduced border crossings.  On the other hand, tariffs on China, already raised an incremental 10 percent a few weeks back, seem likely to step up again as there are much bigger disagreements that the two nations don’t appear close to resolving. But even if tariffs move according to the pace that we expect, that doesn’t mean they come without cost. The U.S.’s goal is to bring more investment onshore, with an aim toward increasing goods production, thereby reducing trade deficits, securing important supply chains, and growing industrial jobs. The theory is that higher tariff barriers might incentivize more direct investment into the U.S., as companies build supply chains in the U.S. to avoid the higher tariff costs.  But even if that theory plays out, there’s a cost to that transition. In a recent blue paper, my colleague Rajeev Sibal led a team through an analysis demonstrating that the next phase of supply chain realignment would be considerably costlier to companies, given the complexity of production that must be shifted. So either way, companies take on new costs – tariffs, CapEx, or both. That challenges corporate margins, and economic growth, at least for a time. And there’s plenty of execution risk along the way. So what’s an investor to do? Our cross asset and interest rate strategy teams think it's time to lean more heavily into bonds. Equity markets may do just fine here, with investors looking through these near term costs, but the risk of something going wrong with, for example, tariffs escalation or broader geopolitical conflict, may keep a ceiling on investors’ risk appetite. Conversely, a growth slowdown presents a clearer case for owning bonds, particularly since it wasn’t that long ago that better economic data helped the Treasury market price out most of the expected monetary policy cuts for 2025. 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.

Two recent surveys indicate that U.S. consumer confidence has shown a notable decline amid talks about inflation and potential tariff. Our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets discusses the market implications.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I’m going to talk about the consumer side of the confidence debate. It’s Thursday, February 27th at 2pm in London. Two weeks ago on this program I discussed signs that uncertainty in U.S. government policy might be hitting corporate confidence, as evidenced by an unusually slow start to the year for dealmaking. That development is a mixed bag. Less confidence and more conservatism in companies holds back investment and reduces the odds of the type of animal spirits that can drive large gains. But it can be a good thing for lenders, who generally prefer companies to be more cautious and more risk-averse. But this question of confidence is also relevant for consumers. And today, I want to discuss what some of the early surveys suggest and how it can impact our view.To start with something that may sound obvious but is nonetheless important, Confidence is an extremely powerful psychological force in the economy and financial markets. If you feel good enough about the future, you’ll buy a stock or a car with little regard to the price or how the economy might feel at the moment. And if you’re worried, you won’t buy those same things, even if your current conditions are still ok, or if the prices are even cheaper. Confidence, you could say, can trump almost everything else. And so this might help explain the market’s intense focus on two key surveys over the last week that suggested that US consumer confidence has been deteriorating sharply.First, a monthly survey by the University of Michigan showed a drop in consumer confidence and a rise in expected inflation. And then a few days later, on Tuesday, a similar survey from the Conference Board showed a similar pattern, with consumers significantly more worried about the future, even if they felt the current conditions hadn't much changed. While different factors could be at play, there is at least circumstantial evidence that the flurry of recent U.S. policy actions may be playing a role. This drop in confidence, for example, was new, and has only really showed up in the last month or two. And the University of Michigan survey actually asks its respondents how news of Government Economic policy is impacting their level of confidence. And that response, over the last month, showed a precipitous decline. These confidence surveys are often called ‘soft’ data, as opposed to the hard economic numbers like the actual sales of cars or heavy equipment. But the reason they matter, and the reason investors listened to them this week, is that they potentially do something that other data cannot. One of the biggest challenges that investors face when looking at economic data is that financial markets often anticipate, and move ahead of turns in the underlying hard economic numbers. And so if expectations are predictive of the future, they may provide that important, more leading signal. One weak set of consumer confidence isn’t enough to change the overall picture, but it certainly has our attention. Our U.S. economists generally agree with these respondents in expecting somewhat slower growth and stickier inflation over the next 18 months; and Morgan Stanley continues to forecast lower bond yields across the U.S. and Europe on the expectation that uncertainties around growth will persist. For credit investors, less confidence remains a double-edged sword, and credit markets have been somewhat more stable than other assets. But we would view further deterioration in confidence as a negative – given the implications for growth, even if it meant a somewhat easier policy path. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen discusses the possible economic implications of restrictive immigration policies in the U.S., highlighting their potential effect on growth, inflation and labor markets.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley’s Chief U.S. Economist. Today I’ll talk about the way restrictive immigration policies could potentially slow U.S. economic growth, push up inflation, and impact labor markets.It’s Wednesday, February 26th, at 2pm in New York.Lately, investors have been focused on the twists and turns of Trump’s tariffs. Several of my colleagues have discussed the issue of tariffs from various angles on this show. But we think the new administration’s immigration policy deserves more attention. Immigration is more than just the entry of foreign citizens into the U.S. for residency. It's a complex process with significant implications for our economy. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of June 2024, 19 per cent of the US workforce was made up of immigrants – which is over 32 million people. This is a significant increase from 1994, when only about 10 per cent of the workforce was foreign-born. Immigrants tend to be employed in sectors like agriculture, construction and manufacturing, but also in face-to-face services sectors like retail, restaurants, hotels and healthcare. Immigration surged to about 3 million per year after the pandemic. In fact, immigration rates in 2022 to 2024 were more than twice the historical run rate. This surge helped the US economy to "soft land" following a period of high inflation. It boosted both the supply side and the demand side of the U.S. economy. Labor force growth outpaced employment, which helped to moderate wage and price pressures. However, Trump’s policymakers are changing the rules rapidly and reversing the immigration narrative. Already by the second half of 2024, border flows were slowing significantly based on the lagged effects of steps previously taken by the Biden administration. Under the new administration, news reports suggest immigration has slowed to near zero in recent weeks.In our 2025 year-ahead outlook, we noted that restrictive immigration policies were a key factor in our prediction for slower growth and firmer inflation. We estimate that immigration will slow from 2.7 million last year to about 1 million this year and 500,000 next year. The recent data suggests immigration may slow every more forcefully than we expect.If immigration slows broadly in line as we predict, the result will be that population growth in 2025 will be about 4/10ths of 1 per cent. That’s less than half of what the U.S. economy saw in 2024. The impact of slower immigration on labor force measures should be visible over time. For the moment though, there is enough noise in monthly payrolls and the unemployment rate to mask some of the labor force effects. But over three or six months, the impact of slower immigration should become clearer.In terms of economic growth, if immigration falls back to 1 million this year and 500,000 next year, this could reduce the rate of GDP growth by about a-half a percentage point this year and maybe even more next year, and put upward pressure on inflation, particularly in services, and to some extent overall wages. Slower immigration could pull short-run potential GDP growth down from the 2.5-3.0 per cent that we saw in recent years to 2 per cent this year, and 1-1.5 per cent next year. On the other hand, the unemployment rate might fall modestly as immigration controls reduce the number of households with high participation rates and low spending capacity. This could lead to tighter labor markets, moderately faster wage growth, and upward pressure on inflation. So we think we are looking at a two-speed labor market. Slower employment growth will feel soft and sluggish. But a low unemployment rate suggests the labour market itself is still tight. Given all of this, we think more restrictive immigration policies could lead to tighter monetary policy and keep the Fed on its currently restrictive stance for longer. All of this supports our expectation of just one cut this year and further rate cuts only next year after growth slows.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.

A shift to private destinations for cruise lines could affect both operators and guests by 2030. Our Europe Leisure & Travel analyst Jamie Rollo explains.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Jamie Rollo, Morgan Stanley’s Europe Leisure & Travel Analyst. And today I’ll talk about an intriguing trend – the cruise lines’ accelerating expansion into private islands. It’s Tuesday, February the 25th, at 2 PM in London.Now the lure of a private island cruise is simple. You get almost exclusive access to a tropical retreat. You can lounge or snorkel on a pristine beach, you can enjoy a meal in a private cabana, you can even book a massage or a yoga class. The only other people around are fellow passengers on your vacation. So this isn't just the stuff of popular TV shows. It’s potentially the future of cruising. Cruise lines have actually been offering private islands for more than a decade. So it’s hardly a new phenomenon. In fact, in 2019, we estimate the majority of Caribbean cruise passengers visited a private island. As it happens, the Caribbean is the world's largest cruise destination. About saw 36 million cruise calls were there last year; that’s about 40 percent of global passenger capacity. And that’s surpassing the second largest region, the Mediterranean, at about 17 percent. Of course, the Caribbean’s proximity to North America and its year-round tropical climate make it a prime location for cruising. But despite these advantages, historically the Caribbean’s been seen as more of a lower-yielding market compared to regions like Europe or Alaska, which arguably have even more amazing scenery or historic sites. Interestingly, recent trends suggest that reputation might be changing. And new private islands over the last few years have reinvigorated the Caribbean cruise market. So what’s a private destinations or islands offer? For your guests, they get a seamless integration with the cruise experience. There’s no transfer required to a destination. There’s no external visitors coming into the resort. No-hassle, no-traffic, and very low crime. And for the cruise lines, well, they get greater control over the customer experience. They create superior customer satisfaction, which generates more repeat business. In addition, they can get that on-island spend that the guest would have spent with external vendors. And they can charge premium rates for exclusive areas. On top of that, many of these islands are quote close to the U.S. mainland, so you’re saving on fuel because the ship doesn’t have to steam so far; and on port fees. And then finally, proximity to the U.S. also can increase the short cruise duration market, which widens the addressable market for new-to-cruise passengers. And also can limit anti-tourism or anti-cruise sentiment because it moves guests out of congested areas and prevents unwanted visitors. All in all, the private island model offers a very high return on invested capital and may well be the future of the cruise line industry. In fact, if we add up the expansion plans of the biggest listed cruise lines, we think their private island guest count will double over the next few years. And that could add over 10 per cent to top line sales and 30 per cent earnings-per-share for the fastest growing cruise lines. So very considerable financials, but also it’s a private paradise within reach … and an idea we can all set sail to. 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 CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains the challenges to growth for U.S. stocks and why some investors are looking to China and Europe.----- 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 new headwinds for growth and what that means for equities. It's Monday, Feb 24th at 11:30am in New York. So let’s get after it.  Until this past Friday’s sharp sell off in stocks, the correlation between bond yields and stocks had been in negative territory since December. This inverse correlation strengthened further into year-end as the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield definitively breached 4.5 per cent on the upside for the first time since April of 2024. In November, we had identified this as an important yield threshold for stock valuations. This view was based on prior rate sensitivity equities showed in April of 2024 and the fall of 2023 as the 10-year yield pushed above this same level. In our view, the equity market has been signaling that yields above this point have a higher likelihood of weighing on growth. Supporting our view, interest rate sensitive companies like homebuilders have underperformed materially. This is why we have consistently recommended the quality factor and industries that are less vulnerable to these headwinds.In our year ahead outlook, we suggested the first half of 2025 would be choppier for stocks than what we experienced last fall. We cited several reasons including the upside in yields and a stronger U.S. dollar. Since rates broke above 4.5 per cent in mid-December, the S&P 500 has made no progress. Specifically, the 6,100 resistance level that we identified in the fall has proven to be formidable for the time being. In addition to higher rates, softer growth prospects alongside a less dovish Fed are also holding back many stocks. As we have also discussed, falling rates won’t help if it’s accompanied by falling growth expectations as Friday’s sharp selloff in the face of lower rates illustrated. Beyond rates and a stronger US dollar, there are several other reasons why growth expectations are coming down. First, the immediate policy changes from the new administration, led by immigration enforcement and tariffs, are likely to weigh on growth while providing little relief on inflation in the short term. Second, the Dept of Govt Efficiency, or DOGE, is off to an aggressive start and this is another headwind to growth, initially.Third, there appears to have been a modest pull-forward of goods demand at the end of last year ahead of the tariffs, and that impulse may now be fading. Fourth, consumers are still feeling the affordability pinch of higher rates and elevated price levels which weighed on last month's retail sales data. Finally, difficult comparisons, broader awareness of Deep Seek, and the debate around AI [CapEx] deceleration are weighing on the earnings revisions of some of the largest companies in the major indices.All of these items are causing some investors to consider cheaper foreign stocks for the first time in quite a while – with China and Europe doing the best. In the case of China, it’s mostly related to the news around DeepSeek and perhaps stimulus for the consumer finally arriving this year. The European rally is predicated on hopes for peace in Ukraine and the German election results that may lead to the loosening of fiscal constraints. Of the two, China appears to have more legs to the story, in my opinion. Our Equity Strategy in the U.S. remains the same. We see limited upside at the index level in the first half of the year but plenty of opportunity at the stock, sector and factor levels. We continue to favor Financials, Software over Semiconductors, Media/Entertainment and Consumer Services over Goods. We also maintain an overriding penchant for quality across all size cohorts.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Hong Kong/China Transportation & Infrastructure Analyst Qianlei Fan explores how a potential peace deal in Ukraine could reshape the global airline industry.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Qianlei Fan, Morgan Stanley’s Hong Kong/China Transportation Analyst. Today’s topic is how a potential peace deal in Ukraine could affect global airlines. It’s Friday, February 21st, at 2pm in Hong Kong. The situation remains fluid, but we believe a potential peace deal in Ukraine could have broad implications for the global airline industry. From the reopening of Russian airspace to potential changes in fuel prices and flight routes, there are many variables at play. Russian airspace is currently off-limits due to the conflict, but a peace agreement could change that. The reopening of Russian airspace would be a significant catalyst for global airlines, reducing travel times and fuel consumption on routes between Europe, North America, and Asia. Fuel prices account for 20-40 per cent of airlines' costs, so any changes can have a significant impact on their bottom line. We believe a peace deal could lead to a moderate fall in fuel prices, benefiting all airlines, but particularly those with high-cost exposure and low margins. There could also be specific regional implications. The European air travel market could benefit significantly from an end to the Ukraine conflict. The reopening of Russian airspace would improve European airlines’ competitiveness on Asian routes, while a fall in fuel prices would reduce their operating costs. There would also be lower congestion in the intra-European market. Asian airlines, particularly Chinese ones, could experience a mixed impact. On the one hand, they could see an increase in wide-body utilization and passenger numbers if more direct flights to the U.S. are introduced. On the other hand, losing their advantage over European airlines of flying through Russian airspace would be negative. But, at the same time, Chinese airlines should remain competitive on pricing given meaningfully lower labor costs. U.S. airlines could also benefit in two significant ways. They could see a boost in revenues from adding back profitable routes such as U.S. to India or U.S. to South Korea that may have been suspended. Being able to fly directly over Russia would mean shorter, more direct flight paths resulting in less fuel burn and lower costs. U.S. airlines could also see a cost decrease from a moderate fall in jet fuel prices. Finally, Latin American carriers could also benefit from a peace deal. If global carriers reallocate capacity to China, it could tighten the market even further, creating an attractive capacity environment for the LatAm region. We’ll continue to bring you relevant updates on this evolving situation. 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 Chief Economist Seth Carpenter explains the potential domino effect that President Trump’s reciprocal tariffs could have on the U.S. and global economies.----- Transcript -----Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist, and today I'm going to talk about downside risks to the U.S. economy, especially from tariffs.It's Thursday, February 20th at 10am in New York.Once again, tariffs are dominating headlines. The prospect of reciprocal tariffs is yet one more risk to our baseline forecast for the year. We have consistently said that the inflationary risk of tariffs gets its due attention in markets but the adverse growth implications that's an underappreciated risk.But we, like many other forecasters, were surprised to the upside in 2023 and 2024. So maybe we should ask, are there some upside risks that we're missing?The obvious upside risk to growth is a gain in productivity, and frequent readers of Morgan Stanley Research will know that we are bullish on AI. Indeed, the level of productivity is higher now than it was pre-COVID, and there is some tentative estimate that could point to faster growth for productivity as well.Of course, a cyclically tight labor market probably contributes and there could be some measurement error. But gains from AI do appear to be happening faster than in prior tech cycles. So, we can't rule very much out. In our year ahead outlook, we penciled in about a-tenth percentage point of extra productivity growth this year from AI. And there is also a bit of a boost to GDP from AI CapEx spending.Other upside risks, though, they're less clear. We don't have any boost in our GDP forecast from deregulation. And that view, I will say, is contrary to a lot of views in the market. Deregulation will likely boost profits for some sectors but probably will do very little to boost overall growth. Put differently, it helps the bottom line far more than it helps the top line. A notable exception here is probably the energy sector, especially natural gas.Our baseline view on tariffs has been that tariffs on China will ramp up substantially over the year, while other tariffs will either not happen or be fleeting, being part of, say, broader negotiations. The news flow so far this year can't reject that baseline, but recently the discussion of broad reciprocal tariffs means that the risk is clearly rising.But even in our baseline, we think the growth effects are underestimated. Somewhere in the neighborhood of two-thirds of imports from China are capital goods or inputs into U.S. manufacturing. The tariffs imposed before on China led to a sharp deterioration in industrial production. That slump went through the second half of 2018 and into and all the way through 2019 as a drag on the broader economy. Just as important, there was not a subsequent resurgence in industrial output.Part of the undergraduate textbook argument for tariffs is to have more produced at home. That channel works in a two-economy model. But it doesn't work in the real world.Now, the prospect of reciprocal tariffs broadens this downside risk. Free trade has divided production functions around the world, but it's also driven large trade imbalances, and it is precisely these imbalances that are at the center of the new administration's focus on tariffs. China, Canada, Mexico – they do stand out because of their imbalances in terms of trade with the U.S., but the underlying driving force is quite varied. More importantly, those imbalances were built over decades, so undoing them quickly is going to be disruptive, at least in the short run.The prospect of reciprocity globally forces us as well to widen the lens. The risks aren't just for the U.S., but around the world. For Latin America and Asia in particular, key economies have higher tariff supply to U.S. goods than vice versa.So, we can't ignore the potential global effects of a reciprocal tariff.Ultimately, though, we are retaining our baseline view that only tariffs on China will prove to be durable and that the delayed implementation we've seen so far is consistent with that view. Nevertheless, the broad risks are clear.Thanks for listening. And 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 co-heads of Securitized Products Research, James Egan and Jay Bacow, explain how the increase in home prices, a tight market supply and steady mortgage rates are affecting home sales.----- Transcript -----James Egan: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jim Egan, co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley.Jay Bacow: And I'm Jay Bacow, the other co-head of Securitized Products Research at Morgan Stanley.Today, a look at the latest trends in the mortgage and housing market.It's Wednesday, February 19th, at 11am in New York.Now, Jim, there's been a lot of headlines to kick off the year. How is the housing market looking here? Mortgage rates are about 80 basis points higher than the local lows in September. That can't be helping affordability very much.James Egan: No, it is not helping affordability. But let's zoom out a little bit here when talking about affordability. The monthly payment on the medium-priced home had fallen about $225 from the fourth quarter of 2023 to local troughs in September. About a 10 percent decrease. Since that low, the payment has increased about $150; so, it's given back most of its gains.Importantly, affordability is a three-pronged equation. It's not just that payment. Home prices, mortgage rates, and incomes. And incomes are up about 5 percent over the past year. So, affordability has improved more than those numbers would suggest, but those improvements have certainly been muted as a result of this recent rate move. Jay Bacow: Alright. Affordability is up, then it’s down. It’s wrong, then it’s right. It sounds like a Katy Perry song. So, how have home sales evolved through this rollercoaster?James Egan: Well, you and I came on this podcast several times last year to talk about the fact that home sales volumes weren't really increasing despite the improvement in affordability. One point that we made over and over again was that it normally takes 9 to 12 months for sales volumes to increase when you get this kind of affordability improvement. And that would make the fourth quarter of 2024 the potential inflection point that we were looking for. And despite this move in mortgage rates, that does appear to have been the case. Existing home sales had a very strong finish to last year. And in the fourth quarter, they were up 8 percent versus the fourth quarter of 2023. That's the first year-over-year increase since the second quarter of 2021.Jay Bacow: All right. So that's pretty meaningful. And if looking backward, home sales seem to be inflecting, what does that mean for 2025?James Egan: So, there's a number of different considerations there. For one thing, supply – the number of homes that are actually for sale – is still very tight, but it is increasing. It may sound a little too simplistic, but there do need to be homes for sale for homes to sell, and listings have reacted faster than sales. That strong fourth quarter in existing home sales that I just mentioned, that brought total sales volumes for the year to 1 percent above their 2023 levels. For sale inventory finished the year up 14 percent.Jay Bacow: Alright, that makes sense. So, more people are willing to sell their home, which means there's a little bit more transaction volume. But is that good for home prices?James Egan: Not exactly. And it is those higher listings and our expectation that listings are going to continue to climb that's been the main factor behind our call for home price growth to continue to slow. Ultimately, we think that you see home sales up in the context of about 5 percent in 2025 versus 2024.Our leading indicators of demand have softened, a little, in December and January, which may be a result of this sharp increase in rates. But ultimately, when we look at turnover in the housing market, and we're talking about existing sales as a share of the outstanding homes in the U.S. housing market, we think that we're kind of at the basement right now. If we're wrong in our sales volume call, I would think it's more likely that there are more sales than we think. Not less.Jay Bacow: Let me ask you another easy question. How far would rates have to fall to really incentivize more supply and/or demand in the housing market?James Egan: That's the $45 trillion question. We think the current housing market presents a fascinating case study in behavioral economics. Even if mortgage rates were to decline to 4.5 percent, only 35 percent of people would be in the money. And that's still over 200 basis points from where we are today.That being said, we think it's unlikely that mortgage rates need to fall all the way to that level to unlock the housing market. While the lack of any historical precedent makes it difficult for us to identify a specific threshold at which activity could increase meaningfully, we recently turned to Morgan Stanley's AlphaWise to conduct a consumer pulse survey to get a better sense of how people were feelin

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategy Mike Wilson suggests that stock, factor and sector selection remain key to portfolio performance.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s CIO and Chief US Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast I’ll be discussing equities in the context of higher rates and weaker earnings revisions. It's Tuesday, Feb 18th at 11:30am in New York. So let’s get after it.Since early December, the S&P 500 has made little headway. The almost unimpeded run from the summer was halted by a few things but none as important as the rise in 10-year Treasury yields, in my view. In December, we cited 4 to 4.5 percent as the sweet spot for equity multiples assuming growth and earnings remained on track. We viewed 4.5 percent as a key level for equity valuations. And sure enough, when the Fed leaned less dovish at its December meeting, yields crossed that 4.5 percent threshold; and correlations between stocks and yields settled firmly in negative territory, where they remain. In other words, yields are no longer supportive of higher valuations—a key driver of returns the past few years. Instead, earnings are now the primary driver of returns and that is likely to remain the case for the foreseeable future. While the Fed was already increasingly less dovish, the uncertainty on tariffs and last week’s inflation data could further that shift with the bond market moving to just one cut for the rest of the year. Our official call is in line with that view with our economists now just looking for just one cut–in June. It depends on how the inflation and growth data roll in. Our strategy has shifted, too. With the S&P 500 reaching our tactical target of 6100 in December and earnings revision breadth now rolling over for the index, we have been more focused on sectors and factors. In particular, we’ve favored areas of the market showing strong earnings revisions on an absolute or relative basis.Financials, Media and Entertainment, Software over Semiconductors and Consumer Services over Goods continue to fit that bill. Within Defensives, we have favored Utilities over Staples, REITs and Healthcare. While we’ve seen outperformance in all these trades, we are sticking with them, for now. We maintain an overriding preference for Large-cap quality unless 10-year Treasury yields fall sustainably below 4.5 percent without a meaningful degradation in growth. The key component of 10-year yields to watch for equity valuations remains the term premium – which has come down, but is still elevated compared to the past few years. Other macro developments driving stock prices include the very active policy announcements from the White House including tariffs, immigration enforcement, and cost cutting efforts by the Department of Government Efficiency, also known as DOGE. For tariffs, we believe they will be more of an idiosyncratic event for equity markets. However, if tariffs were to be imposed and maintained on China, Mexico and Canada through 2026, the impact to earnings-per-share would be roughly 5-7 percent for the S&P 500. That’s not an insignificant reduction and likely one of the reasons why guidance this past quarter was more muted than fourth quarter results. Industries facing greater headwinds from China tariffs include consumer discretionary goods and electronics. Lower immigration flow and stock is more likely to affect aggregate demand than to be a wage cost headwind, at least for public companies. Finally, skepticism remains high as it relates to DOGE’s ability to cut Federal spending meaningfully. I remain more optimistic on that front, but realize greater success also presents a headwind to growth before it provides a tailwind via lower fiscal deficits and less crowding out of the private economy—things that could lead to more Fed cuts and lower long-term interest rates as term premium falls. Bottom line, higher backend rates and growth headwinds from the stronger dollar and the initial policy changes suggest equity multiples are capped for now. That means stock, factor and sector selection remains key to performance rather than simply adding beta to one’s portfolio. On that score, we continue to favor earnings revision breadth, quality, and size factors alongside financials, software, media/entertainment and consumer services at the industry level.  Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, 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 and Public Policy Research, Michael Zezas, joins our Chief U.S. Economist, Michael Gapen, to discuss the possible outcomes for President Trump’s immigration policies and their effect on the U.S. economy.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Public Policy Research.Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Chief U.S. Economist for Morgan Stanley.Michael Zezas: Our topic today: President Trump's immigration policy and its economic ramifications.It's Friday, February 14th at 10am in New York.Michael, migration has always been considered an important feature of the global economy. In fact, you believe that strong immigration flows were an important element in the supply side rebound that set the stage for a U.S. soft landing. If we think back to the time before President Trump took office almost a month ago, how would you categorize immigration trends then?Michael Gapen: So, we saw a very sharp increase in immigration coming out of the pandemic. I would say, if you look at longer term averages, say the 20 years leading up to the pandemic, normally we'd get about a million and a half immigrants, per year into the United States. A lot of variation around that number, but that was the long-term average.In 2022 through 2024, we saw immigration surge to about 3 million per year. So about twice as fast as we saw normally. And that happened at a very important time. It allowed for very significant and rapid growth in the labor force, just at a time when the economy was emerging from the pandemic and demand for labor was quite high.So, it filled that labor demand. It allowed the economy to grow rapidly, while at the same time helping to keep wages lower and inflation starting to come down. So, I do think it was a major underpinning force in the ability of the U.S. economy to soft land after several years of above target inflation.Michael Zezas: Got it. And so now, with a second President Trump term, are we set up for a reversal of this immigration driven boost to the economy?Michael Gapen: Yeah, I think that's the key question for the outlook, and our answer is yes. That if we are going to significantly restrict immigration flows, the risk here is that we reverse the trends that we've just seen in the previous year.So, I certainly believe one of the main goals of the Trump administration is to harden the border and initiate greater deportations. And these steps in my mind come on the back of steps that the Biden administration already took around the middle of last year that began to slow immigration flows.So yes, I do think we should look for a reversal of the immigration driven boost to the economy. But Mike, I would actually throw this question back to you and say on the first day of his presidency, Trump issued a series of executive orders pertaining to immigration. Where are we now in that process after these initial announcements? And what do you expect in terms of policy implementation?Michael Zezas: Well, I think you hit on it. There's two levers here. There's stepped up deportations and removals and there's working with Mexico on border enforcement. Things like the remain in Mexico policy where Mexico agrees to keep those seeking asylum on their side of the border; and to facilitate that, they've stepped up their military presence to do that.Those are really kind of the two levers that the U.S. is pushing on to try and reduce the flow of migrants coming into the U.S. Still to be determined how much these actually have an impact, but I think that's the direction of policy travel.Michael Gapen: And are there any catalysts specifically that you're watching for? I mean, recently the administration proposed tariffs on Mexico and Canada around border control, but those have been delayed. Is there anything on the horizon we should look for this time around?Michael Zezas: Yeah. So obviously the president tied the potential for tariffs on Mexico and Canada to the idea that there should be some improvement on border enforcement. It's going to be difficult for investors, I think, to assess in real time how much progress has been made there. Mostly it's a data challenge here. There are official government statistics which have a good amount of detail about removals and folks stopped at the border and demographics in terms of age and, and whether or not they were working. That might really kind of help us piece together the story in terms of whether or not there's going to be future tariffs – and Michael, probably for you, to what extent there's an impact on the economy if folks are already in the labor force.But that data is on a lag, it'll be really difficult to tell what's happening now for at least several months. Maybe we're going to get some hints about what's going on for comments coming in earnings calls, for example, from companies that deal i

Our Head of Foreign Exchange & Emerging Markets Strategy James Lord discusses how much tariff-driven volatility investors can expect in currency markets this year.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m James Lord, Morgan Stanley’s Head of Foreign Exchange & Emerging Markets Strategy. Today – the implications of tariffs for volatility on foreign exchange markets. It’s Thursday, February 13th, at 3pm in London. Foreign exchange markets are following President Trump’s tariff proposals with bated breath. A little over a week ago investors faced significant uncertainty over proposed tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China. In the end, the U.S. reached a deal with Canada and Mexico, but a 10 per cent tariff on Chinese imports went into effect. Currencies experienced heightened volatility during the negotiations, but the net impacts at the end of the negotiations were small. Announced tariffs on steel and aluminum have had a muted impact too, but the prospect of reciprocal tariffs are keeping investors on edge. We believe there are three key lessons investors can take away from this recent period of tariff tension. First of all, we need to distinguish between two different types of tariffs. The first type is proposed with the intention to negotiate; to reach a deal with affected countries on key issues. The second type of tariff serves a broader purpose. Imposing them might reduce the U.S. trade deficit or protect key domestic industries.There may also be examples where these two distinct approaches to tariffs meld, such as the reciprocal tariffs that President Trump has also discussed. The market impacts of these different tariffs vary significantly. In cases where the ultimate objective is to make a deal on a separate issue, any currency volatility experienced during the tariff negotiations will very likely reverse – if a deal is made. However, if the tariffs are part of a broader economic strategy, then investors should consider more seriously whether currency impacts are going to be more long-lasting. For instance, we believe that tariffs on imports from China should be considered in this context. As a result, we do see sustained dollar/renminbi upside, with that currency pair likely to hit 7.6 in the second half of 2025. A second key issue for investors is going to be the timing of tariffs. April 1st is very likely going to be a key date for Foreign Exchange markets as more details around the America First Trade Policy are likely revealed. We could see the U.S. dollar strengthen in the days leading up to this date, and investors are likely to consider where subsequently there will be a more significant push to enact tariffs. A final question for investors to ponder is going to be whether foreign exchange volatility would move to a structurally higher plane, or simply rise episodically. Many investors currently assume that FX volatility will be higher this year, thanks to the uncertainty created by trade policy. However, so far, the evidence doesn’t really support this conclusion. Indicators that track the level of uncertainty around global trade policy did rise during President Trump's first term, specifically around the period of escalating tariffs on China. And while this was associated with a stronger [U.S.] dollar, it did not lead to rising levels of FX volatility. We can see again, at the start of Trump's second term, that rising uncertainty over trade policy has been consistent with a stronger U.S. dollar. And while FX volatility has increased a bit, so far the impact has been relatively muted – and implied volatility is still well below the highs that we’ve seen in the past ten years. FX volatility is likely to rise around key dates and periods of escalation; and while structurally higher levels of FX volatility could still occur, the odds of that happening would increase if tariffs resulted in more substantial macro economic consequences for the U.S. economy.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen. And share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.

The down-to-the-deadline nature of Trump’s trade policy has created market uncertainty. Our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets points out a silver lining. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I’m going to talk about a potential silver lining to the significant uptick in uncertainty around U.S. trade policy. It's Wednesday, February 12th at 2pm in London. One of the nuances of our market view is that we think credit spreads remain tight despite rising levels of corporate confidence and activity. We think these things can co-exist, at least temporarily, because the level of corporate activity is still so low, and so it could rise quite a bit and still only be in-line with the long-term trend. And so while more corporate activity and aggression is usually a negative for lenders and drives credit spreads wider, we don’t think it’s quite one yet. But maybe there is even less tension in these views than we initially thought. The first four weeks of the new U.S. Administration have seen a flurry of policy announcements on tariffs. This has meant a lot for investors to digest and discuss, but it’s meant a lot less to actual market prices. Since the inauguration, U.S. stocks and yields are roughly unchanged. That muted reaction may be because investors assume that, in many cases, these policies will be delayed, reversed or modified. For example, announced tariffs on Mexico and Canada have been delayed. A key provision concerning smaller shipments from China has been paused. So far, this pattern actually looks very consistent with the framework laid out by my colleagues Michael Zezas and Ariana Salvatore from the Morgan Stanley Public Policy team: fast announcements of action, but then much slower ultimate implementation. Yet while markets may be dismissing these headlines for now, there are signs that businesses are taking them more seriously. Per news reports, U.S. Merger and Acquisition activity in January just suffered its lowest level of activity since 2015. Many factors could be at play. But it seems at least plausible that the “will they, won’t they” down-to-the-deadline nature of trade policy has increased uncertainty, something businesses generally don’t like when they’re contemplating big transformative action. And for lenders maybe that’s the silver lining. We’ve been thinking that credit in 2025 would be a story of timing this steadily rising wave of corporate aggression. But if that wave is delayed, debt levels could end up being lower, bond issuance could be lower, and spread levels – all else equal – could be a bit tighter. Corporate caution isn’t everywhere. In sectors that are seen as multi-year secular trends, such as AI data centers, investment plans continue to rise rapidly, with our colleagues in Equity Research tracking over $320bn of investment in 2025. But for activity that is more economically sensitive, uncertainty around trade policy may be putting companies on the back foot. That isn’t great for business; but, temporarily, it could mean a better supply/demand balance for those that lend to them. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our Chief Asia Economist Chetan Ahya discusses the potential impact of reciprocal U.S. tariffs on Asian economies, highlighting the key markets at risk.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Asia Economist. Today: the possibilities of reciprocal tariffs between the U.S. and Asian economies. It’s Tuesday, February 11, at 2pm in Singapore.President Trump’s recent tariff actions have already been far more aggressive than in 2018 and 2019. And this time around, multiple trade partners are simultaneously facing broad-based tariffs, and tariffs are coming at a much faster pace. The risk of trade tensions escalating has risen, and the latest developments may have kicked that risk up another notch. The U.S. president is pushing a sweeping tariff of 25 per cent on all foreign steel and aluminum products. Trump has also indicated that he would propose reciprocal tariffs on multiple countries – to match the tariffs levied by each country on U.S. imports. This potential reciprocal tariff proposal suggests that Asia ex China may be more exposed to possible tariff hikes. As of now, Asia’s tariffs on US imports are, for the most part, slightly higher than US tariffs on Asian imports. And based on [the] latest available data, six economies in Asia do impose [a] higher weighted average tariff on the U.S. than the U.S. does on individual Asia economies. The tariff differentials are most pronounced for India, Thailand, and Korea. These three economies may face a risk of a hike in tariffs by 4 to 6 percentage points on a weighted average basis, if the U.S. imposes reciprocal tariffs. Individual products may yet face higher tariffs rates but we think [the] overall impact from steel, aluminum and reciprocal tariffs will be manageable. But look, trade tensions may still rise further given that 7 out of 10 economies with the largest trade surplus with the U.S. are in Asia. Against this backdrop, policy makers may have to look for ways to address the demands from the U.S. administration. For instance, Japan’s Prime Minister Ishiba has committed to increasing investment in the U.S. and is looking to raise energy imports from the U.S. This is seen as a positive step to reduce the U.S. trade deficit with Japan. Meanwhile, ahead of the meeting between President Trump and India’s Prime Minister Modi later this week, India has already taken steps to lower tariffs on the U.S., and may propose [an] increase in imports of oil and gas, defense equipments and aircrafts to narrow its trade surplus with the U.S. However, as regards China is concerned, the wide scope of issues in the bilateral relationship suggests that [the] U.S. administration would cite a variety of reasons for expanding tariffs. As things stand, China has been the only economy so far where tariff hikes have stayed in place. Indeed, the recent 10 percent increase in tariffs has already matched the increase in the weighted average tariffs that transpired in 2018 and 2019. And we still expect that tariffs on imports from China will continue to rise over the course of 2025. To sum it up, there has been a constant stream of tariff threats from the U.S. administration. While the direct effects of [the] tariffs appear manageable, the bigger concern for us has been that this policy uncertainty will potentially weigh on corporate sector confidence, CapEx and growth cycle.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.

Global Head of Fixed Income and Public Policy Research Michael Zezas and Head of Global Evaluation, Accounting and Tax Todd Castagno discuss the market and economic implications of proposed tax extensions and tax cuts.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.Todd Castagno: And I'm Todd Castagno, Head of Global Evaluation, Accounting and Tax.Michael Zezas: Today, we'll focus on taxes under the new Trump administration.It's Monday, February 10th, at 10am in New York.Recently, at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, President Trump stated his administration will pass the largest tax cut in American history, including substantial tax cuts for workers and families. He was short on the details, but tax policies were a significant focus of his election campaign.Todd, can you give us a better sense of the tax cuts that Trump's been vocal about so far?Todd Castagno: Well, there's tax cuts and tax extensions. So, I think that's an important place to set the baseline. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), under his first administration, starts to expire in 2025. And so, what we view is, the most likelihood is, an extension of those policies going forward. However, there's some new ideas, some new contours as well. So, for instance, a lower corporate rate that gets you in the 15 per cent ballpark can be through domestic tax credits, new incentives.I think there's other items on the individual side of the code that could be explored as well. But we also have to kind of step back and creating new policy is very challenging. So again, that baseline is an extension of kind of the tax world we live in today.So, Michael, looking at the broader macro picture and from conversations with our economist, how would these tax cuts impact GDP and macro in general?Michael Zezas: Well, if you're talking about extension of current policy, which is most of our expectation about what happens with taxes at the end of the year, the way our economists have been looking at this is to say that there's no net new impulse for households or companies to behave differently.That might be true on a sector-by-sector basis, but in the aggregate for the economy, there's no reason to look at this policy and think that it is going to provide a definitive uplift to the growth forecast that they have for 2026. Now, there may be some other provisions that could add in there that are incremental that we'd have to consider.But still, they would probably take time to play out or their measurable impact would be very hard to define. Things like raising the cap on the state and local tax deduction, that tends to impact higher income households who already aren't constrained from a spending perspective. And things like a domestic manufacturing tax credit for companies, that could take several years to play out before it actually manifests into spending.Todd Castagno: And you’re kind of seeing that with the prior administration's tax law, the Inflation Reduction Act. A lot of this takes years in order to actually play through the economy. So that's something that investors should consider.Michael Zezas: Yeah, these things certainly take time; and you know back in 2018 it had been a long ambition, particularly of Republican lawmakers, to reduce the corporate tax rate. They succeeded in doing that, getting it down to 21 per cent in Trump's first term. Now, Trump's talked about getting corporate tax rates lower again here. If he's able to do that, how do you think he would do that? And would that affect how you're thinking about investment and hiring?Todd Castagno: So, there's the corporate rate itself, and it's at 21 per cent currently. There is a view to change that rate, lower it. However, there's other ways you can reduce that effective tax burden through what we've just discussed. So enhanced corporate deductions, timing differences, companies can benefit from a tax system that ultimately gets them a lower effective rate, even if the corporate rate doesn't move much.Michael Zezas: And so, what sorts of companies and what sorts of sectors of the market would benefit the most from that type of reduction in the corporate tax burden?Todd Castagno: So, if you think they're mosaic of all these items, it's going to accrue to domestic companies. That might sound kind of obvious, but if you look at our economy, we have large multinationals and we have domestic companies and we have small businesses. The policies that are being articulated, I think, mostly orient towards domestic companies, industrials, for instance, R&D incentives, again powering our AI plants, energy, et cetera.Michael Zezas: Got it. And is there any read through on if a company does better under this policy – if they're big relative to being small?Todd Castagno: There are a lot of small bu

Our Chief Fixed Income Strategist Vishy Tirupattur thinks that efficiency gains from Chinese AI startup DeepSeek may drive incremental demand for AI.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Today I’ll be talking about the macro implications of the DeepSeek development.It's Friday February 7th at 9 am, and I’m on the road in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.Recently we learned that DeepSeek, a Chinese AI startup, has developed two open-source large language models – LLMs – that can perform at levels comparable to models from American counterparts at a substantially lower cost. This news set off shockwaves in the equity markets that wiped out nearly a trillion dollars in the market cap of listed US technology companies on January 27. While the market has recouped some of these losses, their magnitude raises questions for investors about AI. My equity research colleagues have addressed a range of stock-specific issues in their work. Today we step back and consider the broader implications for the economy in terms of productivity growth and investment spending on AI infrastructure.First thing. While this is an important milestone and a significant development in the evolution of LLMs, it doesn’t come entirely as a shock. The history of computing is replete with examples of dramatic efficiency gains. The DeepSeek development is precisely that – a dramatic efficiency improvement which, in our view, drives incremental demand for AI. Rapid declines in the cost of computing during the 1990s provide a useful parallel to what we are seeing now. As Michael Gapen, our US chief economist, has noted, the investment boom during the 1990s was really driven by the pace at which firms replaced depreciated capital and a sharp and persistent decline in the price of computing capital relative to the price of output. If efficiency gains from DeepSeek reflect a similar phenomenon, we may be seeing early signs [that] the cost of AI capital is coming down – and coming down rapidly. In turn, that should support the outlook for business spending pertaining to AI.In the last few weeks, we have heard a lot of reference to the Jevons paradox – which really dates from 1865 – and it states that as technological advancements reduce the cost of using a resource, the overall demand for the resource increases, causing the total resource consumption to rise. In other words, cheaper and more ubiquitous technology will increase its consumption. This enables AI to transition from innovators to more generalized adoption and opens the door for faster LLM-enabled product innovation. That means wider and faster consumer and enterprise adoption. Over time, this should result in greater increases in productivity and faster realization of AI’s transformational promise.From a micro perspective, our equity research colleagues, who are experts in covering stocks in these sectors, come to a very similar conclusion. They think it’s unlikely that the DeepSeek development will meaningfully reduce CapEx related to AI infrastructure. From a macroeconomic perspective, there is a good case to be made for higher business spending related to AI, as well as productivity growth from AI.Obviously, it is still early days, and we will see leaders and laggards at the stock level. But the economy as a whole we think will emerge as a winner. DeepSeek illustrates the potential for efficiency gains, which in turn foster greater competition and drive wider adoption of AI. With that premise, we remain constructive on AI’s transformational promise.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.DISCLAIMERIn the last few weeks… (Laughs) It’s almost like the birds are waiting for me to start speaking.

Our Hong Kong/China Transportation & Infrastructure Analyst Qianlei Fan explains why a resurgence in air travel is leading China’s emergence from deflation.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Qianlei Fan, Morgan Stanley’s Hong Kong/China Transportation Analyst. Chinese airlines are at a once-in-a-decade inflection point, and today I’ll break down the elements of this turnaround story.It’s Thursday, Feb 6th at 10am in Hong Kong.Last week, hundreds of millions of people across Asia gathered to celebrate the lunar new year with their families. I was one of them and took a flight back to my hometown Nanjing. Airports were jam-packed for days, with air travel expected to exceed 90 million trips.It’s all indicative of Chinese airlines making a comeback after a seven-year run of underperformance. In fact, we believe Airlines will be one of the first industries to emerge from China's deflationary pressures this year. And this has implications for the country's broader economy.Although COVID impacted Airlines globally, other regions have since recovered. In China, the earnings recovery is just beginning. Since 2018, Chinese Airlines have experienced demand hits from the trade tension, currency depreciation, COVID-19, and post-COVID macro headwinds.It’s been two years since Chinese borders lifted restrictions and air travelers are returning in force. Excess capacity has now been digested. Slower deliveries of aircrafts continue to limit supply, and it is more difficult for airlines to get new aircraft and increase their available seats. Passenger load factors will continue to strengthen this year, which means the airlines are running close to full capacity. This will increase Airlines' pricing power within the next 6 to 12 months, feeding through to earnings.If we put that in a global context, China’s airlines industry handled around 700 million passengers in 2024, 8 per cent of global air passengers; but that 700 million passengers only account for half of China’s population. In the US, air passenger numbers can be three times its population.Chinese airlines have just reached break-even in the past year, while many of their global peers have already generated robust profits. Chinese Airlines’ earnings and valuations have lagged global peers in both absolute and relative terms. But now, with a turnaround coming into view, Chinese Airlines have a longer runway for stronger earnings growth and share price performance than global peers.What’s more, the August 2024 turnaround in US airlines offers several key takeaways for China. US Airlines’ share prices recovered last year, following a long period of underperformance post COVID. The wait before the inflection was long, but share prices moved up quickly once the turning point was reached, and valuation expanded ahead of earnings recovery. Big US airlines outperformed smaller players during the most recent rally. We think all these are relevant to the Chinese Airlines story.If we look at earnings – Chinese Big Three airlines reached breakeven in 2024, making a small profit in 2025, and that profit will double in 2026. But that’s not yet the peak of the cycle; peak cycle earnings could again double the 2026 level, probably in 2027 to 2028. That’s the reason why we think Chinese airlines are on the path to doubling share prices.To sum up, Chinese Airlines represent a once-in-a-decade opportunity for investors. With strengthened passenger load factors and a positive demand outlook, coupled with significant potential for earnings growth, this industry looks ready for takeoff.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. For those who celebrate – 新春快乐，恭喜发财！

Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research & Public Policy Strategy Michael Zezas discusses the potential economic outcomes of a shifting North American trade policy.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy. Today – the latest on tariffs and potential outcomes of a shifting North American trade policy. It’s Wednesday, February 5, at 10am in New York. In a series of last-minute phone calls on Monday, President Trump reached a deal with Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. President Trump agreed to delay the announced 25 percent tariffs on Mexico and Canada for a month – citing their intention to do more on their borders against migration and drug trafficking. But President Trump’s 10 percent tariffs on all Chinese products went into effect yesterday morning. China responded promptly with its own countermeasures, which are not expected to take effect until Monday, February 10, leaving room for potential negotiations. These developments don’t come as a surprise. We had been assuming – one – that Canada and Mexico could avoid tariffs by making border concessions, which they did. And – two – that the US would craft a tariff policy related to China independent from its considerations around Mexico and Canada. If the underlying goal is to transform its trade relationship with China, then the US has an interest in preserving an alignment with Canada and Mexico. Given all of that, our base case of “fast announcements, slow implementation” looks intact. We expect tariffs on China and some products from Europe to ramp up through the end of the year, putting downward pressure on economic growth into 2026. If tariffs on Mexico and Canada are avoided or delayed further, there would be no change to our broader economic outlook. The U.S. dollar could weaken as it prices out some tariff risk. Within U.S. equities, consumer discretionary as well as broader cyclical stocks could lead. If, however, we're wrong and tariffs do go up on Mexico and Canada after this one-month pause, then we expect some rise in inflation, growth to slow, and the U.S. dollar and Treasuries to outperform equities; at least for a time as the U.S. gets to work rewiring its global trade relationships. Tariffs are likely to dominate news headlines in the days and months to come. We'll keep tracking the topic and bring you updates. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Our analysts Ariana Salvatore, Stephen Byrd and Devin McDermott discuss President Trump’s four executive orders around energy policy and how they could reshape the sector.----- Transcript -----Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Public Policy Strategist.Stephen Byrd: And I'm Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley's Head of Research Product for the Americas and Global Head of Sustainability Research.Devin McDermott: And I'm Devin McDermott, Head of North American Energy Research.Ariana Salvatore: Our topic today looms large in investors minds. We'll be digging into how the new policies proposed under President Trump's administration will fundamentally reshape energy markets.It's Tuesday, February 4th at 10am in New York.On his first day in office, President Trump declared a national energy emergency. He issued four key executive orders, setting out a sweeping plan to maximize oil and gas production. All of this on top of stepping back in tangible ways from the Biden administration's clean energy plans. We think these orders can have a significant impact on the future of energy, one of Morgan Stanley's four key themes for 2025.So, Stephen, let's start there. One of the biggest questions is which segments of the power and AI theme stand to benefit the most, and which ones will be the most challenged?Stephen Byrd: Yeah, Ariana, I'd say the two biggest beneficiaries will be natural gas and nuclear, probably in that order. And in terms of challenges, I do think, wind, especially offshore wind, will be quite challenged. So, when I think about natural gas, it's very clear that we have an administration that's very pro natural gas.And natural gas is also going to need to be part of the power mix for data centers. It's flexible. It could be built relatively quickly. There are a lot of locational options that are perfect here. So, I do think natural gas is a winner.On nuclear, we do think Republicans broadly, and also many Democrats, firmly support nuclear power. Nuclear is quite helpful, especially for larger data centers or supercomputers. They're large, there's a lot of land at these nuclear plants. And so, I would expect to see some very large data centers built at operational nuclear plants. And we do think the Trump administration will work hard to make that – from a regulatory point of view – make that happen.I also think we'll see a lot of support at the federal level for new nuclear power plant construction, as well as bringing the U.S. nuclear fuel cycle back to the U.S. So those are a few of the areas that I would expect to do well.Ariana Salvatore: Devin, same question for you on the energy sector. How are you thinking about the impacts?Devin McDermott: Yeah, it's a good question, and there's a lot in these executive orders. I mean, some of the key things that we're focused on as impacting the sector include encouraging federal lands development and leasing for oil and gas activity, with a specific focus on Alaska. Resuming LNG permit authorizations, which lifts the ban that's been in place for the last year. Eliminating EV targets, including pausing some IRA funds tied to EVs. Broad support for infrastructure permitting, including pipelines. And then a broader review of environmental regulations, including some recent headlines that point to rolling back fuel efficiency and emission standards for cars and trucks – something that the prior Trump administration did as well.The near-term financial impact to the industry of all this is fairly limited. But there are two key longer-term considerations. First, on the oil side, rolling back fuel efficiency standards and other environmental regulations doesn't stop the transition to lower carbon alternatives, but it does slow it. And in particular, it moderates the longer-term erosion of gasoline and diesel demand; and creates a backdrop where incumbent energy players have a longer runway to harvest cash from these legacy businesses and time to scale up profitable low carbon growth, which is still progressing, despite the policy changes.And then second, gas is the biggest winner, building on some of Stephen's comments. The policy initiatives that we're seeing here are likely to support more LNG exports and more gas power generation relative to the status quo.Ariana Salvatore: So, Devin, one of the things you mentioned there is regulation, and we think that's specifically reflected in this theme of unleashing American energy that Trump likes to talk about. It seems that this would set the stage for looser regulation and more supportive policy for oil and gas development.Do you expect any meaningful changes in near-term investment levels or production growth across the industry?Devin McDermott: It's an easy one, Ariana. No. The reality is the majority of U.S. oil and gas investment activity occurs on state or privately held lands. It's regulated at the state level. A

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains why U.S. stocks took a hit that is likely to sustain through the first half of 2025.----- 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 tariffs, recent developments in AI and what it means for stocks.It's Monday, Feb 3rd at 11:30am in New York. So, let’s get after it.While 2024 was a strong year for many stocks, it was mostly a second half story. With recession fears peaking last summer and a Fed that remained on hold due to still elevated inflation, markets were essentially flat year-to-date in early August.But then everything changed. The Fed surprised markets with a 50 basis points cut to show its commitment to keeping the economy out of recession. This was followed by better labor data and two more 25 basis points cuts from the Fed. Investors took this as a green light to add more equity to portfolios—the riskier the better. It also became clear to markets and many observers that President Trump was likely going to win the election, with a rising chance of a Republican sweep in Congress. Given the more pro-growth agenda proposed by candidate Trump and his track record during his first term as President, he made investors even more bullish. Finally, given all the concern about a hung election, the fact that we got such definitive results on election night only added fuel to the equation. Hedges were swiftly removed and even reversed to long positions as both asset managers and retail investors chased performance for fear of falling behind, or missing out. In October, I suggested the S&P 500 would likely trade to 6100 on a clean election outcome. After promptly hitting that level in early December, stocks had a very weak month to finish the year with deteriorating breadth. The S&P 500 started the year soft before rallying sharply into inauguration day, essentially re-testing that 6100 level once again. The difference this time is that the re-test occurred on much lower breadth with high quality resuming its leadership role. Tariffs were always on the agenda, as was immigration enforcement, both of which are growth negative in the short-term.In my view, investors simply got complacent about these risks and are now dealing with them in real time. This also fits with our view that the first half of the year was likely to be tougher for stocks as equity negative policies would be implemented immediately before the equity positive policies like de-regulation, tax extensions and reduced government spending had time to play out in the form of less crowding out and lower interest rates. At the Index level, I expect the S&P 500 to trade in a range between 5500 to 6100 for the next 3 to 6 months, with our fourth quarter price target at 6500 remaining intact. Since we have been expecting tariffs to be implemented, this realization only furthers our preference for consumer services over goods. It also supports our preference for financials and other domestically geared businesses that have limited currency or trade exposures. In addition to rising political uncertainty, we also saw the release of DeepSeek’s latest AI chat bot last week. This added another level of uncertainty for investors that could have lasting implications at both the stock and index level given the importance of this investment theme. On one hand it could also accelerate the adoption of AI technologies if it truly lowers the cost – but many portfolios will need to adjust for this shift if that’s the case. We think it further supports our ongoing preference for software and media over semiconductors. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, leave us a review wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Morgan Stanley Research analysts Michelle Weaver, Chris Snyder and Nik Lippmann discuss U.S.-Mexico trade and the future of reshoring and near-shoring under the Trump administration.----- Transcript -----Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist at Morgan Stanley.Christopher Snyder: I’m Chris Snyder, US Multi-Industry Analyst.Nikolaj Lippmann: And I'm Nik Lippmann, Chief Latin America Equity Strategist.Michelle Weaver: On this episode of our special mini-series covering Big Debates, we'll talk about the U.S.-Mexico trade relationship and the key issues around reshoring and nearshoring.It's Friday, January 31st at 10am in New York.The imposition of tariffs back in 2018 under the first Trump administration and the COVID pandemic put a severe strain on global supply chains and catalyzed reshoring and nearshoring in North America. But with inflation and supply chain concerns no longer front and center, investors are questioning whether the U.S. reshoring momentum can continue.Chris, what's your view here?Christopher Snyder: I think it's in the very early innings. You know, if you look at the history of U.S. manufacturing, the country really started ceding share in about 2000 when China joined the World Trade Organization. So, it's been going on for 25 years; we've been giving share back to the world. I think the process of taking share back is probably slower and ultimately is a multi-decade opportunity.But you're absolutely right. The supply chain concerns are no longer like they were three to four years ago. But what I think has persevered since the pandemic is this heightened focus on operational durability and resiliency; and really shortening supply chains and getting closer to the end user, which I'm sure we'll hear more from Nick about, on the Mexico side.But, you know, if you kind of look back at global supply chains and manufacturing, it's really been a chase to find low-cost labor for the last 45 years. And while that's always important, we think going forward, capital and proximity to end users will increasingly dictate that regional allocation of CapEx. I mean, those parameters are very supportive for the U. S.You know, one thing I would like to kind of, you know, make sure is known on our U.S. reshoring view is that, you know, oftentimes it's thought of that we're shutting down a factory in China and reopening the same factory in the United States, and that's really a very rare example.Our view is that the world, and very specific industries need to add capacity. And we just simply think that the U.S. is better positioned to get that incremental factory relative to any point in the last 45 years, due to the combination of structural tech diffusion, but also this focus on resiliency. And one thing that I really do think is underappreciated is that global manufacturing grows 4 to 5 per cent a year. In the U.S. it's been more in the 1 to 2 percent range because we're constantly ceding share. But even if the U.S. just stops giving back share, you could see the growth profile of U.S. industrials double.Michelle Weaver: How would you size the reshoring opportunity? Do you have a dollar amount on what that could be worth?Christopher Snyder: Yeah, we’ve sized it at $10 trillion. You know, and it's been a combination of the CapEx, the fixed asset investment that's needed to build these factories, then ultimately the production, you know, opportunity that will come to those factories thereafter.Michelle Weaver: And you've argued that the U.S. reshoring flame was really lit in 2018 with the first wave of the Trump tariffs. It seems clear that trade policies by the new administration will continue to support reshoring. What's your outlook there?Christopher Snyder: Yeah, you're absolutely right. Prior to 2018, there wasn't really a thought process. If you need an incremental factory, you most likely just put it in China. And I think the tariffs, back in 2018 or [20]19 really started, or kickstarted boardroom conversations around global supply chains. So, I think a Trump presidency absolutely adds duration to this theme via protectionism or tariffs that the administration will implement.If you go back to the Trump 1.0 tariffs, supply chains reacted to the change in cost structures very quickly. We didn't see a huge wave of investment back into the United States. We just saw production exit China and move to broader Asia, because the focus was tariff avoidance.Now, we think the focus is around building operational, resiliency and durability which better positions the U.S. to get that incremental factory. And one thing that I think is underappreciated here is just how much leverage U.S. politicians have. The U.S. is the best demand region in the world. The U.S. accounts for about 30 per cent of global goods consumption. That's equal to the E.U. and China combined. It's also the best margin region in the

Our Global Head of Fixed Income and Public Policy Research, Michael Zezas, and Global Head of Macro Strategy, Matt Hornbach, discuss how the Trump administration’s fiscal policies could impact Treasuries markets.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Public Policy Research.Matthew Hornbach: And I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy.Michael Zezas: Today, we'll talk about U.S. fiscal policy expectations under the new Trump administration and the path for U.S. Treasury yields.It's Thursday, January 30th at 10am in New York.Fiscal policy is one of the four key channels that have a major impact on markets. And I want to get into the outlook for the broader path for fiscal policy under the new administration. But Matt, let's start with your initial take on this week's FOMC meeting.Matthew Hornbach: So, investors came into the FOMC meeting this week with a view that they were going to hear a message from Chair Powell that sounded very similar to the message they heard from him in December. And I think that was largely the outcome. In other words, investors got what they expected out of this FOMC meeting. What did it say about the chance the Fed would lower interest rates again as soon as the March FOMC meeting? I think in that respect investors walked away with the message that the Fed’s baseline view for the path of monetary policy probably did not include a reduction of the policy rate at the March FOMC meeting. But that there was a lot of data to take on board between now and that meeting. And, of course, the Fed as ever remains data dependent.All of that said, the year ahead for markets will rely on more than just Fed policy. Fiscal policy may feature just as prominently. But during the first week of Trump's presidency, we didn't get much signaling around the president's fiscal policy intentions. There are plenty of key issues to discuss as we anticipate more details from the new administration.So, Mike, to set the scene here. What is the government's budget baseline at the start of Trump's second term? And what are the president's priorities in terms of fiscal policies?Michael Zezas: You know, I think the real big variable here is the set of tax cuts that expire at the end of 2025. These were tax cuts originally passed in President Trump's first term. And if they're allowed to expire, then the budget baseline would show that the deficit would be about $100 billion smaller next year.If instead the tax cuts are extended and then President Trump were able to get a couple more items on top of that – say, for example, lifting the cap on state and local tax deduction and creating a domestic manufacturing tax credit; two things that we think are well within the consensus of Republicans, even with their slim majority – then the deficit impact swings from a contraction to something like a couple hundred billion dollars of deficit expansion next year. So, there's meaningful variance there.And Matt, we've got 10-year Treasury yields hovering near highs that we haven't seen since before the global financial crisis around 10 years ago. And yields are up around a full percentage point since September. So, what's going on here and to what extent is the debate on the deficit influential?Matthew Hornbach: Well, I think we have to consider a couple of factors. The deficit certainly being one of them, but people have been discussing deficits for a long time now. It's certainly news to no one that the deficit has grown quite substantially over the past several years. And most investors expect that the deficit will continue to grow. So, concerns around the deficit are definitely a factor and in particular how those deficits create more government bonds supply. The U.S. Treasury, of course, is in charge of determining exactly how much government bond supply ends up hitting the marketplace.But it's important to note that the incoming U.S. Treasury secretary has been on the record as suggesting that lower deficits relative to the size of the economy are desired. Taking the deficit to GDP ratio from its current 7 per cent to 3 per cent over the next four years is desirable, according to the incoming Treasury secretary. So, I think it is far from conclusive that deficits are only heading in one direction. They may very well stabilize, and investors will eventually need to come to terms with that possibility.The other factor I think that's going on in the Treasury market today relates to the calendar. Effectively we have just gone through the end of the year. It's typically a time when investors pull back from active investment, but not every investor pulls back from actively investing in the market. And in particular, there is a consortium of investors that trade with more of a momentum bias that saw yields moving higher and invested in that direction; that, of course, exacerbated the move.And of

Our Head of Corporate Credit Research and Head of Retail Consumer Credit discuss what choppy demand and tariff risk could mean for sectors that depend on consumer spending.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.Jenna Gianelli: I’m Jenna Gianelli, Head of Retail Consumer Credit, here at Morgan Stanley.Andrew Sheets: And today on this episode, we're going to discuss the outlook for the retail and consumer sectors.It’s Wednesday, Jan 29th at 9 am in New York.So, Jenna, it's great to talk with you, and it's really great to talk about the retail and consumer sectors heading into 2025, because it's such an important part of the investor debate. On the one hand, a lot of economic data in the U.S. seems strong, including a very low unemployment rate. And yet, we’re also hearing a lot about cost-of-living pressures on consumers, lower consumer confidence, and investor concern that the consumer is just not going to be able to hold up in this higher rate environment. And then you can layer on uncertainty from the new administration. Will we see tariffs? How large will they be? And how will retailers, which often import a lot of their goods, handle those changes?So, maybe just kind of starting off at a 40, 000-foot view, how are you thinking about consumer dynamics going into 2025?Jenna Gianelli: Of course. So, I think that that choppy consumer demand environment is actually one of the strongest pillars of our more cautious view, going into next year. How the sector, performed last year was not in tandem with kind of what the macro headlines suggested. The macro headlines were quite positive, and the consumer was, you know, seemingly strong. But there was a lot going on under the hood when you looked at different dichotomies, right? So, if you looked at the high-end versus the low-end, if you looked at goods versus services. And then within, you know, certain categories, there were categories that were, you know, really quite strong based on what the consumer was prioritizing – goods, essentials, personal care, beauty, right? And then there were others that they really shied away from.So, I think what we're going to see in 2025 is quite a bit more of that. When we think that the high-end will continue to be resilient, that pressure on the low-income consumer will continue. But actually moderate potentially as into [20]25, as we think about lower interest rates, potentially, you know, lesser immigration and so less competition for jobs at the lower income level. So maybe even some tailwinds, but it's really an alleviation of pressure and easier compares. But we do expect overall some deceleration, right? Because we had a lot of pent-up demand, especially on the high-end.So, we are expecting services, demand to slow, in 2025 and goods actually to hold up relatively well. So, we really are focused on what's going on at the individual category level and the different types of consumers that we're looking at.Andrew Sheets: And as you think about some of those, you know, subcategories that you, you cover, maybe just a minute on a couple that you think will perform the best over this year and some that you think might face the biggest challenges.Jenna Gianelli: There are some that have been under relative pressure, in [20]23 and [20]24 where we might actually see some, you know, relief. Now, depending on the direction of rates in the housing market, we could see and expect to see an uptick in bigger ticket spending, durables, home related, that have been under, you know, some pressure.And also, you know, categories where, you know, the consumer, they're arguably discretionary. But maybe they pulled back because there was a big surge in demand just post-COVID. Pet in our universe is actually one example of those, where it's been a bit depressed and we actually expect to see, you know, some recovery into next year; also tied to housing right as new house formation starts.So, but again, a lot of that is predicated on the, you know, housing direction of rates and some of these other macro factors. I'd say, irrespective of the more macro influences, we do still expect that essentials – grocery, and certain categories like a beauty, pockets of apparel and brands, right? It really comes down to the brands, the brand heat, the brand relevance. If it's relevant to the consumer, they're going to spend on it. And so, that's where we really focus on the micro level; our picks of which brands are resonating, which categories are resonating. Which is, those are some of the, you know, the few that we're expecting, either a recovery in or still, you know, relative, outperformance.I'd say on the laggard side, which is probably the next piece of that question. I mean, look, there's still a lot of secular headwinds at play. And so, you know, from a department store perspective outside of event risk or idiosy

Our Global Head of Fixed Income and Public Policy Research Michael Zezas and Chief Asia Economist Chetan Ahya discuss the potential impact of U.S. tariffs in China and beyond.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Public Policy Research.Chetan Ahya: And I'm Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley's Chief Asia Economist.Michael Zezas: Today, we'll talk about what U.S. tariffs would mean for Asia's economy.It's Tuesday, January 28th at 8am in New York.Chetan Ahya: And 9pm in Hong Kong.Michael Zezas: Chetan, a week into the new Trump administration, I'm eager to talk tariffs with you. You and I came on the show before the U.S. election to discuss the potential impact of new tariff policies on China's economy in particular. And now that President Trump has taken office, he's been vocal about levying tariffs in a lot of places, including on China. The policy underpinning all of that appears to be a tariff review under the America First Trade Policy. That suggests to us that he's developing options to impose tariffs with China as a focus, but there's still time before implementation -- as these legal options are developed. That's in line with our base case; but investors have been talking a lot about the idea that maybe these tariffs never go on.What's your view here? And why do you think ultimately we are headed to a place where tariffs go higher?Chetan Ahya: Well, I think if you just look at the press comments that the president has made at the same time, if you read through this America First document, we sort of think that there are five avenues under which tariffs can go up on China.Number one is the recommendation from the America First policy document that the agencies in the U.S. will have to study how the large trade partners, which are running trade surpluses with the U.S. are managing their trade practices. Number two, a para in the America First document, which is suggesting that the trade agreements that US and China signed in 2018-19, how is China dealing with the commitments under that agreement?And number three is the clause which is currently exempting imports into the U.S. under [the] de minimis rule of imports under U.S. $800 per bill being allowed to import without any tariffs being imposed. And what the document is suggesting is to assess what is the potential revenue loss occurring to the government, and how can they plug that. Number four is a potential tariff action with the sale of a social media company. And number five, a potential tariff action which is linked to the fentanyl issue.So, as you can see, there are a number of avenues under which tariffs can go up on China and therefore we kind of keep that in our base case that tariffs will go up on China.And Mike, some investors are also optimistic and thinking that there is a possibility of a new trade deal being taken up by U.S. and China. What do you think are the chances of that?Michael Zezas: I think they're quite low. So, you mentioned five areas of potential dispute that the U.S. might want to use tariffs as a way of dealing with -- and I think that speaks to the idea that the bar is pretty high for China to avoid tariffs relative to some of the other negotiations the U.S. wants to engage in with other trade partners. Or maybe said differently, if the America First Trade Policy is pointing the U.S. at closing goods, trades, deficits, and improving security and making sure that it's not engaged with trade with other countries that are harming national security -- it seems that there are more of those activities going on between the U.S. and China than with other trade partners. Closing, for example, a $300 billion goods trades deficit would seem to be just really, really difficult within the structures of the economy.So, if we're right, and the chance of tariff de escalation with China appears to be slim, do you think Beijing, for example, might use renminbi depreciation to mitigate some of those economic risks?Chetan Ahya: Well, yes, we do think that China’s policymakers will allow depreciation in [renminbi] when tariffs are being imposed. However, we also think that the depreciation this time that they will allow will be less than what they did in 2018-19. And China has already been facing some capital outflows; and allowing a large depreciation could bring self fulfilling situation of more capital outflows and even sharper currency depreciation pressures.Michael Zezas: Beijing also started introducing stimulus measures last fall to boost the Chinese economy. Would tariffs disrupt this policy?Chetan Ahya: Certainly in our base case, despite the policy stimulus measures that China is taking, we think that overall growth in China will be lower in 2025 meaningfully. And more importantly in our view, China’s biggest challenge is deflation and tariffs will only exacerbate deflationary pre

Morgan Stanley Research looks at how the European defense industry might respond to military spending pressure from the Trump administration.----- Transcript -----Paul Walsh: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Paul Walsh, Morgan Stanley's Head of Europe Product.Ross Law: And I'm Ross Law, Head of the European Aerospace and Defense Team.Paul Walsh: Today, we're discussing the outlook for European defense amid renewed pressure for more military spending from the Trump administration.It's Monday, the 27th of January, at 9.30am in London.Now Ross, the new Trump administration is now in place, and shifting NATO's defense burden to Europe is a top priority for President Trump. In fact, President Trump has made several comments throughout his campaign and after taking office. He has suggested that Europe should increase defense spending to 5 per cent of GDP. And just for reference, right now, many European countries are at or above NATO's target of spending 2 per cent of GDP on defense.What's your reaction? Are President Trump's demands of 5 percent realistic?Ross Law: In short, we don't think so. In a perfect world, yes, 5 per cent is exactly where Europe should be, to make up for the huge underspend that we've seen over the past three decades since the end of the Cold War, which we've calculated at around the $2 trillion mark. There's also a desire in Europe to reduce its reliance on the US, particularly under a Trump presidency. But we see the 5 per cent spending level as unrealistic on multiple fronts.Firstly, from an economic perspective, given the lack of fiscal headroom in Europe; and for reference, 5 per cent would require an additional $600 billion of spend annually. Secondly, from a political perspective, given multiple pockets of uncertainty, and the fact that a rise in defense spending may mean a cut to spending elsewhere. And lastly, from an industry perspective, given the multi-decade underspend I mentioned, we don't think the industry could absorb anywhere close to such a strong increase in demand, at least near-term.So, while we do see upside pressure to European defense spending, our base case is that 3 per cent could be a more reasonable target. Not only would this be a compromise between the current 2 per cent target and Trump's 5 per cent demands; it would also allow Europe to match the spending levels of the US, which is expected at around 3.1 per cent in 2024. Even still, this would represent a 50 per cent increase or around $200 billion per year in additional European spent. This would, of course, further improve industry fundamentals and why we remain very positive on the sector.Paul Walsh: And as of now, Europe is heavily dependent on the U.S. for its defense. According to various data sources, more than 50 per cent of European arms imports came from the U.S. in 2019 through 2023, and that's up from 35 per cent in 2014. Given this, what steps would Europe need to take to reduce its dependence on the U.S.?Ross Law: The first step is to invest in the defense industrial base. Europe buys equipment from the U.S. for several reasons. Firstly, because the U.S. develops some of the most advanced technologies in the world because it has consistently invested in its defense industry. Secondly, because the U.S. equipment is often cheaper due to the benefits of scale. And thirdly, because it supports the very unique relationship between Europe and the U.S., which has essentially provided a security umbrella for the past three decades.So, Europe needs to invest, both to develop capabilities and technologies to rival U.S. peers, and also to expand capacity so that we can meet our own equipment needs. This, of course, all requires investment and also time. So, Europe will remain reliant on the U.S. for many years to come. But if Europe is serious about wanting to be more sovereign, we need a more capable defense industry.Paul Walsh: So, you talked there, Ross, about investment and time. So now the big question, how would Europe fund this upward pressure on defense budgets?Ross Law: Well, this is the million-dollar question, or the 200-billion-dollar question, you might say. Unfortunately, this is part of the equation that is, so far, most unclear – and the basis for an ongoing series of reports we've entitled the “European Defense Dilemma” – essentially the very clear need to spend more on defense, but no clear way to fund it. So far, we've seen some creative ways to fund near-term spending plans, from off balance sheet special funds like in Germany, to using the interest received on frozen Russian assets.But these, in our view, all seem fairly temporary in nature. What we really need is structural change, and that requires political commitment. Clearly, there is a lot of political change happening right now in Europe. Germany is holding an election in a few weeks time. France doesn't yet have a budget. There's also fiscal issues here in the UK. But we're hopi

Our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets argues that while investor hopes are running high, corporate confidence isn’t.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley. Today I’m going to talk about optimism, how we measure it, whether it’s overly excessive and what lies ahead. It's Friday January 24th at 2pm in London. A central tenet of investing, including credit investing, is to be on the lookout for excessive optimism. By definition, the highest prices in a market cycle will happen when people are the most convinced that only great things lie ahead. The lowest prices, when you’d love to buy, happen when investors have given up all hope. But identifying peak optimism, in real time, is tricky. It’s tricky because there is no generally agreed definition; and it's tricky because, sometimes, things just are good. Investors have been excited about the US Technology sector for more than a decade now. And yet this sector has managed to deliver extraordinary profit growth over this time – and extraordinarily good returns. Yet this debate does feel relevant. The US equity market has soared over 50 per cent in the last two years. Equity valuations are historically high, both outright and relative to bonds. Credit risk premiums are near 20-year lows. Speculative investor activity is increasing. And so, have we finally hit peak optimism, a level from which we can go no further? Our answer, for better or worse, is no. While we think investor optimism is elevated, corporate optimism is not. And corporations are really important in this debate, enjoying enormous financial resources that can invest in the economy or other companies. While we do think corporate confidence will pick up, it is going to take some time. One of our favorite measures of corporate confidence is merger and acquisition activity. Buying another company is one of the riskiest things management can do, making it a great proxy for underlying corporate confidence. Volumes of this type of activity rose about 25 per cent last year, but they are still well below historical averages. And it would be really unusual for a major market cycle to end without this sort of activity being above-trend. Another metric is the riskiness of new borrowing. Taking on new debt is another measure of corporate confidence, as you generally do something like this when you feel good about the future, and your ability to pay that debt off. But for the last three years the volume of low-rated debt in the US market has actually been shrinking, while the issuance of the riskiest grades of corporate borrowing is also down significantly from the 2017-2022 average. Again, these are not the types of trends you’d expect with excessive corporate optimism. Uncertainties around tariffs, or the policies from the new US administration could still hold corporate confidence back. But the low starting point for corporate confidence, combined with what we expect to be a deregulatory push, mean we think it is more likely that corporate activity and aggressiveness have room to rise – and that this continues throughout 2025. Such an increase usually does present greater risk down the line; but for now, we think it is too early to position for those more negative consequences of increasing corporate aggression.  Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Morgan Stanley Research analysts Michelle Weaver, Michael Cyprys and Ryan Kenny discuss the resurgence in capital markets activity and how sponsors might deploy the $4 trillion that has been sitting on the sidelines. ----- Transcript -----Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, U.S. Thematic and Equity strategist at Morgan Stanley.Michael Cyprys: I'm Mike Cyprys, Head of U.S. Brokers, Asset Managers and Exchanges Research.Ryan Kenny: And I'm Ryan Kenney, U.S. Mid-Cap Advisors Analyst at Morgan Stanley.Michelle Weaver: In this episode of our special miniseries covering Big Debates, we'll focus on the improving M&A and IPO landscape and whether retail investing can sustain in 2025.It's Thursday, January 23rd at 10am in New York.2023 saw the lowest level of global M&A activity in at least 30 years. But we've started to see activity pick up in 2024. Mike, what have been the key drivers behind this resurgence, and where are we now?Michael Cyprys: Look, I think it's been a combination of factors in the context of a lot of pent-up activity and a growing urge to transact after a very subdued period of, you know, call it four- to six quarters of quite limited activity. Key drivers as we see it ranging from equity markets that have expanded across much of the world, low levels of equity volatility. broad financing, availability with meaningful issuance as you look across investment grade and high yield bond markets, tight credit spreads, interest rates stabilizing in [20]24, and then the Fed began to cut.So, liquidity pretty robust, all of that helping reduce bid-ask spreads. In terms of where we are now, post election, think there's just a lot of excitement here around a new administration; where we could see some changes around the antitrust environment that can be helpful, as we think about unlocking greater M&A activity across sponsors as well as strategics, and helping improve corporate confidence.But look, the recent rout of market could delay some of the transactional activity uplift. But we view that as more of a timing impact, and we are quite positive here in [20]25 as we think about scope for continued surge of activity.Michelle Weaver: We've seen rates rising pretty substantially since December. Does that throw a wrench into this at all, or do you think we see more stabilization there?Michael Cyprys: I think it could be a little bit of a slowdown, right? That would be the risk here, but as we think about the path for moving forward, I do think that there are a lot of factors that can be very helpful in terms of driving a continued pickup in activity, which we're going to talk about -- and why that will be the case.Michelle Weaver: Great. And you mentioned financial sponsors earlier, I want to drill down there a little more. What do you think would get sponsor activity to pick up more meaningfully?Michael Cyprys: Well, as I think about it, activity is already starting to pick up clearly across strategics as well as sponsors. On the sponsor side, it's been lagging a bit relative to strategics. We think both of which will build, and Ryan will get to that on the strategic side. As we think about the sponsors -- they're sitting with $4 trillion of capital to put to work that's been sitting on the sidelines where you just haven't seen as much activity over the past couple of years.Overall activity in [20]24 was probably call it maybe around 20 per cent below peak levels, and this is burning a hole in the pockets of both sponsors as well as their clients. And so, we see a growing urge to transact here, which gets to some of your earlier questions there too.So why is that? Well, the return clock is ticking; the lack of deployment is hurting returns within funds. Some of this dry powder also expires by the end of [20]25; and so if it's not yet deployed, then sponsors won't get some of the performance fee economics that come through to them on that capital. So that's all, all on the deployment side.As we think about the realization or exit side, we think that's probably going to lag, but we'd still expect, a steady build through this year. Today sponsors are sitting on call it around $10 trillion of portfolio of investments that are in the ground, and they haven't really provided much in the way of liquidity back to their customers, the LPs and the funds. And so, this is putting a little bit of a strain not only on the client relationships that want more money back from their private investments that haven't received it, but it's also one of the causes of what has been a little bit of a challenging fundraising backdrop across private equity funds.Hence if sponsors can return more capital to their clients, that can be helpful in terms of healing the overall fundraising backdrop. So, look, putting all that together, we expect an expanding pace of transactional deal activity across the sponsors from both the buy side as well

On his first day in office, President Trump issued a series of executive orders, signaling his intent to deliver on campaign promises. Our Global Head of Fixed Income and Public Strategy Michael Zezas takes a closer look at economic impacts of Trump’s proposed policy path.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Public Policy Strategy. On this episode of the podcast, we’ll discuss how trade policy uncertainty is creating volatility in markets.It’s Wednesday, January 22nd, at 10am in New York.Earlier this week, Donald Trump was again inaugurated as President of the United States. In the days that have followed, we’ve fielded tons of questions from investors, who are trying to parse the meaning of myriad executive orders and answers to press questions – looking through that noise for signals about the if, when, and how of policy changes around tariffs, taxes, and more. This effort is understandable because – as we’ve discussed here many times – the US public policy path will have substantial effects on the outlook for the global economy and markets. And while we’ve spent some time here explaining our assumptions for the US policy path, it's important for investors to understand this. Even if you correctly forecast the timing and severity of changes to trade, tax, immigration, and other policies, you shouldn’t expect markets to consistently track this path along the way. That’s because there’s bound to be a fair amount of confusion among investors, as President Trump and his political allies publicly speculate on their policy tactics and make a wide variety of outcomes seem plausible. Take tariff policy for example. On Monday, the President announced an America First Trade Policy, where the whole of government was instructed to come up with policy solutions to reduce goods trade deficits and related economic and national security concerns. Tariffs were cited as a tool to be used in furtherance of these goals, and instructions were given to develop authorities on a range of regional and product-specific tariff options. Said more simply, while new tariffs were not immediately implemented, the President appears to be maximizing his optionality to levy tariffs when and how he wants. That will mean that all public comments about tariffs and deadlines, including Trump’s comments to reporters on tariffs for Mexico, Canada, and China, must be taken seriously – even if they don’t ultimately come to fruition, which currently we don’t think they will for Mexico and Canada. For markets, that max optionality can drive all sorts of short term outcomes. In the US Treasury market, for example, our economists believe these tariffs and a variety of other factors ultimately make for slower economic growth in 2026; and so we expect Treasury yields will ultimately end the year lower. But along the way they could certainly move higher first. As my colleague Matt Hornbach points out, tariff threats can drive investor concerns about temporary inflation leading markets to price in a slower pace of Fed interest rate cuts, which helps push short maturity yields higher. So bottom line: investors should be carefully considering US public policy choices when thinking about the medium term direction of markets. But they should also expect considerable volatility along the way, because the short term path can look a lot different from the ultimate destination. 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 Asia Economist Chetan Ahya discusses how tariffs, the power of the U.S. dollar, and the strength of domestic demand will determine Asia’s economic growth in 2025.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Asia Economist. Today on the podcast: three critical themes that will shape Asia’s economy in 2025. It’s Tuesday, January 21, at 2 PM in Hong Kong. Let's start with the big picture: We foresee Asia's growth decelerating from 4.5 per cent last year to 4.1 per cent in 2025. The whole region faces a number of challenges and opportunities that could sway these numbers significantly. We highlight [the] following three key factors. First up, tariffs. They are our single biggest concern this year. The pace, scale and affected geographies will determine the magnitude of the growth drag. In our base case, within Asia, we expect tariffs to be imposed on China in a phased manner from the first half of 2025. As Mike Zezas, our Head of US Public Policy states, this will be about fast announcements and slow implementation. Given tariffs and trade tensions are not new, we think this means corporate confidence may not be as badly affected as it was in 2018-19. But the key risk is if trade tensions escalate. For instance, into more aggressive bilateral disputes outside of US-China or if [the] US imposes universal tariffs on all imports. Asia will be most affected, considering that seven out of [the] top ten economies that run large trade surpluses with the US are in Asia. If either of these risk scenarios materialize, it could bring a repeat of [the] 2018-19 growth shock. Next, let's consider the Fed and the US dollar. Asian central banks find themselves in a bind with the US Federal Reserve's hawkish shift – which we think will result in only two rate cuts in 2025. The Fed is taking a cautious approach, driven by worries over inflation concerns, which could be exacerbated by changes in trade and fiscal policy. This has led to strength in the US dollar and on the flipside, weakness in Asian currencies. This constrains Asian central banks from making aggressive rate reductions -- even though Asia’s inflation is in a range that central banks are comfortable with. Finally, with [the] external environment not likely to be supportive, domestic demand within key Asian economies will be an important anchor to [the[ region's growth outlook. We are constructive on the outlook for India and Japan but cautious on China. China has a deflation challenge, driven by excessive investment and excess capacity. Solving it requires policy makers to rely more on consumption as a means to meet its 5 per cent growth target. While some measures have been implemented and we think more are coming, we remain skeptical that these measures will be enough for China to lift consumption growth meaningfully. We see investment remaining the key growth driver and the implementation of tariffs will only exacerbate the ongoing deflationary pressures. In India and Japan, we think domestic demand tailwinds will be able to offset external headwinds. We expect a robust recovery in India fueled by government capital expenditure, monetary easing and acceleration in services exports. This should put GDP growth back on a 6.5 per cent trajectory. In Japan we expect real wage and consumption growth reacceleration, which will lead [the] Bank of Japan to be confident in the inflation outlook such that it hikes policy rates twice in 2025. This week marks the start of the new Trump administration. And together with my colleagues, we are watching closely and will continue to bring you updates on the impact of new policies on Asia.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.

Government bond yields in the U.S. and Europe have risen sharply. Our Head of Corporate Credit Research Andrew Sheets explains why this surprising trend is not yet cause for concern.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.With bond yields rising substantially over the last month, I’m going to discuss why we’ve been somewhat more relaxed about this development and what could change our mind. It's Friday January 17th at 2pm in London. We thought credit would have a good first half of this year as growth held up, inflation came down, and the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank and the Bank of England all cut rates. That mix looked appealing, even if corporate activity increased and the range of longer-term economic outcomes widened with a new U.S. administration. We forecast spreads across regions to stay near cycle tights through the first half of this year, before a modest softening in the second half. Since publishing that outlook in November of last year, some of it still feels very much intact. Growth – especially in the U.S. – has been good. Core inflation in the U.S. and in Europe has continued to moderate. And the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank did lower interest rates back in December. But the move in government bond yields in the U.S. and Europe has been a surprise. They've risen sharply, meaning higher borrowing cost for governments, mortgages and companies. How much does our story change if yields are going to be higher for longer, and if the Fed is going to reduce interest rates less? One way to address this debate, which we’re mindful is currently dominating financial market headlines, is what world do these new bond yields describe? Focusing on the U.S., we see the following pattern. There’s been strong U.S. data, with Morgan Stanley tracking the U.S. economy to have grown to about 2.5 per cent in the fourth quarter of last year. Rates are rising, and they are rising faster than the expected inflation – a development that usually suggests more optimism on growth. We’re seeing a larger rise in long-term interest rates relative to shorter-term interest rates, which often suggests more confidence that the economy will stay stronger for longer. And we’ve seen expectations of fewer cuts from the Federal Reserve; but, and importantly, still expectations that they are more likely to cut rather than hike rates over the next 12 months. Putting all of that together, we think it’s a pattern consistent with a bond market that thinks the U.S. economy is strong and will remain somewhat stronger for longer, with that strength justifying less Fed help. That interpretation could be wrong, of course; but if it's right, it seems – in our view – fine for credit. What about the affordability of borrowing for companies at higher yields? Again, we’re somewhat more sanguine. While yields have risen a lot recently, they are still similar to their 24 month average, which has given corporate bond issuers a lot of time to adjust. And U.S. and European companies are also carrying historically high amounts of cash on their balance sheet, improving their resilience. Finally, we think that higher yields could actually improve the supply-demand balance in corporate bond markets, as the roughly 5.5 per cent yield today on U.S. Investment Grade credit attracts buyers, while simultaneously making bond issuers a little bit more hesitant to borrow any more than they have to. We now prefer the longer-term part of the Investment Grade market, which we think could benefit most from these dynamics. If interest rates are going to stay higher for longer, it isn’t a great story for everyone. We think some of the lowest-rated parts of the credit market, for example, CCC-rated issuers, are more vulnerable; and my colleagues in the U.S. continue to hold a cautious view on that segment from their year-ahead outlook. But overall, for corporate credit, we think that higher yields are manageable; and some relief this week on the back of better U.S. inflation data is a further support. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

The Federal Reserve’s shrinking balance sheet could have far-reaching implications for the banking sector, money markets and monetary policy. Global Head of Macro Strategy Matthew Hornbach and Martin Tobias from the U.S. Interest Rate Strategy Team discuss. ----- Transcript -----Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy.Martin Tobias: And I'm Martin Tobias from the U.S. Interest Rate Strategy Team.Matthew Hornbach: Today, we're going to talk about the widespread concerns around the dip in reserve levels at the Fed and what it means for banking, money markets, and beyond.It's Thursday, January 16th at 10am in New York.The Fed has been shrinking its balance sheet since June 2022, when it embarked on quantitative tightening in order to combat inflation. Reserves held at the Fed recently dipped below [$]3 trillion at year end, their lowest level since 2020. This has raised a lot of questions among investors, and we want to address some of them.Marty, you've been following these developments closely, so let's start with the basics. What are Fed reserves and why are they important?Martin Tobias: Reserves are one of the key line items on the liability side of the Fed balance sheet. Like any balance sheet, even your household budget, you have liabilities, which are debts and financial obligations, and you have assets. For the Fed, its assets primarily consist of U.S. Treasury notes and bonds, and then you have liabilities like U.S. currency in circulation and bank reserves held at the Fed.These reserves consist of electronic deposits that commercial banks, savings and loan institutions, and credit unions hold at Federal Reserve banks. And these depository institutions earn interest from the Fed on these reserve balances.There are other Fed balance sheet liabilities like the Treasury General Account and the Overnight Reversed Repo Facility. But, to save us from some complexity, I won't go into those right now. Bottom line, these three liabilities are inversely linked to one another, and thus cannot be viewed in isolation.Having said that, the reason this is important is because central bank reserves are the most liquid and ultimate form of money. They underpin nearly all other forms of money, such as the deposits individuals or businesses hold at commercial banks. In simplest terms, those reserves are a sort of security blanket.Matthew Hornbach: Okay, so what led to this most recent dip in reserves?Martin Tobias: Well, that's the good news. We think the recent dip in reserves below [$] 3 trillion was simply related to temporary dynamics in funding markets at the end of the year, as opposed to a permanent drain of cash from the banking system.Matthew Hornbach: This kind of reduction in reserves has far reaching implications on several different levels. The banking sector, money markets, and monetary policy. So, let's take them one at a time. How does it affect the banking sector?Martin Tobias: So individual banks maintain different levels of reserves to fit their specific business models; while differences in reserve management also appear across large compared to small banks. As macro strategists, we monitor reserve balances in the aggregate and have identified a few different regimes based on the supply of liquidity.While reserves did fall below [$]3 trillion at the end of the year, we note the Fed Standing Repo Facility, which is an instrument that offers on demand access to liquidity for banks at a fixed cost, did not receive any usage. We interpret this to mean, even though reserves temporarily dipped below [$]3 trillion, it is a level that is still above scarcity in the aggregate.Matthew Hornbach: How about potential stability and liquidity of money markets?Martin Tobias: Occasional signs of volatility in money market rates over the past year have been clear signs that liquidity is transitioning from a super abundancy closer to an ample amount. The fact that there has become more volatility in money market rates – but being limited to identifiable dates – is really indicative of normal market functioning where liquidity is being redistributed from those who have it in excess to those in need of it.Year- end was just the latest example of there being some more volatility in money market rates. But as has been the case over the past year, these temporary upward pressures quickly normalized as liquidity in funding markets still remains abundant. In fact, reserves rose by [$] 440 billion to [$] 3.3 trillion in the week ended January 8th.Matthew Hornbach: Would this reduction in reserves that occurred over the end of the year influence the Fed's future monetary policy decisions?Martin Tobias: Right. As you alluded to earlier, the Fed has been passively reducing the size of its balance sheet to complement its actions with its primary monetary policy tool, the Fed Funds Rate. And I think our

Our Global Head of Fixed Income & Public Policy Research Michael Zezas discusses how Morgan Stanley’s key themes – deglobalization, longevity, the future of energy, and artificial intelligence – will evolve in 2025 and beyond.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Fixed Income and Public Policy Research. Today I’ll discuss the key investment megatrends Morgan Stanley Research will be following closely in 2025. It’s Wednesday, January 15th, at 10am in New York. Short-term trends can offer investors valuable insights into immediate market dynamics. But it’s the long-term trends that truly shape the investment landscape. That’s why each year, Morgan Stanley Research identifies a short list of megatrends that we believe will provide long-term investment opportunities in an ever-changing world. Three of Morgan Stanley’s megatrends—artificial intelligence, longevity, and the future of energy—carry over from last year. A fourth—the rewiring of the global economy—returns to our list after a hiatus in 2024. While none of these megatrends is new, each has evolved in terms of how it applies to investment strategies. Let’s start with the rewiring of global commerce for a Multipolar World. As I mentioned, this theme rejoins our list of key megatrends after a year-long break. Why? In short, it’s clear that policymakers globally are poised to implement policies that will speed up the breakdown of the post-Cold War globalization trend. Simply put, policymakers are keen to promote their visions of national and economic security through less open commerce and more local control of supply chains and key technologies. Multinationals and sovereigns may have to accelerate their adaptation to this reality. Some will face tougher choices than others, while there are some who may still benefit from facilitating this transition. Knowing who fits into which category—and how this new reality may play out—will be critical for investors. Our next theme—Longevity—remains an essential long-term secular trend, and this year the focus will be on measurable impacts for governments, economies, and corporates. The ripple effects of an aging population, the drive for healthy longevity, and challenging demographics across many geographies continue to impact markets. And in 2025, we see investors focusing on several specific longevity debates: First, innovation across healthcare – especially in an AI world, with obesity medications remaining front and center. Second, impacts on consumer behavior – including the drive for affordable nutrition. Third, the need to reskill aging workforces – especially if retirement ages move higher. And, finally, there’s implications for financial planning and retirement – with a bull market for financial advice just starting. Our next theme centers around energy. When we think about the future of energy, our focus for 2025 shifts from decarbonization to the wide range of factors driving the supply, demand, and delivery of energy across geographies. And the common thread here is the potential for rapid evolution. We’ll be tracking four key dynamics: First, an increasing focus on energy security. Second, the massive growth in energy demand driven by trillions of dollars of AI infrastructure spend, to be met both by fossil fuel-powered plants and renewables. Third, innovative energy technologies such as carbon capture, energy storage, nuclear power, and power grid optimization. And fourth, increased electrification across many industries. We continue to believe that carbon emissions will likely exceed the targets in various nations’ climate pledges. So, we expect focus to shift toward climate adaptation and resilience technologies and business models. Our last key theme is artificial intelligence and tech diffusion. Although it’s been two years since the launch of ChatGPT, we’re still in the early innings of AI's diffusion across sectors and geographies. However, while 2024 was driven by AI enablers and infrastructure companies, in 2025 we expect the market to focus on early AI downstream use cases that drive efficiency and market share. As you heard yesterday, our Global Head of Thematic Research Ed Stanley, explained that there’s alpha in understanding this rate of change. Agentic AI will be center stage, with robust enterprise adoption, stock outperformance for early adopters, positive surprises in model capabilities, greater breadth of monetization, and thus less attention to return-on-investment debates. Before I close, it’s worth mentioning that you will likely see connections between these complex themes. As an example, the complexity of a multipolar world makes energy security all the more vital. The demand for energy connects with the enormous power requirements of AI. And AI is set to drive healthcare innovations which could help us lead longer healthier lives. We see thes